Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 11:20

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 19:33 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
More fall out from the G20 protests and 'heavy handed' policing:

Quote:
A police sergeant twice struck a female G20 protester with a metal baton in what he said was "self-defence" after mistaking a carton of orange juice in her hand for a weapon, a court heard today.

Delroy Smellie, 47, a sergeant in the Metropolitan police, said he lashed out at Nicola Fisher, 36, in a "pre-emptive strike" during a confrontation outside the Bank of England on 2 April last year.

Smellie, a member of the Met's elite Territorial Support Group (TSG), went on trial accused of common assault by beating. He denies the charge, and his lawyers said they would argue he was seeking to defend himself and his colleagues.

The trial opened at a packed City of Westminster magistrates court and was shown video footage of the moment he slapped Fisher across the face before drawing his baton and striking her twice. Smellie showed no emotion as the footage played. The incident occurred during a memorial vigil for Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who had died the previous day after being attacked by another Met officer, also from the TSG.

Opening the case, Nicholas Paul, prosecuting, said Smellie had "lost his self control" during an "excessive and unjustified" attack on Fisher. "He went from level one to level five without considering the intervening steps," said Paul.

Paul showed district judge Daphne Wickham, who is trying the case without a jury, CCTV footage of the police operation and amateur footage of the clash between Smellie and Fisher that was posted on YouTube and handed to the Guardian.

He described the video as the core of the case against Smellie. The court also heard extracts of two interviews between Smellie and officials from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

The judge heard how Smellie told investigators that, after back-handing Fisher, he reached for his baton after noticing Fisher was holding an object.

The prosecutor said: "She had weapons in her hand and he perceived her as a threat." Fisher was in fact carrying an open carton of orange juice, which sprayed over Smellie when he hit her, the court heard.

The prosecutor said Fisher may have been aggressive, but Smellie's actions could not be justified. "Even if her behaviour was irritating and provocative when she was standing in front of Sergeant Smellie, it is plain from the footage and photographs … not in any way [was she] seeking to get involved in an attack.

Footage shown to the court started from around 2:30pm on 1 April, when TSG officers arrived near Royal Exchange to replace officers from City of London police, who had formed a cordon around protesters.

Paul said the "attitude and atmosphere" created by police changed upon the arrival of the TSG.

"There had been reports of people masking up and the unit to which Sgt Smellie was in charge was briefed to contain people within a cordon to prevent a breach of the peace and any other disorder such as had happened the day before," Paul said. "It was these instructions that informed Sgt Smellie's approach to the demonstrators that they dealt with."

The footage showed how moments before the alleged assault a demonstrator attempting to leave the cordon was pushed back by police, prompting an angry response from the crowd.

Fisher approached Smellie before being pushed away. As she moved back towards the officer, the footage showed him strike her with the back of his hand in what the court heard was a legal "clearance-swipe". But as Fisher began shouting "you hit a fucking woman" and moving towards him again, he took out his baton and hit her twice on the legs. The prosecutor said it was these final two blows that were at the centre of the case.

Earlier in proceedings, Wickham refused an application from the defence to get the case thrown out after the alleged victim – Fisher – did not turn up for the first day of the hearing.

Fisher, who had been due to give evidence, was described by the judge in pre-trial argument as having recently been "nervous, weary [and] unsure of whether the CPS [Crown Prosecution Service] is part of the police".

Paul also indicated she may be fearful of the press coverage the trial would receive. From the defence, the court also heard Fisher may be suffering from depression.

While allowing the trial to proceed, Wickham refused, in the absence of Fisher, to accept as evidence a statement she provided to the IPCC on 16 April. The court heard Fisher, from Brighton, had been represented by Max Clifford and sold her story to a national newspaper.

A witness, photography student Beth Wilson, told the court she saw him "use his baton with force". "She didn't appear to be a physical threat to him," she said.

The trial is expected to last four days.



This bit I find quiet disturbing:
Quote:
Delroy Smellie, 47, a sergeant in the Metropolitan police, said he lashed out at Nicola Fisher, 36, in a "pre-emptive strike"

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 20:08 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Yes, there is something about that account does smellie fisher :D

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 08:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 08:57
Posts: 90
Location: South East England
Hmmm - "pre-emptive strike" sounds a whole lot better than "Hit first, ask questions after" doesn't it?

Also, just how well trained is this guy if he can't tell a carton of orange juice from a weapon? (Or "weapons" as quoted in the article)

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 09:21 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Has everyone read the background to this case, and the witness statements from people in the crowd?

The "victim" had to be coerced into court, and other witnesses said she was playing to the news cameras, was goading the officers, and had already lashed out herself at them.

