Why this article has been removed?

480 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hieronymous's picture
Hieronymous
Offline
Joined: 27-07-07
Jan 5 2012 02:08
lettersjournal wrote:
Throughout this thread, Joseph K urged people to contact Aufheben so they could so clear, verifiable proof that the allegations against JD were not true. Some people discussed doing this and reporting back, but reading through the thread again I can't find a post where someone does this. Here are some posts where this is discussed:

http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-07102011?page=11#comment-450450
http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-07102011?page=11#comment-450451
http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-07102011?page=11#comment-450701

If I missed where someone reports back on the evidence provided by Aufheben, please post a link to the post.

This is an example of bad faith. Nothing is stopping you from contacting them yourself. But if you did, there would be no reason for passive-aggressive trolling.

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jan 5 2012 06:26

This is weird. If every single person contacted Aufheben individually, there would no longer be anything private about their response. But if only some people do, and they can't say anything about it to all the others who didn't, then the response remains private. So it seems that this is exactly the situation Aufheben is trying to create--where every question about their 'private' response is answered with 'contact them yourself,' which of course not everyone will do, so only a few people will be able to evaluate the response, in private. This seems fishy to me, just formally, regardless of the content of the response.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Jan 5 2012 06:37

I got sent the e-mail without asking because they have my e-mail address alredy. Kinda hard to send something to someone if you don't know where to send it.

Juan Conatz's picture
Juan Conatz
Offline
Joined: 29-04-08
Jan 5 2012 07:55

Yeah, I got it too, although I didn't explicitly ask. They did have my email from mutual connections/brief questions about subscriptions. I'd have to read it again, but I pretty much stand by previous posts I made on the topic, which anyone who disagrees with is not going to sway so I'm not going to repeat again.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Jan 5 2012 08:34
bzfgt wrote:
This is weird. If every single person contacted Aufheben individually, there would no longer be anything private about their response.

Not really. 'Everyone' in this case is perhaps 200 people at most.

That is very different to posting something in this thread which will be coming up in internet searches for many years to come.

Especially given that one of the main things that's been disputed factually in this thread is whether someone did their academic job 'properly' on certain papers around policing, or was taking credit for work they didn't actually do.

Since the people doing the 'outing' went out of their way to name people individually from the outset of this, it does not surprise me that Aufheben would not want to simply add to the increasing mass of public information about them on the internet, but that's not in and of itself 'fishy' even if it's very inconvenient for fast paced internet discussion, and even if I'm personally annoyed that so little response came publicly from Aufheben that it is allowing these accusations of fishiness to continue being made.

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jan 5 2012 16:07

Couldn't they just release a statement without using full names?

bzfgt
Offline
Joined: 25-02-09
Jan 5 2012 16:07

Obviously I don't expect you to speak for them, just floating a possibility.

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Jan 9 2012 20:57

I've just put an article up on the gulf war and it's disappeared/ been deleted, why?

Fall Back's picture
Fall Back
Offline
Joined: 22-09-03
Jan 9 2012 21:04

Duplicate - http://libcom.org/history/war-damages-healthand-health-service-health-workers-1991-gulf-war-practical-history

wojtek
Offline
Joined: 8-01-11
Jan 11 2012 09:49

ah right ok, bummer!

Edit: Just to say I've edited this to include Brixton round 1:

http://libcom.org/history/short-hot-summer-1981

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 5 2017 21:37

Anyone still not convinced that Dr J aids and abets the development of policing policy and tactics? From today's London Evening Standard;

Quote:
London riots 'were fueled by a warped sense of community spirit'

The 2011 riots that started in Tottenham and swept across the UK were inflamed by a warped sense of community uniting against the police, psychologists have said.

Traditional postcode rivalries dissolved as gangs united to form a "band of brothers" working together against a common enemy, research suggests.

Scientists have claimed that this togetherness, amidst the looting, violence and destruction, produced a feeling of euphoria that contributed to the disorder.

Dr J..., from the University of Sussex, led an investigation into the early phases of the riots in Tottenham Hale and Haringey.

