Police in London attack critical mass

By the way, anyone remember Don McPhee's iconic image of the row of
police officers at Orgreave with the miner wearing a toy policeman's
hat standing just in front of them? I didn't even see the significance
of this image until I read about it years later. The whole point is
that non of the police have their uniform numbers on. Apparently the
senior officer in charge had effectively given his officers carte
blanch to use any degree of violence they wanted and so ordered them to
take their numbers off so it would be even more difficult to bring any
of the officers to account later on. So if the police turn up at CM
less identifying badges, you will know what their game plan is...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,1384820,00.html


Police were seen without uniform numbers this summer during G8.

Richard Webb

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 15:55:14 +0100 someone who may be Tony Raven
wrote this:-

you do not use a Taser on a suspected suicide
bomber unless you want to risk detonating their explosives.

If the police really did suspect that their victim was a suicide
bomber then they were not doing a very good job letting him on a
bus.

So far all their bull**** has failed to provide a convincing
explanation about this. Time will tell whether they give the
"independent" investigators a convincing explanation.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

Tony Raven wrote:
you do not use a Taser on a suspected suicide
bomber unless you want to risk detonating their explosives.

I wonder if that is really true?

it is a spontaneous coming together of people

lmao, but I now see why you have to maintain the fiction.

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
I fail to see why other road users, including
pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
choose to behave like louts once a month.

Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?

Cheers, helen s

You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel they
have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them follow
the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.


Sniper8052

On 7 Oct 2005 09:13:08 -0700, wrote:

'Yes, some car drivers behave badly and motor vehicles congestion is a
problem. How does that make it right for a bunch of cyclists to cause
additional inconvenience to people? I am sick of hearing how this is
"revenge" on car drivers blah blah blah'

By the same reasoning do you hate organised running events such as The
London marathon, or carnivals such as Notting Hill because these also
**** motorists off who think they have a god-given right to drive
where-ever they please at all times? I would see CM as being not such
much as being a 'revenge' on car drivers but a celebration of cycling,
just as the London marathon is a celebration of personal achievement
and The Notting Hill carnival a celebration of the ethnic diversity of
the UK.

What we need to be doing is laying bare the prejudice and hate against
cyclists which means that CM is can even be considered to be
counter-productive. What you seem to be saying is that cyclists should
act like negros in the American South and take care not to upset any of
the dominant social group or to appear to be 'uppity'.

"Now you cyclists all be good little nigg**ers there and wear your
polystyrene hats and yellow jackets, take care to keep out of the
fuc*ing way, and if drivers cut you up, just shut up, or we will make
things real bad for you, do you hear me boy?"

I think you have hit the nail here, *organised events*, are just that
organised to minimise disruption and delays whilst maintaining a safe
environment for everyone watching, taking part, policing and travelling.
CM does not do wish to conform to these norms believing it has the right to
run rough-shod over the normal rights of others. If you see it as a
celebration of cycling a good many others see it as a bunch of noisy
braggards flouting the rules of the road and activly seeking confrontation
with motorists.
The London to Brighton Run is a celebration of motoring, I don't see them
having a problem with obeying the rules and if they didn't they would be
taken to task for their behavior. Why should CM be any different?

Sniper8052

On 7 Oct 2005 09:58:18 -0700, wrote:

Tony Raven wrote:


Both of which notify the Police and follow the rules for organised
events which CM doesn't.

--
Tony


A technicality and no more. As has been covered ad infinitum CM is not
'organised' in the same way. Then again perhaps the sort of support the
police give to such events might not be a bad idea. Fully closed roads
with any one attempting to enter the route being liable to arrest under
section 16A of The Road Traffic Regulations Act and so on. Something
tells me full road closures would '**** off' drivers even more though.

Perhaps you (and others) have no idea about what is involved in
organising an 'official' event on the highway, but I have been involved
in organising such events and it is a massive task. A one day Premier
calandar road race out in the sticks can take almost a year to organise
with a team of 8 plus dozens of helpers on the day, and cost at least
£10,000, more if the police want paying for their time at the full
rate.

To put you in the picture if a CM event were to be made 'official' the
'organisers' would have to follow the 'Events on the public highway'
guidelines and this would create a huge task for any 'organiser', as
well as landing them with some potentially very onerous insurance
liabilities. Such an 'organised' CM event would certainly need much
more in the way of police resources, the bill for which would which
doubtlessly be sent by the police to the 'organisation' of CM, who
wouldn't have the cash unless all participants were charged at least
£20-£30 per ride.(Perhaps much more given the costs of policing a
ride in central London, erecting barriers according to best practice
guidelines and so on). This is obviously not going to happen so no
'event' full stop and the criminalisation of any group of cyclists
riding together deemed by the police to be part of any 'protest'.

Well done Tony, good strategy. Perhaps you should look to a career in
the police service.

To start with all that was asked was that the route be notified in advance.
CM has never had a huge police presence but has stedfastly refused to obey
the rules of the road with a number behaving like a bunch of louts and
bullies on enough occasions that it is now to be classed as an illeagal
demonstration. What form any action will take I have no idea but it does
seem that they, it, whatever you wish to call CM has brought this upon
itself. All of the above was never asked for to start with and is now the
fruit of CM's labour. You cry persecution and conspiracy...No it's just
time you woke up to the fact that being school yard bullies won't be
tolerated anymore.

