Top Spanish cop lays out plan to prevent recording and circulation of police actions.

Chuck Stone

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Also, swearing and calling someone, out of hand, a Fascist or a Joe Duffy Brigade does absolutely nothing to further your argument.

I swear. Big deal. I swear in real life too - it's just the way I am.

My only argument is: leave me alone if I'm not doing anything wrong.

If I want to walk up the street wearing a ski mask then what's the problem?

Son Of A Vidic

Monty Burnz wrote: »

1. People don't go to protests with their faces covered to act in a peaceful manner.

A stupid generalisation there. I have taken part in demonstrations in the past where I made sure my face was obscured in some way. Due to the nature of my profession, this was done at the time to protect my future career prospects. There certainly was no violent intent nor violence on my part, but rather just a simple desire to remain anonymous.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

2. Police should not only be allowed to be filmed in the course of their duties, they should be encouraged to be filmed.

A point I would equally apply to demonstrators. Demonstrators should and must protect themselves from the police by making sure they are observed and recorded where necessary.

The brutal police treatment of the innocent Ian Tomilsion being a prime example. Thankfully, the ready availability of modern media recording devices at the time, prevented the police from getting away with the death of an innocent man.

rosser44

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Demonstrators should and must protect themselves from the police by making sure they are observed and recorded where necessary.

Do you also agree that police officers have the right to defend themselves and innocent bystanders from violent protesters who are committing criminal damage and assaulting their fellow officers? I'm not talking about any protest in particular, just wondering.

I'd like to point out that I am not a member of the Gardai and have no ties to them whatsoever.

Furious_George

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Do you think it should be a criminal offence to cover your face in public?

Difficult one due to religious practices but it is quite often an indication of intent to do something illegal. Covering face so cant be identified.

donvito99

usernamegoes wrote: »

So, in your view, a person should rightly be charged and convicted of a offence for speaking at a protest rally supporting the right to abortion because they wanted to remain private for their own reasons.

Your scenario is a strange one. A person attends a rally because they want to remain anonymous? So if I took a picture of you at that rally, no doubt covering your face, would you demand that I delete the photo? Double standards.

Cmoing back to the original point of dispute, if you attend said abortion protest and it gets out of hand (ie topic of thread) you should not be allowed to cover your face, because the IRA and bank robbers have already thought of that, and they're illegal.

You have no idea what freedom means.

O rly? Maybe not by the book, but thats fine by me. I hereby surrender my right to cover my face in a public place during a protest, and to kill two birds with one stone, run down the streets naked like an SSF victim and all other ridiculous scenarios you keyboard minority put forward.

Go nitpick somewhere else, because that is exactly what you're doing, nitpicking. Abusing, violating the very rights you are so quick to call on.

donvito99

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

A stupid generalisation there. I have taken part in demonstrations in the past where I made sure my face was obscured in some way. Due to the nature of my profession, this was done at the time to protect my future career prospects. There certainly was no violent intent nor violence on my part, but rather just a simple desire to remain anonymous.

There's follow through, there's conviction. Just like Benny Franklin...

Son Of A Vidic

rosser44 wrote: »

Do you also agree that police officers have the right to defend themselves and innocent bystanders from violent protesters who are committing criminal damage and assaulting their fellow officers?

Absolutely they have and I support their right to do so. But I just don't see it happening very often unfortunately. Because invariably some slap happy, baton wielding officer does more damage to the innocent bystanders. Than he/she does to those who set out with deliberate criminal intent on their minds.

rosser44 wrote: »

I'd like to point out that I am not a member of the Gardai and have no ties to them whatsoever.

So what if you are? I have nothing to hide, you ask me a simple question and I'll give you an honest answer.

Chuck Stone

Furious_George wrote: »

Difficult one due to religious practices but it is quite often an indication of intent to do something illegal. Covering face so cant be identified.

