Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that the woman who got hit by a policeman at the G20 protests shouldn't now be making money out of it...

126 replies

Pheebe · 18/04/2009 10:17

Heard her say on the news this morning that she thinks the policeman should have asked her politely to move away!!! She was screaming at him like a hariden, wouldn't back off when he asked and signalled her to, he's in the middle of a braying mob and he should ahve asked her politely!!!

O and wasn't it lucky all the cameras were on hand to capture the moment and pass it on to the press.

I don't condone violence of any sort and agree the police need to uphold the highest standards but I'd be more convinced about her sincerity if she'd said any money she makes was going to Ian Tomlinsons family...after all she claims to have been there for a 'peaceful vigil' following his death.

Right, rant over, off to play in the garden with ds for a bit...

OP posts:
FAQinglovely · 18/04/2009 11:14

oh blimey - just been for a bath - and caught up with the posts - can I just state categorically that I do not think that she was asking for it, or that the police are blameless here.

My gripe is with Mr Clifford jumping in on what will no doubt be a nice money spinner for him too.

BeanieB - with Mr Clifford being her PR do you honestly think she isn't making money from it?? I can't see him doing it for nothing

Fleetingglimpse · 18/04/2009 11:15

Policywonk, I think the term 'protesters' is a bit kind for some of the people in the clips.

A reasonable percentage of the people on the streets were not interested in politics.

FAQinglovely · 18/04/2009 11:17

"A reasonable percentage of the people on the streets were not interested in politics."

You know this makes me think of Forrest Gump where he turns up to the big rally and is totally clueless as to what it's all really about and then gets thrust up on the podium to speak

policywonk · 18/04/2009 11:17

The police should respond to violence on the part of protestors IF IT HAPPENS.

What they do at the moment is behave as though every single demonstrator is carrying a loaded pistol, and treat everyone accordingly. It's completely anti-democratic (and I don't say that lightly).

Most people on these protests had no intention whatsoever of causing violence. To ride roughshod all over their civil liberties - and then beat them when they have the temerity to protest - is absolutely fucking shocking behaviour.

I'm not kneejerk anti-police, by the way. Although I'm more that way inclined now than I was three weeks ago.

violethill · 18/04/2009 11:19

Agree with FAQ about the Max Clifford thing. Anyone who goes bleating to him 5 minutes after the event and using it as a money spinner doesn't get any respect from me.

beanieb · 18/04/2009 11:20

well, lastnight on another thtread I was saying I thought the woman was out of order but now I have completely changed my mind

Original poster
Pheebe · 18/04/2009 11:25

Hmm, so the PC should have waited til this woman or someone else shoved a knife in his or someone else's side - its happened before. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here but that it seems to me that that is the reality of the situation the police were facing.

I worry that we're actually tying the hands of our police force to be in any way effective in maintaining public order.

OP posts:
beanieb · 18/04/2009 11:25

"Legitimate peaceful protest is one thing - what that girl was involved in was far from peaceful imo"

Pheebe, have you watched the video yet? She was shouting at him because he had pushed or hit another woman out of shot and this had happened because the peaceful crowd at the vigil for Ian Tomlinson had got upset because 2 policemen had behave roughly with a man (shown earlier in the footage) even though seconds before they had been talking reasonably to him.

Honestly, if you haven't watched the whole video you really should because it gives the whole thing some context.

beanieb · 18/04/2009 11:27

LauriefairycakeeatsCupid you afre wrong. At 39 seconds on the video a policeman clearly strikes out at someone off camera, this is the woman the other woman (who was slapped) is referring to, not the man with the newspaper who was pushed at 31 seconds in.

policywonk · 18/04/2009 11:28

But we really can't allow ourselves to get to the point at which nobody is allowed to protest because somebody, somewhere might get violent.

The right to peaceful protest is an absolute necessity in a democractic society. At the moment the Met (and some other forces - see the ridiculously OTT measures taken to stop the Ratcliffe on Soar protests recently) seems absolutely intent on closing down people's options to protest PEACEFULLY.

I find it genuinely frightening and upsetting. I'm the sort of person who would happily attend these protests, but I haven't for years because, frankly, I'm afraid. And it's not the protestors I'm afraid of.

How can we allow this to happen in a democratic society? It's appalling.

Firepile · 18/04/2009 11:32

Hear, hear PW. It is really depressing.

FAQinglovely · 18/04/2009 11:33

why do you assume the Ratcliffe arrests were OTT?

Does it not strike you odd that a legitimate peaceful protest planning meeting would take place at midnight in a building (reporteldy) that they had no permission to be in? Then bolt cutters and other equipment that could be used to shut down/break into a major power station also found??

Because you know I'd attend a meeting for a protest.........but not one that takes place at such an odd hour of the day as I would be immediately wondering what they were actually planning and wouldn't want to be part of that.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 18/04/2009 11:34

That 'this is not a riot' video has me in tears. Its really shocking.

Original poster
Pheebe · 18/04/2009 11:37

Policywonk I absolutely agree with you. In the face of a large, potentially violent crowd with aggressive individuals, how would you have them behave? Again, I mean that as a genuine question not as a sarcastic comment - I am genuinely interested in the discussion here.

Beanie, I have watched through the videos and agree there was more to that and all the other incidents happening that day. But back to my OP my disgust was at this woman now making money from that situation. Not the actions of a legitimate protestor imo.

I do think the police were heavily goaded as well. The last video I watched, the press were clearly trying to rile the police and force them to act (arrest them) so they could ge their front page story.

OP posts:
Fleetingglimpse · 18/04/2009 11:37

Policywonk, it is not all the poice's fault that these demonstrations end up violently.

TBH watching the 'protesters' reminded me of footage of football hooligans.

There are people who deliberately attend demonstrations and other public events to incite violence. They like it.

These people should not be tolerated by the genuine protesters as well as the police. They certainly should not be held up like they are martyrs to the cause.

OhYouBadBadKitten · 18/04/2009 11:37

And when they tried to get the press to leave for 30 minutes under section 14 so they could resolve the situation.

free press, my arse.

policywonk · 18/04/2009 11:37

What struck me as particularly OTT about the Ratcliffe operation were the bail conditions. The police are in no hurry to bring charges against these people; they have just presented information in such a way as to obtain the most wide-ranging bail conditions possible, effectively removing people's right to protest.

And, you know, chaining yourself to railings or cutting through fences is still peaceful protest. This sort of activity has a long and honourable history.

wombleprincess · 18/04/2009 11:40

agree totally with you PW.

also... regardless of police action etc, i think the fact that she has made money out of it makes a whole mockery of the G20 demos - eg anti capitalism. it just shows how F'ed up a society we have become...

FAQinglovely · 18/04/2009 11:41

policy - is trying to shut down a station legal peaceful protesting? As from what I've read none of the protesters have outright denied they were planning to do that.

Indeed one group that they the protesters had been possibly linked with denied the link but have said that if they were planning on shutting down the station then that's great (or words to that effect!)

policywonk · 18/04/2009 11:43

I don't have any truck with those who turn up to protests intent on causing violence. I know these people exist - I've met some of them. They're idiots (and, as onebat said a few weeks back, it's interesting that they come from exactly the same risk-averse demographic as the city bankers who caused the credit crunch; as she said, 'there's a reason car insurance for the under-30s is so bloody high, you know' )

I suspect I disagree with some of you about the proportion of violent people to non-violent people at these protests.

But the police must act IN RESPONSE to individual acts of violence, not simply close down all protest. Be present in large numbers, catch people in the act of violence, arrest them, charge them, let the process of justice take its course. It is NOT THE JOB OF THE POLICE to close down ALL protest. And that is what they're doing at the moment.

FAQinglovely · 18/04/2009 11:44

and tbh I fail to see what is legal or peaceful about cutting fences - I would class that as criminal damage.

policywonk · 18/04/2009 11:47

FAQ - well, I think it would be great if they shut it down too. I absolutely count that as peaceful protest. 'Violence' to me is something that happens to people, not buildings.

And, again, what strikes me as frankly sinister is the police's tactics of pre-empting all activity.

Furthermore, do you believe everything the police claim about the Ratcliffe protesters? Even after all the police lies that have been exposed in the last three weeks? Hasn't it been conclusively shown that the word of the police simply cannot be trusted on these matters?

policywonk · 18/04/2009 11:48

I didn't say it was 'legal', I said it was 'peaceful'. Catch them in an illegal act (cutting fences), arrest them - no problem.

(Not sniping with the short posts, just trying to reply! Supposed to be fecking working...)

mumof2andabit · 18/04/2009 11:48

I cant believe people seriously think she was asking for it!

Having watched teh video yes she is being volatile (sp?) but that does not warrant being back handed and then hit with a baton. There are so many videos of that day where you can clearly see police making the first move of violence etc.

I am well aware is a thankless job and obviously on days like that very stressful but I think some 'bad apples' go into it wanting to wind people up exert a bit of power without paying the price for it, even though that hasnt happened thank goodness with this case.

This is not a riot.......well what more can you say?

violethill · 18/04/2009 11:52

wombleprincess - that's a good point. The G20 protesters were supposedly protesting against the capitalist policies which have caused economic recession, and shown disregard for the environment, people's incomes, homes etc....... but that woman is in cahoots with max clifford to try to make a fast buck. Nice. As I said, whatever the rights and wrongs of the police action (and I have no doubt that some of the police did use excessive force) that woman is a joke.

Swipe left for the next trending thread