[news] Tasered for being blind

[LiamH]

Taser's can cause fatalities, that much is obvious. So can peanut butter sandwich's , it doesn't mean we should ban peanut butter.

 

Does the american list of taser deaths include civilian models that are widely used as self defense weapons? if so the high number could be down to incorrect training and misuse of the taser's.

 

I think the police have a very important job in society, and a very hard job to do in general. If it had turned out to be a samurai sword a police officer approaching him would have been putting his life on the line, They should be able to defend themselves just like anyone else, and a Taser is still a better option than a gun or beating someone with a trungon.

 

He showed bad judgement of the situation and should have handled it differently, and like all groups of people you get the bad apples with the good. Sometimes police officers as a whole seem to get bashed for any little mistake. They are often dealing with the most dangerous members of society, the most unstable members of society, and in situations like that mistakes will be made.

[Netwacky87]

 

To me they dont look the same...Think that Police Officer needs an eye test!

[localzuk]

I find it amazing that people look at this and can define it as a 'little mistake'...

 

And bad apples with the good. I have quite a lot of experience dealing with the police now, and the vast majority of them were what I'd define as bad apples. More worried about statistics and wielding their power than actually doing the right, legal thing. I have had police lie direct to my face, I've had them lie about me and my friends in a court room, I've seen one attack a friend of mine who turned his head to be able to hear what he said (as my friend is partially deaf) and then claim my friend 'lunged at him', I've been followed, my friends at uni on average received 5 producers a week from the police in 'random' stops, I've had police threaten me with arrest for standing on a pavement, only backing down when our solicitor spoke to them and threatened them with legal action for wrongful arrest (threatening arrest wrongfully is classified as wrongful arrest still), the list could go on.

 

Oh, and I've been pushed off a pavement into oncoming traffic by a cop and had my camera confiscated and photos deleted by one too. Lovely people.

 

Interestingly, nearly all of that was through Lancashire police.

[LiamH]

I find it amazing that people look at this and can define it as a 'little mistake'...

 

And bad apples with the good. I have quite a lot of experience dealing with the police now, and the vast majority of them were what I'd define as bad apples. More worried about statistics and wielding their power than actually doing the right, legal thing. I have had police lie direct to my face, I've had them lie about me and my friends in a court room, I've seen one attack a friend of mine who turned his head to be able to hear what he said (as my friend is partially deaf) and then claim my friend 'lunged at him', I've been followed, my friends at uni on average received 5 producers a week from the police in 'random' stops, I've had police threaten me with arrest for standing on a pavement, only backing down when our solicitor spoke to them and threatened them with legal action for wrongful arrest (threatening arrest wrongfully is classified as wrongful arrest still), the list could go on.

 

Oh, and I've been pushed off a pavement into oncoming traffic by a cop and had my camera confiscated and photos deleted by one too. Lovely people.

 

Interestingly, nearly all of that was through Lancashire police.

 

 

I have had absolutely no issues with police, they come across as helpful and do their best to catch criminals.

 

Not sure why you get targeted so much, or if the police forces in Lancashire were trained alongside the special republican guard in Iraq, but based on every interaction I have had with police I really cant see where you are coming from. I guess it stems from your obvious hatred for them and i presume stand offish approach to them in general.

 

Would much rather have a heavily regulated police force roaming the streets than a bunch of muggers and rapists personally.

 

And in response to the picture difference of the stick and sword, like i said that officer showed bad judgement. He should have made more of an attempt to assess the danger to himself and the public before pulling the trigger, but it was reported by a member or members of public to be a sword, he was on his way to the pub so i'm assuming it was dark, and he shouted a verbal warning for the man to stop, which he ignored.

 

Edit:

 

Just noticed the story had been updated on the BBC site, a man was arrested in the area matching the same description carrying an actual samurai sword.

