Police medic in job creation scheme
'Take two of these and come and see me in the morning'
Now, I’ve never had any medical training so can someone more knowledgeable please tell me what the above procedure is called and what it’s used for in a medical capacity?
(I’m extremely late coming to this but go and read up about Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act. Put two and two together and see what you come up with.)
(Via Peter Gasston on Twitter and Bristle)
Update April 11: Sorry this is so late but the photo is copyright Amjamjazz and is used without permission. If Amjamjazz wants to get in touch about my using it then my email address is at the top of the blog.
Updated update: April 11: Amjamjazz has been in touch and has given permission for the photo to be used under the terms of Creative Commons. He’s also got his own blog project with some goodies coming soon.
Posted on April 8th, 2009 at 10:52am under Crime and punishment
| Related posts... • Guido Fawkes and the BNP UPDATE UPDATED UPDATED UPDATED • Bloggers: I beg a favour • In camera |
• Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe |
|
|
|
• 56 Comments |
[...] Chicken Yoghurt has another question supported by this picture [...]
Apparently the role of Police Medic is to treat injured coppers, not injured demonstrators. Doubtless when they’re not treating their fellow officers they’re quite likely to enjoy wading into the crusties with the rest of Her Majesty’s Finest. A man’s got to relax, after all.
Where are your eyes, man? You can clearly see that he is battling the black-cloaked Spectre of Death. What more can one expect of a medic?
If you’re shocked by that, you’ll be downright horrified to hear that every army platoon or patrol has a designated medic; and he carries a gun! With bullets! And shoots people!
Comforting to know that the citizens of this country have the same relationship to the police as the soldiers of an enemy state do to the Army during a war.
Yes, Fellow Traveller, that’s exactly what I meant.
Yes, Fellow Traveller, that’s exactly what I meant. You’re quite right.
Then what did you mean? Or was it just another snide non-sequitur?
Trepanning?
Judging by your comments, I wouldn’t advise it, you’ve already sufficient holes in your head.
You’re horribly wrong.
Again.
No holes, apart from the approved ones where my eyes are, the nostrils, mouth and my ears and obviously the vast raft of pores, which could count as holes.
Smashing.
Glad that’s cleared up.
Oxycuted them?
No, wrong again, thanks to getting older and using skin care products of the highest order, my skin is the best it’s ever been.
Lovely.
A cranial twatteopathy, I think you’ll find.
Found this eyewitness account:
http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1056
I stand firmly by my previously stated position (that the medic pictured here is clearly fending off Death himself) but wish to add that the man is also professional enough to realise that a surgeon’s hands are precious tools that should NOT be needlessly/recklessly exposed to danger or damage.
I believe you’ll find that it’s to help people up who accidentally fell down the stairs, m’lud.
Now move along, move along. He could have swung his arm back much more to get in the maximum blow. I feel he is exercising real restraint here.
He resembles a Lego policeman.
Due to the lack of NHS dentist the police have been advised to help out, removing teeth heads and anything else that gets in it’s way.
[...] Justin McKeating on his blog says “Now, I’ve never had any medical training so can someone more knowledgeable please tell me what the above procedure is called and what it’s used for in a medical capacity?” Link to post. [...]
What a dumb post. He is simply a Police officer who has medical training. He does the same job as the others but helps fellow officers who are injured. He wears a different uniform to be found easily when an injury occurs.
Thank you for saying that.
Blogs are rife with police hate right now over the actions of a few officers during a protest. To derive that all members of the police are like that is nonsense.
In fact I have seen police blogs denounce the actions of those few.
I only ask that you treat these things as a single incident involving only the officers present.
And, Paul, were it not for footage like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs
I’d agree with you.
There are all sorts of tensions within ‘public order policing’, and it’s a disciplined role, which means that police officers will get into trouble if they don’t obey orders. But I’m afraid that I can’t see this assault as anything other than business as usual. For fuck’s sake, if you’re a copper you must have been told that it’s a really bad idea to bring down your baton overarm on someone’s head. Yet there are shed-loads of picures of just this happening.