You don't walk up the street covering your face on the way to commit a crime. That would only draw attention.

donvito99

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Absolutely they have and I support their right to do so. But I just don't see it happening very often unfortunately. Because invariably some slap happy, baton wielding officer does more damage to the innocent bystanders. Than he/she does to those who set out with deliberate criminal intent on their minds.

The reason a policeman would be using his baton would be that the initially peaceful protest had descended into a violent one (a la original video - thread topic).

Therefore, there can be no innocent bystanders as you say. Of course that is not to say that every protester deserves a slap with a baton. I find it totally disheartening that Police cannot deal with violent protests (e.g. student protest last year, Madrid protests etc) without getting a disproportionate level of stick (no pun intended) from the media, primarily social media, and I would include boards in that category also.

Police are given batons for a reason after all! People who violently protest know this, and it is frankly hilarious how they become hysterical (see G20/London student protests for example) when batons are drawn and they are met with a legitimate, proportionate response.

I feel that policing protests can only ever nowadays result in a lose-lose situation for the police, and that is a terrible shame. And one of the reasons for this is, to come back to the topic, people illegally covering their faces.

Piliger

usernamegoes wrote: »

I have said nothing about him being guilty of a criminal offence as fact or opinion.

He was found not guilty in the criminal courts indeed, therefore you should accept that he was not guilty of those charges.

No such adjudication was made by the civil court, the matter was settled against the state, which means that they felt that most of the evidence went against him.

Wrong. They didn't want to waste money and it was cheaper to settle.

Corcoran's a total hero along with his mates. We are fortunate to have such great guys to deal with these a$$hole thugs posing as protestors. I thought they were way too restrained.

donvito99

Piliger wrote: »

Wrong. They didn't want to waste money and it was cheaper to settle.

Corcoran's a total hero along with his mates. We are fortunate to have such great guys to deal with these a$$hole thugs posing as protestors. I thought they were way too restrained.

Thats ridiculous. He went about dealing with the protest in such a way that he looked like a total thug himself, not becoming of an offficer of the peace no doubt.

I'm sure this is how guards are taught down in templemore not to deal with a protest. And lets not forget, it was violent.

Chuck Stone

donvito99 wrote: »

And one of the reasons for this is, to come back to the topic, people illegally covering their faces.

It

is

not

illegal

to

cover

one's

face.

Son Of A Vidic

donvito99 wrote: »

Police are given batons for a reason after all! People who violently protest know this, and it is frankly hilarious how they become hysterical (see G20/London student protests for example) when batons are drawn and they are met with a legitimate, proportionate response.

Proportionate response my arse and a good friend & colleague of mine learned that the hard way. He walked out of a restaurant in London and into the periphery of a mayday skirmish in London. He saw a young lad bleeding profusely from a head wound, as he lay across the bonnet of a car. He went over to help, the next thing he remembers is getting spun around and his nose broken by a police baton. Then he suffered a broken wrist when he tried to defend himself from another baton strike.

Of course the police were seriously embarrassed, when they found out that the man was an Anaesthetist(Registrar) from the prestigious Royal Free. He was offering medical assistance to an injured person and was savagely beaten by some out of control police in the process. Unfortunately he didn't press charges but he did get very significantly compensated by the Met I believe. So in future, you might need to moderate your laughable pronouncements RE: no innocent bystanders and proportionate police force.

donvito99 wrote: »

I feel that policing protests can only ever nowadays result in a lose-lose situation for the police, and that is a terrible shame. And one of the reasons for this is, to come back to the topic, people illegally covering their faces.

Illegal to whom? Because I find a balaclava wearing, identification number hiding policeman, to be equally as sinister as a masked rioter.

donvito99 wrote: »

The reason a policeman would be using his baton would be that the initially peaceful protest had descended into a violent one Therefore, there can be no innocent bystanders as you say.

Are you actually for real? Do you think that trouble breaks out in nice sterile combat zones? Where it's only the police versus the bad guys? Get real please.

