And what do they do when democracy refuses to listen to them? Even more perverse is how the local transport authority is directly targeting a core vote demographic - the elderly!
So if the (democratically elected) government of the day do not pass legislation that provides exactly what you think it should, then you are OK to defy the law.
Lets see where that leads>
What do people do who think they should be allowed to sell any illegal drug they want to, if the government doesn't allow them to?
What should the Paedophile Information Exchange have done when the government of the day didn't change the law to allow adults to have sex with children?
So if the (democratically elected) government of the day do not pass legislation that provides exactly what you think it should, then you are OK to defy the law.
Lets see where that leads>
What do people do who think they should be allowed to sell any illegal drug they want to, if the government doesn't allow them to?
What should the Paedophile Information Exchange have done when the government of the day didn't change the law to allow adults to have sex with children?
And I ask you the same as I ask others who fail to answer, what do you expect the elderly to do who've been impacted? Take it and allow SYPTE the support to introduce further cuts because apathy allows exactly that to happen. If people are not being listened to by their (democratically elected - up for debate with a Parliament that the majority didn't elect) representatives and democracy isn't being served which results in people resorting to civil disobedience, that's a fault which needs to be fixed by having representatives taken to task, not by criminalising protest or silencing criticism of the Government.
And I ask you the same as I ask others who fail to answer, what do you expect the elderly to do who've been impacted? Take it and allow SYPTE the support to introduce further cuts because apathy allows exactly that to happen. If people are not being listened to by their (democratically elected - up for debate with a Parliament that the majority didn't elect) representatives and democracy isn't being served which results in people resorting to civil disobedience, that's a fault which needs to be fixed by having representatives taken to task, not by criminalising protest or silencing criticism of the Government.
You don't seem to have realised that its not the protesting that got them arrested. Its the non-payment of their fares.
Its one thing to go wave your placard, but another to break the law on your way there.
They could have paid their fares AND protested.
The methods police used are taught by professional officer safety instructors, and are methods that have been approved by the Home Office (managed by your beloved Theresa May), ACPO, and the College of Policing. They are methods that are tried and tested, and are used across the world by other leading law enforcement and military organisations.
If you have any ideas of better ways, let's hear them.
There's nothing wrong with those methods for most people. All I am suggesting is that you shouldn't keep older people routinely bent down like that, as it could potentially be deleterious to their health.
I'm not sufficiently qualified to make alternative suggestions, and if I did, I guarantee they would be greeted with sarcastic laughter by you and DP as you patronisingly point out that it couldn't be done. But I don't think it is beyond the ability of the police to devise a gentler method for older people.
Unless of course you are saying that developing a safe alternative is impossible ?
Older people are not all heart attacks waiting to happen. Being bent forward is not torture, and doesn't cause the type of harm you are implying. 65 year olds are not all decrepit, weak individuals you know.
I'm assuming there were grounds for his arrest, and his own comments suggest that is the case, as well as others. Having established that, they've used methods designed to cause least harm to the suspect.
At what age do you propose people shouldn't be arrested? What method would you use if the person does not comply?
I appreciate that not all older people are candidates for heart attacks, but nonetheless an increasing number are certainly more at risk. Consequently, I would favour a gentler method of dealing with them.
I mean, if you were arresting a small 85 year old woman, would you follow the same procedure ?
Of course I don't know, I wasn't there. I'm going by the accounts given in Post #36.
I must say that I love the way that you challenge anything that doesn't fit your agenda (resisting, non peaceful protest etc) but you'll take as gospel anything which does, such as police forcing people to delete photographs. Which as it happens turns out to be complete and utter bollocks anyway!
I'd already acknowledged at post #84 that it was station staff who had told Mr Evans to delete his footage.
What is wrong with the term compliance? When force is used against somebody it is because they are non-compliant against a lawful act (arrest, in this case) and there is a lawful power to use force to gain compliance, and it is reasonable, proportionate and necessary to do so. It might sound horrible, but for some of us it is a very real part of preventing crime and protecting people. Without compliance force has to be used, with compliance it does not. What other term should be used as the opposite of resistance?
I just don't like the word, and I'm not sure if your lengthy diatribe is an attempt to convert me into accepting it, but it's failed miserably if so.
Was the word "compliant" used in 1949 ? If not, I'll provisionally go along with whatever word was used then.
**Edit: In fact it appears that the person who was pulled from behind was not Mr. Arthur (who is in the video) but in fact Mr. Nuttall, who tried to link arms with Mr. Arthur was he was being arrested.
An entirely different person!.
Good grief, you're making yourself look silly this morning.**
Tony Nuttall, 65, of the Barnsley Retirees Action Group who was arrested in the fracas, said campaigners would not stop until concessionary travel was reintroduced under the old terms.
