Fit watch: G20 FIT officer at protest against police violence

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

G20 FIT officer at protest against police violence

The police officer on the left of this shot is PC Palfrey, a regular FIT officer well known to FITwatch bloggers. He was identified by a number of readers of this blog as being part of the FIT team that was on the scene when Ian Tomlinson was assaulted, just before he died at the G20 protests. It is likely that he, along with his FIT colleagues, issued the instructions that led to the TSG's violent behaviour, and possibly to a man's death.

Given all this, it is more than a little ironic that this same man was on FIT duty at the recent protests in London against police violence. This picture was taken on the United Campaign Against Police Violence rally in London on the 23rd May. Neither PC Palfrey, nor his FIT colleagues, appear particularly concerned by issues of police violence and deaths in custody.

Thanks to Jules for the photo.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...: "It is likely that he, along with his FIT colleagues, issued the instructions that led to the TSG's violent behaviour, and possibly to a man's death. "

How do you come to these conclusions, no cause of death yet frimly established, no finding of guilt in court, no proof of any order to interacrt with MR Tomlinson?

"Given all this, it is more than a little ironic that this same man was on FIT duty at the recent protests in London against police violence. This picture was taken on the United Campaign Against Police Violence rally in London on the 23rd May. Neither PC Palfrey, nor his FIT colleagues, appear particularly concerned by issues of police violence and deaths in custody. "

Police officers aren't at protests to engage with the issues.

Why shouldn't PC Palfrey be on duty?; 1 June 2009 at 06:07
Anonymous said...: Those who have had the good fortune to see Alan Palfrey give evidence will know that his version of events is rarely in accord with what genuinely happened. His, er, economy with the truth makes it surprising that not only still a police officer but apparently one considered capable of handling responsibility. Should the killing of Ian Tomlinson result in charges, his appearance in court may well truncate his career.; 1 June 2009 at 08:02
Metcountymounty said...: where did you develop the assumption that FIT officers direct actions on the ground, let alone establish cordon lines or who to move etc? I'd love to know, because it's complete bollocks.; 1 June 2009 at 13:43
McGonagall said...: They have no shame.; 1 June 2009 at 16:31
taintercopper said...: Not only do they beat people to death, but they come on here to publish profanities.

Typical of the standards (low) of Met recruits.

Oh did anyone see the recent sexploits at the birthing place of new PC's?

check it out here;

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/4410819.Police_recruit__filmed_sex_attack__on_woman_cadet/; 1 June 2009 at 19:28
Anonymous said...: Steve Discombe, Palfreys mate on G20, was also there.; 2 June 2009 at 00:24
Clovis said...: MCM

Not all FIT officers have the nous or capacity to direct any sort of operation. However, it is a fact that some of the CO11 FIT members are accredited public order tactical advisers, and as such can greatly influence events on the ground. Their collection of 'intelligence' puts them in a position of at least informal authority in a public order situation, as they are supposed to know who the main 'troublemakers' are. It's no coincidence that the officer who pushed Ian Tomlinson to the ground then walked some way to speak to a member of the FIT - who was described as a senior officer on C4 News. While the FIT clearly don't direct from GT on the day, their role gives them influence on events from the planning stages of the police operation to any follow-up after the event.

I don't know where you got this bit about FIT establishing cordon lines - those were clearly (from what I saw) part of the plan before anything happened on 1/4. And I'd be grateful if you could expand on what you mean by 'who to move'; it's not clear to me what you're talking about.; 2 June 2009 at 00:54
Really Fit said...: FIT are the CO11 presence on the ground at 'public order' events. The likes of Discombe are full time CO11 public order cops. It is no secret that CO11 direct public order operations - otherwise what on earth is their function?

I mean yes, technically they 'advise'. But from ground level it regularly appears that TSG are given direct instructions from FIT; to stop and search certain individuals, to move them on, or to arrest them. It is therefore quite likely that they did exactly that with the TSG unit that assaulted Tomlinson.

Of course, they didnt say 'go and beat him to death'. But as MCM himself has acknowledged on this blog, the level of force used was not unusual, and would certainly have been in line with expectations of the accompanying FIT officers, of which Palfrey was one.

