Police state or the state of policing

[Genie]

Police have shot dead a terrorist who beheaded a teacher in France in broad daylight

[Xela]

14 hours ago, Genie said:

Police have shot dead a terrorist who beheaded a teacher in France in broad daylight

All for showing a caricature of Mohammed. 

That led to a video being made about him by parents and then circulated by a local mosque before someone beheaded him. 

Mental. 

 

Edited October 17, 2020 by Xela

[Xann]

Well, this is mental.

Quote

 

Secrets and lies: untangling the UK 'spy cops' scandal

Those duped into having relationships with undercover police are hoping for answers from the inquiry...

... The police spies initially belonged to the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), which was created to control the restive protests of the late 1960s, including those opposed to the war in Vietnam, but continued to monitor protest groups for a further four decades. Known only to a select few at the upper echelons of Scotland Yard, the squad, whose officers often grew beards and long hair ahead of their deployments, adopted the nickname “the hairies”.

As one detective inspector in the SDS said: “We were part of a ‘black operation’ that absolutely no one knew about and only the police had actually agreed that this was all OK.” The SDS was disbanded in 2008 because, according to one senior officer, the officers had “lost their moral compass”.

Yet the techniques of highly intrusive, long-term infiltration of protest groups continued in the unit to which Kennedy belonged: the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU).

The scale of both spying operations was remarkable: over more than four decades, at least 139 police officers were given fake identities to closely monitor the inner workings of more than 1,000 political groups.

These were not ordinary undercover operations, which are designed to acquire evidence that can be used in criminal prosecutions. Rather, these police spies were tasked with gathering intelligence that could be used to disrupt and monitor political groups.

Their deployments typically lasted four to five years, with officers living alongside political campaigners, forming deep bonds of friendship, or romantic liaisons, with their targets. At least three of the police spies fathered children with women they met while undercover.

 

Grauniad

[Davkaus]

Quote

romantic liaisons, with their targets. At least three of the police spies fathered children with women they met while undercover.

That's no better than rape. 

[chrisp65]

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

What on earth are they thinking?

[ml1dch]

9 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What on earth are they thinking?

I'd guess it's more a case of "what are their superiors thinking". I expect the people in the video are doing what they have been told to do.

The optics are astounding. 

[chrisp65]

 

 

[Johnnyp]

Might be an unpopular opinion but i think Sarah's family should of been afforded the opportunity to grieve properly. They've had the national glare of the media on them for over a week culminating in a horrific conclusion for them. Totally support the vigil but i feel what her family and friends wanted should of been central to it going ahead this weekend. This could of waited at least a week or 2 to engage police in dialogue longer and more coherently. Her body was only identified Thursday. 

[StefanAVFC]

A young woman is killed by one of their force, and they're grabbing other young women and pinning them to the ground?

Yeah, er, I can't think of a way they could have managed this worse.

[Chindie]

Could be worse. They could all end up in bags on wasteland, as is their captors want.

[OutByEaster?]

We all live in Priti Patel's world now.

And she hates us for being here.

 

[HanoiVillan]

 

[HanoiVillan]

On Monday, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill gets its Second Reading. This will give police much wider powers to stop and prevent any non-violent protest they deem to be 'disruptive', essentially making the act of protest dependant on receiving pre-clearance and approval from the authorities.

Two things about this:

1) Can we please, finally, not have to read any more articles about how Johnson is some kind of civil liberties obsessive or libertarian? And if he says he is, when he is interviewed, can we finally stop just repeating him saying it uncritically?

2) Labour's response to a bill that essentially bans non-violent protests is pretty revealing. Here it is:

'Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy MP, and Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, have responded to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill – a major new crime and justice bill which is being introduced to parliament tomorrow.

 

David Lammy MP, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, said: 

“A decade of Conservative cuts and failed ideology has left us with a justice system that is failing victims of crime and creating endless cycles of re-offence.

“The relatively light sentence Thomas Griffiths received after the horrific killing of Ellie Gould shows that some criminals deserve tougher sentences.

