As if to prove what lying self serving bastards the cops are, the assistant chief constable of Kent Police wrote the following letter which was published in the Guardian. In the face of this kind of blatant spin it is not hard to understand why trust in the police is at such a low ebb. It barely contains a single word of a truth...
From The Guardian, Wednesday 18 March 2009
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/18/kingsnorth-protest
> Our actions allowed protest to go ahead
[Correction: despite their efforts, the protest went ahead]
> While most of those attending the climate camp protest were clearly well-intentioned
and law-abiding, it was clear that a minority were committed to closing down Kingsnorth
power station with the attendant risk to life and loss of power to 300,000 people.
[Correction: the majority (not a minority) were committed to closing down kingsnorth and according to the answer to a recent parliamentary question the plant was in fact closed down for the entire period without loss of power to 300,000 people.]
> It was difficult to balance the interests of protesters with the plant operator Eon
and the local community, but much of the expense arose from our efforts to let
the demonstration proceed.
[Correction: much of the expense arose from transporting and accommodating hundreds of police shipped in from around the country to harass protesters, journalists and local residents for over a week, putting many people off from attending the demonstration.]
> The camp was an illegal mass trespass on fields that expelled the tenant farmer and his
sheep. We could have sought immediate repossession of the land and stopped the camp
there and then, but did not in order to support the right to protest.
[Correction: Trespass is a civil mater and while the tenant or land owner could have sought repossession through the courts it would have been fairly slow and then required a forced eviction of hundreds of people in front of assembled media cameras. Not seeking repossession for a pragmatic decision and had nothing to do with the police wanting to support the right to protest.]
> It was the police who facilitated a water supply to the camp and who put in place
a traffic management plan that maintained access to the site.
[Correction: The local council and the water company facilitated the water supply. The police on the other hand attempted to confiscate the sites plumbing equipment including hundreds of meters of water pipe.]
[Correction: Police 'traffic management' severely hampered access to the site. They set up road blocks and forcing all deliveries to the camp to be dropped off a kilometer away from the camp and carried on foot down to the camp via blanket stop and search checkpoints.]
> It was clear from the start that some items taken there were for criminal purposes, including
grappling hooks, climbing equipment, bolt cutters and a range of locks and bolts.
[Correction: Despite his attempt to selectively list only items which support that claim he still manages to include the bolts for putting together the prefabricated compost toilets. He also includes the bicycle locks from all those people who cycled to the camp and even laptop locks! The vast majority of items seized by the police could have no realistic criminal purpose or intent. These items included a clowns costume, roll mats and board games.]
> By seizing such items, we could let the protest proceed, more confident that the power
station could operate safe from attack.
[Correction: The power station was already offline and protected from 'attack' by a £12 million security upgrade. Putting police inside the grounds of the power station would have done far more to ensure it's security than the unlawfully and arbitrary seizure of personal property. The seizures were clearly an attempt to disrupt the running of the camp and break the will of the campers.]
> It is better to prevent criminality than to deal with its consequences.
[Correction: The cops might think it is better to prevent the possible criminality of a few by removing the civil liberties of the many but most sane people would disagree.]
> I believe the policing operation was a great success. We facilitated a protest camp and
march, we only arrested 100 people
[Comment: I can't correct his believe but many people (cops and politicians included) think that the £6 million spent on the policing was wasted in an operation that saw massive systemic abuse of police power.]
> and nobody was seriously injured or hurt, though 120 protestors were rescued
from the River Medway.
[Correction: Several protesters were treated in hospital for injuries sustained in police baton attacks.]
[Correction: Four people were pulled from river by a BBC film crew when their raft fell apart. The police 'rescues' consisted merely of capturing (without official arrest) the people taking part in the water borne action after impounding their safety boat and seizing dozens of lifejackets and safety flares.]
> Kent police's policy has always been to be transparent in everything we do and this is
why we voluntarily referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
[Correction: Kent Police referred the matter to the IPCC only after the report was presented in parliament and after getting a proper slagging off in the media. They do so safe in the knowledge that it is cops investigating cops and that only the lowest in rank will carry the stick.]