Makes headcams a little more desirable I think!! :bluelight:

That way we might get a better picture of what has gone on!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 09:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
Yes, the headcam may well have restrained the officer.
After all, a female demonstrator in street-clothes carrying an open orange-juice carton is clearly enough of a risk to an adult male officer to justify striking the [much] smaller "opponent" with a metal baton
Image

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 22:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 20:54
Posts: 225
Location: West Midlands
You can view a five minute video covering the before, during and after; and draw your own conclusions as to whether Smellie was over the top.

See G20 Protest April2nd 09

The main "action" starts at around 03:40, immediately after a smartly dressed black guy with a newspaper is assaulted by other police, but Smellie can be seen strutting around from around 1:10 (and is not wearing his collar number).

mb


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 23:41 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
Not wearing his badge number - as ex forces if I didn't have my rank tabs etc worn I'd automaticallt on a charge for being improperly dressed, if it happened in something like this I could be facing a court martial.

That's even before the assault !

Apparently this is not the only 'incident' that this particular officer was involved in with during the G20 protests, there are more charges waiting in the wings.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 02:41 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I've watched that video, quite a few times, and I've done my best to put myself in the shoes of both parties.

What I get from the police officer's side (apart from why am I the only guy who came dressed as Robocop, is doesn't seem like forearm armour is Met issue) is that I try to wade into the crowd seemingly outraged by an excess of force exercised against someone trying to leave the cordon. A female gets in the way of one of my flailing arms. I am a bit upset when said woman starts coming and shouting in my face about it, so I backhand her. As she reels, and I am safely shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues. I realise that this could be a good opportunity to exercise some force to dissuade anyone else from challenging my actions, so I calmly take out my baton, extend it, and beat the woman about the legs.

Don't get me wrong, I've come at this from both sides, from the other I came up with: I'm a gobby c*nt with no idea why I'm really here other than to wind up the police, one of them just touched me roughly, I think I should go and shout in his face in an inflammatory fashion. However, one of the two is supposed to be a professional.

Suppose a British serviceman opened fire on an unarmed civilian in Asscrackistan in order to dissuade others from verbally expressing their displeasure at his presence... Why should we hold a day-glo suit to any lower standard than a green one?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 02:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
As ex-forces, how would you feel about being surrounded on both sides?
The people who turned up for these protests were being manipulated by others with a sinister agenda.

The police SHOULD be wearing their collar numbers - but the majority still showed a great deal more restraint than many of the protesters. The woman involved in the court case declined to go to court - with the mouth on her, I cannot say I am surprised, as she is hardly likely to endear herself to a sympathetic jury - or the judge - who quite rightly ordered her to be brought to court as a witness!

They are lucky that they are allowed to gather in such numbers at all!

No water canon, no tear gas, no baton rounds and yet the police were being provoked and goaded even in the video you linked.

The true colours of some are evident in this clip from Sky News... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soqsfHcc11E&NR=1

If you recall, police in Sweden shot dead a protester at a similar protest - hardly surprising given some of the behaviours displayed by "the pack".

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 03:07 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Ernest Marsh wrote:
As ex-forces, how would you feel about being surrounded on both sides?


I don't know, I'm not ex-forces yet! Being surrounded is the point of SH! Also, both sides is not surrounded, they had their line.

I certainly didn't see anything turning nasty until the gentleman in the suit was shoved, then shoved again as he tried to pick up the item he dropped when he was shoved the first time.

Tensions high? Of course! Certain parties present being employed for their ability to deal with such circumstances professionally...

No amount of restraint obviates the requirement to be identifiable and accountable; if their actions were above reproach then they should have nothing to fear. Purposefully anonymising themselves in advance smacks of an intention to do something they know is reprehensible.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:11 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 08:57
Posts: 90
Location: South East England
I've just watched it again and I really can't see anything other than a bully in uniform lashing out needlessly. If there was a real threat there why was there not an order for more officers to draw their asps? He decided unilaterally that giving a slap wasn't enough and wanted to go back for more.

Additionally,as has already been pointed out, he was prepared enough to put body armour on his forearms but not to put his collar number on.

And what's with the slashed peak on his cap? is there any real need to do that to it?

Funniest of all is the City of London guy at the end saying to people "There's nothing to see here, is there?" and "You're just making it worse"

Generally, I support the police for a number of reasons but this guy is just a bully in uniform and the public need to be protected from him.

_________________
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 12:45 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Beamer wrote:
Generally, I support the police for a number of reasons but this guy is just a bully in uniform and the public need to be protected from him.

And of course the activities of certain members of the crowd are used to excuse his behaviour - there is little point in only tackling HIS bullying behaviour, with out addressing the issue of incitement.

Sorry Robin - your post appeared while I was typing mine.
I was referring to Safety Engineers observation that not wearing rank tabs etc. would have resulted in a charge.

Unfortunately, this officer was not alone in avoiding wearing his lapel number - but it has not prevented his being brought to court, where unlike the "victim" he has turned up, and not been dragged into court!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 02:19 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
Ernest, I do have sympathy with the police - it's a difficult job that they do. On the other side anyone joining the police is going to be pretty naive not to realise that they are going to be in situations where they may face hostile members of the public - this gent then made the additional choice of joining the Tactical Support Group, a part of the police who are 'public order specialists' - they are given additional training on crowd control and how to deal with this type of incident.

