Police 'Kettling' Techniques Are Designed to Incite Violence

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
I've just watched this video showing the recent education cuts protest in Glasgow. The police here use a kettling technique (or should it be a pig pen?
), where protesters are held in a small space, surrounded by police on all sides, not allowing anyone in or out.



This kettling technique is pointless and only incites the protesters into retaliation. It turns a peaceful protest into something more sinister, as people get more and more annoyed at being held in a small space, not able to leave. No wonder the protesters start to push back against the police. I've been to plenty of protests and have luckily never experienced being kettled like this.

Do they use this technique when they expect violence? Well, that doesn't make sense because it's obvious if violence is on the cards this will make it worse. It has a tendency to raise up hatred and frustration in even the most placid of protesters. Seems the police may be going down the wrong path with their kettling and making things worse rather than using proper crowd control techniques.
edit on 13-12-2010 by Nammu because: spelling
edit on 13-12-2010 by Nammu because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I'm suprised it didn't get violent. I'm not sure if I would be so peaceful if a bunch of gestapo wannabes tried that on me here.


CX

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Police 'Kettling' Techniques Are Designed to Incite Violence


Any chance you could provide proof of that? Maybe something in black and white from officers that designed these techniques? Or was that a personal opinion?


Do they use this technique when they expect violence?


No. They use it when a few idiots spoil a peacefull protest. Unfortunately others jump on the bandwagon and you end up with everyone being contained and let go eventualy a few at a time.

If the police didn't take control of an unruly crowd, and lets be honest here, thats what every one of these protests ends up as these days.....we'd have people crying because nothing was done whilst London was destroyed.

No it's not ideal, and i'm sure the police have better things to do.

CX.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
You are talking absolute rubbish. The Police do not want violent protests because they are on the front line. They are there to protect innocent public from getting in the way of riots. Most European Countries choose the water cannon method to disperse rioters, however the UK Police do not condone these as they feel they demoralise protesters. Kettling is a technique that allows protest to continue with the least amount of damage and danger to the general public.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
The police CHIEFS want violence so their handlers have something good to put in the next days news.

How often do we read about major protests where police are involved and there is no violence?

AND, couple "kettling" in the future with the possibility of the water cannons they are now considering using and you've not only got protesters fighting BACK from being kettled but some unfortunate ones suffering from MORE injuries AND things like pneumonia because they are freezing, wet and forced to stand in the open air.

In wintertime this COULD be fatal, and the individual cops will be able to claim even more annonymity towards those they hurt.

Isn't there a law that could be applied here regarding being held against one's will. Kidnapping or something?
edit on 13/12/2010 by nerbot because: (no reason given)


CX

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by nerbot
 


Hi nerbot,

Would you be up for something i outlined in another thread, police leaving everyone alone but reacting to just the ones that cause damage to property or thrown missiles at the police intending to injure or worse? You know that there WILL be the few there that will need police response, so no-one can say that police are not needed there.

The police could go in and arrest those people, but leave the majority to their protest. Even stay out of sight apart from maybe a couple of choppers. The slightest bit of aggro, police can deal with it.

Sound good?

CX.

Edit to add: I don't honestly my above tactic would work that well, as many would jump to the rescue of the thugs vandalizing property, but its a thought.
edit on 13/12/10 by CX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I remember they did this at the G20 event in Pittsburgh last year.

Some of you may remember, it was all the rage on ATS a while back when everyone was discussing the noise weapons/deterrents they were using. They were driving up and down streets blaring a deafening high-pitched siren. There were also several videos of them clad in rather expensive and flashy gear, marching down streets beating the piss out of people, even young women.

Well I specifically remember a video, where everyone was herded into a park area on the campus at the Pittsburgh University, who were mostly students. In the video, the people kept saying "They couldn't go anywhere, they have us surrounded and blocked off." The police kept telling them to leave, yet they couldn't, and eventually moved in on the students with tear gas and batons. The video ends when someone is getting beat to the ground.

I thought that was crazy. Some people claimed that "they were lying about being stuck there or surrounded" and that "they shouldn't be there anyway". Yet they were on campus at their school, as far as I remember.

Last year, around that time, I still held an ounce of disbelief at the current state of police brutality, corruption and manipulated events. The police chief declared martial law on the city, and many people were rounded up and beaten, as a show of force. After that event, I know longer give our police "situation", any benefit of the doubt.
edit on 13-12-2010 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
As an ex UK cop I have to say that I felt some of the 'crowd control' techniques were nothing more than goading people into violence. There is and always will be an element that gathers at events like this hell bent on causing violence. But I have to agree that myself and others didn't like these tactics.... You can feel anger rise sometimes... know what I mean? And they are NOT the times to be 'penning' crowds in with each other.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 

They do that already, it's called a "snatch squad" they have loads of police with cameras snapping away. They identify trouble makers (and i agree, they need to be taken out to allow peaceful protest) and arrest them. It's a much better way of dealing with it. (talking from experience of being kettled/not being kettled) Kettling agrovates a crowd, and that's not a good thing. Becasue then you get mob mentality. And it's all well and good saying "well you should all behave" that doesn't work. As the frustration builds, people get angry, and those who do want to cause aggro, have a much more sympathetic audience. So when the police start whacking people for getting too close and wagging their fingers, it all goes off. Also, many times the protesters themselves will tell people to sort their lives out. (this is how you find the agent provacatuers) Let the protest police itself. Stick random bobbies throughout the crowd, marching with them. Most people are decent, and only react when pushed way way too hard. Even at the student demos there were reports of people telling the first wave of trouble to stop attacking buildings. but then it was too late, kettled in, and horse charged (wtf is up with that too!)