Usually when trouble breaks out, you are talking about an urban environment. Where events are very fluid, quick moving and ever evolving. So if you actually think that Innocent bystanders cannot possibly be present, then I probably should really know better than to be wasting my time with you.

kincsem

talla10 wrote: »

Gda Corcoran was found not guilty of all charges in court and to the best of my knowledge no member of AGS was deemed to have broken any laws on that occasion.
Several students were later convicted of offences.

He was found not guilty. But the whole country saw him on the news.

http://www.politico.ie/component/content/article/205-garda/2421-state-settles-garda-assault-case-for-25000.html

Four years after the May Day protest 2002, the state has settled the case of Annette Ryan, who told the High Court she was assaulted by gardaí. By Frank Connolly
A four-year ordeal arising from the Reclaim the Streets protest in May 2002 ended in the High Court this week for a former president of the students' union in the National College of Art and Design. The court heard Annette Ryan, 39, was at the protest when she was assaulted by a garda, handcuffed, thrown in a Garda van, taken to Pearse Street garda station and strip-searched.

On Monday 11 July the state settled her action for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and wrongful arrest after the court heard conflicting video and witness evidence including a bizarre claim by gardaí that there is now a policy to strip-search every person they arrest and detain in custody.

"I was standing on Burgh Quay when a female garda came from behind me and grabbed the beer-can I was holding. I pulled it back and the next thing I knew Garda Donal Corcoran lifted me off my feet and threw me on the ground. Then he knelt on my back. My face was pushed into the ground, I was handcuffed and thrown in the back of a Garda van. There was a man who was bleeding from the head in the van.

"I was taken to Pearse Street station where two female guards wearing laytex gloves told me to take my clothes off. One of them was very aggressive. After I was strip-searched I was put in a cell for an hour and then charged with breaching the peace and disorderly behaviour," Annette Ryan told Village. The charges were subsequently struck out in the summer of 2003 after five district-court appearances by Ryan.

Her first appearance in the High Court ended abruptly after two days last month when her barrister, Michael O'Higgins SC, objected to statements by gardaí being entered into evidence without first being provided to his client.

In their new statements, members of the Garda claimed she had been waving the beer-can in a threatening way before her arrest and had not been manhandled by Corcoran, a claim that was disputed by video evidence. Corcoran was charged with assaulting other protestors on the day and was subsequently acquitted.

During the eight-day hearing a taxi-driver gave evidence for the state during which he claimed that he had been bitten by Annette Ryan during a row in the city centre last year. Ryan admitted that she had bitten the taxi-driver after he had prevented her from getting out of his car and broken her finger.

Her solicitor, Yvonne Bambury of Ferry's Solicitors, recognised the taxi-driver as the accused in a case brought by his wife against him for verbal assault some months ago. It emerged that the surprise state witness had 22 previous convictions including for assault.

The case ended on 11 July after Judge Elizabeth Dunne agreed to a request by Annette Ryan's lawyers to introduce evidence contradicting a number of Garda witnesses. A garda told the court last week that it was universal policy to strip-search every person arrested and detained in a garda station. This was to establish whether the suspect was carrying any dangerous objects. A number of her colleagues supported this claim.

However, three witnesses who were not strip-searched when they were arrested and detained during the Reclaim the Street protest, and since agreed to testify for Ryan. The state's team, led by Conor Maguire SC, offered to settle the case. Ryan received a sum of €25,000 and her full legal costs for the 10-day hearing.

"I was very relieved as I knew my legal team, who were working on a 'no foal no fee' basis, would not have been paid if I did not win. The case was not about money. What happened to me and other people involved in the Reclaim the Streets event was fundamentally wrong and the compensation I received fully justifies my decision to bring this case," said Ryan.

kincsem

kincsem wrote: »

On Monday 11 July the state settled her action for false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault and wrongful arrest after the court heard conflicting video and witness evidence including a bizarre claim by gardaí that there is now a policy to strip-search every person they arrest and detain in custody.

The state's team, led by Conor Maguire SC, offered to settle the case. Ryan received a sum of €25,000 and her full legal costs for the 10-day hearing.