Mr Nuttall described how he was arrested and charged with obstructing a police officer as the group of 45 protesters were “kettled” while staging an impromptu rally on the platform at Sheffield station after boarding a train from Barnsley and deliberately over-riding their stop.
“This sort of thuggish behaviour is not acceptable, especially when used against older and disabled people who cannot defend themselves,” he said. “It was a cowardly attack.
“I was trying to link arms with people and five officers grabbed hold of me from behind and forced my head down. They marched me back and forth with my head bowed down and put me on the floor. I was handcuffed and taken to a police station.
“It was a peaceful protest by people who are hardly likely to use violence against blokes who look like they have been brought in from the local nightclub,” Mr Nuttall said.
You don't seem to have realised that its not the protesting that got them arrested. Its the non-payment of their fares.
Its one thing to go wave your placard, but another to break the law on your way there.
They could have paid their fares AND protested.
And had they paid their fares they probably would not have been arrested.
And I ask you the same as I ask others who fail to answer, what do you expect the elderly to do who've been impacted? Take it and allow SYPTE the support to introduce further cuts because apathy allows exactly that to happen. If people are not being listened to by their (democratically elected - up for debate with a Parliament that the majority didn't elect) representatives and democracy isn't being served which results in people resorting to civil disobedience, that's a fault which needs to be fixed by having representatives taken to task, not by criminalising protest or silencing criticism of the Government.
They try to achieve it by democratic means. In this case, I don't know who is the elected body is with the overall decision making process,(and who can allocate the money to cover the cost) but somebody is. They can lobby the existing members. At election time they can speak to potential candidates to find out who would best meet their aspirations. They could even start their own party if they wish. As you have stated, in this case, old people are a pretty big demographic.
They have just as much opportunity as anyone else to try and change policy, which at the end of the day, is a political issue. Some people believe that pensioner travel should be subsidised (paid for by someone else, as it is not free), and some do not..
In a democracy, you win some, you lose some, but pensioners are part of the democratic process, so they have the same opportunity as anyone else. Unlike the suffragettes.
Ultimately, if the pensioners don't get their way, that is just tough. It doesn't give them the right to ignore the law.
Right, I've answered your question. How about answering mine.
What could members of the Paedophile Information Exchange have done when the Government did not change the law to allow adults to have sex with children? Would THEY have been justified in breaking the law?
op not read all the posts but you title is wrong. It's not south Yorkshire Police it the British transport police( btp) And I didn't see what they did wrong
No. The private property prohibition is just that. A prohibition of filming. It is not a public place. It is private. The owners decide what they allow on their property. There's no "more relevant to commercial filming". It is a prohibition. End of story.
I think you'll find this is the main source of prohibition ...
Unless you are filming for a news or current affairs programme, we charge for all filming and photography on Network Rail property, including stations.
You can take photographs at stations provided you do not sell them. However, you are not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment, such as CCTV cameras.
Flash photography on platforms is not allowed at any time. It can distract train drivers & train despatch staff and so is potentially very dangerous.
Tripod legs must be kept away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. On busy stations, you may not be allowed to use a tripod because it could be a dangerous obstruction to passengers.
So they don't charge for news coverage, ie it's not just commercial. However, it is still a prohibition, without permission. So they clearly are not prepared to allow a news gathering free for all. They want control in these cases, clearly commercial gain is not their priority in these cases.
Edit. I didn't see the last part of your post when I first replied.
From what you've posted:
It appears that they allow private non-commercial photography, ie not for resale. Not applicable in this case he was a journalist doing his job.
In the case of commercial photography (presumably for commercial gain), they expect to be paid. They have an asset, and if someone wants to use that asset for film purposes, the company want paying. Again, not applicable in this case, as he was a journalist, not the director of a remake of Brief Encounter.
In the case of news and current affairs, they de not appear to want payment, but they still require permission to be gained. Clearly not a commercial issue. This is what applies in this case. A journalist filming a news item contrary to the company's requirements that permission must be have been given, otherwise it is prohibited.
So they don't charge for news coverage, ie it's not just commercial. However, it is still a prohibition, without permission. So they clearly are not prepared to allow a news gathering free for all. They want control in these cases, clearly commercial gain is not their priority in these cases.
So I guess you won't believe Martyn Guiver, Northern Rail’s head of crime management, either.
Northern Rail’s head of crime management Martyn Guiver apologised to Alex and said that the incident ‘should not have happened’.
He said the firm was investigating the incident and that it would speak to the person responsible - a security officer contracted to Northern Rail - when he next came on shift.
Mr Guiver added that staff have been ‘re-briefed’ on rights to film in order to avoid a repeat of the situation.
He said: “I want to apologise on behalf of Northern Rail.
“I can categorically state that it’s not something we would expect to happen.
“We have in the short term re-briefed all the officers on the law relating to cameras.