“Labour will scrutinise the changes proposed in the bill to ensure they prioritise victims, as well as being proportionate, fair and rooted in evidence.”

 

Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary said:

“The measures in this Bill will be cold comfort to officers who are have been offered a pay freeze in response for their remarkable bravery in this pandemic.

 

“While Labour has been calling for a number of these changes, they will not go far enough to tackle violence against officers, which saw attacks on officers rise 50 per cent over the past five years.”'

it's here: https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-responds-to-the-publication-of-the-police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill/

That's it; I've quoted all of it. There isn't anything else in their response. But it's good you see, because Jeremy Corbyn would have said something else, something about the right to protest, and whatever happens they must absolutely never do anything that Jeremy Corbyn would have done, whether it's right or not.

[bickster]

11 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On Monday, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill gets its Second Reading. This will give police much wider powers to stop and prevent any non-violent protest they deem to be 'disruptive', essentially making the act of protest dependant on receiving pre-clearance and approval from the authorities.

Two things about this:

1) Can we please, finally, not have to read any more articles about how Johnson is some kind of civil liberties obsessive or libertarian? And if he says he is, when he is interviewed, can we finally stop just repeating him saying it uncritically?

2) Labour's response to a bill that essentially bans non-violent protests is pretty revealing. Here it is:

'Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy MP, and Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, have responded to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill – a major new crime and justice bill which is being introduced to parliament tomorrow.

 

David Lammy MP, Labour’s Shadow Justice Secretary, said: 

“A decade of Conservative cuts and failed ideology has left us with a justice system that is failing victims of crime and creating endless cycles of re-offence.

“The relatively light sentence Thomas Griffiths received after the horrific killing of Ellie Gould shows that some criminals deserve tougher sentences.

“Labour will scrutinise the changes proposed in the bill to ensure they prioritise victims, as well as being proportionate, fair and rooted in evidence.”

 

Nick Thomas-Symonds MP, Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary said:

“The measures in this Bill will be cold comfort to officers who are have been offered a pay freeze in response for their remarkable bravery in this pandemic.

 

“While Labour has been calling for a number of these changes, they will not go far enough to tackle violence against officers, which saw attacks on officers rise 50 per cent over the past five years.”'

it's here: https://labour.org.uk/press/labour-responds-to-the-publication-of-the-police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill/

That's it; I've quoted all of it. There isn't anything else in their response. But it's good you see, because Jeremy Corbyn would have said something else, something about the right to protest, and whatever happens they must absolutely never do anything that Jeremy Corbyn would have done, whether it's right or not.

I suspect that Labour response might shange tomorrow. Thomas-Symonds has been tweeting about todays events rather scathingly. I sincerely hope it changes anyway

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

I suspect that Labour response might shange tomorrow.

I'm sure you're right; there's probably someone being frantically told to edit that webpage as we speak. But the question will remain, why did it take the murder of a member of the public apparently by a police officer, and the violent crushing of a peaceful protest, for them to address the main problem with the bill?

(That's a rhetorical question of course, I know the answer)

[chrisp65]

Who knows, perhaps with the images of tonight and the knowledge of what happened with Brexit, some of our MP’s might even read what’s in the Bill before they vote it through.

Nah, only joking. They’ll take the pay cheque and do as they are told.

 

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

I'm sure you're right; there's probably someone being frantically told to edit that webpage as we speak. But the question will remain, why did it take the murder of a member of the public apparently by a police officer, and the violent crushing of a peaceful protest, for them to address the main problem with the bill?

(That's a rhetorical question of course, I know the answer)

It's not even anywhere near a  criticism of the actual bill, neither.!!!

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

It's not even anywhere near a  criticism of the actual bill, neither.!!!

Were they even planning to oppose it until tonight?

[darrenm]

7 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

Were they even planning to oppose it until tonight?

Abstain apparently.

I'm sure an emergency focus group is being set up and the results will give Labour enough confidence that the 1% of swingable Daily Mail readers won't be too put off if they vote against it.

Heads really have to roll for this. Patel's should be first. And the bill should be pulled before they even get chance to vote for it.