Edited October 18, 2012 by LiamH

[localzuk]

My contact was due to being an animal rights activist - ie. standing on a street holding a placard, or handing out leaflets. Nothing illegal though.

 

My approach to them has always been the same - if they want me to do something, they must justify their request with an actual valid law, not just have it come from random nonsense they make up. The simple fact remains - to a man, every police officer who came out to any protest we were engaged in tried to get us to move by lying to us, or by threatening us with arrest wrongfully. One of my friends has sued the police about a dozen times because of it, winning every single time.

[AMLinington]

Taser's can cause fatalities, that much is obvious. So can peanut butter sandwich's , it doesn't mean we should ban peanut butter......I think the police have a very important job in society, and a very hard job to do in general. If it had turned out to be a samurai sword a police officer approaching him would have been putting his life on the line, They should be able to defend themselves just like anyone else, and a Taser is still a better option than a gun or beating someone with a trungon.

 

There is a world of difference between a peanut butter sandwich (a normal and acceptable foodstuff) and a taser (a weapon designed to pierce skin and deliver an electric shock) - electric shocks are not a 'normal' thing, eating food is - allergies and heart attacks aside, this analogy is trivialising the danger of tasers. I agree that non-contact is better than a gun or truncheon (I still feel sick when I think about that poor man shot on the tube) but I have to disagree that approaching the man from the front wasn't an option - Sword or no sword, there is a minimum safe distance and if the officer thought he had found the suspect could he not have called in backup in a car or body armour? An earlier poster postulated that a white stick could be mistaken for a rapier - yes, it could, but the report wasn't of a man brandishing a rapier, it was a man brandishing a samurai sword which has a very distinctive appearance and features (the curvature for one...) and I cannot find evidence of a single disability aid that resembles this profile (unless you count the long shoe horns.... but really? Although I am certain someone will prove me wrong...)

 

If I remember correctly, Samurai swords are actually illegal in the UK now under UK law, 2008 legislation and 1988 Offensive Weapons Act but I believe there is a way around the legislation for decorative swords and re-enactment swords. I am sure I read that to make the sword decorative only, they twist and break the tang (meaning the blade is un-usable as a weapon). Or perhaps this was pre-2008 law... I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong...

 

localzuk's story is interesting as my brother in law experienced something similar in the New Forest. He was leaving his work and had literally pulled out of the car park and gone about 50 yards when a police officer on the side of the road pulled him over for speeding (how can he be speeding in a 40 zone when he'd only just pulled away from a car park?). When my BIL pointed this out the officer accused him of 'abusing him' and threatened to arrest him. It was gone midnight and he just wanted to get home as he was up at 5am the next day so he took the fine. Personally I'd have stuck to my guns, especially if I know I'm right but that's me...

Edited October 18, 2012 by AMLinington

[LiamH]

There is a world of difference between a peanut butter sandwich (a normal and acceptable foodstuff) and a taser (a weapon designed to pierce skin and deliver an electric shock) - electric shocks are not a 'normal' thing, eating food is - allergies and heart attacks aside, this analogy is trivialising the danger of tasers. I agree that non-contact is better than a gun or truncheon (I still feel sick when I think about that poor man shot on the tube) but I have to disagree that approaching the man from the front wasn't an option - Sword or no sword, there is a minimum safe distance and if the officer thought he had found the suspect could he not have called in backup in a car or body armour? An earlier poster postulated that a white stick could be mistaken for a rapier - yes, it could, but the report wasn't of a man brandishing a rapier, it was a man brandishing a samurai sword which has a very distinctive appearance and features (the curvature for one...) and I cannot find evidence of a single disability aid that resembles this profile (unless you count the long shoe horns.... but really? Although I am certain someone will prove me wrong...)

 

If I remember correctly, Samurai swords are actually illegal in the UK now under UK law, 2008 legislation and 1988 Offensive Weapons Act but I believe there is a way around the legislation for decorative swords and re-enactment swords. I am sure I read that to make the sword decorative only, they twist and break the tang (meaning the blade is un-usable as a weapon). Or perhaps this was pre-2008 law... I'm not a lawyer so I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong...

