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

donvito99

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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???

And how did this thread go from the police trying to hold violent protesters to account, to posters "taking it up the rear" because they value living a normal life, save covering his face at a protest.

Gee Bag

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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

donvito99 wrote: »

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

Donvito,
If it wasn't for people being prepared to stand up to authority prior to 1922 then we would not now be living in an independent republic.

Post 1922 the Catholic Church were given an awful lot of power in this state, leading to scandolous abuse of that power. A greater willingness to question that authority would have done us all a lot of good.

In the 60's in Northern Ireland police brutality towards civil rights marchers was a catalyst for the start of the Troubles.

If citizens are unwilling or afraid to question how their state functions then something is seriously amiss.

steddyeddy

Piliger wrote: »

Our Gardai were heroes on Dame Street.

This 'talk' from the Spanish director general of police is only that - talk. A lot of hype over nothing.

There are certain Gaurds I would call heros. There was some stories about some very brave gaurds who run unarmed after armed men or gaurds who work in dangerous areas every day. Gaurds who abuse power are the very oppisite of heros.

donvito99

Geebag,

Yes, something is seriously amiss when one cannot cover ones face at a protest!

What's next, the Brits back, the Catholic Church at it again, the Troubles reignited!

Do you not see the damage you are doing to the rights fought for by the those involved in the Easter Rising, as you say, by dragging your feet and crying over the most trivial of rights?
And yes, there are trivial rights, most people couldn't give a ****e about what some people declare as sacrosanct on this forum.

Let me say this: who protest, who are in the news protesting most frequently? Sinn Féin, Éirigí, students, trade unions. All with agendas and vested interests. (totally at odds with the subsequent support received by those involved with the Easter rising)

Only once have we seen ordinary people take to the streets. Pensioners. They did not take over public buildings, throw sticks, bottles or anything else at police, nor did they cover their faces. And they sent their message to Government and were ultimately successful. All without kicking up a fuss about rights being denied because none were, because they weren't violent - unlike the people seen in those spanish videos, or the mayday protesters, or indeed most protests quoted by people in this thread.

To sum up, yeah, good for you, standing up for the right to cover your face, fair play to you. But if that right is taken away from you, which it should be at protests, well then I think a majority of people in this country wpn't bat an eyelid.

My name is URL

Potential-Monke wrote: »

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree on it

I'd sooner attend a demonstration about something I care enough about.. even if it meant that I was compelled to hide my face because simply attending could land me in bother elsewhere. Protests are about numbers, and you're more likely to be counted if you attend with your face hidden, than if you sit at home wishing that you were realistically free enough to attend without it negatively affecting other parts of your life or livelihood.

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.

Well perceptions are commonly misconceived. If someone attends a protest in a peaceful capacity but happens to be wearing a scarf; and others judge him to be a criminal, then it's not the protestor that's at fault. People are too quick to associate one thing with another when it comes to these things. And almost all of the time it's done in order to discredit the whole thing.

I haven't actually been at a protest in almost a decade, but if I were to attend one tomorrow I'd definitely want to be careful about being identified by the media. If Eirigi turn up and start throwing eggs at people, and my face appeared in the picture below; then others would 'perceive' me to be on the same side as those twats. For that reason alone I would hide my face.

It's a weird thing really. Other nations don't seem to paint everyone at a protest with the same brush, but the Irish seem to do it naturally. Maybe it has something to do with the parochially minded 'small pond' Islanders that we are.

Gee Bag

donvito99 wrote: »

Geebag,

Yes, something is seriously amiss when one cannot cover ones face at a protest!

You are very hung up on the covering of faces issue. I see this as something very minor. I understand why people may want to do it. I also understand why it looks suspicous. I never once stated it was a right.

I got annoyed at you for the stupid comments you made earlier in this thread.

What's next, the Brits back, the Catholic Church at it again, the Troubles reignited!

My post was about citizens having the right to question authority if that authority is not legitimate.

I gave the examples of the war of Independence, the Catholic Church and the start of the troubles as circumstances where citizens did or should have questioned authority. I mentioned the troubles as a situation where the improper use of force by the state in the face of legitimate protest created a blowback so fierce that 45 years later we are still picking up the pieces.