Speaking the British Science Festival at the University of Brighton, he said: "This riot saw traditional post-code rivalries melt away in the face of a common enemy in the police, and the emergence of a new shared identity. Our research shows for the first time how that happened.

"Police forces and others may feel that they understand how gang mentalities work but our findings show that at times like this, a fresh sense of community can break down existing loyalties.

"We're talking to police forces and councils about what our research shows. We hope that those responsible for law enforcement and keeping communities safe will take stock."

The August 2011 riots were sparked by the death of Mark Duggan, a suspected gang member who was shot by police in Tottenham. Five people died, property suffered damage estimated at £200 million, and police made more than 3,000 arrests.

The psychologists studied YouTube videos and Google Street View images, looked at police reports and arrest records, and interviewed 41 rioters.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-riots-were-fueled-by-a-warp...

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Sep 6 2017 04:51

Red Marriot that's unbelievable... Even knowing what we know about JD it's still a shock to see quotes like that, plus I hoped all the negative attention he got after being outed by TPTG may have encouraged him to chill out on the cop collaboration stuff but I guess not. Looks like he's still in the mix with that investigation into the riots.

If the admins here and all the other hacks who rallied around JD had anything resembling a spine they would swallow their pride, put their hands up and say "I fucked up, I was wrong about JD and should have stood with the TPTG & Samotnaff after they outed him" and then be sure to cut their ties with that motherfucker once and for all. I've even seen a few people who were standing with him now saying they think he's in the wrong after all, although haven't seen anyone engage in any sort of self-critique over this mess.

Shame on anyone who's still sheltering that piece of shit.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 6 2017 08:26

I expect we'll hear a deafening silence about all that from the defenders & excusers, bootsy.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 6 2017 10:28
bootsy wrote:
Red Marriot that’s unbelievable... Even knowing what we know about JD it’s still a shock to see quotes like that, plus I hoped all the negative attention he got after being outed by TPTG may have encouraged him to chill out on the cop collaboration stuff but I guess not. Looks like he’s still in the mix with that investigation into the riots.

The CBRM stuff and working with Clifford Stott was skirting the line - at the time I thought it was close to the line but not necessarily over it (and he claimed not to have done research on protests for several years at that point iirc).

This absolutely crosses the line, especially the way it’s been reported. He’s been RTing this press coverage on twitter and hasn’t made any statement condemning the framing as far as I can tell. Only thing I can see from Drury directly about the work is here: http://theconversation.com/english-riots-2011-new-research-shows-why-cro...

For me the original ‘open letter’ was badly handled and led to snitchjacketing of both libcom and Aufheben (see samotnaf’s comment criticising that snitchjacketing here: https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/08/511893.html). Where I personally went wrong was slipping from criticism of the handling of the open letter to arguing how close to the line or not his academic work was, won't be making that mistake again.

Tom Henry
Offline
Joined: 26-09-16
Sep 6 2017 10:48

Have most of the 'anti' posters now retired from Libcom? Perhaps over this and/or a succession of other things that are not, perhaps, unrelated?

Why, then, are you both still here? Is it for the same sad reason as I?

I was the poster 'lines' then.

I now remember I got banned, I didn't have to demand to be banned, mais Libcom est un poisson étrange et magnétique.

Johnny's picture
Johnny
Offline
Joined: 24-08-09
Sep 6 2017 10:56

I was asked to do a press conference by the university to publicize some of my research, as part of the British Science Festival. I presented findings from our (unpublished) study, which show that the basis of the spread of conflict in the early stages of the 2011 riots shared identity (an anti-police identity that united the postcodes) and empowerment (crowd members gave each other support, and felt encouraged by beating the police). Obviously the journalists wanted to know the policing implications of this. I don’t think the study has policing implications, though, and the draft paper we have written does not make any such recommendations. I agreed with one of the journalists who said ‘by the time the riot started, it is too late.’ I said the clearest ‘policy’ implication, of the findings, if there was one, has to do with ‘stop and search’, since this shared experience of police harassment was a common theme in the shared identity and in the grievances people said they had beforehand.
Our work is (and will be) publically available and thus accessible to police and others. However, I reject the implication that the finding that defeating the police is empowering for rioters is instrumentally useful to the police in the way R and the other poster suggests. Obviously, what the media say in their articles is their biased interpretation of my statements, and I cannot respond to all of these. To be clear, we have had contact with some police forces in order to obtain police data (arrest and crime figures) which has been important evidence in our analysis of the August 2011 riots.

