Quoting Janus Avivson:

more well documented comments like that should be sent to local MPs and media and a court case should be prepared in order to make such behaviour of Police officers simply illegal. And let's the courts decide who is on the side of the law here.

If Mr McIntyre was swearing at Police, then the Police took the appropriate action. They would have been slated more if they would have arrested him by pushing him away in his chair. I think people only hear one side of the story here, the Police have a terrible job sorting this out. Being in a wheelchair doesn't make you an angel.

Quoting Aaron Gooch:

You state that "suddenly four policemen grabbed my shoulders and pulled me out of my wheelchair" as if this is wholly unacceptable behaviour. How else can those who enforce our law deal with those who require wheelchairs? Though it may not be pleasant treatment, neither is forcing the police to act in retaliatory manner to an obviously aggressive threat. I am not simply throwing the word "threat" in there without reason, after all you state in this article that you were told to "move out of the way", however, in your words, "I shook my head". This clearly demonstrates that you ignored a warning that, regardless of what you insinuate is his intention, may have been beneficial to your own health and safety. Not only that but surely that means you are hindering the police in their efforts to uphold the law.

Aaron, you seem to be confusing civil society with the military. We do not live in a police state. We are not obliged to follow every order issued by those in authority immediately and without question. In fact, neither are those in the military - unless you want to repudiate the law as applied at the Nuremberg trials?

We live in a democracy, where protest is permitted (even in wartime). Jody had a right to protest and a right to be in Parliament Square. Therefore he had the right to refuse to move. In fact protesters couldn't leave Parliament square because the police were preventing them from doing so.
Its disturbing that you consider refusing to move a "threat". This is peaceful resistance.
You consider it a "threat", justyfing any response from the police that they see fit. This is an aggressive, militarised approach to peaceful dissent. It has no place in a democracy - but it would be at home in a police state. Are these the type of 'rules of engagement' you'd like to see on Britains's streets?


Quote:

You mention that "kicks and punches were thrown" but who by?

By the police - Jody can't do that - hence the need for a wheelchair (its called "disabled")


Quote:

Is this the police trying to control the riot that is occurring before them, in front of what is the most influential political building in Britain, or is this by the aggravated student protestors against the police? Either way, I condemn such actions, as attacking the police is a criminal offence regardless of the motive, and if the police are facing overwhelming numbers (which is the impression I receive from this article) then they reacted in the according manner.

Again, we don't live in a police state. If you are being attacked by the police and you feel you are under threat you still have a right to self defence - just because someone is wearing a uniform it doesn't mean they are immune from the law (remember the democracy thing?).

If you bother to look at any of the eyewitness accounts of students who were present (and who didn't take part in any violence) its clear that they were kettled in Parliament square from the beginning, that despite having nowhere to go they were charged by mounted police and baton wielding riot officers. The riot you speak of wasn't conjured up by a few masked anarchists, the violence was a direct result of police tactics, and in fact the violence mainly consisted of police tactics.

Police tactics consisted of unlawfully detaining thousands of peaceful protesters (its called collective punishment), and then charging them on foot and on horesback.

Police tactics consisted largely of violence against people who had committed no criminal offence. Student A throws a stick, so student B (innocent of any criminal activity) is beaten over the head.



Quote:

Could you argue that the sacrifice of theirs is greater than yours, sat so proudly at the front of a "peaceful" march? Do you argue that the sacrifices that have been given by my friends are in vain? I am 21 years old and I have suffered the loss of 4 close friends. Would you say that you, being dragged by four police officers from your wheelchair, are even close to the sacrifices made by my brothers in the line of duty? I ask you to answer this in a most honest forum; in fact, I challenge you to make the point for your cause in a more just and fair way to the one of mine. Why should you challenge government and complain at the alleged brutality of its police officers when my friends and I may die on the frontline?

This is a truly remarkable statement. Firstly, the majority of the public don't support the troops being in Afghanistan. They don't believe that its a war to defend our rights and freedoms and they don't agree with the sacrifice of human life involved.

They oppose it because it is being fought at a time of massive cuts at home and question the wisdom of spending billions on an unwinnable war that has nothing to do with defending their way of life whilst the public sector is cut to ribbons (the real threat to our way of life).

Nobody is saying that being dragged from a wheelchair or hit over the head with a truncheon is the same as being killed are they? So why pose it like that? Its ridiculous (and slightly offensive).

What you are saying is "me and my friends risk death to defend your rights so stop complaining".

The war in Afghanistan is nearly ten years old. That means that all protest in the last ten years is illegitimate in your eyes. And as the war is set to continue for several more years, it means that all future protests will be so too.

You imply that you're defending our rights by fighting in Afghanistan but you attack us for exercising those same rights.

We have a right to protest without being kettled and attacked. When we are attacked we have a right to defend ourselves.

What you are defending is an unacceptable attack on our democratic rights and a thuggish attack on a disabled citizen exercising those rights.

And attacking those exercising their legal rights to protest by reference to your dead friends is more than a little bit distasteful.

Quoting Jane:

What a stupid comment...he may be in a wheelchair but he is quite capable of breaking the law..being disabled does not allow you to be above the law. Actually i think you will find that this gentleman CAN use his arms and legs anyway. (I am not suggesting for one moment he was, just pointing out that he could if he wanted)

Well lets re-phrase that for you shall we Jane? Is it really reasonable to describe as a "Threat" a man that requires a wheelchair pushed by another person?

Are you saying that he was throwing kicks and punches?

What manner of threat is posed by a wheelchair bound protester faced with police horses, riot shields and trucheons?

He was not breaking any law. The same cannot be true of the police officer who assaulted him.

"Your first paragraph is again quite silly. Of course ANYONE is a threat if they are concious and breathing."

quite right. the only unthreatening protestor is a dead protestor.

more forward-thinking policing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Death

In a bold attempt to bring up a different angle to the story I offer up this.

http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655

Quote:

A series of shots taken during the afternoon of the latest student protest in London. The young man in the shots, Jody McIntyre claims he was assaulted by the police.
This claim relates to an event later in the evening, however, these shots show the way the police dealt with Mr McIntyre in the afternoon.
At the time these shots were taken the police were under a barrage of bricks, bottles and metal fence panels, as well as being involved in hand to hand fighting with the crowd.
Mr McIntyre was in the front row of the crowd and in a very precarious position, especially as he is wheelchair bound.
It was clear from my vantage point that the police moved him as gently as possible and in doing so the officers put themselves in personal danger from the hail of missiles.
Once he had been moved away from the front line to a safe distance, the officers sat him on a low level wall. Mr McIntyre got up and started arguing with an officer. He was so wound up that he eventually tried to strike an officer and was only stopped from doing this due to the intervention of a famale passer-by.

Given his condition it would be insulting to suggest he is and is not capable of as I do not know him. So all I can really say is that if Jody thinks he has been hard done by, it is within his rights to complain and should do so, and will dealt with appropriately away from casual insinuations from the media and places like this.

Dutifully, I re watched the video of the later incident and I commend any one who can accurately detail the motivations of all involved parties.

What I was trying to do was try and go beyond the isolated incident and shine some light on the larger picture. It is easy as it to say a protester started behaving violently as a result of police tactics as it is to say the behaviour of a protester lead a police officer to decide to remove them from their wheelchair.

I am not saying either is right, it is not for me to judge. If a complaint has been made it will handled in due course by IPCC.

And before anyone starts getting dismissive about the IPCC, if we can't have faith in them then perhaps protesting against the cost of university tuition might be seen as "taking your eye off the ball" perhaps?