So why re-brief officers and issue a statement saying that the situation "should not have happened" if such a prohibition actually existed?
You're not qualified to suggest alternatives but apparently fully qualified to say the current way isn't appropriate... Do you have medical expertise or explanation for what's dangerous about being bent over? If anything I'd have thought it actually makes life easier for the heart because it's not got to fight gravity to pump blood to your brain..
The act of being forcibly bent over in such a situation, with all the attendant stress involved, will increase blood pressure anyway, and especially to the head, where a stroke or brain haemorrhage might ensue to an older person especially. I've seen it happen to someone (not being arrested, but just bending down)
If you can't suggest an alternative, presumably you're happy for anyone who's some arbitrary age or above who resists arrest (and the full youtube clip shows him clearly still doing so once away from the group) to just be allowed to get away with crime then, to make sure they're not harmed?
I'm sorry, but what's difficult to distinguish between altering a mode of arrest and just allowing someone to get away with it ? Do you have issues comprehending simple English or are you trolling by deliberately misrepresenting what I've said, which at no stage is "let then get away with it"
Which you tube clip are you referring to ? If it's the one posted by Bus Stop 2012 at post No 135, that's not Tony Nuttall being arrested. It's the other chap - Arthur. In his case, I've no issue with the arrest, which was perfectly reasonable.
There's nothing wrong with those methods for most people. All I am suggesting is that you shouldn't keep older people routinely bent down like that, as it could potentially be deleterious to their health.
It could have a negative effect on anybody's health. Then again the person ought to consider that before they act like a yob, shouldn't they? If you resist arrest you give the officers no choice other than to use force. Of course they would have adjusted their level of force based upon the fact that he was older than most people they arrest. What makes you think that they haven't? The easiest and safest way to restrain a person is prone (on the floor) but I expect you'd be up in arms about that too. Prone isn't always an option in a busy area such as in the video so it's done standing, and bent forward is far easier than standing up straight, particularly when it comes to handcuffing. None of it would have happened had the bloke not broke the law, and not resisted arrest.
I'm not sufficiently qualified to make alternative suggestions, and if I did, I guarantee they would be greeted with sarcastic laughter by you and DP as you patronisingly point out that it couldn't be done. But I don't think it is beyond the ability of the police to devise a gentler method for older people.
Unless of course you are saying that developing a safe alternative is impossible ?
That's right, you're not sufficiently qualified, whereas the people who teach officer safety skills are qualified. Is what the officers did here go against the training given?
Of course I'd laugh if you said something that was so off the mark it was funny. You would too if it were the other way around. I always elaborate as to why I disagree though, whether I initially laughed or not.
I appreciate that not all older people are candidates for heart attacks, but nonetheless an increasing number are certainly more at risk. Consequently, I would favour a gentler method of dealing with them.
I mean, if you were arresting a small 85 year old woman, would you follow the same procedure ?
I know this was aimed at Deep Purple, but a small 85 year old woman probably wouldn't put up anywhere near the same level of resistance, nor would there be much of a risk of harm from her either. An 85 year old woman is far less flexible and mobile than a 65 year old man too. It's not comparable.
So in essence no, the same procedure wouldn't be used. The difference would be taken in to account. What's to say that it wasn't here?
I'd already acknowledged at post #84 that it was station staff who had told Mr Evans to delete his footage.
But prior to that you said the following:
As you probably know some evidence was deleted under duress - link
Why do the police keep doing this ? It must surely have been drummed into them many times over the years what the law is, yet they still persist in wanting films of their actions deleted, or the person to stop filming. It just makes them look as though they have something to hide.
Makes me suspect that what preceded Nuttall's arrest may have just been somebody standing there peacefully.
There should be station CCTV though. Maybe that will show something.
Like I said, if it fits your agenda you're happy to take it as gospel (even if you do later find out differently and take that on board) yet if it doesn't fit your agenda you're more than happy to challenge it. That in itself demonstrates a complete and utter lack of balance on your part.
I just don't like the word, and I'm not sure if your lengthy diatribe is an attempt to convert me into accepting it, but it's failed miserably if so.
Was the word "compliant" used in 1949 ? If not, I'll provisionally go along with whatever word was used then.
No just an attempt to explain it's use and why it is necessary. It's the word I use because it's the word that is used in training and it's the word that in my opinion best fits the discussion. However if you dislike it, then feel free to look here and use another word that fits.
Come off it. You've seen the video and there is absolutely not five people behind him. In fact for five people to grab one person from behind would be impossible, surely? There's two in front of him, one to his left, another behind him and another somewhere else out of view.
What could members of the Paedophile Information Exchange have done when the Government did not change the law to allow adults to have sex with children? Would THEY have been justified in breaking the law?