And yes, no finding of guilt has been established. Which is why I said it 'possibly' led to his death. If guilt is established, I say it attaches as much to the FIT teams operating as it does to the TSG man who actually did the hitting.

There would be an outcry (and rightly so) if that TSG cop was policing this protest. I think, for the same reasons, it is grossly insensitive for Palfrey to have been deployed on a demo against police violence. It certainly gives the impression that the Met simply don't give a damn.; 2 June 2009 at 01:53
Anonymous said...: So you're saying that because he was there he was guilty, you sound like you want some kind of police state, not a place where people are required to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed a crime on the statute books, placed there after full parliamentary democratic process. Wouldn't want to live in your oppressive regime; 2 June 2009 at 05:05
Clovis said...: Anonymous 0505

It's not a place where there's much scope for doubt. The extended line must have been under *someone's* authority: and the actions of the officer who assaulted Mr Tomlinson following the collision which saw Mr Tomlinson knocked to the ground show where he saw the authority lying - with a member of the FIT.

Saying that we want a police state suggests how little you understand what this site is about. We already have the makings of a police state in this country, which is demonstrated on a day to day basis by the actions of the police, and on a strategic level by the actions of a private company, the Association of Chief Police Officers. While we do not have a formal police state (has such a thing ever existed?) I believe it's hard to deny that the role of the police within society has expanded well beyond the original purpose of the force, which was ostensibly to detect and prevent crime.; 2 June 2009 at 13:40
Anonymous said...: Isn't it simply the case that successive governments have made more things crimes and that the police are detecting or preventing them, using the available means, the fact that some of these things are crimes is more relevant to the debate, but as you know the police attempt to enforce the law which is created.; 2 June 2009 at 15:39
Clovis said...: Like the police so very energetically enforce the hunting ban you mean? I was thinking more of their role within things like the staging of public events like football matches, their role in health and safety issues, the increasing part they play in policing incivilities and surveilling people committing no crime such as schoolchildren on the way home.; 2 June 2009 at 23:58
Anonymous said...: which school children ?; 3 June 2009 at 01:44
Clovis said...: you could start with the ones in islington.; 3 June 2009 at 06:18
Anonymous said...: do you have a link about that, I've not heard it?; 3 June 2009 at 13:10
Clovis said...: I don't have a link for it, having seen it rather than reading about it. If you go up to the Angel in the afternoon you'll see PCSOs hanging about by the N1 Centre bus stop on Upper Street purely to keep an eye on the schoolchildren, and I've seen a cop with a headcam doing the same up in Archway.; 3 June 2009 at 13:35
unfit said...: I've also seen the police schoolchild-surveillance operation outside the N1 centre. It involved FIT, and I was searched for apparently taking too much interest in it.; 3 June 2009 at 16:21
Anonymous said...: and how many of the poor ickle innocent school children have previous convictions for theft, robbery, burglary and sexual assault? Do you know? do you even care?

Just because they are 'kids' doesn't make them any less of a threat and therefor worthy of police interest. In my experience the most prolific offenders on ANY division are either under 16 because they know they can get away with virtually anything at court, or they're well established career criminals - who started way before they left school.; 3 June 2009 at 17:40
McGonagall said...: Had a cop staying here this week. He laid about drinking my beer and watching the French Open. Prick.; 3 June 2009 at 20:40
Clovis said...: anonymous 1740

these are school children on their way home. they're not a vicious gang of master criminals!; 4 June 2009 at 00:08
Anonymous said...: Clovis, I don't know the area, but would this part of London be a prominent place for robberies or gang tensions. Given they are easily identified as school children is this after school, when robberies, gang fights are most likely to occur, and as such should the police not be watching them to prevent these?; 4 June 2009 at 01:30
Anonymous said...: scunnert, do your politics extend only to the keyboard, why not have the balls to tell the cop to fuck off?; 4 June 2009 at 01:30
Really Fit said...: In my day we had teachers who kept an eye on the kids as they left school, not coppers. Of course there needs to be action to prevent gang bullying and kids terrorising the local asian shopkeepers (which happens frequently here) but is cops with headcams really the way to deal with this?