I just thought I would help you a little and highlight the best bits.
The state settled so they didn't have to be found guilty of false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, assault, and wrongful arrest.
So everyone is not guilty.

hefferboi

From what I've seen the Spanish police are brutal. Haven't seen anything like it in Ireland.

kincsem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELrPCKf-Ok4

And he was found not guilty.

Mark Tapley

There are anonymous posters complaining about anonymous protesters.

JustAThought

Wasn't it supposed to be a million people who went out to the Spanish Government buildings to protest corruption , waste & austerity - the overhead helicopter shots on sky were unbelievable. - now they want to change the laws on protesting .

Something iffy in cause & effect there.

20Cent

There have been loads of big ant-austerity protests all across Europe. Spain in particular but also Portugal, Poland, even Germany. These are not being reported on in Ireland. People in Greece and Spain are searching through bins to get food, these are ex middle class people who have found themselves broke.

Check out the video in this link about police collusion with fascist golden dawn in Greece shocking stuff. Similar happens in other countries. Can't blame people for covering their faces when fighting for their rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19976841

Run_to_da_hills

20Cent wrote: »

Check out the video in this link about police collusion with fascist golden dawn in Greece shocking stuff. Similar happens in other countries. Can't blame people for covering their faces when fighting for their rights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19976841

People in Spain have the right to cover their faces if they are fighting the enemy.

I see UK cops are now being equipped with double shot tasers, This will enable them to take two blind people at a time instead of one.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/19/267629/tasers/

More on the Spanish situation story here.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/10/20/267716/spain-to-ban-filming-police-on-duty/

Eve_Dublin

The Spanish police are a throwback from Franco's time. I've seen them use violence numerous times to deal with situations when it wasn't needed.

One which stands out in my mind was the night of the World Cup final. I was in the very centre celebrating with an Irish friend who had been visiting and it was about 5am in the morning and things had calmed down. Everything had been peaceful that night...nobody causing any trouble as is the case here in the centre most of the time. You don't see fights break out here like you do in Dublin, say. I don't think I've seen one since moving here.

Anyway, 3 police vans pulled up and a load of police jumped out and started to indiscriminately beat the ****e out of people. They came running towards myself and my friend and we had to run away or we would've got hit. The police had the centre square surrounded as all of us who had been on the square 5 minutes previously looked on. They stood there for 2 hours with their batons in hand and arms crossed surrounding the plaza. It was all so bizarre and completely uncalled for.


I've been to maybe 20 protests here in total since moving here and they've all been peaceful. People don't drink at them or use them as an excuse to party or cause trouble. I was blown away when I attended my first one just how civilised they were (The Spanish are very civilised people anyway). There's a handful of anarchists in this city that are hellbent on causing trouble but generally they keep their heads down unless the police provoke something. I've seen the police use bullying tactics at these and physically remove people from areas by simply grabbing them and dragging them. It's very obvious they've tried to provoke something in order to get baton-happy.

This is not the majority of police here but it's many of them. I was drinking a can on the street one night (illegal now in Madrid but hardly the crime of the century) and I had 8 police surround me shouting at me to put the can in the bin. 8 police! Many of them let the power they have go to their head using any excuse to cause trouble. We need police here to police the police.

Barna77

Well, the Spanish people voted to go back to feudal times (as it happened from 2000 to 2004).

One of the anti riot cops has been spotted in diferent manifestations, always hitting people at random for no reason.

Worst thing about the demonstration on 25th September was seeing the anti riot police running into the busiest train station in Madrid and begin shooting rubber bullets and hitting commuters, again randomly. Absolute disgrace, got shivers watching it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVqOIU7NEI

Shame

Gee Bag

donvito99 wrote: »

Dame St was a triumph for Gardaí. There's something entertaining about a handful of violent student protesters getting a hiding that maintains my respect for this country and its organisations.

Yea, it was a real triumph for the cops alright. Guards removing their numbers, beating citizens over the head with truncheons, refusing to co-operate with the subsequent internal Garda investigation and non telling the truth in court. It was a real high point for Irish democracy.