I would if your question wasn't loaded and a potential straw-man designed to make me look as if I support, condone and encourage paedophilia, well beyond the scope of this thread and grossly off-topic. I think I'll respond merely by saying that I don't condone lawbreaking but do understand why pensioners did it in this case because they have no other option of airing their views without being ridiculed, laughed at or at best ignored.
If people are not being listened to by their (democratically elected - up for debate with a Parliament that the majority didn't elect)
It is not a central goverment issue. It was not central government policy to provide pensioners and disabled with free rail travel, and in most of the country pensioners and disabled do not get and have never got free rail travel. They can buy a railcard senior £30 or disabled £20 and then get a third off with some restrictions as to travel times, etc;
The free rail travel in South Yorkshire was being provided by SYPTE which is accountable to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee made up of representatives of the local authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield, North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales, Bolsover, Bassetlaw and Chesterfield.
SYPTE are continuing to provide free rail travel in South Yorkshire to the disabled, but have ended free rail travel for pensioners replacing it with half price off peak rail travel for pensioners in South Yorkshire.
So why re-brief officers and issue a statement saying that the situation "should not have happened" if such a prohibition actually existed?
The apology relates to references to the Terrorism Act.
This reference was made only after the journalist had ignored the instruction to stop filming because he didn't have permission. That has not changed. He didn't have permission. The company were perfectly in their right to require him to stop filming.
It could have a negative effect on anybody's health. Then again the person ought to consider that before they act like a yob, shouldn't they? If you resist arrest you give the officers no choice other than to use force. Of course they would have adjusted their level of force based upon the fact that he was older than most people they arrest. What makes you think that they haven't? The easiest and safest way to restrain a person is prone (on the floor) but I expect you'd be up in arms about that too. Prone isn't always an option in a busy area such as in the video so it's done standing, and bent forward is far easier than standing up straight, particularly when it comes to handcuffing. None of it would have happened had the bloke not broke the law, and not resisted arrest.
Sorry, what video shows he was resisting arrest ? The one posted by Bus Stop 2012, is the other guy, not Tony Nuttall. You've already seen my link where Tony says he was grabbed from behind.
As for adjusting their level of force for Mr Nuttall, this is the first time I've seen that mentioned. Up to now it's been a fit 65 year old bloke putting up a fight and getting what he deserved. But I still think keeping him bent down is not the best way forward.
I know this was aimed at Deep Purple, but a small 85 year old woman probably wouldn't put up anywhere near the same level of resistance, nor would there be much of a risk of harm from her either. An 85 year old woman is far less flexible and mobile than a 65 year old man too. It's not comparable.
It's not comparable, neither is comparing a 65 year old bloke with a 20 year old, which is essentially what you and DP have been doing all along. Now suddenly you say that a different level of force would be employed because of his age, because you know it would contradict what you've just said above about the 85 year old woman, if you didn't.
So in essence no, the same procedure wouldn't be used. The difference would be taken in to account. What's to say that it wasn't here?
What's to say it was ? Why haven't you mentioned it before ?
But prior to that you said the following:
Given the track record of the police with regard to being filmed, it was a perfectly reasonable assumption that they would balls it up again. As soon as I realised it was not them, I acknowledged it honestly and unprompted. What more am I supposed to do ?
Like I said, if it fits your agenda you're happy to take it as gospel (even if you do later find out differently and take that on board) yet if it doesn't fit your agenda you're more than happy to challenge it. That in itself demonstrates a complete and utter lack of balance on your part.
You lecturing me on agendas is laughable.
No just an attempt to explain it's use and why it is necessary. It's the word I use because it's the word that is used in training and it's the word that in my opinion best fits the discussion. However if you dislike it, then feel free to look here and use another word that fits.
I've no idea what word was used in 1949.
Of course you haven't, but I'd bet my house it wasn't "compliant"
Come off it. You've seen the video and there is absolutely not five people behind him. In fact for five people to grab one person from behind would be impossible, surely? There's two in front of him, one to his left, another behind him and another somewhere else out of view.
It doesn't matter how many there were, that is a red herring. He was still grabbed from behind. How was he resisting arrest in such circumstances ? He wasn't even given the chance to be "compliant".
Firm says officer should not have deleted Alex Evans’ phone footage of pensioners’ Freedom Ride protest at city station
...
A reporter threatened with arrest under anti-terror laws as he filmed a demonstration in Sheffield has been given a personal apology from the rail firm behind the “incorrect” threat.
...
A Northern Rail spokeswoman said in a statement on Wednesday: “Following an incident at Sheffield station on Monday, we are supporting the British transport police investigation, which will include speaking to those involved.”
“We know the officer in question was incorrect to delete the phone footage and we are rebriefing our rail response team to ensure this does not happen again. We have apologised to Mr Evans for the events that occurred.”
