Manchester airport arrest

PolarityMan

I would think that from a police officer's perspective it's insane not to be using the body cams. A big reason they are there is to prevent false allegations against the police. Not to mention the fact that it could be used as evidence during prosecution.

As you were alluding too I think that if  no body cam footage is brought to light it's because there is something to hide.

TimmyO

On a positive note this thread has added a host of new things to the list of things that people on TheFretboard are world experts on - and I thought we'd covered them all already! 

euan

I’m just glad I now know there I a civil war coming. 

I wouldn’t take too much from the swankbox report because of of the officers is clearly injured 

PolarityMan

euan said:

I’m just glad I now know there I a civil war coming. 

I wouldn’t take too much from the swankbox report because of of the officers is clearly injured 

Really? Personally I don't find an injured colleague to be even close to adequate justification for stamping on the head of a prone man. Luckily we have a system designed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion so we should charge both parties and let that system do its work.

Gassage

Rob1742 said:

2. Civil war on the way 

Is it all original and boxed? 
Dibs- PPG ok?

TimmyO

PolarityMan said:

 Luckily we have a system designed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion

Actually, and worryingly, we don't - that's an inquisitorial justice system (like they have in many European countries). We have an adversarial system. 

An adversarial system doesn't seek ALL the facts - each side gets to choose what material to introduce, or to avoid to a significant degree. Then the state (a judge or magistrate) decides which side's version was most believable. 

In an inquisitorial system, the state (usually a magistrate) is the one assembling all the information, aiming to get a full and thorough accounting of what happened. 

In adversarial, the fullness and thoroughness bit only needs to be to the degree it supports that side's assertion of innocence or guilt. (There are rules about if you come across information that might make the other side's case you can't withhold those, but you have no obligation to look in to anything that MIGHT make their case of guilt/innocence - you look in to it because it's LIKELY to make your case of guilt/innocence)

Despite that making it sound like our system is inherently less fair, there are good reasons for both approaches.

CAVEAT: I got interested in this after reading The Secret Barrister - sweeping generalisations above and mistakes possible. But it's a fun topic, and the book is great. 

euan

PolarityMan said:

euan said:

I’m just glad I now know there I a civil war coming. 

I wouldn’t take too much from the swankbox report because of of the officers is clearly injured 

Really? Personally I don't find an injured colleague to be even close to adequate justification for stamping on the head of a prone man. Luckily we have a system designed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion so we should charge both parties and let that system do its work.

Have you read anything else I’ve said in this thread. I have in no way justified any action 

What I’m saying there is swankboxes reporting where they question that an officer was injured clearly a bias in their reporting. Or they are incapable of observing what is clear in the videos. 

Ddigger

It seems to me that the Police Office who did the kicking (no hat, no glasses - hat is on the floor), is the same officer (hat and glasses on) who later, uses the pepper spray and wrestles someone else to the ground.

No way he should be a fire arms officer.

hollywoodrox

Offset said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnk4pp530eqo

Traumatised?  Fuck me.  Perhaps they shouldn't have kicked off (sorry, no pun intended) and then their 'trauma' could have been avoided.

Excuse my total lack of sympathy for people who start an affray, cause fear in innocent bystanders and then assault the coppers who are sent in to sort them out.

This one cop seems to have gone way overboard but let's not lose sight of why this 



I would kick off if someone barged my mum to the floor and injured her 

tony99

TimmyO said:

On a positive note this thread has added a host of new things to the list of things that people on TheFretboard are world experts on - and I thought we'd covered them all already! 

Oh wait until this Olympics starts!

PolarityMan

TimmyO said:

PolarityMan said:

 Luckily we have a system designed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion

Actually, and worryingly, we don't - that's an inquisitorial justice system (like they have in many European countries). We have an adversarial system. 

An adversarial system doesn't seek ALL the facts - each side gets to choose what material to introduce, or to avoid to a significant degree. Then the state (a judge or magistrate) decides which side's version was most believable. 

In an inquisitorial system, the state (usually a magistrate) is the one assembling all the information, aiming to get a full and thorough accounting of what happened. 

In adversarial, the fullness and thoroughness bit only needs to be to the degree it supports that side's assertion of innocence or guilt. (There are rules about if you come across information that might make the other side's case you can't withhold those, but you have no obligation to look in to anything that MIGHT make their case of guilt/innocence - you look in to it because it's LIKELY to make your case of guilt/innocence)

Despite that making it sound like our system is inherently less fair, there are good reasons for both approaches.

CAVEAT: I got interested in this after reading The Secret Barrister - sweeping generalisations above and mistakes possible. But it's a fun topic, and the book is great. 

