BBC's disgrace

Remove all ads!

Just want to say that the guy in wheelchair is Jody, Jamie is the brother. Also I know a Jody and a Jamie... they're both girls.

I was thinking about these...

1. The video was already the 2nd "pushing/pulling" incident. Jody did mention one of the police recognized him and rushed to him for the 2nd incident. For all I care, Jody must have said something that really pissed off the police.

2. Is Jody being completely honest? I personally have doubts about that. I can't understand why a police officer would want to pick a disabled person to provoke. But that's just me. And I find it weird why Jody handled those questions so well... it feels like... I don't know, doesn't feel quite right.

3. Has he file an official complaint already? I mean this interview is not like last night right?

I really don't want to comment. I am not there and I don't know what really happened before those "incidents". For all I know, there are cops who are not worthy of their uniform and there are disabled people who do deserved to be called a-holes. Which is which in this incident... I can only guess. But I don't really see why some of you think the interview was offensive. As Aldeth puts it they're "normal non-insightful questions".

 

I think she is suggesting that she believes the statement in the interview that he's incapable of pushing his own wheelchair. His CP seem pretty advanced, just judging by the way he speaks - I think it's reasonable to accept his statement as the truth.

I think that's the point - if it made logical sense why this happened, I don't think you'd see much debate about it.

It depends - did you eject him for being black?

I have noticed the same thing. The reason perhaps - and this is speculation on my part - is that "crowd control" is not a major point in their training. I think most of their training is as you say - preventing crime and catching criminals - which I would say should be the priorities of most police departments. So I agree - when it comes to crowd control, police officers are probably winging it for the most part. A typical security guard like Shoshino probably has more crowd control skills than the typical police officer.

A little off-topic, but Jamie and Jody are definitely androgynous names. I've known both males and females named Jamie with about an equal amount of each. I also know of one Jody who was male, although most of the Jodys I've met were female.

That's actually a fair point. It is not implausible that Jamie and/or Jody did something to provoke the police in this incident. It doesn't seem likely, but the chance of it is certainly greater than 0%. It would be helpful if there was some statement from the police, but they usually don't give statements in cases like this. They usually just tell you to "file an official complaint" if you have a problem with how you were treated.

 

The interview is offensive because:

a) He has already said that he can't push his own wheelchair, but the journalist keeps asking if he has thrown something to the police.
b)When the answer is a straight no, the journalist plays the "revolutianary" card, where he clearly implies that since he is a "revolutianary" he has certainly thrown something to the police and that he deserves this behaviour.
c)The journalist keeps asking about the lawsuit, implying, that since he hasn't file a lawsuit yet, he actually knows that the police action against him is justifiable.
d)When he tries to say his opinion about the incident and the general media coverage, the journalist always interrupts him.

 

While I agree that the journalist is a grade A douche, his interviewing techniques are not any different than any other interviewer. Most reporters do the exact same thing to everyone they interview. So it isn't a case of picking on a disabled person so much as treating that person the same as everyone else, which is what they want, I believe.

What I see are several baseline assumptions going on here.

1: Some people are more than willing to believe, at the drop of a hat, that the police are thugs. Fair enough, some are.

2: Others believe that disabled people are incapable of doing any wrong. I have a problem with that one. People are people.

3: There seems to be some insinuation that being chonically ill predisposes people to being aggressive. I suppose there are studies that indicate this to a degree, but I have a hard time buying that one.

4: Some people are crazy bastards who believe that the vast majority of protestors are idiots who deserve whatever they get. I am usually one of those crazy bastards! I have lots of things I feel passionately about, but I am too busy working and paying my taxes to go out and protest in the streets. How do these professional protestors support themselves? I see them as non-contributing parasites on society. That's a rather extreme position, though!

5: On the other hand, the idea that protestors are generally just peaceful folks safeguarding our freedoms and that we should thank them for speaking out against Evil and Injustice is also prevalent, and I respect that view, believe it or not. I don't buy it, but I respect it.

So, here are the questions I have:

1: Is it possible that the fellow in the wheelchair did or said something that is sufficient grounds for his treatment at the hands of police? Depending on where you sit on the baseline assumptions listed above your answer will vary. We are given to believe that he is not even capable of pushing his own wheelchair. I am not sure if that is a stone cold fact, however, or just a play for sympathy from him and his brother*. So, open to debate.

2: Was the treatment he received at the hands of the police excessive? Maybe, maybe not, opinion appears to be divided. He does not appear to have suffered any permanent physical harm, but the psychological harm inherent in being dragged out of his chair could be significant. Was the removal from the chair necessary to protect the safety of police or other people? Debatable, but IMHO highly unlikely. The possibility is high that it was punitive in nature and violated his right to protest.

3: Is anything legel going to come of this? If he doesn't file a formal complaint does that indicate that he doesn't feel he would be heard or that he knows that once the facts come out he wouldn't have a valid case? Both could be argued.


*If he really is that fragile and frail, and his brother took him to these protests/riots, then the brother is guilty of lousy judgement, as is the fellow in the chair himself. Given that there was violence, IMHO any decent brother who loves his disabled brother would move quickly to get the guy out of harm's way. Unless they were deliberately trying to provoke and incident so as to get publicity . . . lots of questions and possibilities.

