Tommy Robinson attacked at McDonald’s
Discussion
frankenstein12 said:
La Liga said:
hose officers look like they are trying to get through the crowd for an objective, not confront them. Which is why they're single-filed / double-filed. They don't have their helmets on, have no batons drawn and have no shields. They're pretty good indications.
I'm not sure what the objective was, or how it fits into the bigger picture of managing the event, or whether it was the best tactic, but that's what it looks like to me.
Whatever the intent it was very poorly executed and got the result to be expected when dealing with a bunch of very drunk and anti police protesters.I'm not sure what the objective was, or how it fits into the bigger picture of managing the event, or whether it was the best tactic, but that's what it looks like to me.
It's all about the protest liaison officers. They're already in the crowd before the video starts recording. Their role is to communicate with the protesters and the police and keep things 'low key'. Very often they can prevent issues from occurring because they are able to communicate with the protesters (usually the leaders) about what is happening so things aren't a surprise.
The downside is PLOs are vastly outnumbered so if things turn south they need a quick exit strategy. I am assuming that things have started to go south and the PLOs have requested support / extraction before the video even starts. Perhaps they've been threatened / assaulted / blocked from leaving etc. One is missing a hat who comes out with the PSU.
The fact there's a PSU (a group of riot officers) coming in to the area quite quickly suggests this.
The evidence gathering officer at 01:12 gives the 'on me' (head tap) signal to the PSU where they need to be.
The PSU then goes into the crowd and emerge with officers wearing blue tabards (the PLOs) who were already in the crowd prior to the video starting. The screenshot below is whom I am talking about.
From that it's a standard extraction tactic and PLO contingency. Yes, it triggered the crowd but getting officers out of harm's way is a priority.
Regardless of the crowds interpretation, there's no excuse for their behaviour.
If I were the commander and had free reign, I'd be putting everyone in level 1 (helmets, batons) and ordering dispersal tactics i.e. hit anyone who is a threat. Added bonus for a mounted section who could run through them.
99.9% of the time, I am happy that the UK has a police by consent policy.
But at certain times, like watchig thr gangs of thugs above, sometimes I just wish a SWAT team could be stargated in to absolutely batter the hooligans.
I'm put in mind of Russia, and the fact that there'll be no Russian footy hooligan goings on, at least not on tourists, because the Russian cops have gone round to all the knackers and said, 'touch them, and that's the last thing you touch.'
And then I'll take a wacky blueberry and revert to my normal sedate self.
But at certain times, like watchig thr gangs of thugs above, sometimes I just wish a SWAT team could be stargated in to absolutely batter the hooligans.
I'm put in mind of Russia, and the fact that there'll be no Russian footy hooligan goings on, at least not on tourists, because the Russian cops have gone round to all the knackers and said, 'touch them, and that's the last thing you touch.'
And then I'll take a wacky blueberry and revert to my normal sedate self.
La Liga said:
aving a closer look, I'm confident can explain it from the video:
It's all about the protest liaison officers. They're already in the crowd before the video starts recording. Their role is to communicate with the protesters and the police and keep things 'low key'. Very often they can prevent issues from occurring because they are able to communicate with the protesters (usually the leaders) about what is happening so things aren't a surprise.
The downside is PLOs are vastly outnumbered so if things turn south they need a quick exit strategy. I am assuming that things have started to go south and the PLOs have requested support / extraction before the video even starts. Perhaps they've been threatened / assaulted / blocked from leaving etc. One is missing a hat who comes out with the PSU.
The fact there's a PSU (a group of riot officers) coming in to the area quite quickly suggests this.
The evidence gathering officer at 01:12 gives the 'on me' (head tap) signal to the PSU where they need to be.
The PSU then goes into the crowd and emerge with officers wearing blue tabards (the PLOs) who were already in the crowd prior to the video starting. The screenshot below is whom I am talking about.
From that it's a standard extraction tactic and PLO contingency. Yes, it triggered the crowd but getting officers out of harm's way is a priority.
Regardless of the crowds interpretation, there's no excuse for their behaviour.
If I were the commander and had free reign, I'd be putting everyone in level 1 (helmets, batons) and ordering dispersal tactics i.e. hit anyone who is a threat. Added bonus for a mounted section who could run through them.