Do you not see the damage you are doing to the rights fought for by the those involved in the Easter Rising, as you say, by dragging your feet and crying over the most trivial of rights?
And yes, there are trivial rights, most people couldn't give a ****e about what some people declare as sacrosanct on this forum.

Let me say this: who protest, who are in the news protesting most frequently? Sinn Féin, Éirigí, students, trade unions. All with agendas and vested interests. (totally at odds with the subsequent support received by those involved with the Easter rising)

Everyone in a society has a vested interest of one kind or another. Lumping all protestors together as one homogenous group is disingenuous.

This is the most important passage from the Proclomation of the Irish Republic-

The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past.

You'll see that liberty and equality are the most important elements. If I don't think the state is not doing what it should be doing then I'm going to let them know about it in one way or another.

Only once have we seen ordinary people take to the streets. Pensioners. They did not take over public buildings, throw sticks, bottles or anything else at police, nor did they cover their faces. And they sent their message to Government and were ultimately successful. All without kicking up a fuss about rights being denied because none were, because they weren't violent - unlike the people seen in those spanish videos, or the mayday protesters, or indeed most protests quoted by people in this thread.

Ordanairy people take to the streets all the time. Protests where trouble occurs are the exception, not the norm.

Trade Union marches always pass off without incident (probably due to the chloroform like quality of Union leaders speeches), the farmers had their protest last week, the loopers up in Ballyconnell had their march last week in support of the Quinns. Etc, Etc, Etc,

To sum up, yeah, good for you, standing up for the right to cover your face, fair play to you. But if that right is taken away from you, which it should be at protests, well then I think a majority of people in this country wpn't bat an eyelid.

Again I never said covering your face was a right. Going out and protesting is a way to make your voice heard. Better that than whining about it on an internet forum, writing a slightly miffed letter to the Irish Times or ranting at poor auld Pat Kenny on the Frontline. And its infinitley better than getting the chance to vote for some half-wit backbench TD/fvcktard every few years who doesn't represent anything you believe in.

In future you might be better served by taking the time to read posts before responding

talla10

Gee Bag wrote: »

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



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

Had Gardai reacted to Love Ulster in the same fashion as May Day you would critise them for being heavy handed.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

GalwayGuy2

Well perceptions are commonly misconceived. If someone attends a protest in a peaceful capacity but happens to be wearing a scarf; and others judge him to be a criminal, then it's not the protestor that's at fault. People are too quick to associate one thing with another when it comes to these things. And almost all of the time it's done in order to discredit the whole thing.

Well, to be fair if someone is wearing the V for vendetta masks (yes, I know the history but I can't remember his name and I can't be bothered to search) I'd think they were up to no good. And I can see where your coming from but students who protest regularly really don't think that way, and there's also the psychology of seeing a faceless crowd (even if masks are smiling they'll be unnerving in daylight, let along at night) that will escalate the guards tensions. Also, the masks could add to the whole faceless mob mentality which can make any situation escalate.

wingsof daun

I'm glad RTTH raised this one. The person with the covered face cannot be identified later on on cctv and arrested. Unless the cops are saints they are going to abuse these laws. How can you stop them arresting you (their word over yours?). It will be a dark day for democracy if these laws are passed. The result could be thousands of innocents indentified on cctv, rounded up and jailed. It also suppresses a populations natural right to take action (civil unrest) should a government or police force abuse their human rights.

Gee Bag

talla10 wrote: »

Had Gardai reacted to Love Ulster in the same fashion as May Day you would critise them for being heavy handed.

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

Do you think your a mind reader? You actually believe you can tell me what I think?

The point I was making (or trying to make) was in response to some dimwitted posters who praised the gardai for the way they handled RTS in 2002. It's easy to beat on people who aren't fighting back.

When faced with a real riot in 2006 they did next to nothing. The advance planning was a farce, they didn't have enough men on the ground, left stacks of bricks sitting on O'Connell Street etc. etc. They basically had to wait until the whole situation burnt itself out.

Baton charges and water cannon would have been justified, why weren't they used?