 

localzuk's story is interesting as my brother in law experienced something similar in the New Forest. He was leaving his work and had literally pulled out of the car park and gone about 50 yards when a police officer on the side of the road pulled him over for speeding (how can he be speeding in a 40 zone when he'd only just pulled away from a car park?). When my BIL pointed this out the officer accused him of 'abusing him' and threatened to arrest him. It was gone midnight and he just wanted to get home as he was up at 5am the next day so he took the fine. Personally I'd have stuck to my guns, especially if I know I'm right but that's me...

 

Most of the deaths by taser are caused by complications with other existing conditions, that's the analogy i was trying to use. Pretty much anything has the potential to kill someone, but making a taser out to be a lethal weapon is taking it a step too far in my opinion.

 

Regarding the legality of samurai swords and the de-tanging of the sword to prevent it being used in combat, firstly de-tanging the weapon means it is more likely for the blade to snap off from the handle, it doesn't mean it wont mess up your day if you get hit with it and it is sharpened. Secondly, handguns are illegal in the UK, it doesn't mean that every reported instance of a gunman roaming the streets should be dismissed as someone with a fake.

 

The term samurai sword is generally used to cover any traditional Japanese sword, the one you are thinking of with the curve is a Katana, not all Japanese swords had the curve (Hachiwara for example) but expecting the police officer to have an extensive knowledge of swordsmanship is unfair.

 

And dont get me started on the lad in the train station, during the heightened security when asked to stop he ran away from the police, carrying a rucksack that could have contained explosives, if they let him run off and he killed dozens of people then the police would have been blamed for that, i realize that's a bit "if" but was the safest option at the time, i'm sure if the officer had a taser he would have used that..

 

Edit : forgot to add, tasers are limited by range, not sure on the specific taser but last time i looked they range from 15-21 feet, which can still put people in danger from a trained sword carrier.

Edited October 18, 2012 by LiamH

[LosOjos]

Have to say, I too have had more bad experiences with the police than good.

 

A couple of years ago, me and 2 friends had gone out for a couple of beers in town. Walking back to my friends place, we passed a hostel. A group of lads came out of the hostel armed with baseball bats and beat seven bells out of us (in fact I still have no recollection of the incident, I only know what I have been told happened). I had my front teeth chipped and my knee damaged to the extent that I could not walk for more than a mile or two at a time without being in excruciating pain. That lasted for 2 years and still occasionally flares up again now.

 

I called the police to report the incident. 2 weeks after the event, an officer visited me at my home (by which point the bruising and cuts to my face and head had subsided somewhat). He sat in my house and batted off every claim I made with comments like "so, you're a few young lads out on the pish and get in to a fight, it happens". He basically said we had it coming to us because we were under the age of 25, male and had been in the pub. I never got any resolution to that case, never a follow up, and I doubt any investigation was ever made, despite the fact my two friends (who were beaten less severely but had their phones and wallets stolen instead) told the police that interviewed them exactly which hostel the lads came out of, even down to the balcony they were stood on shouting abuse at us before they came down armed with baseball bats.

 

There are other stories I could share, but that is the one that hurt the most. Any faith I had in our police force was completely ruined by that event.

[Guest Guest]

I love the attitude of "I have had a good experience with the police therefore if YOU have had a bad one it MUST be YOUR fault". It's such a narrow minded attitude.

 

My first brush with the law was when I was <5 years old. I was a grassed area at the bottom of my street. The police saw me, marched me home and told my mum "If I catch him there again I'll arrest him". My mum obviously answered with "Why? He's not doing any harm, I've told him to play there. What can you arrest him for, he's not breaking any laws?". To which the cop replied with "Don't worry, I'll think of something". what a big man that cop must be to pick on a child who has must started school.

