- + Emma Simbouras voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Urikipiecreks joined Debatewise
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Brijo247 voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Jolischats3.14159265358979 edited the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Mukabla voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + * Ssuplady voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Ognen Jakasanovski voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Brijo247 voted on a point for the debate The Candidate Countries Should Be Fast-Tracked To EU Membership In 2012
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Fierce.Competitor joined Debatewise
- + Fierce.Competitor voted on a point for the debate Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work.
- + Geargo Augmerm joined Debatewise
ARE POLICE GETTING TOO HEAVY HANDED OR JUST LOSING THEIR TEMPERS AND UNABLE TO CONTROL THEMSELVES?
- im currently doing an advertising project at uni concerning the police and whether they were being to aggressive towards the G20 protestors. can the police be justified for there behaviour?
Are police getting too heavy handed or just losing their tempers and unable to control themselves?
Yes, because... Can the police be justified for their behaviour at the G20 protest
During the G20 protest the police used violence towards the protestors - is this justified behaviour? Are the police force (the people there to maintain the law) now seen as bullies, abusing the power they have over people?
The police during the G20 were neccesarily violent, imagine if they failed to control a riot that happened as a result of the two main groups of G20 protestors uniting, one of which it could be said was determined to cause trouble. If this happened we would be criticising them for not doing enough. I know which one I would prefer.
Vote on this point: Can the police be justified for their behaviour at the G20 protest
See history of changes to this point
Are police getting too heavy handed or just losing their tempers and unable to control themselves?
Yes, because... The police cant keep track of everyone who is not a protester who happens to be at the scene
The police should not have to discriminate. While it obviously cannot be justified that the police assulted Mr Tomlinson it was a case of mistaken identity, the police were attempting to drive protesters back. It should have been obvious to Mr Tomlinson that he was walking into that the police were attempting to contain, he should have gone round.
The police reaction to the protests at the G20 summit resulted in a death. Mr Tomlinson was assaulted by riot police and it is still unsure what caused his death, two post mortems have come up with either a heart attack shortly after being assaulted by the police and internal bleeding from his fall. This has lead to a request for a third post mortem and an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Comission.[1]How" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6146276.ece]]How can the police claim they were not particularly heavy-handed when a man making his way home from work ended up dying on a London street pavement? This shows that the police were undiscriminating in their use of violence, they had obviously not been keeping an eye on who troublemakers were or else Mr Tomlinson would not have become one of their targets. Whatever was the cause of his death the police were partially responsible
- ^ Third post-mortem on G20 protest victim Ian Tomlinson, Times Online, April 22nd 2009,
Vote on this point: The police cant keep track of everyone who is not a protester who happens to be at the scene
See history of changes to this point
Are police getting too heavy handed or just losing their tempers and unable to control themselves?
Yes, because... The police tactics are less forceful than elsewhere in the world
Sir Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, condemned criticism. "We have seen a lack of perspective and a lack of objectivity, I am afraid, and, as a result of that, the [police's] reputation has been affected... I can't find any other country which doesn't use water cannon, CS gas, rubber bullets. Our approach is proportionate and, in fact, has delivered on many other occasions". Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, said: "Attacks on police must end. The policing of protests in the UK is the most successful and public engaging in the world, using the least aggressive tactics and methods available to ensure the right to a democratic, peaceful demonstration is given."[1]
- ^ New G20 protests footage exposes police aggression as poll reveals public opposition to tactics, The Guardian, 21st April 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/21/g20-video-protest-policin
See history of changes to this point
Are police getting too heavy handed or just losing their tempers and unable to control themselves?
No, because... It was the police not the protesters who were agressive
The police action can’t be justified as they essentially attacked a peaceful protest. The police began to pen people in, even if they were not protestors, as they claimed they were a ‘breach of the peace’.[1] This is a ridiculous strategy; being told to stay in one place for hours with no food or water is going to end in revolt. And the protestors who were on the front line were the ones injured: the crowd pushes them forward and they are the ones hit with batons. Doesn’t sound particularly fair, does it? Penning in is new. Police always used to allow an exit to enable "non-violent" and "law-abiding" protesters to leave. Is it a reasonable inference that ‘penning-in’ is not a law-and-order technique but a deliberate deterrent from participating in future demonstrations? From the footage we have seen it almost appears that the only violent protesters were the ones breaking windows at the Bank of Scotland... there is a crowd of photographers watching and police doing nothing. The vast majority of protesters were peaceful and did not deserve to be having the police rioting at them.
