UKH

https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/met_police_not_heavy_handed-732...

This thread is archived now.  I don't think it's been mentioned on here yet, so for the benefit of anyone who might be interested and didn't spot it, I'll just leave this here:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-protest-laws-sarah-e...

Have you actually read the report? It's pretty laughable really.

It's being publicised as if an APPG is something "official" which gives it an appearance of objectivity that is entirely not in keeping with its content.

Here's a link to the report - it's a PDF link unfortunately.

https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.198.70/561.6fe.myftpupload.com/wp-content...

One of the criticisms for example - taken from the executive summary (so presumably meant to be important) is a criticism of use of force by police:

"While officers are entitled to use reasonable force to protect themselves, on several occasions the force used by officers against attendees was not proportionate"

It's certainly an interesting view on police entitlement to use force. And that viewpoint would certainly tend to assist if by any chance you wanted a conclusion of excessive force.

Personally I'd prefer to base my conclusions on an actual understanding of the law and police powers but I guess I'm just a stickler.

Thank you, I am interested and I didn't spot it.

It picks up on a point I raised on a previous thread about this: The HMIC report did not take account of testimonies from attendees.

It's good that our political representatives are on this. Unfortunately, the Police are too close to the issue to be objective. Violence against women and girls remains such a problem in society. Let's hope this inquiry is a step towards a safer world for us.

RIP Sarah.

This report, on the other hand, listens to the testimonies of attendees, treats it as gospel and appears to ignore all other evidence of events.

Hence why the previous report was completed by the HMICFRS - who are no friends of the police. 

An interesting view on objectivity. Perhaps you'd comment on the composition of the APPG and the 'experts' they've used to advise them.

Violence against women and girls is a huge problem. I'm not sure how this report on policing of two protests and the committees view on the new Police and Crime Bill will have any impact whatsoever.

Absolutely.

I'd give up. The is ukc, sentiment top trumps facts, every time. Better to do lots of virtue signalling and accrue lots of likes, it won't change anything for the better, but everyone feels happy about themselves.

Just trying to put some facts on the table to give some context to the entirely predictable news stories

I hadn't, thanks for the link.

I totally agree that facts are important.

This report, on the other hand, listens to the testimonies of attendees, treats it as gospel and appears to ignore all other evidence of events.

Infact, the report states that APPG went to some effort to gather evidence from the Met Police. Para 74 states that the Met Police submitted no written evidence and the APPG arranged an extra hearing so that the Met Police could give oral evidence. This delayed the report by a month, but was considered 'justified so as to ensure that evidence on behalf of the MPS was heard'. The report analysis considers all evidence and demonstrates clear reasoning for the outcomes. 

Hence why the previous report was completed by the HMICFRS - who are no friends of the police. 

Infact, over half of the team who wrote the HMICFRS report were former serving police officers.  

Perhaps you'd comment on the composition of the APPG and the 'experts' they've used to advise them.

The APPG looks like a standard mix of HoL and HoC and political parties. The Independent Experts look like a sensible mixture of experienced people with a broad range of interests. 2 of the 7 Independent Experts were senior police officers. There doesn't seem to have been any criticism of the report from experts alleged to have been involved with the report, as happened with the report of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities earlier this year. I'd be interested to see any evidence of any such criticism.

One final fact - perhaps explaining why so many women continue to share their distrust in the Police over their response sexual violence: 

Over the past five years, cases reported to police - and initially recorded as rape - have risen sharply.

However, the proportion making it to court (prosecutions) in that time has more than halved.

From :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48095118

So the police are sharply improving their response to cases of sexual violence against women.

...but crown prosecution service are dropping the ball?

The report patently doesn't consider all the evidence, and fundamentally doesn't give a clear reasoning for outcomes.

Just one example - the executive.summary makes mention of the warrants executed in the guise of postal workers. That would suggest it's important presumably? 

The timeline they produces features that event as a discrete point. Clearly it's relevant to their conclusions.

Where is is actually discussed in the text? Where is the consideration of police powers? A police account of events? 

The 'clear reasoning' you say was demonstrated?

The section on the Bristol protest is almost satire. A conclusion based almost entirely in the unchallenged accounts of participants. Zero consideration of the numerous offences, arrests and charges - or more importantly the evidence behind them.

Yep. Dawn Butler.  Probably the first MP I'd pick for an objective review of policing. 

The independent 'experts' included two representatives of Netpol. Neither expert nor independent. A barrister specialising in actions against the police.

I'll leave my opinions of the bias of the retired officers the one side.

I'm not sure where you are coming from regarding criticism by the experts involved in writing it. It's almost entirely self-serving and in accordance with their prior established views on policing. I'm not sure why you think they'd challenge it.

I understand your concern - and share it - though that data could be subject to an entire new post to discuss it and the details of where the breakdowns in rape prosecution occur. 

But that topic is entirely irrelevant to this report.

Edit to add:

Worth mentioning the HMICFRS have put two forces so far in special measures, been very critical of stop search and implemented changes, and have been critical of police handling of victims of sexual abuse on the back of the Henriques report. Amongst other critical reports.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that police entitlement to use force is disconnected from the idea of proportionality?

There are a number of reasons the police can use force other than "to protect themselves". Which is particularly relevant to public order policing.

Undoubtedly if you start from the basis that the use of force is to protect oneself, then almost all actions involving force in public order policing will be disproportionate. And thus excessive. 

I see what you mean - if the report was saying that the only basis for the police using force was to protect themselves then that would be ridiculous. But I notice that it also says:

"we consider A&SC to have been justified in using proportionate force to protect officers and the public and restore public order." (Paragraph 139).

- which indicates that it was understood that there were other reasons for using force. 

To be honest that just adds to the incoherence of the report. The criticism of the Met use of force in the exec summary specifically mentions the incorrect understanding of of police powers.

The criticism of A and S use of force is marginally more nuanced (in the exec summary) - as per your reference.

It really is very poorly written. 

I'd certainly agree it's not very well written.