Mike Harman
Offline
Joined: 7-02-06
Sep 6 2017 11:17

The Standard has a direct quote from you, are you denying saying this? Obviously they'll put their own spin on the research, but it's easy to say if they've misquoted you or not.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-riots-were-fueled-by-a-warp...

JD in the Standard wrote:
"We're talking to police forces and councils about what our research shows. We hope that those responsible for law enforcement and keeping communities safe will take stock."

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 6 2017 17:34

This is how this field of work is presented to, and interpreted by, fellow professionals;

Quote:
MAKING THE CASE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Psychologists Professor Stephen Reicher AcSS of the University of St Andrews, Dr Clifford Stott of the University of Liverpool and Dr J of the University of Sussex have been studying crowds for nearly 30 years using a variety of methods: interviews, surveys, ethnography and experimental studies. They have found that, contrary to popular belief, people do not adopt a ‘mob mentality’ (i.e. lose their identity and lose control of their actions) once in a crowd. Instead, they act in terms of a shared social identity rather than their own personal identity.
These social identities appear to develop though the interactions that take place between crowd members and other groups and it is out of these that violence is generated and escalates. As a result, public order policing can be more effective if it is based upon the recognition of the diversity of sub-groups within a crowd, their specific beliefs and goals and how these can be facilitated. That way, the police can win the majority to their side and so aid crowd members themselves to police disruptive minorities.
Police forces have increasingly adopted these ideas as best practice and they were used with great success at the European Football Championships in Portugal in 2004. The notion of ‘dialogue policing’ has spread across Europe and Scandinavia and, in 2010, the UK adopted the ‘social identity approach’ for public order policing in the HMIC report Adapting to Protest – Nurturing the British Model of Policing.
This new approach encourages the police to use targeted interventions which distinguish between crowd members rather than treat everyone as the same.

This research has also been applied to improve our understanding of crowd behaviour in emergency situations. The team’s work – which has examined a variety of events from the sinking of The Herald of Free Enterprise to the 7/7 attacks in London – has shown that emergencies lead to an emergent sense of shared identity, self-organisation and mutual self-help, so that the emergency services need to ask how they can assist people in what they are already doing rather than impose themselves on the public.
A 2009 NATO report on psychological care for people affected by disasters and major incidents adopts the team’s approach as standard and the researchers are now helping health authorities, emergency planners and the government devise new
procedures for what to do if and when disaster strikes.
http://britsoccrim.org/new/docs/AcSSMakingtheCasecrimepdf.pdf

el psy congroo
Offline
Joined: 17-11-16
Sep 6 2017 20:42

I can't believe this website and the collective running it. This guy is still allowed to post?

This is the straw that broke the camels back for me. I'm out, ya'll. Resigning from the site in protest, S. Artesian style, if you must.

All the best to everyone here who isn't collaborating with the police state.

bootsy
Offline
Joined: 30-11-09
Sep 7 2017 03:15

From the TPTG's second open letter:

Quote:
JD’s research on “identity change in crowds” is not at all as harmless as Aufheben have tried to convince us. As Dr. D’s team of state experts has repeatedly stated, the theoretical knowledge of crowd psychology is promoted by them as the solid basis for the determination of “police strategic and tactical decisions during an event” and the design of certain policing models which, as they have shown, have already been put into practice. It would really be interesting to examine how Dr D and his colleagues have formed their theories of crowd psychology that now inform police tactics and strategy. If the references of “Knowledge-based Public Order Policing: Principles and Practice” (http://www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/cpd/Reicher_et_al_%282007%29.pdf) are reviewed[iii], it becomes evident that the theoretical knowledge which informs police tactics and strategy for crowd management has been constituted through an analysis of interviews with participants in the Poll Tax movement and the 1994 No M11 Link Road Campaign (and others which we leave for the reader to find out for himself/herself). An excerpt from his paper which deals with some specific crowd events during the No M11 Link Road Campaign [see Collective Action and Psychological Change] is indicative of his police perspective: “Thus, the majority did not radicalize as soon as the police arrived on George Green. Rather, any changes were dependent upon the ways in which the police acted towards crowd members. In short, the ‘extreme’ position only became influential to the extent that the police acted towards the majority so as to create a new context and new social relations within which ‘extreme’ actions became both legitimate and possible. Had the police been present but not violated the expectations of the majority, or if they had even acted in ways that violated the negative expectations of the minority, then we would not have expected any radicalization of the majority and we might even have found moderation among the minority. Hence, we would argue that the minority influence and polarization phenomena that we have found cannot be understood simply by reference to who is present in context. They demand an analysis of the evolving interactions through which the very nature of those parties is changed” [p. 598].

As D and Reicher point out in one of their papers [see The Intergroup Dynamics of Collective Empowerment]: “in analyzing contested events where crowd members are doing things that are opposed by police and local authorities and where the topic concerns acts that might be censored by these authorities or even be illegal it is necessary to have the full trust of respondents. This is complicated by the fact that members of many groups in protest distrust academics who they see as implicated in the system that is being opposed. It was this consideration which led us to analyse the specific protest against the setting of the poll tax by Exeter City Council in March 1990. The researchers had good contacts both among the protestors and among the councilors. On the basis of these contacts a sizable number of participants were prepared to discuss their perspective and their actions in some details” [p. 386].

Johnny's comments are purposely misleading, his research is not just available to the police in the same way it is available to the public, his research on crowd psychology has clearly been used by him and his colleagues to develop crowd control recommendations for the police. This goes way, way past the occasional press conference and is in no way harmless. Johnny uses people, he uses his so-called "comrades" for his own benefit, for the benefit of his career and for the benefit of the police. Now he's lying to us in order to salvage the reputation of Aufheben and of himself. He's an absolute sack-of-shit and that would be it, except that this particular sack-of-shit is still helping the police and their hacks in academia to learn about our struggles and figure out how to repress any future uprising as effectively as possible. This is far worse than the usual empty pontificating that goes on in the academy, this is work which actually helps the State become more intelligent about its methods of controlling us and more efficient at reproducing capitalist social relations. Johnny has shamelessly betrayed the trust of those who he struggled alongside and interviewed in the anti-roads struggle, which became an Aufheben article and the basis of his future crowd psychology research. His allegiances should be made widely known so that others are able to be aware that he cannot be trusted and ideally he should be ejected from our communities and our struggles before he's able to use and manipulate even more people for the sake of his career.

Mike Herman I don't see the difference between JD's previous work and this stuff about the riots, its all the same shit. Your comments just come off as a convenient way of admitting the obvious while avoiding the fact that you supported him when the TPTG & Samotnaff aired this mess in public six years ago. Or maybe you really do believe that conducting research on the protest movements you're involved with for the sake of advising police on the most effective means of understanding and controlling crowd behaviour is "skirting the line", maybe you actually do believe that, I dunno. However I think that anyone who doesn't have an interest in downplaying the gravity of what JD has been doing can see very clearly that he's gone far past any line and has blatantly been aiding and collaborating with our enemies.

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Sep 7 2017 06:33

The "it's not my fault if our research gets used by the filth" line has never really washed and it's about time the Libcom admins finally pulled their collective finger out, sacked this cunt right off and admitted their own stupidity in backing up their shithouse mate over the last few years.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 8 2017 13:47
Quote:
Dr J..., from the University of Sussex, led an investigation into the early phases of the riots in Tottenham Hale and Haringey. ...
"We're talking to police forces and councils about what our research shows. We hope that those responsible for law enforcement and keeping communities safe will take stock."