Are police getting too heavy handed or just losing their tempers and unable to control themselves?
No, because... The public believes the police used an unacceptable level of force
A Guardian-ICM poll asking whether the police used an unacceptable level of force during the protests found that 59% of people were opposed to the police operation at the demonstrations at the City of London, while 31% agreed that it was a necessary response to the situation. Also the IPCC has received a record number of complaints about G20 policing, and is conducting three investigations into alleged attacks by officers.[1] If the british people believe that the force used was unacceptable then no matter what the police say it was, they are there to protect us not to assault us.
- ^ New G20 protests footage exposes police aggression as poll reveals public opposition to tactics, The Guardian, 21st April 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/apr/21/g20-video-protest-policing
Point 1. Can the police be justified for their behaviour at the G20 protest
During the G20 protest the police used violence towards the protestors - is this justified behaviour? Are the police force (the people there to maintain the law) now seen as bullies, abusing the power they have over people?
The police during the G20 were neccesarily violent, imagine if they failed to control a riot that happened as a result of the two main groups of G20 protestors uniting, one of which it could be said was determined to cause trouble. If this happened we would be criticising them for not doing enough. I know which one I would prefer.
Point 2. The police cant keep track of everyone who is not a protester who happens to be at the scene
The police should not have to discriminate. While it obviously cannot be justified that the police assulted Mr Tomlinson it was a case of mistaken identity, the police were attempting to drive protesters back. It should have been obvious to Mr Tomlinson that he was walking into that the police were attempting to contain, he should have gone round.
The police reaction to the protests at the G20 summit resulted in a death. Mr Tomlinson was assaulted by riot police and it is still unsure what caused his death, two post mortems have come up with either a heart attack shortly after being assaulted by the police and internal bleeding from his fall. This has lead to a request for a third post mortem and an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Comission.[1]How" rel="nofollow">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6146276.ece]]How can the police claim they were not particularly heavy-handed when a man making his way home from work ended up dying on a London street pavement? This shows that the police were undiscriminating in their use of violence, they had obviously not been keeping an eye on who troublemakers were or else Mr Tomlinson would not have become one of their targets. Whatever was the cause of his death the police were partially responsible
Point 3. The police tactics are less forceful than elsewhere in the world
Sir Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, condemned criticism. "We have seen a lack of perspective and a lack of objectivity, I am afraid, and, as a result of that, the [police's] reputation has been affected... I can't find any other country which doesn't use water cannon, CS gas, rubber bullets. Our approach is proportionate and, in fact, has delivered on many other occasions". Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, said: "Attacks on police must end. The policing of protests in the UK is the most successful and public engaging in the world, using the least aggressive tactics and methods available to ensure the right to a democratic, peaceful demonstration is given."[1]
Point 1. It was the police not the protesters who were agressive
The police action can’t be justified as they essentially attacked a peaceful protest. The police began to pen people in, even if they were not protestors, as they claimed they were a ‘breach of the peace’.[1] This is a ridiculous strategy; being told to stay in one place for hours with no food or water is going to end in revolt. And the protestors who were on the front line were the ones injured: the crowd pushes them forward and they are the ones hit with batons. Doesn’t sound particularly fair, does it? Penning in is new. Police always used to allow an exit to enable "non-violent" and "law-abiding" protesters to leave. Is it a reasonable inference that ‘penning-in’ is not a law-and-order technique but a deliberate deterrent from participating in future demonstrations? From the footage we have seen it almost appears that the only violent protesters were the ones breaking windows at the Bank of Scotland... there is a crowd of photographers watching and police doing nothing. The vast majority of protesters were peaceful and did not deserve to be having the police rioting at them.
Point 2. The public believes the police used an unacceptable level of force
A Guardian-ICM poll asking whether the police used an unacceptable level of force during the protests found that 59% of people were opposed to the police operation at the demonstrations at the City of London, while 31% agreed that it was a necessary response to the situation. Also the IPCC has received a record number of complaints about G20 policing, and is conducting three investigations into alleged attacks by officers.[1] If the british people believe that the force used was unacceptable then no matter what the police say it was, they are there to protect us not to assault us.
Modified:
06 Apr 2010
Vote totals:
Yes:
No:
Neutral:
Subscribe to this debate
Get notified of any changes to this debate
Tell a Friend
Related Debates
Misc Debates
Get our newsletter
Support Debatewise