James Mitchinson, editor of the Star, told the Guardian on Tuesday that what happened to his reporter was “absolutely unacceptable”. He said the case “illustrates just how difficult it can be to report the news, on the spot when, increasingly, authorities are seeking to ‘manage’ it.”
The footage was from a mobile phone, not even a video camera.
I would if your question wasn't loaded and a potential straw-man designed to make me look as if I support, condone and encourage paedophilia, well beyond the scope of this thread and grossly off-topic. I think I'll respond merely by saying that I don't condone lawbreaking but do understand why pensioners did it in this case because they have no other option of airing their views without being ridiculed, laughed at or at best ignored.
I do not accept it is a straw man argument. You appeared to be supporting them breaking the law because they were unable to achieve their goal by democratic means. If that was the case, then it is valid to question that as a principle. Obviously I chose an emotive and extreme example, to demonstrate the slippery slope of accepting illegal behaviour because you happen to not get the result you want by democratic means.
However, as you are not condoning illegal behaviour, it is not a problem.
Of course they have other options in order to air their views. They can protest as much as they like, within the law. However, that doesn't give them the right to not be ignored. If people wish to ignore their protests, they can. What is unacceptable is to defy the law by travelling without buying the correct ticket. Just because they are being ignored doesn't give them any authority to defy the law. If they specifically decide to break the law in order to gain publicity, they should then suffer the consequences of any law breaking they do.
I know this was aimed at Deep Purple, but a small 85 year old woman probably wouldn't put up anywhere near the same level of resistance, nor would there be much of a risk of harm from her either. An 85 year old woman is far less flexible and mobile than a 65 year old man too. It's not comparable.
So how on earth would you restrain a frail 85 year old lady?
Not that you can always tell how frail someone is, I have osteoporosis including of the spine and I am not elderly or a woman. Mind you I would not be stupid enough to resist the police if for some reason they wanted to arrest me.
At least one of the protesters looks to have set out to get arrested. I mean traveling without paying, then refusing to give his name, arguing with the police, then struggling. Still it made for publicity. While the other man was asking to be arrested by trying to hinder the arrest of the first man. I mean what did they expect to happen?
Sorry, what video shows he was resisting arrest ? The one posted by Bus Stop 2012, is the other guy, not Tony Nuttall. You've already seen my link where Tony says he was grabbed from behind.
The video at the beginning of this thread, of Tony Nuttall, shows him resisting. It doesn't show the initial resistance, but he is resisting. The initial resistance however is evidenced by his own account which I've already put to you, in Post #109:
“They warned me I was committing a criminal offence by not having a valid ticket. I argued and they grabbed me and said they were arresting me
“I tried to pull back towards the rest of the group but they held on ... three more came over and forced me down onto one of the seats on the platform.
“There was a struggle before they handcuffed me.”
As for adjusting their level of force for Mr Nuttall, this is the first time I've seen that mentioned. Up to now it's been a fit 65 year old bloke putting up a fight and getting what he deserved. But I still think keeping him bent down is not the best way forward.
It's common sense that it would be the case, isn't it?
It's not comparable, neither is comparing a 65 year old bloke with a 20 year old, which is essentially what you and DP have been doing all along. Now suddenly you say that a different level of force would be employed because of his age, because you know it would contradict what you've just said above about the 85 year old woman, if you didn't.
Have we? That's news to me.
What's to say it was ? Why haven't you mentioned it before ?
Common sense?
Given the track record of the police with regard to being filmed, it was a perfectly reasonable assumption that they would balls it up again. As soon as I realised it was not them, I acknowledged it honestly and unprompted. What more am I supposed to do ?
Track record? You mean the small number of officers (when compared to the total) that have taken exception to being filmed? There it is again, judging an entire group based upon the actions of a few.. I suppose I can understand it if your contact with police is as limited as you suggest. Let me help you with that one - I see police officers most days (imagine that? ) and I've only ever seen one occasion outside of YouTube videos, where an officer took exception to being filmed. I hope that clears things up for you.
You lecturing me on agendas is laughable.
At least I come in with an open mind, and question the 'information' provided. You bound in like a bull in a china shop holding the Daily Mail up as if it is some kind of font of knowledge and truth. It's the Daily Mail for christ sake, you're smarter than that.
Of course you haven't, but I'd bet my house it wasn't "compliant"
It quite possibly wasn't, people spoke differently back then. What is your point? What do you think it was?
It doesn't matter how many there were, that is a red herring. He was still grabbed from behind. How was he resisting arrest in such circumstances ? He wasn't even given the chance to be "compliant".
As above, his own account states that he resisted as soon as he was arrested. They told him he was committing an offence, he argued. Then told him he was under arrest and took hold of him, so he pulled back. The struggle continued until they handcuffed him.
So how on earth would you restrain a frail 85 year old lady?