Taking out the individuals, whilst alot more laborious, will save lives. Treating everyone as a criminal, will piss people off. It's not rocket sience


They need one of them arms, like from the arcades where you win cuddly toys. Just pick'em out the crowd.
edit on 13/12/2010 by Acidtastic because: to add more



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Then what is the possible rationale for keeping people contained in a small area. People trying to leave the situation are prevented from doing so. Why? Would it not be better for protesters to disperse if things are getting uncomfortable??

Somebody actually came up with that procedure as a policy. If they had some reasoning behind their directive it certainly isn't obvious. The worst thing to do to a wild animal is corner it. It has no option but to attack in order to escape.

I agree. This is a stupid policy that only makes things worse.
Why are they doing it? If there isn't a good reason, then it must be something sinister.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Another bad thing about kettling, just came to me. This is going to make people come prepared for violence. If you saw the student demo videos from london on Thursday, you can see this evolve right infront of you. Big blocks of polystyrene and books as shields. Bigger thicker handles on the signs as "policeman deflectors" people wearing pads and helmets.

And before anyone even mention water canons.... I guess the picture could carry a warning for those who don't want to see an elderly man who just had his eyes ripped out by a blast of water.
thethirdestate.net...
^also bad. *nods*



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


Because they all want to use their expensive little toys, and have a reason for being out there.

They don't usually provoke into an all out mob assault, but the authorities obviously provoke just enough so the riot "agents" can have their little fun.

In the G20 Pittsburgh "riot" event, they had something like over a thousand cops and military personnel. There is a ton of videos of the whole event, where many people are assaulted. In the end, it was reported that something like a couple windows were broken downtown. Riot indeed. They regurgitated the so-called "damage" in the media for several days. I'm sure agent provocateurs weren't involved in that at all, no sir, not at all.

"So, there must have been a lot of damage to the area."

"No sir, actually we couldn't find anything to be considered damage."

"Well go break a couple of windows so the media has something to show. Masks are in the van."



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Your suggestion of limiting police action to only those doing something illegal is extremely logical and sensible. The vast majority of the rest of the people will be happy to have been able to join others in underscoring the importance of their issue and will most likely do no harm.

Its always just a few who can't limit themselves to a peaceful protest. One can't help but wonder tho that the powerful in society would rather a protest be labelled negatively then positively so that the issue can be discredited. It is so obvious a tactic that would serve their purposes.

Ordering the police to corral people fits the bill to stirring things up.


CX

posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic
reply to post by CX
 

They do that already, it's called a "snatch squad


Yeah, we learnt the tactic in N.Ireland, like you say, a good one (when it goes well that is).


They need one of them arms, like from the arcades where you win cuddly toys. Just pick'em out the crowd.


Now theres an idea!


I can picture it now...student gets lifted twenty feet in the air.....the crane moves them towards the police van.....almost gets there.....and drops them! Just like the arcades.


Believe it or not, i get as frustrated as anyone seeing these protest go pearshaped. I think it its great that people can have a voice, but when others then wreck the place for kicks, and you see peacefull protesters join in, my frustration turns to an unsympathetic "you deserve what you get" rather quickly.

As i've said before, my ideal world would see no police at the first protest, and that carries on as long as there is no violence or damage.

CX.
edit on 13/12/10 by CX because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Well yes, obviously no plod would be ideal. Self policing protests (as i edited in my post) could work on priniple. But we're a long way from that. I don't think the students are going to go along with that. From what I hear they're organising themselves. They've had a taste of what to expect, and they're not taking it laying down. (which you have to admit, takes balls, to fight for something you believe in, I admire them for it. I get the feeling you don't feel the same way
)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
If a thousand people gather peacefully in some public place to indicate their support for an issue, then the message to the public would be "Oh, look how many people took the time to go and support that issue. There must be something to it. Let me explore this further."

That would be very dangerous to the PTB who benefit from said issue.

If that same crowd can be incited to anger. If frustration can be raised high. If fear can be instilled in them there could be rioting, property damage and scenes of them shouting at and struggling with police. Mission accomplished. The general public will now just see unruly rioters. Their message is lost. The PTB are safe to go on about their business, or worse, institute ever increasing measures of control.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
If a thousand people gather peacefully in some public place to indicate their support for an issue, then the message to the public would be "Oh, look how many people took the time to go and support that issue. There must be something to it. Let me explore this further."

No. There would be no message to the public. Unless they were a part of it, or wandered past it. Because unless it kicks off, the media will hardly give it any air time at all. (week before last demo as an example. BBC hardly mentioned it, it kicks off....rolling coverage. (beause the media machine is 150% biased toward goverment policy)
edit on 13/12/2010 by Acidtastic because: to state the obvious



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


yep. you are probably right

without the violence, no coverage and no interest.
People organizing these things need to come up with a stunt that gets attention. Movie stars attending a demonstration sometimes get attention, but as often as not that just gets the star labelled a dingbat by the media.

Oh, what to do? They really do need to do what they can to avoid being manipulated by the cops.



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


Proof? The clue is in the name. Squeeze together an indeterminate amount of people into a confined space, deny them freedom of movement, access to food, water and use of a toilet while occasionally beating those withing reach with batons and what do you expect will happen?

Fill a kettle with water (people in a confined space), place it over heat (deny them their basic rights), wait a while (several hours in most cases) and the water starts to boil (lots of angry people) and steam is generated (violence).

Its not rocket science. Hell you can even experiment at home.
edit on 13-12-2010 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Kettling is a practice.

All you need do is look at videos available for the Toronto G-20 summit event where it was used with exceptionally effective results.





new topics




 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join