Fitwatch

has been moved to new address

http://www.fitwatch.org.uk

Sorry for inconvenience...

Pages

Policewatch Films

Tuesday, 14 April 2009

Former Fit Officer Suspended Over G20 Assault



Picture from Indymedia of the cop who assaulted a protester without his number.








Picture from Fitwatch archives of him when he was less shy about showing us his number.










Another Picture





As more evidence of police brutality at the G20 emerges, another officer has been suspended, this time a former FIT officer, AB42 when we knew him, and now a sergeant in the TSG.

Yet another video shows FIT officers casually observing their former colleague violently assaulting a protester attending a memorial demonstration.

This level of violence is nothing new, and this is the point we need to keep emphasising. This wasn't a one off example of a few cops getting a bit out of control, it is their normal behaviour. I haven't found these images shocking because I've witnessed and experienced it too many times.

We musn't keep letting the bastards get away it - they must be held to account for their actions by all and any means necessary.
Posted by at

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good work once again FITwatch.
Your older picture of this officer gives me the impression that he thought he was untouchable.
What an arrogant thug.

14 April 2009 at 23:52
Clovis said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
15 April 2009 at 00:01
Clovis said...

FIT appear to be FH286, and FH59, if memory serves.

15 April 2009 at 00:02
Manny Goldstein said...

What is the legal position with regard to a police officer who conceals his identification number?

15 April 2009 at 00:18
Anonymous said...

Is there not some legal way to identify an individual officer through their police number? I know he's been suspended now but this nasty piece of work should be exposed to everyone, we all desrve to know his name.

15 April 2009 at 00:48
Anonymous said...

Suspended? For how long? Until it blows over? He's getting paid to sit at home and gloat? He should be sacked!

15 April 2009 at 04:52
Anonymous said...

What stands out about the video is that everything is peaceful until the police start causing trouble by pushing people around. I've noticed this before on reality TV (drunks at closing time type programmes) as well as in real life. Trouble doesn't start until the police start causing it.

15 April 2009 at 05:45
bentham said...

"What is the legal position with regard to a police officer who conceals his identification number?"

There isn't one, there are no laws about them. It may be counted as misconduct by the IPCC, but we all know how effective they aren't.

However, the Commissioner has now said:

"One matter that I also want to make clear is that uniformed police officers should be identifiable at all times by their shoulder identification numbers. The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty. We must ensure this is always the case."

so it MAY be taken more seriously in future.

15 April 2009 at 06:55
Anonymous said...

PS Comment
Looks like he clearly has white epilates on, which denote him as a Sergeant. Red one denote Inspector. Yellow denote C/Insp up. That’s part of the uniform when its a public order, level 2 or 1 requirement.

Switch on!

15 April 2009 at 10:01
Botanic Gardens said...

that's 'epaulettes', not something nearer epilepsy.

15 April 2009 at 10:28
Anonymous said...

Guys, why do you feel it is your job to interfere with police operations?

Too many people have had video interviews and made sweeping statements regarding this officer and what should be done. You call for him to be sacked yet do not allow him to defend his actions. How do you know what he was or wasn't thinking at the time?

The video evidence shows a brief glimpse of the incident, a much larger incident.

Why can't you wait for the investigation to be complete and for all the evidence, whether good or bad, before commenting on the actions taken?

Remember, there were upwards of 10,000 police officers working that day. Estimates of 100,000 protestors. How many reported assaults or complaints about the police and use of force?

15 April 2009 at 10:59
Botanic Gardens said...

I think you're confused. This incident took place on 2 April, not 1 April.

I don't particularly care what he was thinking. His actions speak volumes. You wouldn't ask for people to consider what went through the minds of muggers or other anti-social assailants in moderation of their actions, so I don't know why you're so fussed about this vicious individual's passing thoughts.

Simply put, this was a peaceful demonstration in memorial of a man who died following being assaulted by the police which was itself brutally attacked by the police. This incident forms one section of a much larger whole in which scores if not hundreds of people were on the receiving end of police violence.