I’ve got a bit of sympathy with the poor bastard PCs who are going to be hauled over the coals about this death. I would hope that hundreds of other coppers are thinking “there but for the grace…”, because this is obviously a systemic problem — like the De Menezes case, the senior officers who set this thing up (“Up for it”) need to answer some questions soon.
Accurate point, Peter – the problem, I think, stems from the “Evil demonstrators fought police medics, the scumsucking toerags!” smear which followed the news of Ian Tomlinson’s death. Especially because this doesn’t seem to have happened. It’s surely a bit much for a guy with a stick to stop hitting you and say “I’m a medic, let me through. Or you will damned for eternity as a doctor-obstructor.”
Personally, I think that the reason this picture is worthy of comment is that we’re (with good reason) conditioned to respect medical crosses – even if they’re green not red – and so seeing this rather jars. My experience of this kind of event (which is minor, so I accept I might have missed something) is that crowds which won’t part for cops are very co-operative for ambulance and fire crews.
Or perhaps it’s just the residue of being raised on Dad’s Army. Godfrey would never have done that.
If you’re going to read up about s.76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, then read R v. K [2008] EWCA Crim 185. A short summary of the judgement is available at http://www.lawreports.co.uk/WLRD/2008/CACrim/feb0.2.html; the full judgement is at http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2008/185.html.
The particularly pertinent part is in paragraph 15, where the Lord Chief Justice explains that “The natural meaning of that section requires that a document or record that infringes it must contain information of such a nature as to raise a reasonable suspicion that it is intended to be used to assist in the preparation or commission of an act of terrorism. It must be information that calls for an explanation.”
This is actually a judgment relating to an identically-worded law rather than specifically the one regarding the police, but it’s clear that a photo of the police on duty would not fall into this.
I’m all for skepticism of what new legislation will mean in practice, but this is legislation that (by virtue of adopting the wording of an existing piece of legislation) has already been interpreted and had its meaning confirmed by the courts. It is clear that it does not prevent people taking photos of the police, and to suggest that it does will either promote paranoia, or make people fearful of taking photos. Neither of which is a good outcome.
(I’m not, incidentally, blaming you; the ordinary person isn’t expected to have legal knowledge. But the newspapers and broadcast media have been terrible on this. Each of them will have both legal correspondents, and a legal team they could ask for advice, who could have looked into this. As far as I am aware, none of them have done so, preferring instead to stoke up fear.)
It is clear that it does not prevent people taking photos of the police, and to suggest that it does will either promote paranoia, or make people fearful of taking photos. Neither of which is a good outcome.
Thanks for that, Tom, that’s very good to know. The thing I worry about is that we’ve seen other anti-terror legislation misused over the last few years. This ignorance of the facts could cut both ways as I see it – the media using it for a story and unscrupulous policemen wanting photos taken at demonstrations deleted.
The new section 58A is not “identically worded” to the old section 58 which is what the judgment quoted above refers to.
It is similar to the now repealed section 103 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which only applied to Northern Ireland, and which never prevented any terrorist attacks on military, police or intelligence services people.
However, section 103 did not apply to the intelligence services but did apply to Judges, prosecution and defence lawyers, and prison officers etc. some of whom have been terrorist targets in the past, but section 58A, which applies to the whole of the UK does not apply to them, for some unfathomable reason.
The natural meaning of “elicits or attempts to elicit” is much wider and even more catch all than “collects” or “makes a record of” or “possesses a document”. The wording covers failed attempts to elicit the information and also covers purely oral conversations or questions which you have not made a record of.
Section 58A also covers former members of the armed forces, former police constables and former members of the intelligence agencies, no matter if they have resigned or been dismissed as a result of incompetence or criminality such corruption or espionage or treason.
Conceivably it even applies if these former officials are now dead, so this section 58A will probably also be used to stifle the writing and publication of controversial diaries, memoirs and biographies etc. by former officials which mention their former colleagues.
The new section 58A also criminalises “publishes or communicates any such information.” in general, whilst the old section 58 only covers specific ly “terrorist publications”.
All of the “reverse burden of proof” stuff about “having a reasonable excuse” is far too late – being arrested under a serious Terrorism Act offence will ruin your life and that of your family, even if you are never charged or are eventually found not guilty.