 

Obviously that's my mums or my own fault too?

 

 

My ex had a similar one to LosOjos. She actually managed to run away and get into a pizza shop. She phoned the police as the group were still outside. An hour passed and still no police. Eventually she phoned me to come get her, I was drunk so had to get my brother out of bed and drive the 10 miles to where she was. Still no police.

Again the police didn't turn up to take a statement until weeks later and basically took the same attitude of "you must have caused it".

 

 

Another was when someone crashed her car into my sister. Long story short but she started getting death threats (we believe because the other party were not insured). Police weren't interested, even though the case had a chance of going to court which means they were intimidating witnesses.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Guest

[holyoakej]

I have to agree with Aerospacemonkey, he has a valid piont

[AMLinington]

So if Tasers are limited by range, then the officer would have been close enough to see the difference between the stick and a sword would he not? If his eyesight is impaired to the degree that he cannot distinguish this, then this calls into question his fitness for active duty does it not? Or at the very least it would indicate that he requires corrective lenses. 15-21 feet is 5-7m therefore, if this officers eyesight is so poor that he cannot make out a blind persons walking stick at 5-7m, then I'd have to question what on earth he was doing on active duty without corrective lenses?

 

FWIW, I sit 5m away from a colleague, and (with glasses) I can easily make out details of items on his desk and in some cases even read the logos on them. I fail to understand how the officer cannot have clearly seen the nature of the stick.

 

Are we getting to the point now where people with walking sticks, crutches, long umbrellas etc are likely to be accused of carrying an offensive weapon and run the risk of getting tased or worse? If the town had been in the middle of a riot I'd understand the excess caution, but they weren't.

 

Either way, I'm bowing out of this thread now before it gets nastier.

Edited October 18, 2012 by AMLinington

[LiamH]

I love the attitude of "I have had a good experience with the police therefore if YOU have had a bad one it MUST be YOUR fault". It's such a narrow minded attitude.

 

My first brush with the law was when I was <5 years old. I was a grassed area at the bottom of my street. The police saw me, marched me home and told my mum "If I catch him there again I'll arrest him". My mum obviously answered with "Why? He's not doing any harm, I've told him to play there. What can you arrest him for, he's not breaking any laws?". To which the cop replied with "Don't worry, I'll think of something". what a big man that cop must be to pick on a child who has must started school.

 

Obviously that's my mums or my own fault too?

 

 

My ex had a similar one to LosOjos. She actually managed to run away and get into a pizza shop. She phoned the police as the group were still outside. An hour passed and still no police. Eventually she phoned me to come get her, I was drunk so had to get my brother out of bed and drive the 10 miles to where she was. Still no police.

Again the police didn't turn up to take a statement until weeks later and basically took the same attitude of "you must have caused it".

 

 

Another was when someone crashed her car into my sister. Long story short but she started getting death threats (we believe because the other party were not insured). Police weren't interested.

 

 

Well apart from the fact that isn't what i said or what i meant to insinuate ill respond never the less. Like i said, you have good police officers who join the police to help and protect the community, and you have bad police officers who can get a power trip from being in a uniform. The fact you seem to think its okay to label ALL police officers with one brush is the definition of narrow minded.

 

When my father received death threats with someone calling the home phone to say they would kill him for having an affair with his wife (never happened btw) the police followed it up straight away even going as far as to drive to the pub i was in at the time and ask me to sit in the car to ask me if i had been having an affair with anyone's wife because i lived at the same address.

 

Maybe the police in my area are just better then everywhere else in the UK but i still don't believe its fair to tarnish a whole workforce for a few bad experiences.

 

Edit :

 

I have said a few times now that the police officer in the original story made an error of judgement.. not sure how else i can put that to get the point across.

