Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Solicitors acting on behalf of protesters caught up in clashes at the G20 demonstrations will launch a legal challenge tomorrow.


Experts will bring a judicial review of police tactics such as "kettling" to contain people and the excessive use of force.


Activists who staged the Bishopsgate climate camp want an explanation of how the Metropolitan Police handled the controversial City of London events in April.


They have also demanded that senior officers provide a legal basis for the practice of containing protesters in one place for extended periods of time.


So is kettling a legitimate police tactic?

Fair enough Tony.


This thread will be discussed long in to next month. Sherwick, Sean, David Carnell, Atila, Tony...on your marks...get set...provoke.


It's nothing personal Tony but you do insist on initiating threads that tend to grag on and cause a lot of resentment.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

It's nothing personal Tony but you do insist on initiating threads that tend to grag on and cause a lot of resentment.


The usual protagionists are more than capable on taking any criticism on the chin and not being too precious about it, one trusts...


Just a healthy debate...lets hope this one doesn't grag on bbw...


btw: Is "grag on" like "jog on"??...:)

I was personally subjected to "kettling" in May 2001 when I attended the May Day protests as an interested observer. The politics of the SWP and similar aren't my thing but I was young, naive and wanted to see what the fuss was all about.


At the end of the march, upon entering Oxford Circus, the crowd were prevented from going any further and then the police came from behind to seal off any route out. The tube station was closed off too.


I had seen no violence and little anti-social behavior that day but there had been trouble in previous years. It was a fairly grim experience that seemed to serve little purpose other than to antagonize a previously peaceful crowd. After an hour people were grumpy. After two we were angry. After three we were anxious. Some had families elsewhere. Some needed bathrooms or water, none of which was provided. As it began to get dark and cold, small trickles of people were let through the police cordens and after a seemingly interminable amount of time I eventually was released.


All of this is only my experiences and therefore come with the pros and cons associated with 1st-hand sources.


Whilst I can appreciate the need for such tactics with violent crowds intent on rioting (football hooligans for eg) when used on peaceful crowds it seems counter-productive. Media coverage was biased against the protesters in their depictions of confrontation compared to my experiences and my belief in the rationale of the Met took a significant downturn. But it is low down on the tactics used by some of our European counterparts. I never wish to be on the receiving end of tear gas, a water cannon or a police truncheon. But this does not make it correct.


Lastly it seems to infringe some basic rights which I believe should only be impeded in the most desperate of situations:


- the right to protest

- freedom of assembly

- freedom of movement


I would not call "kettling" illegitimate but I would counsel that it should only be used in extraordinary situations.

david_carnell Wrote:

All of this is only my experiences and therefore come with the pros and cons associated with 1st-hand sources.



Now we will have to temporarily shelve our "entente cordiale" to disagree on this.


Many times you have disparaged individual "anecdotal" evidence or "examples".


I'm of the belief, however, that if enough people all pretty much feel/say/think the same thing over a given topic then there is more than a semblance of creedence to it, while you have, I'm sure you'll agree, been very dismissive of individual anecdotes to illustrate or proove a point over a given situation.


So at this early juncture I'm afraid we need more, much more, to decide whether "kettling" is or is not legitimate dave...

No we dont. Peaceful street protest is legitimate and democratic. Attempts to deny this is in not legitimate or democratic.


I have a commercial interest in David Carnelli's bladder and am concerned about any situation where it may be damaged.

I'm not sure you understood me Tony.


The first half of my post illustrated my particular experience and I hold my hands up to accusations that it is biased for that same reason,


The second half, I hope, a more reasoned analysis of why I think that, in general, it is not a legitimate tactic in all but the most extreme cases.


I'm fully aware of the fallibilities of anecdotal evidence - hence my natural distrust of them in your arguments. I just thought it might provide some interest rather than a firm argument.


I'm presuming you are in favour? Why?

david_carnell Wrote:

I'm presuming you are in favour? Why?


You assume far too much david..


It may be masochistic "fun", initially, to be pushed, threatened, terrifed and penned by police "just doing their job"? for some but when you add being smacked over the head by a truncheon wielding horse riding officer of le law,leading to fear, frustration and ultimately, potential violence as some have said, then, on balance, I'm not in favour......

I'm not sure what you're talking about now TLS.


You asked whether kettling was legitimate, but now you're describing it as "being smacked over the head by a truncheon wielding horse riding officer of le law"


What are you asking about, kettling or police violence?


The fact that the two may occasionally happen concurrently is no reason to conflate them, as otherwise you'd ban football because of hooligans.


Police violence is unacceptable in normal cirumstances, but as with us all they are entitled to a proportionate response to crimes committed against them.


Kettling is legitimate in the sense of being within the law, but may (as MP and DC point out) be a moral transgression. Kettling is not dissimilar to 'stop and search', since both entail the persecution of the many to curtail the activities of few.


I'm interested in whether those who agree with the expansion of 'stop and search' are also those who disagree with kettling? It would be an inconsistent approach.

bigbadwolf wrote:- I have been subjected to a dose of CS and a baton to the back of the knee for being a complete twit in the face of the law.



What precisely did you do wolfcub to deserve it? or are you too ashamed to tell.....full of guilt huh




It has to be something super humdinger haymaker twittish, to deserve such punishment in my opinion, like selling newspapers, or going to work as a Brazilian electrician, or if your other name is Blair Peach.


Was it as super twittish as those little incidents?