Truth of the matter is the cops were hard as nails when dealing with a non-threatening, non-violent protest and they were soft as shyte when they had to deal with a real riot at the love ulster march.

What the cops did at RTS in 2002 is one of the (many) reasons why the Garda Ombudsmans Office was established, because the state could no longer trust the Gardai to carry out their own internal investigations.

My name is URL

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Two points:

1. People don't go to protests with their faces covered to act in a peaceful manner.

By that same token, none of us should be using pseudonyms on the internet when sharing opinions. Yet here we are, 'hiding' our identities.

Wanting to hold on to some sort of anonymity doesn't instantly imply that you're out to cause hassle. There are many reasons why one would prefer to remain somewhat hidden at a protest, yet still attend it if it's something they feel is worthwhile.

Potential-Monke

It's my own personal belief that people who cover their faces in protests are hiding something for a reason. If you go to a protest and you feel the need to cover your face due to your employment or whatever other reason, then why are you going? If it's a legitimate cause, then there should be no reason to cover your face. I just can't understand why someone covers their face, other than they intend on doing something they don't want to be identified for.

@whoever said they cover their face for a reason, can you please explain that to me? If it's a legitimate protest over legitimate reasons, i can't see why it's needed to cover your face.

Gee Bag

Piliger wrote: »

Corcoran's a total hero along with his mates.

Yea, he sure knows how to whup women real good.

We are fortunate to have such great guys to deal with these a$$hole thugs posing as protestors. I thought they were way too restrained.

All the 'great guys' must have had the day off when the Love Ulster march was on.

My name is URL

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's my own personal belief that people who cover their faces in protests are hiding something for a reason. If you go to a protest and you feel the need to cover your face due to your employment or whatever other reason, then why are you going? If it's a legitimate cause, then there should be no reason to cover your face. I just can't understand why someone covers their face, other than they intend on doing something they don't want to be identified for.

@whoever said they cover their face for a reason, can you please explain that to me? If it's a legitimate protest over legitimate reasons, i can't see why it's needed to cover your face.

Well one reason is because protests are widely covered in the media. Just because one chooses to support a protest does not mean they wish to have their faces plastered in papers and shown on the news, especially with the reputation that some news sources have for incorrectly attributing certain actions to individuals and making generalizations about protestors as a whole.

Gee Bag

Potential-Monke wrote: »

It's my own personal belief that people who cover their faces in protests are hiding something for a reason. If you go to a protest and you feel the need to cover your face due to your employment or whatever other reason, then why are you going? If it's a legitimate cause, then there should be no reason to cover your face. I just can't understand why someone covers their face, other than they intend on doing something they don't want to be identified for.

@whoever said they cover their face for a reason, can you please explain that to me? If it's a legitimate protest over legitimate reasons, i can't see why it's needed to cover your face.

Covering your face you say?

Why that sounds a bit like a cop taking off his ID number before battering peacful protestors.

donvito99

Since when have cops been taking off their epaulette numbers. Didn't happen at the student protest. Numbers were on helmets of course.

This is just looking for excuses, leveling the playing field if you will.

Gee Bag

donvito99 wrote: »

Since when have cops been taking off their epaulette numbers. Didn't happen at the student protest. Numbers were on helmets of course.

This is just looking for excuses, leveling the playing field if you will.

At Reclaim the Streets, Dame Street 2002. I saw it with my very own eyes and it was widely reported at the time.

But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your rather strange Garda fetish.

donvito99

Again, can't anyone be supportive of an authoritative organisation without being called a freak? Nope, impossible here.

To come back to the crux of the issue, why would you want to cover your face, civil liberties aside? There has already a hypothetical example, but no other reasons other than stoic, rather pathetic calls upon tired liberties.

Potential-Monke

My name is URL wrote: »

Well one reason is because protests are widely covered in the media. Just because one chooses to support a protest does not mean they wish to have their faces plastered in papers and shown on the news, especially with the reputation that some news sources have for incorrectly attributing certain actions to individuals and making generalizations about protestors as a whole.