You could have been held without charge for up to 42 days and you will have been DNA sampled, fingerprinted, photographed and had your home and office searched, and your computers etc. seized etc., with these records being kept on you for the rest of your life You and your family and friends will end up on all sorts of secret travel or financial transaction watchlists around the world, regardless if your innocence.
Police constables and PCSOs and non-police private security guards routinely manage to illegally harass amateur and professional photographers, train and plane spotters etc. without regard to to the complicated letter of the Terrorism Act 2000 law or even the Association of Chief Police Officers official guidance not to use anti-terrorism laws for normal policing or public order purposes. There is every prospect of this new law being abused in a similar way.
It is far more likely to be used to harass innocent people in the street or at demonstrations, to stifle investigative enquiries about potential corruption or incompetence, or to prevent the writing or publication of memoirs and biographies, than in somehow foiling a real terrorist plot.
The relevant wording is “information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”, which is what R v K interprets, and which IS identical between the different sections. If anything, the use of ‘elicits’ makes it even less likely to cover ordinary photography – it’s very difficult to see taking a photograph of someone in public as ‘eliciting’ information.
It is entirely possible that police will misuse the law – they already act to prevent people taking photographs in situations where they have no right to do so. But repeatedly claiming that ‘taking photographs of the police is now illegal’ is only going to encourage them to act as if that’s true, when it’s very clear that it’s not.
It would be if the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 section 76 had simply amended Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, instead of creating a brand new section 58A.
Hopefully the same principles will apply, but until there is some actual case law, then it is wrong to say that the new legal situation is “very clear”.
The chilling effect of this new law is in its perception, and in its use to threaten and harass, rather than any actual successful prosecutions or even acquittals in Court, by which time, as mentioned above your life and that of your family and friends will have been ruined, even if you are merely arrested under such a serious charge.
Apologies for the”42 days” error above, which should, of course be “only” 28 days detention without charge.
The medic may carry a gun, but he can only use it for self defense purposes, that is if he wants to keep his special protected status under the Geneva Convention.
If a medic takes part in an offensive capacity s/he loses that status.
Surely this is a brilliant catch, one handed above his head, of just one of a dangerous volley of long black sticks thrown at medical officers by unruly protesters intent on stopping them from healing the sick? You can see another one landing on the police, just to the left.
No wonder they hit people, we still make them wear those pointy tall hats… anyway, imo, the protests were infantile and the police did a good job keeping it all contained.
ajay is in fact entirely wrong, Army, and indeed other forces, medics are designated non-combatant and do not carry weapons, nor are they trained to do so. They are also duty bound to treat wounded members of enemy forces, and Yes I do know what I’m talking about.
Well it’s not naturopathic. This treatment looks like it could work.
[...] Justin McKeating asks: “Now, I’ve never had any medical training so can someone more knowledgeable please tell me what the above procedure is called and what it’s used for in a medical capacity?” (via, Why That’s Delightful!) [...]
Justin, don’t you think you should credit the person who snapped this photograph? Especially since the copyright notice on their photograph is All Rights Reserved and you’re using it without permission/attribution…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amjamjazz/3406353191
Yep, good point. Will do that now. Thanks for the reminder.
My guardian angel.
Thanks for your concern. Anyway I can repay it, let me know.
All sorted now.
[...] Justin McKeating asks: “Now, I’ve never had any medical training so can someone more knowledgeable please tell me what the above procedure is called and what it’s used for in a medical capacity?” (via, Why That’s Delightful!) [...]
[...] Justin McKeating asks: “Now, I’ve never had any medical training so can someone more knowledgeable please tell me what the above procedure is called and what it’s used for in a medical capacity?” (via, Why That’s Delightful!) [...]
[...] On the back of the Tomlinson farce, this gem-of-juxtoposition dug up by none other than Chicken Yogurt, where a police medic (you know, the ones allegedly bottled by protesters in version #1 of the [...]
[...] Justin McKeating asks: “Now, I’ve never had any medical training so can someone more knowledgeable please tell me what the above procedure is called and what it’s used for in a medical capacity?” (via, Why That’s Delightful!) [...]