Right but that still isn't the police. Is your argument that because you don't think our judicial system is the best it could be that we should allow coppers to stamp on people's heads? 

Offset

hollywoodrox said:

I would kick off if someone barged my mum to the floor and injured her 

If that's what happened, so would most of us.  But I doubt any of us would then assault three coppers who came to sort things out - including a policewoman.

TimmyO

PolarityMan said:

TimmyO said:

PolarityMan said:

 Luckily we have a system designed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion

Actually, and worryingly, we don't - that's an inquisitorial justice system (like they have in many European countries). We have an adversarial system. 

An adversarial system doesn't seek ALL the facts - each side gets to choose what material to introduce, or to avoid to a significant degree. Then the state (a judge or magistrate) decides which side's version was most believable. 

In an inquisitorial system, the state (usually a magistrate) is the one assembling all the information, aiming to get a full and thorough accounting of what happened. 

In adversarial, the fullness and thoroughness bit only needs to be to the degree it supports that side's assertion of innocence or guilt. (There are rules about if you come across information that might make the other side's case you can't withhold those, but you have no obligation to look in to anything that MIGHT make their case of guilt/innocence - you look in to it because it's LIKELY to make your case of guilt/innocence)

Despite that making it sound like our system is inherently less fair, there are good reasons for both approaches.

CAVEAT: I got interested in this after reading The Secret Barrister - sweeping generalisations above and mistakes possible. But it's a fun topic, and the book is great. 

Right but that still isn't the police. Is your argument that because you don't think our judicial system is the best it could be that we should allow coppers to stamp on people's heads? 

I'm at a compete loss as to how to draw a line between what I said, and that conclusion :-/ 

I thought it was an interesting aside about our justice system. 

fwiw I think the policeman should be prosecuted, and if it's as things appear, do time. And I think his colleagues should face censure for not intervening. And I think if none of them.had turned their bodycams on the case should be used as evidence that compulsory bodycam use should be the norm. 

Jfingers

I did say I didn't want to talk about it. I posted a link containing more videos than I've seen on this on this thread as people were saying there's not enough video evidence etc.

I mentioned Singletrack forum in what I thought was a helpful post. the civil war comments  were not mine, they and the link to the videos came from here...

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/roits-in-manchester/

AK99

^ I just have to say (and it's probably very wrong of me) but I love the footage of the guys in the background picking their way through the surrounding chaos to punch their parking tickets into the payment machines..

"Sorry, sorry, don't mean to push by you there officers/guys - can see you're busy,  but I really do just have to  get to this machine, only be a minute, wont get in your way..oops, sorry - didn't mean to stand on your hand there apologies..) 

PolarityMan

TimmyO said:

PolarityMan said:

TimmyO said:

PolarityMan said:

 Luckily we have a system designed to look at all the facts and come to a conclusion

Actually, and worryingly, we don't - that's an inquisitorial justice system (like they have in many European countries). We have an adversarial system. 

An adversarial system doesn't seek ALL the facts - each side gets to choose what material to introduce, or to avoid to a significant degree. Then the state (a judge or magistrate) decides which side's version was most believable. 

In an inquisitorial system, the state (usually a magistrate) is the one assembling all the information, aiming to get a full and thorough accounting of what happened. 

In adversarial, the fullness and thoroughness bit only needs to be to the degree it supports that side's assertion of innocence or guilt. (There are rules about if you come across information that might make the other side's case you can't withhold those, but you have no obligation to look in to anything that MIGHT make their case of guilt/innocence - you look in to it because it's LIKELY to make your case of guilt/innocence)

Despite that making it sound like our system is inherently less fair, there are good reasons for both approaches.

CAVEAT: I got interested in this after reading The Secret Barrister - sweeping generalisations above and mistakes possible. But it's a fun topic, and the book is great. 

Right but that still isn't the police. Is your argument that because you don't think our judicial system is the best it could be that we should allow coppers to stamp on people's heads? 

I'm at a compete loss as to how to draw a line between what I said, and that conclusion :-/ 

I thought it was an interesting aside about our justice system. 

fwiw I think the policeman should be prosecuted, and if it's as things appear, do time. And I think his colleagues should face censure for not intervening. And I think if none of them.had turned their bodycams on the case should be used as evidence that compulsory bodycam use should be the norm. 

Ha sounds like we are in violent agreement

Sorry sometimes it's easy to lose track of who said what and given some of the apologist views on here I read  your post the wrong way. 

Sporky

TimmyO said:

On a positive note this thread has added a host of new things to the list of things that people on TheFretboard are world experts on - and I thought we'd covered them all already! 

As someone who's not watched the videos or read the news, but has strong feelings on whatever it is we're discussing, I can assure you that under British law, etc etc.