But when you attend a protest, in public, you are giving the media a right to publish photos taken in public. By covering your face, do you not think people would look at you and think "That guy must want trouble?". If you don't want your face shown in the media, don't go.

There are plenty of protests i would love to go to, but i can't as i can't be seen in the media supporting certain protests. Doesn't mean i'll go and cover my face, that immediately makes me a target even if i'm doing nothing wrong. It's about perception, and anyone you see in protests covering their faces will rightly lead to the thought that you're up to something.

Gee Bag wrote: »

Covering your face you say?

Why that sounds a bit like a cop taking off his ID number before battering peacful protestors.

I can't talk for anyone else, but you get 2 sets of epaulettes, so depending on the situation you may not get the chance to change them from your shirt to your fleece to your jacket to your high-vis or vica-versa (especially if you've been called to an emergency when you were doing something else and needed to grab your gear quickly). I'm not defending anyone who does it deliberately (I agree with you, it can happen), but it's not always deliberate and usually an oversight. Nor, am i saying that those members in the videos forgot to put them on or deliberately took them off.

Also, taking off the epaulettes is just delaying the inevitable. There are not that many Gardai, and they will get identified eventually. And yes, there was peaceful protestors, but there were also those looking to cause trouble. Some of that "peaceful" protest was far from (read up on Breach of the Peace).

krudler

My parents live in Spain and there's the regular police then the La Guardia Civil which were Franco's crowd, they're the ones you don't **** with.

uberalles

New face recognition software has got so sophisticated that it can ID you from a camera located a half a mile away.

ANPR for reading number plates is very useful but this face recog software is very big bother.

As for rioting we are so passive here. I feel a mixture of rage and hopelessness for the future of Ireland with our billions of debt.

Potential-Monke

uberalles wrote: »

New face recognition software has got so sophisticated that it can ID you from a camera located a half a mile away.

I can guarantee it will be quite some time before we have this as standard...

Gee Bag

donvito99 wrote: »

Again, can't anyone be supportive of an authoritative organisation without being called a freak? Nope, impossible here.

Nothing wrong with supporting the cops when they are doing things properly, and the flipside of that is there is nothing wrong with criticising them when they mess up.

One of the benefits of living in a democracy is that you don't have to give them unquestioning support. Similarly, one of the benefits of boards.ie is that you can interact with people who don't share your point of view.

Your first post in this thread lauded the Guards for the spiffing job they did on Dame Street. In reality it was a clusterfvck of the highest order. Some of the Gardai on duty that day completley over reacted to a peaceful protest (which was really just a street party) and they did serious reputational damage to their organisation. This was compounded by members refusing to co-operate with the subsequent investigation by the Garda Complaints Board.

To come back to the crux of the issue, why would you want to cover your face, civil liberties aside? There has already a hypothetical example, but no other reasons other than stoic, rather pathetic calls upon tired liberties.

I used to go to protests when I was younger (But I'm not a loony lefty by any means) including Reclaim the Streets, Anti-war, etc. In general, stuff I believed in rather than protesting for the sake of protesting which a lot of people seem to do. I never once caused trouble nor did I ever scream in guards faces or give them sh1t. Eventually my face was recognised and I was frequently stopped and searched around the city centre because of it, particulalry around the time of Ireland's EU presidency in 2004 when there was a ridiculous media scare about waves of anarchists coming from across Europe to cause troble. Once this happened in front of a client (needless to say he wasn't a client after that). Therefore, I can understand why people may want to cover their faces.

Gee Bag

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I can't talk for anyone else, but you get 2 sets of epaulettes, so depending on the situation you may not get the chance to change them from your shirt to your fleece to your jacket to your high-vis or vica-versa (especially if you've been called to an emergency when you were doing something else and needed to grab your gear quickly). I'm not defending anyone who does it deliberately (I agree with you, it can happen), but it's not always deliberate and usually an oversight. Nor, am i saying that those members in the videos forgot to put them on or deliberately took them off.