Before it was posted here the above article was happily retweeted by Dr J without any claims of misquoting. This is all a continuation of Dr J & co's ongoing research project going back decades. In light of this, the claims earlier in this thread by lead defender and apologist Joseph Kay look even more ridiculous, "dirty and insidious";

Quote:
This is precisely why such smears are so dirty and insidious, because otherwise intelligent people see all the smoke and conclude there must be a fire. J, categorically, is not and has never taught "cops how to control riots"[my emph]. This is a smear, now repeated, presumably in good faith. As stated in the Aufheben letter, J's presentations to cops have been about his work on mass emergencies, nothing to do with how to control riots. posts #33 http://libcom.org/forums/feedback-content/why-article-has-been-removed-0...

radicalgraffiti
Offline
Joined: 4-11-07
Sep 8 2017 18:50

i think the initial aligation may have been taken more seriously if some people had not gone straight to denouncing libcom, the london anarchist bookfair, afed and solfed as cops the when people where not initially convinced.

probably posting the quotes where he says "we work with cops" with a short explanation would have been more convincing than multi page denunciations of everyone in British anarchist and making a weird principal out of repeatable posting his name after being told it was against the rules.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 8 2017 18:54

Maybe, but none of that was an excuse for the dishonesty or unconvincing excuses. And the evidence has always been plentiful enough to take the accusations seriously - criticising the presentation of it was mainly an attempt to dismiss the validity of the content.

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Sep 8 2017 20:06

I'm not sure if he is saying anything that is particularly secret or that hasn't been said in libcom analysis, that said he is defnitely working with cops. The idea that stop and search provoked this, that people hate the police and that that hatred can unite them is hardly telling the cops our secrets.

This worried me more

Quote:
He said a turning point came when the police chose not to respond to one of their cars being torched, generating a feeling that the police were weak and encouraging rioters to move onto other targets offices and shops.

They haven't quoted him directly, but anything like this that seems to be advocating zero tolerance policing, which is simply an assault on the poor and people of colour, is deeply worrying and unacceptable.

Honestly my first thought when all this emerged was that as it was Samotnaf then it was all exaggerated because I don't think he has ever written anything that wasn't denouncing someone. Facts speak for themselves but I didn't take any of this seriously until people I respected, like Red, started speaking.

When he talked about how his work was to do with crowd movement during emergencies it seemd like it could be acceptable, but this is openly working with the police. I don't think it matters if they could get the information elsewhere, they shouldn't be getting it from us, or people who claim to be us.

Incidentally I don't believe in this postcode war stuff, I am from Tottenham and lived there until a few years ago, I didn't see it growing up or as an adult, fights, gangs (but not how they are presented) yes but the postcode stuff is a media invention.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 9 2017 09:15
jef wrote:
They haven't quoted him directly, but anything like this that seems to be advocating zero tolerance policing, which is simply an assault on the poor and people of colour, is deeply worrying and unacceptable.

He's quoted here;

Quote:
“People gathered confidence from apparent police defeat,” said Dr J, the social psychologist who led the research.

“Seeing a burning police car and no police responding gave people the idea that the police were weak. “That in turn allowed them to move onto a number of different targets.”

He acknowledged, however, that the design of his study made it impossible to rule out a worse reaction from the rioters had the police responded strongly.

“The police didn’t always engage, which created the impression the police were incapable of engaging,” said Dr J.

"It turns out they misjudged that because it emboldened people more than they calculated.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/05/police-missed-chance-strangle...

Dr J then stated he would be sharing such insights with the police and local councils – for what reason but to help avoid such “misjudgements” in the future and make ‘better’ ones to suppress public disorder?

That the ESIM – (Elaborated Social Identity Model – Dr J, his co-author and close collaborator Dr Stott & co’s pet theory of crowd psychology) has overlapping multiple applications is made explicit again in the description of Dr J’s recent teaching curriculum;

Quote:
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX
SCHOOL OF PSYCHOLOGY
The psychology of crowds and collective action
Autumn term
(teaching term 1) 2016-17
Module
convenor:
Dr J

Module outline
This module is about crowds and other collective phenomena, including riots, protests, social movements, mass emergency behaviour, music and sports crowds,
and experiences of mundane situations of crowding. ...

Reading
... The following e-book is an extremely accessible introduction to academic debates around riots, centred on the English riots of August 2011, which contains a number of
core readings for the module:
Reicher, S., & Stott, C. (2011). Mad mobs and Englishmen? Myths and realities of the 2011 riots . London: Constable & Robinson. ...