Well absolutely SteveT, but you're doing what everyone does in these debates, which is to take isolated incidents and try and make them commonplace. You're trying to characterise the police as a ravening mob, which is unfair.


Our newspaper salesman was victim to a spiteful idiot who'd grown frustrated with other idiots but certainly did not intend to murder anyone.


Our Brazilian electrician was victim to dedicated and resourceful services who were misinformed and had poor systems in place in response to a national panic.


Blair Peach was the victim of a lawless society that involved a three way riot between Anti-Nazi's, the BNP and a police group modelled on the Stasi but since disbanded.


If BBW had made a policeman fear for his own safety then CS gas and a baton to the knees would indeed have been a proportionate response. We should let him be the judge of that - and he seems pretty comfortable with his opinion.


I should add that in the last forty years almost 400 UK policemen have been killed for taking up the profession.

One thing we do know and that is that the Police are not held to account when things go wrong. Its all well saying how many officers have died on duty,but you can balance that with how many people have died in police custody, under questionable circumstances..... and no-one yet has been prosecuted or taken to account for these suspicious deaths. Jean Charles Menezes was a glaringly obvious point, where no-one was deemed responsible for his innocent death, including the Police Commander who gave the order to shoot him, or the Officers that pulled the trigger, or the Intelligence services..... It makes you wonder if we live in a blameless society now, where no-one takes responsibility.


Police Officers take on the responsibility of enforcing the law, in some situations they are putting themselves at risk - thats why they are highly paid and they know the risks involved, so its a personal choice.


As for kettling, it is a text book tactic that Law enforcement agencies use across the world to 'contain' demonstrators in a specific area so 'civil disobedience' does'nt spread further, it works and i don't think the police are going to abandon it altogether, no-one is saying they have an easy job, they don't.But i think there is a few elements of the police force that are corrupt, unaccountable and unnecessary in this day and age,they are the ones that should be rooted out and thrown out, to make the police more representative of society would also be a good idea, more women and people of other cultures encouraged also. They should also be made to attend charm school....!


Hopefully we will reach some sort of a balance and the G20 protests will be some sort of a water shed in Police relations (they did say the same after the Stephen Lawrence enquiry....). But i sadly see this dragging on for a long while yet.


I'm not sure what you're talking about now TLS. You asked whether kettling was legitimate, but now you're describing it as "being smacked over the head by a truncheon wielding horse riding officer of le law" What are you asking about, kettling or police violence?


Just that Kettling and its containing policy enables the Police more opportunity for nefarious activities, if they so desire.



Police violence is unacceptable in normal cirumstances, but as with us all they are entitled to a proportionate response to crimes committed against them.


Indeed they are,and seemingly conversely to the above, if they do give the odd accused a dig or two or a smack in the Police Cells a la "Ashes To Ashes" then, eh, "alls fair in love and the law"...B)

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Police violence is unacceptable in normal

> cirumstances, but as with us all they are entitled

> to a proportionate response to crimes committed

> against them.


Crimes are not committed against the police. A crime is something committed against society. The police are society?s representatives.


Civil disobedience is not a crime. In many situations it is not just a right but our responsibility as decent members of society to voice our objection.

Brendan Wrote:

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote: Police violence is unacceptable in normal cirumstances, but as with us all they are entitled

to a proportionate response to crimes committed against them. Crimes are not committed against the police. A crime is something committed against society. The police are society?s representatives.


Me?? I thought you wrote that...I'll go and check it out...

Quote:

huguenot


Police violence is unacceptable in normal cirumstances, but as with us all they are entitled to a proportionate response to crimes committed against them.



I should have known it was that "Agent Provoceteur" Huguenot, not either of us, Brendan...

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> bigbadwolf wrote:- I have been subjected to a

> dose of CS and a baton to the back of the knee for

> being a complete twit in the face of the law.

>

>

> What precisely did you do wolfcub to deserve it?

> or are you too ashamed to tell.....full of guilt

> huh

>

>

>

> It has to be something super humdinger haymaker

> twittish, to deserve such punishment in my

> opinion, like selling newspapers, or going to work

> as a Brazilian electrician, or if your other name

> is Blair Peach.

>

> Was it as super twittish as those little

> incidents?


It was because me and some friends took one of my mates little brothers who'd just turned 18 for his first legal skinful in Lewisham. We stopped off in the Coach and Horses where he left his passport on the table. Some little traveller kid nicked the passport off the table and made for the door. We grabbed the little git on the pavement and start going through his pockets. Guess who pulls up in a car with it's Irish number plate hanging by one screw, the whole clan. Fight ensues, Police called, much cocaine his been snorted, chests puffed out, mass brawl, arrest resisted, gas in the face baton to the knee.


Conclusion.


I deserved everything I got and looked even stupider for all my efforts and couldn't walk properly for a week. My advice is to stand still and co-operate.

bigbadwolf Wrote:

Some little traveller kid nicked the passport off the table and made for the door. We grabbed the little git on the pavement and start going through his pockets. Guess who pulls up in a car with it's Irish number plate hanging by one

> screw, the whole clan. Fight ensues, Police called, much cocaine his been snorted, chests puffed out, mass brawl, arrest resisted, gas in the face baton to the knee. Conclusion. I deserved everything I got and looked even stupider for all my efforts and couldn't walk properly for a week. My advice is to stand still and co-operate.


So much for your conclusion about getting involved with any travelling "clan" bbw, now what is your conclusion about getting involved with The Police. ?? B)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...