Very informative post.It's all about the protest liaison officers. They're already in the crowd before the video starts recording. Their role is to communicate with the protesters and the police and keep things 'low key'. Very often they can prevent issues from occurring because they are able to communicate with the protesters (usually the leaders) about what is happening so things aren't a surprise.
The downside is PLOs are vastly outnumbered so if things turn south they need a quick exit strategy. I am assuming that things have started to go south and the PLOs have requested support / extraction before the video even starts. Perhaps they've been threatened / assaulted / blocked from leaving etc. One is missing a hat who comes out with the PSU.
The fact there's a PSU (a group of riot officers) coming in to the area quite quickly suggests this.
The evidence gathering officer at 01:12 gives the 'on me' (head tap) signal to the PSU where they need to be.
The PSU then goes into the crowd and emerge with officers wearing blue tabards (the PLOs) who were already in the crowd prior to the video starting. The screenshot below is whom I am talking about.
From that it's a standard extraction tactic and PLO contingency. Yes, it triggered the crowd but getting officers out of harm's way is a priority.
Regardless of the crowds interpretation, there's no excuse for their behaviour.
If I were the commander and had free reign, I'd be putting everyone in level 1 (helmets, batons) and ordering dispersal tactics i.e. hit anyone who is a threat. Added bonus for a mounted section who could run through them.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Read the words back.
Go watch the video again and pay attention to the bit where the Police are having glass bottles lobbed at them.
Stop and think whether you really agree with those peoples actions or consider them acceptable.
See this would work better if you read my comments on this from the start.Go watch the video again and pay attention to the bit where the Police are having glass bottles lobbed at them.
Stop and think whether you really agree with those peoples actions or consider them acceptable.
my FIRST post about this i said...
"While i do not condone the actions of the protesters I can appreciate why they behaved the way they did"
I have then pointed out why i believe the protesters reacted the way they did and I have pointed out that I felt the police were responsible for what happened through behaving in a manner which was likely to get that sort of response from a bunch of drunks who dislike the police.
Let me set this out VERY clearly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TR'S SUPPORTERS ACTIONS.
frankenstein12 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Read the words back.
Go watch the video again and pay attention to the bit where the Police are having glass bottles lobbed at them.
Stop and think whether you really agree with those peoples actions or consider them acceptable.
See this would work better if you read my comments on this from the start.Go watch the video again and pay attention to the bit where the Police are having glass bottles lobbed at them.
Stop and think whether you really agree with those peoples actions or consider them acceptable.
my FIRST post about this i said...
"While i do not condone the actions of the protesters I can appreciate why they behaved the way they did"
I have then pointed out why i believe the protesters reacted the way they did and I have pointed out that I felt the police were responsible for what happened through behaving in a manner which was likely to get that sort of response from a bunch of drunks who dislike the police.
Let me set this out VERY clearly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TR'S SUPPORTERS ACTIONS.
frankenstein12 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Read the words back.
Go watch the video again and pay attention to the bit where the Police are having glass bottles lobbed at them.
Stop and think whether you really agree with those peoples actions or consider them acceptable.
See this would work better if you read my comments on this from the start.Go watch the video again and pay attention to the bit where the Police are having glass bottles lobbed at them.
Stop and think whether you really agree with those peoples actions or consider them acceptable.
my FIRST post about this i said...
"While i do not condone the actions of the protesters I can appreciate why they behaved the way they did"
I have then pointed out why i believe the protesters reacted the way they did and I have pointed out that I felt the police were responsible for what happened through behaving in a manner which was likely to get that sort of response from a bunch of drunks who dislike the police.
Let me set this out VERY clearly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TR'S SUPPORTERS ACTIONS.
frankenstein12 said:
See this would work better if you read my comments on this from the start.
my FIRST post about this i said...
"While i do not condone the actions of the protesters I can appreciate why they behaved the way they did"
I have then pointed out why i believe the protesters reacted the way they did and I have pointed out that I felt the police were responsible for what happened through behaving in a manner which was likely to get that sort of response from a bunch of drunks who dislike the police.
Let me set this out VERY clearly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TR'S SUPPORTERS ACTIONS.
Thank you for being very clear on that point.my FIRST post about this i said...
"While i do not condone the actions of the protesters I can appreciate why they behaved the way they did"
I have then pointed out why i believe the protesters reacted the way they did and I have pointed out that I felt the police were responsible for what happened through behaving in a manner which was likely to get that sort of response from a bunch of drunks who dislike the police.