Sniper8052

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 23:45:06 +0100, Jon Senior wrote:

Sniper8052 wrote:
The fact is that the group, self styled Critical Mass, wishes to evade it's
collective responsibility to behave properly and often behaves very badly
by all accounts.

It does not have a "collective responsibility". Any more than a crush of
pedestrians traveling the same footpath have a collective responsibility.

I fail to see why other road users, including
pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'd
choose to behave like louts once a month.

Some do, some don't. There are some bad ones but the way to deal with
them is to rally the rest of the group by supporting the action, not by
attempting to alienate all participants. As others have asked, how do
you (As a vocal supporter of the police action) propose to distinguish
between CMers and other cyclists who just happened to be going the same
way? Or would such "participants" be guilty by association in your book.

If CM want to ride around London, fine, obey the rules... all of them. If
CM voluntary workers think they are above or beyond the law and hope to
evade the responsibility they are taking on themselves in 'not' organizing
the ride, but publicly promoting it, they may find they are in fact
'responsible' in the 'eyes of the law'.

The best way to deal with the idiots (From my experience of a few,
admittedly smaller, CMs) here is to enter the group as a member and
speak to them privately. No threats needed. Just a gentle, "You're not
really proving anything by swearing at that driver now are you?". This
would be far more likely to gain you the support of the rest of the group.

This requirement is a notice to all that public anarchy once a month will
no longer be tolerated. A notice which is long overdue in my opinion.

Any individual who breaks the law can and should be treated accordingly.
This goes for the drivers who take it upon themselves to break the mass
as well as those inside it who think they are vigilantes. But the moment
you label all members of the group the same regardless of their actions
you are entering dangerous territory. If your neighbour robs a house,
you are not considered guilty by proximity. Why should the same not
apply to CM?

Fundamentally, you cannot stop CM from happening. Without much effort I
can think of many ways of avoiding any attempts at control. Bring in the
riot police and the cyclists will bring in the press... and you may not
have noticed, but the police are not really doing well in the PR stakes
at the minute.

Jon

Also a one-time supporter of CM

Any body acting as a group has a collective responsibility. The ride acts
as a group thus it has a collective responsibility. London Marathon
runners are a group of individuals they still have a collective
responsibility to obey the rules of the organising bodies and society.
I do not know what plans are being made to enforce the new regime, if I am
called upon to exercise any power which I can personally and reasonably
justify as legal and proportionate I will do so. I don't have much of a
'book' pretty much the whole of my philosophy on policing is 'be fair in
all things - be polite always' I've never had much of a problem with that.
I certainly won't be pushed into arresting of ticketing people where I
cannot personally justify my actions.
I don't know what the rules are going to be. I was told today that all
policing was going to be withdrawn so what happens next I don't know, it's
anyone's guess.
I agree that not all members of CM share the same ideas and that perhaps
the majority go along for a nice ride. It will their responsibility set
the example. If the vigilantes make trouble and break societies rules they
should as you acknowledge be punished, as should any drivers who drive in a
dangerous manner. However that also brings the responsibility of the ride
leaders, those at the head of the ride - not 'organisers'- to obey the road
traffic laws. If the Friday skate can manage to tell the police where they
are going and organise things in a half decent manner I don't see much
excuse for CM not having done the same.

Sniper8052

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 23:14:42 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

"Sniper8052" wrote in message
.. .
I fail to see why other road users, including
pedestrians, should have to suffer their bullish behavior because 'they'
choose to behave like louts once a month.

Can we take it you'd have the same view as regards the same and worse
behaviour of thousands of motorists doing same on a daily basis?

Cheers, helen s

You may take it that I will take the same attitude to anybody who breaks
the rules of acceptable behavior no matter what. If the group loosly
termed CM, which chooses not to acknowledge it acts as a group, feel they
have something to protest, fine let them protest, but also let them follow
the rules and laws set down for the normal function of the roads and
society. In my book two wrongs don't make a right and CM has on the
occasions I have seen them been little more than an unruly and loud mob
intent on being a pain in the backside to all and sundry. Whilst this may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Excellent, I wonder how you'll go about getting all the motorists in London
to provide advance notice of where they are going. After all, it may not be
the intent of all those present in the rush-hour to be a PITA to all and
sundry but shurely there are enough of them holding up everyone and breaking
the law (jumping red lights... road rage... illegal parking... injure a few
in accidents etc) to tarnish all with the same brush?

I have no problem with those who break the law (whatever mode of transport)
being brought to book. What I do have a problem with is the singling out of
cyclists who apparently cause a problem once a month, when gridlock is
achieved and laws broken on a daily basis by those travelling in motor
vehicles. It smacks of picking on a minority group which is an easy target.

Cheers, helen s

Sniper8052 wrote:
Whilst this may
not be the intent of all those present enough of the riders present this
behavior to tarnish all with the same brush.

Wrong attitude. Under no circumstances is it acceptable to label an
entire group based on the behaviour of some members of that group. In
other circumstances that is considered racist, or sexist. It is that
level of ignorance combined with unreasonable (And frequently abused)
power that has cultivated my dislike of the police. Do yourself a favour
and demonstrate that as an officer of the law you are capable of seeing
things with a little more clarity than your fellow civilian. Power =
responsibility... remember?

Jon