 

What i am saying is it doesn't make him a bad person, if you are put into a situation where you are looking for a dangerous individual wielding a weapon like a sword and you see someone matching the description carrying a long straight object and ask him to stop and he ignores you you have to make a decision, do you get closer or spend time examining the object from afar or do you judge it to be too risky for your personal safety and the safety of the public to take that chance. I am saying he made the wrong decision and that he made a mistake but that does not make the entirety of the police force bad people.

 

I'm not saying what that police officer did was correct, what i'm attempting to defend is his right to make a mistake without people carrying pitchforks and torches, None of us know the full circumstance's of the situation and people have taken it as an opportunity to brandish the police as a militant force of licensed criminals.

Edited October 18, 2012 by LiamH

[localzuk]

And dont get me started on the lad in the train station, during the heightened security when asked to stop he ran away from the police, carrying a rucksack that could have contained explosives, if they let him run off and he killed dozens of people then the police would have been blamed for that, i realize that's a bit "if" but was the safest option at the time, i'm sure if the officer had a taser he would have used that..

 

Oh wow. I don't even have a response to that, its *that* ridiculous a comment to make. It has already been determined that the incident there was basically one of the biggest balls-ups in police history, followed by police corruption - things such as trying to hide documentation, police emailing MPs trying to get them to intervene in the IPCC investigation, police lying to the IPCC etc...

 

I'm not saying what that police officer did was correct, what i'm attempting to defend is his right to make a mistake without people carrying pitchforks and torches, None of us know the full circumstance's of the situation and people have taken it as an opportunity to brandish the police as a militant force of licensed criminals.

 

They lose the right to make mistakes as soon as those mistakes can cause fatalities or injuries.

Edited October 18, 2012 by localzuk

[LiamH]

They lose the right to make mistakes as soon as those mistakes can cause fatalities or injuries.

 

But that's the point, he used a none lethal device...

 

If he shot the man then this would be a totally different conversation. The "tasers are really lethal" argument is silly, he was probably more likely to cause a heart attack by startling the man shouting the warning than fatally wounding him with the taser.

[aerospacemango]

But that's the point, he used a none lethal device...

 

If he shot the man then this would be a totally different conversation. The "tasers are really lethal" argument is silly, he was probably more likely to cause a heart attack by startling the man shouting the warning than fatally wounding him with the taser.

 

I think it would be interesting to see the number of firings against the numbers of "uncomplicated deaths"*

 

That would give us a better understanding of "lethal" against "non-lethal".

 

 

*EDIT* http://www.taser.com/ Would suggest that the taser has been fired in excess of 2,000,000 times.....So far, I have been unable to find a definitive stat for the amount of "uncomplicated deaths"*

 

* I use "uncomplicated deaths" to mean a death that is caused SOLELY by the taser and not by the onset of further complications.

Edited October 18, 2012 by aerospacemango

[localzuk]

But that's the point, he used a none lethal device...

 

If he shot the man then this would be a totally different conversation. The "tasers are really lethal" argument is silly, he was probably more likely to cause a heart attack by startling the man shouting the warning than fatally wounding him with the taser.

 

No, he used a 'less than lethal' device. Its already been shown that it can and does cause fatalities, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, he is required to make no mistakes when armed with such a device - this is why they aren't widely deployed, and that the police have to have special training to use them and the procedures to follow with them.

 

You seem to be ignoring my point about Tasers - they were introduced with much fanfare into the world of policing as a direct replacement for firearms as a 'less than lethal' alternative. Meaning, they should be following the same procedures as if it were a firearm.

[LiamH]

No, he used a 'less than lethal' device. Its already been shown that it can and does cause fatalities, both directly and indirectly. Therefore, he is required to make no mistakes when armed with such a device - this is why they aren't widely deployed, and that the police have to have special training to use them and the procedures to follow with them.

 

You seem to be ignoring my point about Tasers - they were introduced with much fanfare into the world of policing as a direct replacement for firearms as a 'less than lethal' alternative. Meaning, they should be following the same procedures as if it were a firearm.