Let me set this out VERY clearly.
I DO NOT SUPPORT TR'S SUPPORTERS ACTIONS.
I'd honestly suggest choose your words more carefully, saying things like "I can appreciate why they behaved the way they did" may give the impression that you think it's acceptable behaviour.
La Liga said:
aving a closer look, I'm confident can explain it from the video:
It's all about the protest liaison officers. They're already in the crowd before the video starts recording. Their role is to communicate with the protesters and the police and keep things 'low key'. Very often they can prevent issues from occurring because they are able to communicate with the protesters (usually the leaders) about what is happening so things aren't a surprise.
The downside is PLOs are vastly outnumbered so if things turn south they need a quick exit strategy. I am assuming that things have started to go south and the PLOs have requested support / extraction before the video even starts. Perhaps they've been threatened / assaulted / blocked from leaving etc. One is missing a hat who comes out with the PSU.
The fact there's a PSU (a group of riot officers) coming in to the area quite quickly suggests this.
The evidence gathering officer at 01:12 gives the 'on me' (head tap) signal to the PSU where they need to be.
The PSU then goes into the crowd and emerge with officers wearing blue tabards (the PLOs) who were already in the crowd prior to the video starting. The screenshot below is whom I am talking about.
From that it's a standard extraction tactic and PLO contingency. Yes, it triggered the crowd but getting officers out of harm's way is a priority.
Regardless of the crowds interpretation, there's no excuse for their behaviour.
If I were the commander and had free reign, I'd be putting everyone in level 1 (helmets, batons) and ordering dispersal tactics i.e. hit anyone who is a threat. Added bonus for a mounted section who could run through them.
Sorry La Liga but that attitude is precisely why i posted the video and why i wanted to discuss it. As to your claims they were rescuing personnel I need to find other angle videos as that one isn't very clear to me. They MAY have been doing so but its hard to tell as the only extras who came out were two persons all in blue HV and they seemed to come out of RHS of screen rather than the police melee.It's all about the protest liaison officers. They're already in the crowd before the video starts recording. Their role is to communicate with the protesters and the police and keep things 'low key'. Very often they can prevent issues from occurring because they are able to communicate with the protesters (usually the leaders) about what is happening so things aren't a surprise.
The downside is PLOs are vastly outnumbered so if things turn south they need a quick exit strategy. I am assuming that things have started to go south and the PLOs have requested support / extraction before the video even starts. Perhaps they've been threatened / assaulted / blocked from leaving etc. One is missing a hat who comes out with the PSU.
The fact there's a PSU (a group of riot officers) coming in to the area quite quickly suggests this.
The evidence gathering officer at 01:12 gives the 'on me' (head tap) signal to the PSU where they need to be.
The PSU then goes into the crowd and emerge with officers wearing blue tabards (the PLOs) who were already in the crowd prior to the video starting. The screenshot below is whom I am talking about.
From that it's a standard extraction tactic and PLO contingency. Yes, it triggered the crowd but getting officers out of harm's way is a priority.
Regardless of the crowds interpretation, there's no excuse for their behaviour.
If I were the commander and had free reign, I'd be putting everyone in level 1 (helmets, batons) and ordering dispersal tactics i.e. hit anyone who is a threat. Added bonus for a mounted section who could run through them.
frankenstein12 said:
Sorry La Liga but that attitude is precisely why i posted the video and why i wanted to discuss it.
It's nothing to do with attitude. I'm perfectly happy for protests to be facilitated and keep things as low-key as possible. However, when it gets hostilities and missiles are being thrown, that's a legitimate tactic to restore disorder.
frankenstein12 said:
As to your claims they were rescuing personnel I need to find other angle videos as that one isn't very clear to me. They MAY have been doing so but its hard to tell as the only extras who came out were two persons all in blue HV and they seemed to come out of RHS of screen rather than the police melee.
What else were they doing then? Did they just happen to run in an extraction formation (without helmets on, batons drawn or shields), and coincidentally withdraw at the same time with PLOs?
frankenstein12 said:
No. Its about learning lessons and understanding context something you appear to struggle with.
Just not the potential context of the video so you can make comments like, "Whatever the intent it was very poorly executed..." EddieSteadyGo said:
Very informative post.
Thanks, at first glance I couldn't figure it out. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff