Principle among these apologists for corrupt policing is committee chairman Keith Vaz with a remarkably Orwellian abuse of reality:
"What's acceptable, what's within the police rule book - the use of distraction tactics, for example, slapping or hitting people - shocked the public, therefore, they need to look again at these tactics and consult the public to decide whether or not such tactics can be used again."So beating citizens is a 'distraction tactic'? If any other citizen used that line they'd be laughed out of court and into the cells. Vaz is suggesting that extra-judicial punishments are justified when handed out by the police to those challenging a corrupt government. Soundbite crap about consulting the public is spectacular fuckwittery.
The excuse that the fault lies at the feet of inexperienced officers is bullshit of the highest order. It's little more than a variation on the 'bad apple' theory. The fact that the commons select committee let Commander Bob Broadhurst's story fly, despite the fact that most of the incidents involved highly trained territorial support group officers, indicate that they are either as dishonest as him, or too utterly fucktarded to sit on an important oversight committee.
Like the Kinsgnorth incidents, the behaviour of the police officers there was not out of the norm. The operations were clearly directed at a senior tactical level and supervised by mid level officers on the street.
This doesn't let those officers on the street dishing out violence to peaceful protestors off the hook - the 'following orders' excuse doesn't wash - and they should be facing criminal as well as disciplinary charges for gleefully acting as agents of government oppression.
Also, as the commander on the ground, Broadhurst's bollocks should be on a plate.
Keith Vaz standing down would be a bonus too.