It’s called the Aggressive-passive Heimlich manouevre. First you stop the patient from panicing by whacking him a few times on the head with a heavy club. He is now passive. Then you lower the baon to the abdomen, grast with both hands and pull strongly. This enables the patient to blow out the teeth he had inhaled after he was whacked in the face by your colleague.
Don’t forget the medic isn’t a doctor. He is a thug trained in first aid and hurting people.
[...] Chicken Yoghurt. Post a comment | Trackback [...]
I’m not a big fan of the policing of protests in London, and I’ve been the victim of police kettling in 2001, but the police medics were on hand almost immediately to treat a man who collapsed next to me for no apparent reason.
I doubt that they are as quick to come to the aid of people who’s skulls they’ve just cracked though. They seem to be for medical emergencies only.
[...] on from the photo of the police medic at the G20 demonstrations, Amjamjazz has published more photos in the [...]
Not long ago Politicians overtook Lawyers as the most hated group. It won’t be long before Plod overtake Lawyers to take that number 2 slot. Politicians, of course, having an insurmountable lead.
Lawyers btw have not changed in any way. Just so we are clear.
Not all officer are like this, boy lucky you were not with us on the miners strike, because believe me all police officer were like this. OK a few stated they did not enjoy hitting women and children but it had to be done.
Thatcher changed the police that year, they became the tools of the government.
He was wacking someone he couldn’t see, behind two lines of helmeted lumps. He couldn’t have had any appreciation of what was happening on the other side of the cordon, and no idea of the damage he migt be causing, or to whom.
The reason the Red Cross is guaranteed safe conduct in war is because it does not bear arms. By bearing arms in this way, the police medics lay themselves open to attack – which is possibly why his colleagues tried to restrain him..
[...] the attitudes of individual officers, on the ground, towards protesters. For a start, they have to explain this photo. Not the fact that the officer in question is a medic, but that the officer in question has baton [...]
I suspect I’m going to regret getting involved but, since a lot of people are suddenly claiming expertise on military medics:
1) Andy Nicholas says ‘ajay is in fact entirely wrong, Army, and indeed other forces, medics are designated non-combatant and do not carry weapons, nor are they trained to do so. They are also duty bound to treat wounded members of enemy forces, and Yes I do know what I’m talking about.’
No, Andy, you do not know what you are talking about.
I served as an Army medic last year in Afghanistan, and when on patrol I carried a loaded rifle, which I have been trained to use, like every other Army medic. Medics are obliged to treat enemy personnel, and I did treat at least one confirmed Taliban fighter, but that is irrelevant to the business of carrying weapons. The Geneva Convention says that medics may carry firearms to protect themselves and their patients, and we do.
2) The whole question of Army medics is irrelevant to how police medics behave, and even more irrelevant to how this one individual was acting. (So thank you to Ajay for dragging it all in.) There is no such thing as ‘non-combatant’ status in a civilian police force: it makes sense to label any policeman with medical training, so that he can clearly be identified if there are people needing treatment, but the ideas that a copper with medical training should not take action to apprehend a criminal, or should expect not to be attacked by criminals, are crazy.
Having said that, this particular police medic seems out of control. Hitting someone on the head with a baton is a potentially lethal action which should be taken if it’s the only way to prevent an even worse outcome. This guy seems to me to be lashing out for the hell of it, in common with rather a lot of coppers at that demonstration.
3) For the benefit of any passing Observer columnists, I should note that I am *still* not a Doctor.
[...] the attitudes of individual officers, on the ground, towards protesters. For a start, they have to explain this photo. Not the fact that the officer in question is a medic, but that the officer in question has baton [...]
Thank you for the info, may well have changed since my time then.
Of course it is, to the best of My Knowledge, not permissable for several men to hold someone down and empty a weapon into their head at close range either, lest anyone think thats something the Army share with the police.
It may be that the Police medic is in the course of assessing someone with a shoulder problem. He is saying “Raise your right arm in the air, like me. Does it hurt when you do that?” And because of the awkward camera angle, and the fact that the photo is taken out of context, gives the false impression that he is hitting someone. Yes, that’s the answer.
[...] Chicken Yoghurt gives us an interesting image from a British protest. Apparently, what the medics give, they are also allowed to take [...]