When I joined the forces I was very aware that I could end up with my life at risk and being shoot at and also me having to shoot another person, it certainly wasn't an excuse fdor me to get of the reservation in some of the more difficult situations I've had to deal with.

To carry on with a forces comparison the troops going out to NI or to the current warmer hotspots have less training in these types of situation yet they seem to deal with it better.

There are questions about the woman in questions behaviour pre and post, but, irrespective of that he is supposedly trained to deal with and it would appear that he fell far far short of the standard that other officers displayed.

The whole removal of rank / identifying insignia to me smacks of a very concious decision to act in a more aggresive manner than is proffesional or legal.

Whilst this guy was still caught there are other officers who also removed rank tapes who still have not been identified.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 08:16 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4042
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
So the Police have a "Rules of Engagement" card, as the Military do, setting out the circumstances in which they may use potentially deadly force?

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 15:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
She was lucky he was not armed.....deadly force can be used against an assailant with a weapon...
After all, they shot a guy for running in an underground not long ago....and another for carrying a concealed weapon (a wooden stick in a bag)
In fact, they put the wrong bullets in a gun and shot one of their own not long ago as well.
It's a good job they don't fly Apache helos' with Gatlings on really.....I'm sure that speeding criminals (everyone speeding above the posted limit) would soon pile-up in the shell-shocked gutters...

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 16:38 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
dcbwhaley wrote:
So the Police have a "Rules of Engagement" card, as the Military do, setting out the circumstances in which they may use potentially deadly force?

They do - and I am assured that striking somebody on the backs of the legs with baton is the prescribed way of dealing with crowd participants who refuse to yield when ordered to do so.

The current case is hiding a more concerning practice - that of "kettling" protesters in areas, and refusing to allow them to leave. All too often members of the public can get caught up to their cost.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 18:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 20:54
Posts: 225
Location: West Midlands
Well it seems that Smellie has been cleared (although by a Judge and not a jury).

I find it incredible that "Judge Wickham added: 'I am satisfied he honestly believed it was necessary to use force to defend himself.'" - when Smellie was surrounded by dozens of other officers, none of whom batted an eyelid (or even felt it necessary to turn around) over the incident until the crowd started chanting "shame on you"! :mad:

I guess that part of the reason is that Fisher (who looks a bit of a soap dodger to me) "did not give evidence at the trial because she feared her lifestyle may be raised by the defence".

Let us hope that Smellie will actually face Metropolitan Police misconduct proceedings - we don't want baton-happy thugs like him patrolling the streets (IMHO).

mb


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 18:28 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
IMO:

In general, police do act with the calm and restraint expected of them despite the goading aimed at their profession.
It was Smellie's job to keep the peace; his action was obviously going to result with anything but.
He's obviously not in the right job.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 31, 2010 20:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Hmmn

Dont forget the other case concluded today without a jury...

The message...

If you are an agent of the state then a "Bench trial" (As I believe they call juryless trials in the states) will likly find you not guilty.

If you are a mere subject of the Crown then you are likly to be found Guilty as charged!

Plebs! Know your place!


(PS Yes, the liklyhood is that the people found guilty today were actually so, but would they have had a chance of a not guilty verdict if they haddnt been? I think not!)

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 00:41 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 18:42
Posts: 1283
Location: Essex
Quote:
After all, they shot a guy for running in an underground not long ago....and another for carrying a concealed weapon (a wooden stick in a bag)


Yes, one of the lies about Mr Menenzes was that he was running from police, this was put out by the Met, the CCTV footage showed a very different version of events.

Yes the wooden stick believed to be a sawn off shotgun, the testimony of the officers attending was that the suspect when challenged spun to face them and raised what they thought was a shotgun, at which point they opened fire - they never did managed to explain how all the rounds ended up in the guys back !!


dcbwhaley wrote:
So the Police have a "Rules of Engagement" card, as the Military do, setting out the circumstances in which they may use potentially deadly force?


Apparently, though the HSE prosecution of the Met regarding operation Kratos and the shooting of Mr Menenzes showed that the standards were woefully inadequate and far below the standards that the armed forces have to adhere to in similar situations.

It does smack of a closing of ranks and a failure to deal with officers who 'go of the reservation', the case regarding Mr Tomlinson is still rumbling over do we / don't we investigate and prosecute. Again another officer who removed identiftying badges.

_________________
Gordon Brown saying I got the country into it's current economic mess so I'll get us out of it is the same as Bomber Harris nipping over to Dresden and offering to repair a few windows.

Chaos, panic and disorder - my work here is done.

http://www.wildcrafts.co.uk


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.062s | 9 Queries | GZIP : Off ]