Also, taking off the epaulettes is just delaying the inevitable. There are not that many Gardai, and they will get identified eventually. And yes, there was peaceful protestors, but there were also those looking to cause trouble. Some of that "peaceful" protest was far from (read up on Breach of the Peace).

I was referring specifically to Reclaim the Streets in 2002. A lot of the Guards there were not wearing their numbers. AFAIK only cops in Dublin and Cork had to wear numbers at the time, later in 2002 this was requirement was extended to all Gardai partly because of the public outcry caused by RTS (I am open to correction on this).

I personally saw guards taking off their numbers as they arrived at the scene. The issue was widley reported in the media at the time and was raised in the Dail.

In fairness, I wasn't really trying to have a go at you, your post regarding people covering their faces at protests is a fair question. However, some of sillier posts in this thread got my dander up!

hatrickpatrick

donvito99 wrote: »

Again, can't anyone be supportive of an authoritative organisation without being called a freak? Nope, impossible here.

To come back to the crux of the issue, why would you want to cover your face, civil liberties aside? There has already a hypothetical example, but no other reasons other than stoic, rather pathetic calls upon tired liberties.

When the big Scientology protests were happening in 2008, people used the now infamous Guy Fawkes mask for the entirely legitimate reason that the organization was known for harassing and stalking its critics.

I took steps to hide my own face somewhat at the anti Gaza flotilla raid protest at the Israeli embassy on advice from several people, as the Israeli authorities are known for profiling people at such events.

Just because you hide your face doesn't mean you want to throw grenades or something. But I guess this is symptomatic of the very strong anti activism trend on Boards.ie.

To get back to the original topic, why SHOULDN'T cops be allowed to be filmed, exactly? If they're not beating the sh*t out of someone then nothing's going to happen to them when a video of them peacefully policing is uploaded, right?

bluecode

There is no country in the world where if you take on the police you won't have the proverbials beaten out of you. Indeed in some countries you will probably be shot.

Here's a tip if there's a riot going on and you are not involved. Walk away, don't try and help and don't tell a policeman that you 'Know your rights'. In the heat of the action they will hit you hard and say sorry later or not as the case may be. A riot is not a spectator sport.

As for covering your face. Well if you turn up at a peaceful legal protest with a covered face. Everyone is entitled to believe you are either a modest person or there to commit violence. I tend towards the latter. It may not be illegal but it's a definite clue that you don't intend to be peaceful.

Chuck Stone

donvito99 wrote: »

Again, can't anyone be supportive of an authoritative organisation without being called a freak?

*Authoritarian

To come back to the crux of the issue, why would you want to cover your face, civil liberties aside?

No, civil liberties not aside.

What business is it of yours if I feel like covering my face?

There has already a hypothetical example, but no other reasons other than stoic, rather pathetic calls upon tired liberties.

Liberties are everything.

Potential-Monke

Gee Bag wrote: »

I was referring specifically to Reclaim the Streets in 2002. A lot of the Guards there were not wearing their numbers. AFAIK only cops in Dublin and Cork had to wear numbers at the time, later in 2002 this was requirement was extended to all Gardai partly because of the public outcry caused by RTS (I am open to correction on this).

I personally saw guards taking off their numbers as they arrived at the scene. The issue was widley reported in the media at the time and was raised in the Dail.

I don't think there were ever separate rules station by station, maybe just that it wasn't enforced as much as it was thereafter. If that was the case (I was only 19 at the time and didn't care much for what happened elsewhere), then rightly those Gardai should be chastised for what they did, and i'm sure they were internally, but not wearing your epaulettes is just going to slow down an investigation, not stop it. People have also reported the wrong shoulder numbers in complaints, got a number or a letter wrong.

Gee Bag wrote: »

In fairness, I wasn't really trying to have a go at you, your post regarding people covering their faces at protests is a fair question. However, some of sillier posts in this thread got my dander up!

I didn't think you were having a go at me, i don't take anything personally on this place anyway. But i know where you're coming from.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When the big Scientology protests were happening in 2008, people used the now infamous Guy Fawkes mask for the entirely legitimate reason that the organization was known for harassing and stalking its critics.