Personally, I don't think sacking's enough. If I slap and whack you for no reason, I'd be looking at, at the least, a court appearance, plus I'd be sacked for gross misconduct. That's the minimum which should happen to him. I pity his partner. If he's got one.

15 April 2009 at 11:08
Anonymous said...

She did not listen to his command. He can easily justify his use of force.

Unlucky, we win, you lose...every time.

15 April 2009 at 11:26
Clovis said...

His command? And she had to obey under what law?

15 April 2009 at 12:11
KD said...

I have emailed you an image of this creature taken at an event I attended. He's an obnoxious prick who I have had the misfortune of encountering on two occasions.

15 April 2009 at 15:00
bentham said...

"She did not listen to his command. He can easily justify his use of force."

To other scum coppers, not to normal people.

15 April 2009 at 17:10
bentham said...

@Anonymous
"Guys, why do you feel it is your job to interfere with police operations?"

Why do you feel it's your job to interfere with demonstrations, or people walking home?

15 April 2009 at 17:12
Anonymous said...

Mr Anonymous (She did not listen to his command...aka FIT officer), how much do you get paid posting essentially the same e-mail to a range of sites...(i.e. indymedia etc), part of your job or just a sad (maybe even suspended) plod with time on your hands

16 April 2009 at 03:57
Anonymous said...

here is a film of him the night before..
his number is clear on the back of his helmet..
U 5402

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk5LZL51ROA

16 April 2009 at 07:57
bentham said...

Thanks for posting that, but U54 is his serial. Meaning that he's from 5TSG in Clapham, reportedly the officer who attacked Ian Tomlinson is also from 5TSG.

17 April 2009 at 03:11
Anonymous said...

The image of the offending officer displaying his ID number has coincidentally been used in a Daily Mail article on the issue of ID numbers.

http://tiny.cc/1dzwV

Who owns the picture, did the DM have permission.

17 April 2009 at 10:18
Anonymous said...

Don't be so one eyed. She's clearly in his face and told to get back. But despite this continues to do so, swearing at him whilst she does so. This gives him all the justification he needs to escalate things. Therefore playing into his hands.

I think you're not helping your cause by "supporting" the actions of a foulmouthed individual who's sold her soul to Clifford for £50k.

..and to be honest the video, far from incriminate him, gives him all the justification he needs.

19 April 2009 at 01:48
Anonymous said...

Nicky Fisher has made a big deal out of not very much. The Tomlinson story was different, because a man died. What did Fisher get, a bruise? And then there was some guy on telly last night whingeing because some copper shoved a shield at him.

I'm not defending coppers, here, just pointing out that it does our credibility no good if we constantly whine about very minor injuries.

There were people more seriously injured at the G20, but perhaps they have more dignity than to play the victim in the media.

We were not victims at the G20. We assembled together despite the efforts of the police to keep us apart, and we left a significant calling card at RBS. We showed that we can be powerful - you now we appear as though we are just pathetic and passive recipients of 'police brutality'.

19 April 2009 at 05:57
FIT Watch said...

Firstly, thanks for letting us know about The Mail picture. We only knew it had been used in the Standard.

We did not give the mainstream press permission to use images from the blog, and it is disgraceful they have done so without asking or, at the very least, giving us credit. They will however be invoiced for their use.

I'm not sure I can really be bothered to answer the points about she "asking for it". For fuck's sake - someone swearing deserves to be whacked? What kind of twisted morality do you have?

However to the final anonymous, thank you for your point. I think it's really important we celebrate the victories that happened at the g20, and not appear like victims.

Whilst it is important both to illustrate police violence, and to identify the cops involved, it is important that we engage with exposing the endemic nature of this violence, as well as discussing strategies to fight back, rather than adopting a victim mentality.

On a personal level I don't have a problem with Nicola Fisher, or anyone else, trying to screw as much money as possible out of this story. However, I also think it is wrong to detract from the very real trauma that people who have been subject to police violence for the first time feel. Yes, I've had bruises and injuries far worse, but I'm also very - probably too used - to this level of violence.

However, it does feel as though it's time to move on. We have Brighton Mayday coming up in a few weeks, and we need to turn the discussion to how we're going to deal with the cops and their tactics. I don't want to be a victim, and i don't want to be portrayed as a victim. I want to fight these bastards, and I want to win.

19 April 2009 at 07:24
Anonymous said...

Let's remind ourselves of the situation when Nicola Fisher was assaulted. There were, not five yards from the TSG cop, at least ten photographers. The officer had a number of options. He could have ignored her. He chose to attack her. He could have done what the police have frequently done and arrested her under the appropriate section of the Public Order Act.

Defending that officer on the grounds of provocation ignores the option he had to warn her of impending arrest or, as I mention, to arrest her. His casual use of violence in front of a large number of photographers indicates that he felt a spot of corporal punishment was in order, a punishment out of all proportion to any offence Ms Fisher had committed. An arrest for threatening words/behaviour or similar wouldn't have stood up in court - a big burly cop vs a small, fairly slight woman?

In this instance, the circumstantial evidence, the evidence of other brutal policing on 2 April, the evidence of his casual slap, his unthinking use of the baton, all speak to some sort of decision reached at a corporate level to disperse the memorial gathering with rather more than minimum force.

It's obvious that no one can control what people assaulted by the police do with their complaint or how they address it. Ms Fisher's done very nicely for herself out of it - and good luck to her. But what this boils down to, is are people going to be willing to take the current form of public order policing for much longer? There's word of a review of the 2005 G8 policing in Scotland. There's great interest in public order policing in England. I think things have been marched so far up the hill that marching them back down again and accepting no change would be humiliating for the Lib Dems, for sections of the media, and - frankly - for the police too.

If Paul Stephenson doesn't follow through on even the more cosmetic suggestions, his authority will be undermined. More root and branch surgery may be necessary later in the year. But I suspect there will be a change in public order policing, due to the simple fact that a number of senior Met officers have, to use a technical term, fucked their careers. Bob Broadhurst, Ian Thomas, David Hartshorn, and TSG commander Johnson have blundered so publicly there can be no way back for them. I wouldn't be surprised to see wholesale changes in the Met's Public Order Branch within a couple of months. And the City Police haven't covered themselves in glory, as Chief Supt Robertson's likely to discover in the near future.

So, whether by diktat from on high, by necessity, or by simply changing personnel, there are going to be changes of some sort to public order policing. But as the slow drip of new information about events on the day enters the public domain, it may become a question of whether the police accept the need for change, or whether they are forced into action.

As for our response to the recent police riots, it has to be to continue what we're already doing, when it works, and to develop new and innovative tactics where it falls short. Until there's some definitive judgment on the use of the infamous 'kettle', it ill behoves us to meekly stroll into a predictable trap. Dispersing throughout the City on 1 April would have been wiser, have avoided much of the police brutality through wrong-footing them and have led to a more effective protest. Simply taking photographs clearly isn't working if the aim is to influence police behaviour, valuable though it is in gathering evidence. The police reading this blog may wish to reflect on their own behaviour under surveillance and contrast it with the efficacy of CCTV in influencing public behaviour.

19 April 2009 at 08:26
Really Fit said...

To the poster above,

you seem to suggest that it would have been 'better' somehow for the police to have arrested Ms Fisher rather than give her a bit of a whack. Why? They probably could have arrested for a minor public order offence, but I have to admit, I'd much rather have a few bruises and get home, than have to spend a night in the cells and countless days in court.

If a reduction in the use of force by police comes about only at the expense of an even greater number of arrests, I'm not sure that's a trade off i'd want.

19 April 2009 at 09:31
Anonymous said...

What I thought I was suggesting was that it was a load of shit that that there was any mileage in people saying that the officer's use of force could be in any way justified, partly through the unused option of warning her or arresting her. I wasn't saying one was preferable, just that that hadn't been even suggested as an option previously (at least not by anyone I've seen). In any event, I can't see how there'd have been 'countless days' in court for something which would likely not have been pursued even in the event of arrest.

I can't see the police introducing a deliberate policy of more arrests and charges because of the knock-on effect on police time in court and also a greater number of people suing the police for wrongful arrest, after being released without charge.

19 April 2009 at 10:17
gene hunt said...

All I can say to you all is when something bad happens to you I take it you wont be calling the police then and sorting out the problem yourselves.

20 April 2009 at 09:30
sam tyler said...

Instead of standing in the street protesting about the world which to be honest you have been doing for many years now with not one iota of change why dont you actually try and go down a political route to change things, is it because actually you have no idea what you would do if you managed to change the world and in fact you are mostly just idiots out to damage property and disrupt peoples lives who are just trying to go about there day and earn money to raise there families and feed themselves.
Most of you i would imagine atre students who know nothing of the world outside of the NUS bar and a txt book.

20 April 2009 at 09:35
Anonymous said...

hey - who'se a bit of a GENE HUNT then? The police are public servants. When something 'bad happens', I want those servants on the spot double quick to do my bidding - geddit? Or effoff and get another job where I'm not funding them and their violent mates, see??

20 April 2009 at 13:22
Anonymous said...

"...and we left a significant calling card at RBS."

and comments like that are where you lose the respect and support of the average person....

That to me suggests that you went to town with the intent to cause damage, if it was as you all say, a peaceful protest how did things get smashed up?....Oh wait, let me guess it was the secret police that were posing as protesters that smashed everything up....

And all the protesters that had there faces covered, if you are protesting peacefully why do you feel the need to cover your faces? something to hide?...oh wait that will be the super secret police again posing as protesters to give you a bad name.

As another poster has already said why don't you all form a new political party to change the rules? and for lots of anti-capitalists your all pretty quick to get your hands on some of the evil money, Ms Fisher and her 50K and Fitwatch invoicing the Daily Mail for the use of their pics, thats sounds like capitalism to me. how much of that will be put to charity or given to the cause??!! I am not a Copper

20 April 2009 at 13:46
Clovis said...

What are you then?

20 April 2009 at 15:41
The Public said...

@Clovis, I am someone who gets up every morning and goes to work to earn some money to live my life my way.

I have no problem with anyone wanting a protest but the organisers have to take some responsibility if the protest turns violent.

Why are the protest organisers not speaking out that the violent minority are not representative of the protest, not a word from them is there??

It is these violent factions that cause the Police to respond with the tactics they employ at such large scale protests.

And (I include myself in this statement) none of use know exactly what it is like to be faced with a baying crowd and trying to keep law and order when people are (it could be said) trying to incite a riot, listen to some of the chants and try to argue the point that someone is not trying to gee the crowd up!

21 April 2009 at 00:50
Clovis said...

I go to work too, you know.

If you think back to the end of March, the media reported that the organisers of the G20 Meltdown marches had sought talks with the police but had received no response. What do you do in those situations? The very name of the police operation, Operation Glencoe, wouldn't fill many people with the expectation of a peaceful day out. Naming the operation after the famous 1692 massacre does give some insight into police aims on the day.

The Metropolitan Police are supposed to be the best at public order policing, in the country if not the world. At least that's what they say. They have a special unit to identify 'troublemakers', the very Forward Intelligence Team this site is all about. Now, if this unit which has been following people and taking their pictures for more than a decade, if they can't do their job, if instead of identifying 'troublemakers' they condone brutal attacks on men and women whose only offence is to be in the City of London - what bloody use are they?

Please stop excusing the police on the grounds that there's a 'violent minority'. A force as skilled as the Met claim to be should be able to deal with that sort of thing, if that was really the case.

The simple fact is that there was NO VIOLENCE until the police corralled people. Where people would have been happy to stand about for a bit and chat and disperse, the police deliberately created the conditions in which people would become angry. The police assaulted hundreds of peaceful protesters. The police assaulted lawyers, councillors, journalists. The one group of people they appear to have missed was this mythical group of people 'inciting a riot', for the simple reason they don't exist. No one has been charged with inciting violence or criminal behaviour, have they?

Why should the protest organisers say anything about this 'violent minority'? This minority were by their very nature not representative of the protest, as they were the police.

21 April 2009 at 01:38
@Clovis said...

If I insinuated that you didn’t work I apologise, I was merely responding to your comment on who I was, in hindsight I could have answered it better. If the Police didn’t respond to the Organisers request to discuss the protest and Policing thereof, then I would say that was an unprofessional approach by them to not want to enter into discussions. In so much as what I would do I wouldn’t call off the event, but what I would ask from you is how long in advance did the organisers know the date for the protests, and how long was it before the start date did they notify the Police, if they knew in January and didn’t bother notifying the Police until the middle of March....

The naming of the operation was certainly a poor choice but are you suggesting that the Police intended to massacre the protestors? Because, the reports I’ve read, both mainstream and other publications all of which are written to achieve there own agenda, there doesn’t appear to have been the massacre that is being implied was the Police aim.

Where have the metropolitan Police condoned any attacks? You may have access to reports that I don’t, but I have not seen the Commissioner of the Police condoning the attacks, How do you know if the people who where there with the intent of causing trouble, and don’t say that those types of people weren’t there because we all know that those types of people hijack peaceful protests for their own ends, have not been found and arrested? I assume that any intelligence gathered is then passed on to other units to undertake the arrests, thereby providing a degree of protection to the intelligence officer and their families.

When did I excuse the Police on there behaviour? I am waiting the verdict not judging the Officers on what I saw without knowing the full account. Additionally what public order training have you been through? If someone told me to get back then raised their baton to me I would certainly think twice about advancing any further, granted backing away may not be an option when the weight of people behind is pushing forward, but ask this question, why were the masses being pushed forward into the Police Line? And who was doing the pushing and for what reason? If you happy to mill about as you suggest why does the location make any difference unless you wanted to stand in a particular location for a specific purpose.

Where is your proof of ‘NO VIOLENCE until the police corralled people’ all the footage I have seen are small clips a fragment if you like of a longer recording, which I imagine have been edited to serve a purpose that show the police using force, what happened to make the Officer resort to force? why with all the cameras trained on the Police that day would they risk being identified for randomly attacking someone without being able to justify the action?

In the midst of the current anti Police reporting why would the media spoil a good story by actually saying something good about the Police, now I don’t know if these violent protestors have been arrested, and I dare say that you don’t know for a fact either, if you do please show me the evidence.

If I were a protest organiser I would be the first one on the radio or news to say whether or not I was aware of the presence of a violent minority, why would you keep such a thing quiet unless it served a purpose?

21 April 2009 at 03:51
Clovis said...

Members of the police condoned the attacks by a) not preventing them; b) not remonstrating with their colleagues; c) not doing their job, in this case to bring violent hoodlums to book. One would hope that in an ideal world people tasked with preventing and detecting crime would - when presented with a fairly open & shut case before their very eyes - do something about it! More than this, the operation to clear the Climate Camp in the middle of the night through the use of force had to be authorised by someone who can tell some hundreds of officers what to do. Not a sergeant, not an inspector, not a chief inspector, or superintendent, but someone like a Chief Supt or Commander. This policing was put in motion at the highest levels of the Met.

I don't think that there was ever any intent to massacre people, to kill them, but I do think there was the intent to batter people off the streets. Where this all fell down, of course, is that the police can no longer count on the cooperation of the media, added to which the sheer number of people with cameras makes it more likely that police misconduct will out. The unprecedented declaration that the police were 'up' for a spot of violence in the City days before the event gave away that there would be no peace at the protest if they had anything to do with it.

As for the negotiations, I can only go by what was on tv and in the newspapers; I wasn't privy to approaches to the police. One of the organisers of the G20 Meltdown marches was reported as saying they'd made approaches and heard nothing back. This certainly doesn't sound like the police made any attempt to facilitate protest of any sort in the City on 1 April.

As for my level of public order training, it's been gained 'on the job', as it were, at places like Welling, Hyde Park and Trafalgar Square.

And as for NO VIOLENCE until after the police corralled the protesters, I was at Bank from the time the marches reached the Royal Exchange throughout the afternoon. There simply was no violence until the police had engaged their kettle. I don't know how much clearer than that I can make it!

As far as I know the nearest you'll get to a violent protester who's been arrested are the people who were nicked for burglary and so on following the broken windows at RBS. And that doesn't smack of violence to me, in the commonly understood sense of the word.

In the aftermath of 1 April, the focus has been on one group of violent thugs, and one group only. This may be down to self-serving media agendas, it may be down to a host of possible causes. But it remains that there were only one set of people hellbent on trouble in the City, and they were all members of the police.

21 April 2009 at 07:07
jonsparta said...

Ok, i doubt i could change anyones mind about the police on this blog.
So the first thing you should do is: get a refund for your council tax, second never phone the police or ask a officer for help. That way they can save time with you and go to those that need their help...
So when your house have been broken into, your were assaulted in the street, or raped, or a member of your family is murdered then you will have no left to turn too. Because there will be no police left to clean up the crap that we call society....Keep going this way will only help the criminals, just think how hard it is to tell a woman her husband is dead because a drunk driver hit his car, or someones son is found dead or that a woman beaten by her partner will not go to jail...just think how hard that is in your day job...

21 April 2009 at 07:55
Aineko said...

I think the name 'Jon Sparta' is a good indication of the attitudes behind those responsible for the Glencoe violence spree. Exactly how disbanding the FIT & TSG terrorgruppen would affect the police's ability to monitor traffic cameras and hand out crime numbers is beyond me.

21 April 2009 at 09:33
Anonymous said...

jonsparta

you say "just think how hard it is to tell a woman her husband is dead because a drunk driver hit his car, or someones son is found dead or that a woman beaten by her partner will not go to jail..."

the last time i checked a woman beaten by her partner wouldn't go to jail. perhaps you should remind yourself of the police's stated attitude to domestic violence. yours appears rather questionable...

21 April 2009 at 09:59
Anonymous said...

hey jonsparta,

the copper who does his job of serving and protecting the public is not in any way coming under fire here. HOWEVER, the cowardly, viciously venal thuggos, like the one who struck the innocent passer by, Ian Tomlinson, husband and father, such a blow that felled him, from behind, of course, and the kind who - team handed - pinioned Jean Charles de Menezes, before executing him, WILL be watched, found and exposed. Deal with it. New world orl right, see?

21 April 2009 at 15:36
Officer Fucktard said...

jonsparta thinks because we object to police misconduct we should never expect the police to do their job when we need them. So if you catch a postman stealing your letters, you must either accept it without complaint or else never again expect the Royal Mail to deliver your letters?
Really I'm constantly astonished at how stupid people can be. I guess applicants to join the police have to pass an idiocy test, do they, jonsparta? That would explain a lot.

22 April 2009 at 23:59
Anonymous said...

Officer Fucktard,

Well put,
your analogy serves very well in illustrating the sulky, petulant and puerile responses dotted here and there on this blog, and no doubt being spouted indignantly in canteens across the metropolis as we speak.

Sargent Shatton

23 April 2009 at 00:16
Anonymous said...

In Stratchclyde 1400 criminal and precedural complaints about the police resulted in not a single prosecution. Obviously when the police get to investigate themselves they do a very good job. At least in England you have the semblance of an independant investigation. About time that we had the same "rights" as you but I won't hold my breath!

22 June 2009 at 02:14
suspend said...

I know he's been suspended now but this nasty piece of work should be exposed to everyone, we all desrve to know his name.

20 October 2009 at 10:53

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)