> Allyn Thomas Assistant chief constable, Kent
[Correction: Allyn Thomas, filthy lying police propagandist cunt, kent]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/18/kingsnorth-protest > Our actions allowed protest to go ahead
[Correction: despite their efforts, the protest went ahead]
> While most of those attending the climate camp protest were clearly well-intentioned
and law-abiding, it was clear that a minority were committed to closing down Kingsnorth
power station with the attendant risk to life and loss of power to 300,000 people.
[Correction: the majority (not a minority) were committed to closing down kingsnorth and according to the answer to a recent parliamentary question the plant was in fact closed down for the entire period without loss of power to 300,000 people.]
> It was difficult to balance the interests of protesters with the plant operator Eon
and the local community, but much of the expense arose from our efforts to let
the demonstration proceed.
[Correction: much of the expense arose from transporting and accommodating hundreds of police shipped in from around the country to harass protesters, journalists and local residents for over a week, putting many people off from attending the demonstration.]
> The camp was an illegal mass trespass on fields that expelled the tenant farmer and his
sheep. We could have sought immediate repossession of the land and stopped the camp
there and then, but did not in order to support the right to protest.
[Correction: Trespass is a civil mater and while the tenant or land owner could have sought repossession through the courts it would have been fairly slow and then required a forced eviction of hundreds of people in front of assembled media cameras. Not seeking repossession for a pragmatic decision and had nothing to do with the police wanting to support the right to protest.]
> It was the police who facilitated a water supply to the camp and who put in place
a traffic management plan that maintained access to the site.
[Correction: The local council and the water company facilitated the water supply. The police on the other hand attempted to confiscate the sites plumbing equipment including hundreds of meters of water pipe.]
[Correction: Police 'traffic management' severely hampered access to the site. They set up road blocks and forcing all deliveries to the camp to be dropped off a kilometer away from the camp and carried on foot down to the camp via blanket stop and search checkpoints.]
> It was clear from the start that some items taken there were for criminal purposes, including
grappling hooks, climbing equipment, bolt cutters and a range of locks and bolts.
[Correction: Despite his attempt to selectively list only items which support that claim he still manages to include the bolts for putting together the prefabricated compost toilets. He also includes the bicycle locks from all those people who cycled to the camp and even laptop locks! The vast majority of items seized by the police could have no realistic criminal purpose or intent. These items included a clowns costume, roll mats and board games.]
> By seizing such items, we could let the protest proceed, more confident that the power
station could operate safe from attack.
[Correction: The power station was already offline and protected from 'attack' by a £12 million security upgrade. Putting police inside the grounds of the power station would have done far more to ensure it's security than the unlawfully and arbitrary seizure of personal property. The seizures were clearly an attempt to disrupt the running of the camp and break the will of the campers.]
> It is better to prevent criminality than to deal with its consequences.
[Correction: The cops might think it is better to prevent the possible criminality of a few by removing the civil liberties of the many but most sane people would disagree.]
> I believe the policing operation was a great success. We facilitated a protest camp and
march, we only arrested 100 people
[Comment: I can't correct his believe but many people (cops and politicians included) think that the £6 million spent on the policing was wasted in an operation that saw massive systemic abuse of police power.]
> and nobody was seriously injured or hurt, though 120 protestors were rescued
from the River Medway.
[Correction: Several protesters were treated in hospital for injuries sustained in police baton attacks.]
[Correction: Four people were pulled from river by a BBC film crew when their raft fell apart. The police 'rescues' consisted merely of capturing (without official arrest) the people taking part in the water borne action after impounding their safety boat and seizing dozens of lifejackets and safety flares.]
> Kent police's policy has always been to be transparent in everything we do and this is
why we voluntarily referred the matter to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
[Correction: Kent Police referred the matter to the IPCC only after the report was presented in parliament and after getting a proper slagging off in the media. They do so safe in the knowledge that it is cops investigating cops and that only the lowest in rank will carry the stick.]
> Allyn Thomas Assistant chief constable, Kent
[Correction: Allyn Thomas, filthy lying police propagandist cunt, kent]
Comments
Display the following 7 comments