That's grand, everyone is doing it so it doesn't look out of place. It's the people covering their faces in the middle of a crowd of people who aren't covering their faces are the ones that look dodgy.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I took steps to hide my own face somewhat at the anti Gaza flotilla raid protest at the Israeli embassy on advice from several people, as the Israeli authorities are known for profiling people at such events.

Just because you hide your face doesn't mean you want to throw grenades or something. But I guess this is symptomatic of the very strong anti activism trend on Boards.ie.

Again, i think if someone has a fear of the backlash of taking part in a protest then they shouldn't go, in my opinion. A: It looks to the cause that you're behind them, but not enough to let them know that it's you behind them. And B: It looks like you're there with intent to start trouble (deny it all you want, you see someone covering their face at a protest, the immediate thought is "up to something", especially for the Gardai).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To get back to the original topic, why SHOULDN'T cops be allowed to be filmed, exactly? If they're not beating the sh*t out of someone then nothing's going to happen to them when a video of them peacefully policing is uploaded, right?

I agree, i think Gardai should have cameras on them recording everything, audio and video. It would have 2 effects, the first being it could be used in evidence, and the second being that the Garda would think everything through before acting (if possible, sometimes there is no time to think).

The problem is the people who start recording their mate being arrested and start shouting at the Garda that they're being recorded. This, in a non-direct way, can interfere with the Garda carrying out their duty. If you want to record a Garda while they're working, do so, but not in their face and don't say anything. Doing either could result in you getting arrested for Breach of the Peace (it's a very open bit of law).

donvito99

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Liberties are everything.

This is the problem. You should stop testing people's patience abd get on with your life instead of provoking others for the sake of a stupid, juvenile and dangerous thing like covering your face.

donvito99

bluecode wrote: »

As for covering your face. Well if you turn up at a peaceful legal protest with a covered face. Everyone is entitled to believe you are either a modest person or there to commit violence. I tend towards the latter. It may not be illegal but it's a definite clue that you don't intend to be peaceful.

Exactly, they're picking for a fight in doing so. If i was a peaceful protester, I would pissed of with some gob****e covering his face, and attempting to violate my liberty to protest.

My name is URL

YouTube actually have an option where people can choose to blur faces in videos they are uploading. It was specifically introduced for the purpose of protecting the identities of protestors.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/youtube-announces-easy-face-blurring-tool-to-protect-anonymity-of-video-subjects/260005/

Chuck Stone

donvito99 wrote: »

This is the problem. You should stop testing people's patience abd get on with your life instead of provoking others for the sake of a stupid, juvenile and dangerous thing like covering your face.

Lol, covering the face is now dangerous?

I see you have consistently avoided my question.

Also, authority has to prove itself to be legitimate rather than it being presumed.

donvito99

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Also, authority has to prove itself to be legitimate rather than it being presumed.

Which has been the case in this country since 1922. Grow up, stop living in some sort of lawless people's paradise.

Chuck Stone

donvito99 wrote: »

Which has been the case in this country since 1922. Grow up, stop living in some sort of lawless people's paradise.

Ssshhh

hatrickpatrick

donvito99 wrote: »

Which has been the case in this country since 1922. Grow up, stop living in some sort of lawless people's paradise.

How did this thread go from the police trying to stop people holding them accountable, to posters living in some kind of "lawless paradise" because they value their rights???

Gee Bag

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I don't think there were ever separate rules station by station, maybe just that it wasn't enforced as much as it was thereafter. If that was the case (I was only 19 at the time and didn't care much for what happened elsewhere), then rightly those Gardai should be chastised for what they did, and i'm sure they were internally, but not wearing your epaulettes is just going to slow down an investigation, not stop it. People have also reported the wrong shoulder numbers in complaints, got a number or a letter wrong.

Had a google and I came up with this....

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/all-uniformed-gardai-required-to-wear-identity-tags-291926.html