Preventative policing sounds good doesn't it? Everyone wants to prevent crime. But when the reality of this is to place sections of the population under almost constant surveillance, the remedy does more harm than good.

I despair at a society that increasingly wants to deal with any and every problems by throwing cops with cameras at it.; 4 June 2009 at 01:54
Anonymous said...: I'm sure the cops would be happy to have teachers do it, but teachers stopped and someone neeeds to protect potential victims don't they?; 4 June 2009 at 03:52
Clovis said...: obviously. schoolchildren waiting for a bus must be plotting some criminal activity. and it won't stop when they get older and leave school: look at the number of perjurers, fraudsters, thugs, wife-beaters and so on you find in the police. doubtless all hardened crims by the age of 16.; 4 June 2009 at 06:34
Clovis said...: given the repeated failings of the police - for example, in the case of kirk read, reported in today's telegraph - it's no wonder the police want to pay so much attention to schoolchildren. much easier than catching real criminals.; 4 June 2009 at 06:42
Anonymous said...: Being robbed isn't a real crime? The majority of robbers at certain locations and times of day are school children, a lot of whom are either armed or overwhelm with numbers to the point of scaring people for months after the event, how ridiculous that the police should try to prevent people becoming victims of these horrid crimes.; 4 June 2009 at 09:47
Clovis said...: By that argument, there should be police up and down Upper Street on a Friday and Saturday night, when a considerable quantity of drink is taken by people of all ages - frequently with predictable results. The police surveillance of schoolchildren seems on a par with my experience of policing when I was a teenager, when the police appeared bent on criminalising young people. I don't believe anything's changed on that front, and the handy use of some schoolchildren's behaviour to tar the whole suggests I'm right.; 4 June 2009 at 11:51
Anonymous said...: clovis. Although not everything you say is bollocks, an awful lot of it is.

Gang violence in London is higher than ever before, the majority of members being aged 10-15. Robberies on children by children are higher than ever before thanks to the proliferation of mobile phones and the complete and utter lack of any punishment when suspects are caught and sent to court. Use of knives amongst children is higher than ever before because of the increase of gang influence and fear of being robbed. To suggest that there are more criminals who are serving police officers than currently at school is the biggest and most laughable pile of shite I've ever heard, if it wasn't for the fact that you actually believe your own rubbish I would find it amusing.

I would love nothing more than to leave looking after kids to the teachers but thanks to this pathetic leftist government they have no power, no authority, and no desire to be responsible for those in their charge any more. The only people left are the Police and as long as there is no meaningful and deterrent punishment when people do go to court crime will continue to increase, and you and your pathetic little friends can continue slagging the Police officers for it when they are arresting the same people over and over again.

I saw a briefing today warning officers of a man who was released from prison who has 1300 convictions for burglary. That's not a typo, that one thousand three hundred previous convictions for burglary, and he started his criminal career at 11. I'm not a Police officer but I do work with them and have to see the hoops they have to jump through to get someone to court and then watch the school age shitbags laugh at them when they walk out of court with a biscuit and a hug for crimes up to and including serious GBH, robbery, sexual assault, and burglary.

The Police aren't criminalising children, children are committing serious crimes because they KNOW they can get away with it, and apologist decriers like you don't help in the slightest.; 4 June 2009 at 17:52
Clovis said...: I never said or suggested there were more criminals in the police than among schoolchildren: the thought never entered my mind. My point was that if young criminals go on to become older criminals then what about the many hundreds of criminals serving in the police?

If you think the police aren't criminalising children, a lot of people do. You may like to read the article 'Law creates underclass of child criminals' from the Times of 09/06/2008 at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol
/news/uk/crime/article4093218.ece

And burglary - sexual offences - serious GBH - all committed while waiting for a bus after school? I doubt it.; 5 June 2009 at 00:07
Clovis said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5 June 2009 at 00:07
Aran said...: I'm 19 and what I understand the problem with the policing of young people to be is that the police target young people that are not actually causing trouble or young people (16+) under age drinking and not causing any type of anti-social behaviour.