The reality is you almost certainly would not need to. There probably wouldn't be any necessity to arrest an 85 year old in the first place. That said if there was a necessity to arrest and if they were resistant, there would be a lot more effort going in to talking them around first. If that failed it wouldn't be particularly difficult to move them against their will. It wouldn't be a particularly pleasant thing to do though which is why it would be avoided as much as possible.
And it's all very easy to just suggest some vague "alternative" that you can't actually think of isn't it? It must exist if you say it does....
There's been rather a few years gone by where methods have been looked at and improved, with the help of people who do know what they're talking about medically instead of just arbitrarily deciding "that looks a bit dodgy"
There has indeed. There was a time where it was a case of come quietly, or get smacked with a baton until you come quietly. Those days are long passed thank god. Things have come a long way, various professionals have been involved in the development of techniques and techniques are shared between agencies around the globe. One excellent technique that has been developed abroad over the years and we have taken on is SPEAR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEAR_System
By all means if you think something looks bad then question it, but don't categorically state that it is wrong then claim to be unqualified to judge, you'll just look silly.
I appreciate that not all older people are candidates for heart attacks, but nonetheless an increasing number are certainly more at risk. Consequently, I would favour a gentler method of dealing with them.
I mean, if you were arresting a small 85 year old woman, would you follow the same procedure ?
.
And here we go what iffing again with something completely removed from the incident in question.
These methods have been devised by people who know what they're doing, and they cause little harm. Your claims that bending forward is likely to induce heart attacks and strokes in the over 60s is laughable, it really is.
He was lively enough to resist arrest, and actions against anyone are based on what they are doing in the first place. This bloke was fit, and suffered no problems, so what was wrong with what they did?
In 1949 I doubt they needed a word for 'compliant'. I'm pretty sure they just hit people with their truncheons if they 'gave them trouble'. No health & safety or human rights back then.
In 1949 I doubt they needed a word for 'compliant'. I'm pretty sure they just hit people with their truncheons if they 'gave them trouble'. No health & safety or human rights back then.
Exactly, like I said it was a case of:
a) come quietly;
b) get hit with a truncheon until you come quietly.
What on earth does it matter what word was used in 1949? It's 2014 now.
Comments
So if the (democratically elected) government of the day do not pass legislation that provides exactly what you think it should, then you are OK to defy the law.
Lets see where that leads>
What do people do who think they should be allowed to sell any illegal drug they want to, if the government doesn't allow them to?
What should the Paedophile Information Exchange have done when the government of the day didn't change the law to allow adults to have sex with children?
You don't seem to have realised that its not the protesting that got them arrested. Its the non-payment of their fares.
Its one thing to go wave your placard, but another to break the law on your way there.
They could have paid their fares AND protested.
There's nothing wrong with those methods for most people. All I am suggesting is that you shouldn't keep older people routinely bent down like that, as it could potentially be deleterious to their health.
I'm not sufficiently qualified to make alternative suggestions, and if I did, I guarantee they would be greeted with sarcastic laughter by you and DP as you patronisingly point out that it couldn't be done. But I don't think it is beyond the ability of the police to devise a gentler method for older people.
Unless of course you are saying that developing a safe alternative is impossible ?
I appreciate that not all older people are candidates for heart attacks, but nonetheless an increasing number are certainly more at risk. Consequently, I would favour a gentler method of dealing with them.
I mean, if you were arresting a small 85 year old woman, would you follow the same procedure ?
I'd already acknowledged at post #84 that it was station staff who had told Mr Evans to delete his footage.
I just don't like the word, and I'm not sure if your lengthy diatribe is an attempt to convert me into accepting it, but it's failed miserably if so.
Was the word "compliant" used in 1949 ? If not, I'll provisionally go along with whatever word was used then.
Was I ?
err, if you look at this link
You'll realise otherwise.
And had they paid their fares they probably would not have been arrested.
They try to achieve it by democratic means. In this case, I don't know who is the elected body is with the overall decision making process,(and who can allocate the money to cover the cost) but somebody is. They can lobby the existing members. At election time they can speak to potential candidates to find out who would best meet their aspirations. They could even start their own party if they wish. As you have stated, in this case, old people are a pretty big demographic.
They have just as much opportunity as anyone else to try and change policy, which at the end of the day, is a political issue. Some people believe that pensioner travel should be subsidised (paid for by someone else, as it is not free), and some do not..
In a democracy, you win some, you lose some, but pensioners are part of the democratic process, so they have the same opportunity as anyone else. Unlike the suffragettes.
Ultimately, if the pensioners don't get their way, that is just tough. It doesn't give them the right to ignore the law.
Right, I've answered your question. How about answering mine.
What could members of the Paedophile Information Exchange have done when the Government did not change the law to allow adults to have sex with children? Would THEY have been justified in breaking the law?
Yes it was British Transport Police.
I think you'll find this is the main source of prohibition ...
