Cops killed Blair Peach

17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous
Apr 27 2010 12:06
Cops killed Blair Peach

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8645485.stm

TRS's picture
TRS
Offline
Joined: 7-10-09
Apr 27 2010 12:20

D'you think it'll take 30 years for Tomlinson's widow to get closure?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Apr 27 2010 12:35

something the Guardian mentioned in passing was that the report stresses the police do have the common law right to use lethal force against "rebellious assemblies" if it's necessary to disperse them. not actually that surprising, but interesting they don't even cloak it in a self-defence/reasonable force rationale, just 'you rebel, we kill you.'

TRS's picture
TRS
Offline
Joined: 7-10-09
Apr 27 2010 21:27

From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/27/blair-peach-killed-police-met-report

Quote:
From the outset, the Cass investigation appeared unlikely to find an officer guilty. He defined Peach as a member of a "rebellious crowd" in his terms of reference, adding: "Without condoning the death I refer to Archbold 38th edition para 2528: 'In case of riot or rebellious assembly the officers endeavouring to disperse the riot are justified in killing them at common law if the riot cannot otherwise be suppressed'."

(emphasis mine)

Yeah, that's a pretty worrying quote. Not surprising, perhaps, but worrying.

Does anyone have any more info on what "Archbold 38th edition" is?

EDIT: Just found out on wikipedia. It's a legal tome of some weight. The 38th Edition was published in 1973.
It's interesting to note it doesn't say "officers are justifed in killing for self defence", it says they're justified in killing to suppress a riot, which is a whole different kettle of fish...

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 27 2010 21:40

No shocker in this verdict tbh.

Linton Kwesi Johnson

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 27 2010 21:54
october_lost wrote:
No shocker in this verdict tbh.

Linton Kwesi Johnson

Oh thanks OL, all this time I spent waiting to post a LKJ vid in context... sad

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 27 2010 22:00

Hes a shrewd politico, think 'Independant Intavenshan', I don't think he needs much context on a libertarian communist forum.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 27 2010 22:21

TBF Inglan is a Bitch is up there with Cocksparrer - Working as amazing British pop culture deconstructions of the sheer mundanity of working life.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 27 2010 22:34

It's pop culture, dahling. It's all about songs, not bands!

petey
Offline
Joined: 13-10-05
Apr 28 2010 00:30

this is interesting to me, some years ago i posted about lkj and revol suggested i was a dinosaur for listening to him. good to see some of ye young'uns know quality.

EDIT: thank you, More Like This.
http://libcom.org/forums/libcommunity/linton-kwesi-johnson-27062006

Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Apr 28 2010 06:42

lkj denounced in 1981 "white anarchists" for spraypainting "Bristol today - Brixton tomorrow!" in Brixton about 6 months after the Bristol riot of 1980 and about 6 months before the Brixton ones. A few weeks after he wrote this in that hotbed of radical subversion The Observer, Brixton rose up. But then what can you expect from a professional poet/recuperator/representative of black&/or anti-fascist resistance? To be a professional poet nowadays is as much part of this unpoetic world as being a politician or a businessman.

Farce's picture
Farce
Offline
Joined: 21-04-09
Apr 28 2010 18:15
october_lost wrote:
No shocker in this verdict tbh.

Mild shock that they're finally being honest about it, no?

And LKJ rules, even if he did say something silly in 1981.

Caiman del Barrio
Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
Apr 28 2010 19:28

Didn't you READ Satmonaf's post, Farce?

Satmonaf 4 PREZ of Libcom Obnoxiousness Society.

JoeMaguire's picture
JoeMaguire
Offline
Joined: 26-09-03
Apr 28 2010 21:55
Farce wrote:
october_lost wrote:
No shocker in this verdict tbh.

Mild shock that they're finally being honest about it, no?

And LKJ rules, even if he did say something silly in 1981.

They can afford to be honest when the context as been allowed to drift. The entire way the bad shit of yester year is portrayed as having little lineage with the present doesn't do anything to develop class consciousness. Which is why the Tomlinsons, the Kellys and the Menzies can be fucked over, run through a prolonged court case, allowed for numerous spins and counter spins to be put forward by the media and then presented to a populace numbed and over-saturated with the bull shit process.

Whoever said anger was a gift was entirely right, and allowing time to elapse plays entirely into the hands of the ruling classes.