I'm sure it is true that young people actually committing what most people would consider real crime get away with it – this just proves the system doesn't work! However harassing young people unnecessarily builds a barrier between young people and the police. Times have changed young people will not be stepped all over or treated like second class citizens without resentment building.

It seems to be a problem with the police in general that they waste time targeting normal people, protesters, cycling on the pavement, taxis parking in the wrong place or whatever and not bothering to catch real criminals.; 7 June 2009 at 04:33
Anonymous said...: oh fuck off Aran. Do you have any idea how many 'real' criminals are arrested by the Police every single day in London alone let alone the rest of the country? 85% of all arrests in London are people who have previous criminal (not traffic like speeding) convictions, the rest are split pretty much evenly between drunk and disorderly first time and minor theft offences.

Police officers are sick to death of constantly arresting the same people, many of whom have been bang at it since school. A huge cause of the problem of children having no respect for authority is because they know that they can do pretty much anything and absolutely fuck all will happen to them, either at school or eventually in court. Short of actually killing someone they can do what they want and not have to suffer for it, and the only way to find out who they are, who they hang out with, who they target etc is to observe them. Just because they aren't doing anything criminal at that specific time (otherwise they would get nicked??) doesn't mean we can't gather valuable intelligence on certain people.

I'd love nothing more than to deal with just adults, juveniles are a fucking headache in custody, but the simple fact is that juvenile crime levels are increasing exponentially in london. It's not just a case of an argument or a robbery ends there any more, violence increases and the more they can get away with it unchecked the more they do it until eventually stopped, and the only way to stop them is to gather as much evidence as possible and put them to court, who after enough times will hopefully stick them inside and away from the likes of normal law abiding people.; 7 June 2009 at 11:45
Clovis said...: i don't know if you've seen the article in the hampstead and highgate express which says that camden police are nicking young people to get their dna: http://tinyurl.com/p8fhrx

hmm; 7 June 2009 at 13:33
Anonymous said...: yeah, but nicking them for what though? you can't just 'arrest' someone for no reason, every custody block is covered by cctv and the custody sgt has to be satisfied that the arrest is lawful. If they are getting nicked then they are at the very least suspected of committing a crime, if people are getting arrested for nothing then the IPCC can deal with it but I don't know anyone stupid enough to risk losing their job, pension and most probably their liberty after getting convicted of false arrest, kidnap and false imprisonment. They've more than likely got a directive removing discretion with regard to juveniles which although questionable, isn't illegal, especially if they can show there is a specific threat from youth crime within a given area such as gang related robberies. As the poster above said, most prolific career criminals start young so it makes sense to get them on the system if the opportunity is there.; 7 June 2009 at 15:06
Really Fit said...: Right. Someone puts forward a very coherent, well argued point, and the response from a copper is..."fuck off Aran."

Teenagers who address police officers in the same way in the street are looking at arrest for a S5 public order offence.

I don't know what the situation is in London, but where I live sixteen / seventeen year olds are given grief for having a can of cider in the park, the skateboarding crew are hassled pretty much wherever they go, and stop and search seems disproportionately focused on young people. Admittedly I don't have evidence for this, it's just my perception.

I remember talking to one copper who was in despair because he'd been told his priority for the day was to stop kids playing football in the street.

So lets get real - it isnt all gang related stabbings and car thefts, is it?; 8 June 2009 at 02:45
Anonymous said...: Nice to see another picture of Alan Partridge here.; 16 June 2009 at 21:40

Fitwatch

http://www.fitwatch.org.uk

Fit watch

Pages

Policewatch Films

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

G20 FIT officer at protest against police violence

37 comments:

Twitter / Fitwatcher

Donate To Fitwatch

Who are FIT Watch?

Some Ideas For Fitwatching

Cop Photographer pulling face

Fit Eating Ice Cream

Blog Archive

Contributors

Links

Fitwatch

http://www.fitwatch.org.uk

Fit watch

Pages

Policewatch Films

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

G20 FIT officer at protest against police violence

37 comments:

Twitter / Fitwatcher

Subscribe To

Donate To Fitwatch

Who are FIT Watch?

Some Ideas For Fitwatching

Cop Photographer pulling face

Fit Eating Ice Cream

Blog Archive

Contributors

Links