NetworkRail - Fees
As for non-commercial photography...
Network Rail - Photography
Straight from the mouth of NetworkRail.
So they don't charge for news coverage, ie it's not just commercial. However, it is still a prohibition, without permission. So they clearly are not prepared to allow a news gathering free for all. They want control in these cases, clearly commercial gain is not their priority in these cases.
Edit. I didn't see the last part of your post when I first replied.
From what you've posted:
It appears that they allow private non-commercial photography, ie not for resale. Not applicable in this case he was a journalist doing his job.
In the case of commercial photography (presumably for commercial gain), they expect to be paid. They have an asset, and if someone wants to use that asset for film purposes, the company want paying. Again, not applicable in this case, as he was a journalist, not the director of a remake of Brief Encounter.
In the case of news and current affairs, they de not appear to want payment, but they still require permission to be gained. Clearly not a commercial issue. This is what applies in this case. A journalist filming a news item contrary to the company's requirements that permission must be have been given, otherwise it is prohibited.
So I guess you won't believe Martyn Guiver, Northern Rail’s head of crime management, either.
Rail firm issue apology over video arrest threat
So why re-brief officers and issue a statement saying that the situation "should not have happened" if such a prohibition actually existed?
The act of being forcibly bent over in such a situation, with all the attendant stress involved, will increase blood pressure anyway, and especially to the head, where a stroke or brain haemorrhage might ensue to an older person especially. I've seen it happen to someone (not being arrested, but just bending down)
I'm sorry, but what's difficult to distinguish between altering a mode of arrest and just allowing someone to get away with it ? Do you have issues comprehending simple English or are you trolling by deliberately misrepresenting what I've said, which at no stage is "let then get away with it"
Which you tube clip are you referring to ? If it's the one posted by Bus Stop 2012 at post No 135, that's not Tony Nuttall being arrested. It's the other chap - Arthur. In his case, I've no issue with the arrest, which was perfectly reasonable.
It could have a negative effect on anybody's health. Then again the person ought to consider that before they act like a yob, shouldn't they? If you resist arrest you give the officers no choice other than to use force. Of course they would have adjusted their level of force based upon the fact that he was older than most people they arrest. What makes you think that they haven't? The easiest and safest way to restrain a person is prone (on the floor) but I expect you'd be up in arms about that too. Prone isn't always an option in a busy area such as in the video so it's done standing, and bent forward is far easier than standing up straight, particularly when it comes to handcuffing. None of it would have happened had the bloke not broke the law, and not resisted arrest.
That's right, you're not sufficiently qualified, whereas the people who teach officer safety skills are qualified. Is what the officers did here go against the training given?
Of course I'd laugh if you said something that was so off the mark it was funny. You would too if it were the other way around. I always elaborate as to why I disagree though, whether I initially laughed or not.
I know this was aimed at Deep Purple, but a small 85 year old woman probably wouldn't put up anywhere near the same level of resistance, nor would there be much of a risk of harm from her either. An 85 year old woman is far less flexible and mobile than a 65 year old man too. It's not comparable.
So in essence no, the same procedure wouldn't be used. The difference would be taken in to account. What's to say that it wasn't here?
But prior to that you said the following:
Like I said, if it fits your agenda you're happy to take it as gospel (even if you do later find out differently and take that on board) yet if it doesn't fit your agenda you're more than happy to challenge it. That in itself demonstrates a complete and utter lack of balance on your part.
No just an attempt to explain it's use and why it is necessary. It's the word I use because it's the word that is used in training and it's the word that in my opinion best fits the discussion. However if you dislike it, then feel free to look here and use another word that fits.
I've no idea what word was used in 1949.
Come off it. You've seen the video and there is absolutely not five people behind him. In fact for five people to grab one person from behind would be impossible, surely? There's two in front of him, one to his left, another behind him and another somewhere else out of view.
The free rail travel in South Yorkshire was being provided by SYPTE which is accountable to the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority Transport Committee made up of representatives of the local authorities of Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham, Sheffield, North East Derbyshire, Derbyshire Dales, Bolsover, Bassetlaw and Chesterfield.
SYPTE are continuing to provide free rail travel in South Yorkshire to the disabled, but have ended free rail travel for pensioners replacing it with half price off peak rail travel for pensioners in South Yorkshire.
The apology relates to references to the Terrorism Act.
This reference was made only after the journalist had ignored the instruction to stop filming because he didn't have permission. That has not changed. He didn't have permission. The company were perfectly in their right to require him to stop filming.
Sorry, what video shows he was resisting arrest ? The one posted by Bus Stop 2012, is the other guy, not Tony Nuttall. You've already seen my link where Tony says he was grabbed from behind.