If you want to play senior hurling you have to be willing to take a few slaps.

donvito99

Gee Bag wrote: »

When faced with a real riot in 2006 they did next to nothing. The advance planning was a farce, they didn't have enough men on the ground, left stacks of bricks sitting on O'Connell Street etc. etc. They basically had to wait until the whole situation burnt itself out.

Baton charges and water cannon would have been justified, why weren't they used?

If you want to play senior hurling you have to be willing to take a few slaps.

Gardaí are not responsible for maintaining Dublin's streets.

Gardaí do not have water cannon.

You ask why baton charges weren't used, yet you also point out that they did not have enough men on the ground.

I was a witness to the Love Ulster riots, 2006, still a child. Saw a guard take a piece of small piece of hurled metal fencing to the face. Yes, they were totally unprepared, yet they stood there and took it. I'd love to see you do so. No doubt allowing those people to cover there faces. If anybody in this country takes slaps, day in day out, its the guards. A totally thankless, underpaid, underfunded, dangerous job.

Yet a majority of posters here will be very quick to attack them. And those who speak up for them occasionally, are berated.

Guy:Incognito

kincsem wrote: »

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

And he was found not guilty.

I'm no video analysis expert but there's a chance that might be edited.

"oh look, we're all happy and just walking down the street" , "ahh the evil police are beating us", "lalalal happy people walking down the street", "ah they're just beating us for nothing". It's like the video of the interview with Homer Simpson about sexual harassment where the clock in the background keep randomly jumping back and forward when selective quotes are used.

Gee Bag wrote: »

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.

Surely its only fair if both sides in a fight can be anonymous, no?

Gee Bag

donvito99 wrote: »

Gardaí are not responsible for maintaining Dublin's streets.

Gardaí do not have water cannon.

You ask why baton charges weren't used, yet you also point out that they did not have enough men on the ground.

I was a witness to the Love Ulster riots, 2006, still a child. Saw a guard take a piece of small piece of hurled metal fencing to the face. Yes, they were totally unprepared, yet they stood there and took it. I'd love to see you do so. No doubt allowing those people to cover there faces. If anybody in this country takes slaps, day in day out, its the guards. A totally thankless, underpaid, underfunded, dangerous job.

Yet a majority of posters here will be very quick to attack them. And those who speak up for them occasionally, are berated.

I'm probably not explaining myself very well. I'd put the blame for the mess up at the Love Ulster riot on the senior Gardai rather than the chaps on the ground (and obviously the shinners as well).

Tactically it was daft to try and let them march down O'Connell Street. It's too wide and there are too many side streets. Politically it was insane to have Orange Bands marching past the GPO.

How anyone planning the operation from the Garda side could have thought they could manage with such a small number of Guards in riot gear to shield a march going from Parnell St. to the Dail is mind boggling.

I don't doubt that it was very tough for the guards on the ground. I do think they were badly let down by their senior management.

The only reason I brought the Love Ulster thing up was because the stupid comments by you and others about RTS in 2002 and I till stick to my point.....on that day the Gardai were the ones who ran riot. Reclaim the Street has been run every year since without any trouble.

By the by, I know the Gardai don't own any water cannons, but they have borrowed them from the PSNI in the past.

P.S. I have repeatedly stated that I could not give a flying **** about people covering there faces. Its time to let it go.....

Gee Bag

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I'm no video analysis expert but there's a chance that might be edited.

"oh look, we're all happy and just walking down the street" , "ahh the evil police are beating us", "lalalal happy people walking down the street", "ah they're just beating us for nothing". It's like the video of the interview with Homer Simpson about sexual harassment where the clock in the background keep randomly jumping back and forward when selective quotes are used.

You clearly were not there and you seem to not remember or have heard about the controversy it caused at the time. There was indeed some minor provocation. The response was both disorganised and completley disproportionate. Here's a pretty even handed analysis of what happened...........

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/gardai-blame-management-for-may-day-fiasco-505233.html

Surely its only fair if both sides in a fight can be anonymous, no?

In a word no. A garda on duty is not acting in a personal capacity, they are acting on behalf of the state. This is the reason why a life sentence for murdering a guard, soldier or prison officer while on duty gets 40 years instead of the standard 25 year sentence.