 

They do follow the same procedures, they are trained to use them and required to use a verbal warning, which he did.

 

The fact is he could have shot him with a spud gun that *could* have killed him. Nobody was injured, the police officer wasn't trying to injure the man, it was bad judgement by one police officer and this is getting stupid.

 

Taser's have been tested over and over again and deemed by multiple organizations to be effective at none lethally subduing someone while reducing the risk of the firer getting harmed. Until its proven otherwise i will continue to trust the rigorous testing and have faith in fellow humans to be able to do a job and not be instantly labeled as a bad person just because of their career choice.

 

Im done with this debate before it gets worse. I respect your opinions and in no way justify what the bad police you have encountered have done.

Edited October 18, 2012 by LiamH

[familiarrealms]

Anything can be considered a lethal weapon if used with the intent of harming someone. There should be more research done on what is truly considered "non-lethal" force. There is a weapon that shoots out a bag of sand or something like that to put down people without killing them. Truth is, if it hits you in the heart it will kill you.

 

A tazer would probably do the same in people with heart conditions, other illnesses or some other unknown factor to do with the person. I consider a stapler a lethal weapon if used with the intention of causing harm to someone, I don't believe in "less than lethal" weaponry or devices.

 

Fact is whoever called up and said "there is a man walking down the road with a sword" should have looked properly.

[Guest Guest]

Well apart from the fact that isn't what i said or what i meant to insinuate ill respond never the less.

 

You said

 

I have had absolutely no issues with police, they come across as helpful and do their best to catch criminals.

 

Not sure why you get targeted so much, or if the police forces in Lancashire were trained alongside the special republican guard in Iraq, but based on every interaction I have had with police I really cant see where you are coming from. I guess it stems from your obvious hatred for them and i presume stand offish approach to them in general.

 

In other words; I have had good experiences therefore it MUST be YOU.

 

The fact you seem to think its okay to label ALL police officers with one brush is the definition of narrow minded.

 

At no point did I say all, in fact I didn't label the police in any way shape or form, I just stated my experiences.

 

Maybe the police in my area are just better then everywhere else in the UK

 

I think it's fair to say each force is different from another. My force very nearly went bankrupt from the number of cases against them; high level corruption, fraud, racism. But I wouldn't say, and never said, all police are bad.

[Disease]

If I make a mistake, I won't kill someone. If they do, they can. That man has already had strokes, this sort of shock can cause another.

 

On the same basis as your argument if you make a mistake you do not risk being stabbed or shot, they do so it works both ways, also while we are on the subject are you expecting the police to take a medical history before tasering someone?

 

"Wait there criminal I am going to taser you as you have a sword, now before I do sir do you have any medical conditions I should be aware of?" absolute pathetic liberal claptrap, that is why this country has gone to pot.

[AMLinington]

On the same basis as your argument if you make a mistake you do not risk being stabbed or shot, they do so it works both ways, also while we are on the subject are you expecting the police to take a medical history before tasering someone?

 

"Wait there criminal I am going to taser you as you have a sword, now before I do sir do you have any medical conditions I should be aware of?" absolute pathetic liberal claptrap, that is why this country has gone to pot.

 

I think this thread is losing sight of that fact that the issue was not that a person was tasered for carrying a sword (and indeed the original article states that a person was later arrested in another part of town for the sword incident), or indeed the issue of the use of tasers in policing, but that a police officer tasered a blind man carrying an assistance stick under the mistaken belief that the assistance stick was a sword. The issue in my mind is (and continues to be) that a device that has been linked to and associated with deaths either directly or from complications associated with its modus operandi was used on an innocent man because the operator of the device did not pause sufficiently to ascertain whether or not the long, slim white stick was in fact a japanese-style sword (of any description) and simply discharged his device. If the officer had a gun instead of a taser, would he have made the same decision? Was the appearance of the taser as 'non lethal' instrumental in the officer shooting this man? Did the officer think that 'I'm not sure if this person is dangerous, but the taser won't kill him so I'll shoot him anyway just to be on the safe side'? I don't think that's the right way to think.