As for adjusting their level of force for Mr Nuttall, this is the first time I've seen that mentioned. Up to now it's been a fit 65 year old bloke putting up a fight and getting what he deserved. But I still think keeping him bent down is not the best way forward.
It's not comparable, neither is comparing a 65 year old bloke with a 20 year old, which is essentially what you and DP have been doing all along. Now suddenly you say that a different level of force would be employed because of his age, because you know it would contradict what you've just said above about the 85 year old woman, if you didn't.
What's to say it was ? Why haven't you mentioned it before ?
Given the track record of the police with regard to being filmed, it was a perfectly reasonable assumption that they would balls it up again. As soon as I realised it was not them, I acknowledged it honestly and unprompted. What more am I supposed to do ?
You lecturing me on agendas is laughable.
Of course you haven't, but I'd bet my house it wasn't "compliant"
It doesn't matter how many there were, that is a red herring. He was still grabbed from behind. How was he resisting arrest in such circumstances ? He wasn't even given the chance to be "compliant".
The footage was from a mobile phone, not even a video camera.
I do not accept it is a straw man argument. You appeared to be supporting them breaking the law because they were unable to achieve their goal by democratic means. If that was the case, then it is valid to question that as a principle. Obviously I chose an emotive and extreme example, to demonstrate the slippery slope of accepting illegal behaviour because you happen to not get the result you want by democratic means.
However, as you are not condoning illegal behaviour, it is not a problem.
Of course they have other options in order to air their views. They can protest as much as they like, within the law. However, that doesn't give them the right to not be ignored. If people wish to ignore their protests, they can. What is unacceptable is to defy the law by travelling without buying the correct ticket. Just because they are being ignored doesn't give them any authority to defy the law. If they specifically decide to break the law in order to gain publicity, they should then suffer the consequences of any law breaking they do.
Not that you can always tell how frail someone is, I have osteoporosis including of the spine and I am not elderly or a woman. Mind you I would not be stupid enough to resist the police if for some reason they wanted to arrest me.
At least one of the protesters looks to have set out to get arrested. I mean traveling without paying, then refusing to give his name, arguing with the police, then struggling. Still it made for publicity. While the other man was asking to be arrested by trying to hinder the arrest of the first man. I mean what did they expect to happen?
The video at the beginning of this thread, of Tony Nuttall, shows him resisting. It doesn't show the initial resistance, but he is resisting. The initial resistance however is evidenced by his own account which I've already put to you, in Post #109:
“They warned me I was committing a criminal offence by not having a valid ticket. I argued and they grabbed me and said they were arresting me
“I tried to pull back towards the rest of the group but they held on ... three more came over and forced me down onto one of the seats on the platform.
“There was a struggle before they handcuffed me.”
It's common sense that it would be the case, isn't it?
Have we? That's news to me.
Common sense?
Track record? You mean the small number of officers (when compared to the total) that have taken exception to being filmed? There it is again, judging an entire group based upon the actions of a few.. I suppose I can understand it if your contact with police is as limited as you suggest. Let me help you with that one - I see police officers most days (imagine that?
At least I come in with an open mind, and question the 'information' provided. You bound in like a bull in a china shop holding the Daily Mail up as if it is some kind of font of knowledge and truth. It's the Daily Mail for christ sake, you're smarter than that.
It quite possibly wasn't, people spoke differently back then. What is your point? What do you think it was?
As above, his own account states that he resisted as soon as he was arrested. They told him he was committing an offence, he argued. Then told him he was under arrest and took hold of him, so he pulled back. The struggle continued until they handcuffed him.
The reality is you almost certainly would not need to. There probably wouldn't be any necessity to arrest an 85 year old in the first place. That said if there was a necessity to arrest and if they were resistant, there would be a lot more effort going in to talking them around first. If that failed it wouldn't be particularly difficult to move them against their will. It wouldn't be a particularly pleasant thing to do though which is why it would be avoided as much as possible.
There has indeed. There was a time where it was a case of come quietly, or get smacked with a baton until you come quietly. Those days are long passed thank god. Things have come a long way, various professionals have been involved in the development of techniques and techniques are shared between agencies around the globe. One excellent technique that has been developed abroad over the years and we have taken on is SPEAR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEAR_System
By all means if you think something looks bad then question it, but don't categorically state that it is wrong then claim to be unqualified to judge, you'll just look silly.
And here we go what iffing again with something completely removed from the incident in question.
These methods have been devised by people who know what they're doing, and they cause little harm. Your claims that bending forward is likely to induce heart attacks and strokes in the over 60s is laughable, it really is.
He was lively enough to resist arrest, and actions against anyone are based on what they are doing in the first place. This bloke was fit, and suffered no problems, so what was wrong with what they did?
Exactly, like I said it was a case of:
a) come quietly;
b) get hit with a truncheon until you come quietly.
What on earth does it matter what word was used in 1949? It's 2014 now.