Part 6.
The original statement of the ESIM is Stott and Reicher (1998) and Stott and Dr J (2000) apply the ESIM to the 1990 poll tax riot (this week’s video showing). ...

Part 7.
... Perhaps the most powerful support for these arguments about the development of football crowd conflict is Stott’s natural experiment involving fans and two police forces during the 2004 European Championships in Portugal. This and the other football research has provided perhaps the strongest evidence for the pivotal role of police perceptions and practices in many cases of ‘public disorder’.

Learning outcome

By the end of this week’s lecture and seminar, the successful student will be able to:
Explain how psychology (mis)informs ‘public order’ policing in relation to the problem of ‘football hooliganism’. ...
https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=psychology-of-cro...(c8817)-module-handbook-2016-17.pdf&site=23

Serge Forward's picture
Serge Forward
Offline
Joined: 14-01-04
Sep 9 2017 09:37

Can I just say, continually referring to this nark as "Dr J" while mentioning his projects and collaborators is all a bit bloody daft. Are the Libcom mods ever going to lift their ruling on not using his name. It's not as though he can't be easily identified already from his work and connections anyway and I really can't see him getting menaced by the dibble. Besides, that dodgy Schmidt character gets mentioned by name all the time. None of this silly "S" stuff for him. I realise the doc who must not be named has previously been connected to some folks at Libcom Admin but if this hasn't taken him beyond the pale, then I don't know what will.

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Sep 10 2017 11:24
Red Marriott wrote:
the claims earlier in this thread by lead defender and apologist Joseph Kay look even more ridiculous (...)

Quote:
J, categorically, is not and has never taught "cops how to control riots"

That was in 2011. As far as I'm aware, that was the case then, and he was working on things like emergency evacuations, resilience in disasters, stuff like that. I haven't seen the new research, and if it's about how to control riots then the situation has changed, and that's for JD to answer.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Sep 10 2017 15:07

That won't wash JK - it's never been either riot control or emergency/disaster management; a few years ago the British Society of Criminology and British Psychological Society described the nature of Dr J & co’s 30 yrs of work and its multiple application more honestly than you ever did;

Quote:
MAKING THE CASE FOR THE SOCIAL SCIENCES
Psychologists Professor Stephen Reicher AcSS of the University of St Andrews, Dr Clifford Stott of the University of Liverpool and Dr J of the University of Sussex have been studying crowds for nearly 30 years using a variety of methods: interviews, surveys, ethnography and experimental studies. They have found that, contrary to popular belief, people do not adopt a ‘mob mentality’ (i.e. lose their identity and lose control of their actions) once in a crowd. Instead, they act in terms of a shared social identity rather than their own personal identity.
These social identities appear to develop though the interactions that take place between crowd members and other groups and it is out of these that violence is generated and escalates. As a result, public order policing can be more effective if it is based upon the recognition of the diversity
of sub-groups within a crowd, their specific beliefs and goals and how these can be facilitated. That way, the police can win the majority to their side and so aid crowd members themselves to police disruptive minorities.
Police forces have increasingly adopted these ideas as best practice and they were used with great success at the European Football Championships in Portugal in 2004. The notion of ‘dialogue policing’ has spread across Europe and Scandinavia and, in 2010, the UK adopted the ‘social identity approach’ for public order policing in the HMIC report Adapting to Protest – Nurturing the British Model of Policing. This new approach encourages the police to use targeted interventions which distinguish between crowd members rather than treat everyone as the same.
This research has also been applied to improve our understanding of crowd behaviour in emergency situations. http://britsoccrim.org/new/docs/AcSSMakingtheCasecrimepdf.pdf

Dr J's blatant recent statements have been a just reward for your loyalty.

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 10 2017 16:49

This stuff reeked back then, but now it is clear cut that it was a stinking pile of shite. While the approch of Samontnaf wasn't the best, he wasn't wrong on Dr. J.

JK, there is nothing in wrong in just saying: ok, we were wrong on this, Dr. J took us for a ride.