 

I certainly believe that in this day and age of feral 'yoof' and the increasing instance of assault as an answer to almost everything, our police force can no longer continue to be effective without a deterant and the taser is a suitable armament when the alternatives (firearms) are considered. What I don't agree with is that it was even POSSIBLE for the officer to make this kind of mistake. As a previous poster has mentioned, the range of a taser is 5-7m - it isn't hard to make out the details of a blind persons assistance stick at 6m (lets take an average there). If a police officer is in a position to discharge his weapon, clearly it was not a crowded place otherwise the level of risk of 'friendly fire' may have been too great and if it was too crowded to see the suspect properly, how can he be sure what he saw? So he has a clear view of the target, clear Line of sight, and the target is obviously not running, dodging or otherwise evading him. So what concerns me the most is the possibility that either the officer is visually impaired in some way, in which case why was he on active duty armed with a taser, and why did he find it appropriate to discharge a taser if he couldn't see the suspect clearly enough? Or the officer deliberately made the decision to 'shoot first ask questions later' which shows a level of arrogance and disregard for the person he tased. Especially when the circumstances of this specific incident easily allowed for the officer to clarify and confirm his observation whereupon he would have realised that the white stick was not a threat. The bloke obviously wasn't performing parkour-like acrobatics to get away from him was he? Or elbowing through crowds of people waving a blade. So why did the officer feel he needed to shoot so quickly?

[localzuk]

On the same basis as your argument if you make a mistake you do not risk being stabbed or shot, they do so it works both ways, also while we are on the subject are you expecting the police to take a medical history before tasering someone?

 

"Wait there criminal I am going to taser you as you have a sword, now before I do sir do you have any medical conditions I should be aware of?" absolute pathetic liberal claptrap, that is why this country has gone to pot.

 

Way to miss the point. Was this man behaving in a threatening way? No. Was he waving a samurai sword around? No. Did the officer put any effort into actually making sure this blind old man was the person they wanted? No.

 

No, instead, the police officer shot him in the back without doing any of the things they are required to do.

 

If the man had been coming at him, swinging a stick, then the taser would be fine to use.

 

And your comment is what I'd refer to as 'pathetic right wing nonsense', typical of the drivel spewed by those who think the country has gone to pot because of liberal attitudes.

[tech_guy]

I'm marching in London on Saturday. It should be interesting as I'll be wearing my V for Vendetta mask. Last time I was down in London on a protest (26th March 2011) I was asked to remove it and when I did (only to reveal another one underneath) I spent twenty minutes in the back of a police van for my troubles. A tad heavy handed considering I'm a short, middle-aged, balding old fart. I don't condone any form of troublemaking but what I do object most strongly to is the gradual erosion of our right to protest that has become the reality in this country.

[localzuk]

I'm marching in London on Saturday. It should be interesting as I'll be wearing my V for Vendetta mask. Last time I was down in London on a protest (26th March 2011) I was asked to remove it and when I did (only to reveal another one underneath) I spent twenty minutes in the back of a police van for my troubles. A tad heavy handed considering I'm a short, middle-aged, balding old fart. I don't condone any form of troublemaking but what I do object most strongly to is the gradual erosion of our right to protest.

 

The law was changed a few years ago to make it an offence to not remove face coverings when instructed to by the police. Ridiculous really, but it was brought in to tackle the rising problem of 'black block' take-overs of protests where they come along all covered up and decide to cause trouble.

 

I think it came in around the same time as the law making it illegal to engage in activity that could put police at risk - eg. photographing them.

[tech_guy]

Are you involved in the badger cull protests? We're trying to organise something now that it seems to be going ahead in West Gloucestershire.