 

I thought I implied this quite clearly, yes I think he's lying.

exactly, the police are not paid to needlessly risk their own lives.

since I dont know what he did, here's a small list:

section 5 public order - the use of offensive behaviour or language (swearing in public can get you arrested).

section 4 public order, the use of threatening behaviour or language (telling someone that your going to hurt them or waving your fist in the air can get you arrested).

If he threw something, possibly ABH if someone got properly hurt GBH.

if the police order you to move on and you refuse you can be arrested for a breach of the peace, when Ive ejected someone and they stick around the door the police like this little phrase "if you return here again tonight you'll be arrested".

and here is why these stories are always so one sided against the police, you wont hear the officer's stories because they are not allowed to comment, only the IPCC will get that.

controlling a large unruly crowd is one of the hardest things Ive ever had to do.

no I ejected him for throwing a bottle.... but noone saw that.

thanks, Ill take that as a compliment. I will say that I think my crowd is easier to control then police dealing with riots, we ensure that undesireables dont even get into our crowd, that is a form of prevention that we have available to us, the right to refuse - police dont have this, they are dealing with any tom, dick and harry who turn up, lots of them attending with the sole purpose of causing trouble.

pushing 70kg of human around in a wheel chair and throwing a small object... are pretty different.

 

Yes, and from what I've seen, police are actually trained exstensively in doing it. This is not surprising, as controlling civil unrest is among their primary functions ... which, all things considered, suggests that the difficulty arises in the difficulty of the job, not in a lack of training. For any of you who have never been at the mercy of an unruly crowd (which by the sound may be most of you), let me assure you that it's a most frightening and dangerous experience. I've had normally resourceful people turn to goo at having to experience that, and if they had been critical of the tactics of authorities beforehand, they typically change their stance and become very appreciative of those who protect them once they've gotten their feet wet.

Saying that a riot - or a demonstration that teeters on the edge of violence, for that matter - is no big deal is the voice of inexperience talking, plain and simpe.

 

Not all cops are bastards, but some are. Not all protestors are violent, but some are. If the guy (Jody, Jamey, whatevery) did something to provoke this, then I think the police may have gone a little overboard (worth a note in someone's file, maybe). I'm also wondering what he did the first time and, more importantly, why he wasn't arrested for it. If he didn't do anything, if he was just being picked on by bully police, or if the police were trying to provoke something, then they should be punished. Severely.

See, the nice thing about judging this in an online forum, where there are no consequences, is that we can agree on conditional judgements. If x, then y. If not x, then forget about y, go for b.

 

That is one of the reason why I don't want to side anyone here. One side of the story will probably never be heard by the public. And that is assuming you believed in Jody. Again, I think Jody is not being completely honest.

The thing is, the first incident where Jody got hit could actually be a toss coin as to who is right or wrong. But knowing (as Jody himself had said in the interview) the cop recognized him and run to him for the second incident. That makes me ask what exactly did Jody do to this police? Jody kept saying he doesn't know why the police did those to him but he did suggest the police probably wants to provoke him. Provoke a disabled person? I don't know if Jody is just deliberately insulting the police's intelligence or he's just having a hard time covering up something. While I think it's shady it still doesn't warrant me to root any side.

 

I figured you threw him out for justifiable reasons - it was just that you left yourself open to the comment and I took the oppoturnity.

That's true - police cannot tell certain people to not show up at demonstrations. And it's fine if you take it as a compliment - at the least it wasn't meant to be insulting. I was just pointing out that crowd control is just one aspect of a police officer's job, whereas with door security, it's a central aspect of the job.

Then you'd think they'd be better at it.

I don't know about that. Maybe different in the UK, but at least in the area of the US I live in, there are hardly any demonstrations/riots/etc Police around here spend a lot more time... um... fighting crime.

Except that we don't know if there was any violence involved in this particular situation. Either in the protest as a whole, or with Jody in particular. A demonstration - so long as it doesn't get violent - is completely legal (in most democracies anyway). Now if we had footage of dozens of people throwing stuff at police, and lighting cars on fire, then yeah, it would be much more understandable.

Perhaps they recognized not because of what he did to the police but the fact that he was in a wheelchair? I cannot imagine that there were many protesters in wheelchairs, so it isn't surprising at all that the cop recognized him a second time. You kind of stand out in a crown when you're in a wheelchair.

 

I know, I was expecting a comment, what Im trying to get across is that what isnt seen is the most important aspect in these situations, people saw me throwing a black man into the street and then later again a queue of people saw me once again thrown a black man into the street, they didnt see the dangerous offence he comitted.

In the UK we have the TAG - Tactical Aid Group, and the pro active team, TAG is comprised of officers from various police forces which come together when needed, these officers have recieved special training in crowd control and often firearms. Pro active officers are officers within a specific force which are trained to do multiple roles, you normally find them patrolling in high performance unmarked cars, but they are trained to carry out risky entry and crowd control in their areas.

What I think the problem with recent policing in london is the media coverage, the police have infact done a damn fine job, but the population who think they can do anything they like and then the media which thrives on poking at authority tar the police as thugs, its total rubbish.