This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
bullying and callous.

In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.

The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
@mid.individual.net:

> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
see
> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
> bullying and callous.
>
> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
reasonably
> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>

I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:

1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
2. Refused to leave bus.
3. Police called.
4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
not remian.
5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
journey.
7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
Pava to control the situation.

Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in
their police car. This was refused.

All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and
beligerence.

Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
apology.

In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non-
cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
Nine O'Clock News.

--
Peter

On 11/02/2024 11:43 am, The Todal wrote:

> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
> bullying and callous.
>
> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.

Was it in London?

Doesn't TaL have a zero-tolerance policy on aggression ("agitation")
towards their staff?

"...hostility of the public..."?

Are / were ALL the public hostile to the police's reaction?

I'd have said that only some of the public would take that line.
Certainly not all.

On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
> see
>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>> bullying and callous.
>>
>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
>> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
>> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
>> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
>> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
> reasonably
>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>
>
> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>
> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.

I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of
events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the driver
said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that meant. The
police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage her to leave
the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude language it might be
necessary to call social services and have her child taken away from
her, which was a disgraceful threat.

> 2. Refused to leave bus.
> 3. Police called.
> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
> not remian.

Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her to
leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go anywhere.

> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".

She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them imminently.

> 6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
> of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
> journey.
> 7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
> Pava to control the situation.

Pava (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained by
officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two
officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been white
and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more courtesy.

>
> Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
> cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in
> their police car. This was refused.

As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
car is not a good look.

>
> All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and
> beligerence.
>
> Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
> apology.

Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate
the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of black
community leaders and didn't care that he was.

>
>
> In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
> however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
> for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non-
> cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
> negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
> for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
> Nine O'Clock News.
>

In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
wasn't punished in any way.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:43:12 +0000, The Todal wrote:

> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
> bullying and callous.
>
> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.

Au contraire None of this is really news, or unremarkable.

On 11/02/2024 18:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:43:12 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>
>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>> bullying and callous.
>>
>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
>> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
>> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
>> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
>> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>
> Au contraire None of this is really news, or unremarkable.
>

The documentary is origninal in that the makers were invited by the
police to be present while complaints about officers were investigated,
so that the public would be able to see how efficient the investigations
were and whether the end result was fair. If the expectation was that
the public would be reassured that the police can discipline their own,
then that probably hasn't worked.

Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police
officer would anyone have found that story credible?

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:

>> apology.
>
> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the police
> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't care
> that he was.
>

I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.

That qualification shouldn't be needed.
--
kat
>^..^<

On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>
>>> apology.
>>
>> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the
>> police
>> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
>> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
>> care
>> that he was.
>>
>
> I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
> police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
> black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
>
> That qualification shouldn't be needed.

You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.

--
Roger Hayter

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:

[ ... ]

> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
> wasn't punished in any way.

To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?

I ask merely for information.

On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:

> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
>> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
>> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
>> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
>> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
>> wasn't punished in any way.
>
> To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
>
> I ask merely for information.

Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
done something similar.

--
Roger Hayter

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>> see
>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>> bullying and callous.
>>>
>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
>>> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
>>> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
>>> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
>>> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
>> reasonably
>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>
>>
>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>
>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>
> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of
> events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the driver
> said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that meant. The
> police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage her to leave
> the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude language it might be
> necessary to call social services and have her child taken away from
> her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>
>
>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>> 3. Police called.
>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she could
>> not remian.
>
> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her to
> leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go anywhere.
>
>
>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>
> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them imminently.
>
>
>> 6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was one
>> of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue its
>> journey.
>> 7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to use
>> Pava to control the situation.
>
> Pava  (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
> forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained by
> officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two
> officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
> spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been white
> and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more courtesy.
>
>
>>
>> Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the passenger's
>> cause of disress in needing to collect another by offering her a lift in
>> their police car. This was refused.
>
> As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
> car is not a good look.
>
>
>>
>> All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making and
>> beligerence.
>>
>> Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
>> apology.
>
> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
> the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate
> the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of black
> community leaders and didn't care that he was.
>
>>
>>
>> In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
>> however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and claim
>> for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his non-violent non-
>> cooperation with the officer who had accosted and searched him with
>> negative results in the past was suspicious and gave reasonable suspicion
>> for the drug search. It felt like Constable Savage sketch from Not The
>> Nine O'Clock News.
>>
>
> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
> wasn't punished in any way.

There are some here who don't like the use of the police and other
establishments using body-cams. Even complaining of the associated cost.
This is one case where it would be useful to moderate police behaviour
and to remove false accusations.

Where if there is no footage, then greater credibility should be given
to the complainant's claims of wrongdoing, and rape in this case.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:34:22 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:

>On 11/02/2024 18:06, Jethro_uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:43:12 +0000, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching - see
>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>> bullying and callous.
>>>
>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
>>> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
>>> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
>>> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
>>> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted reasonably
>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>
>> Au contraire None of this is really news, or unremarkable.
>>
>
>The documentary is origninal in that the makers were invited by the
>police to be present while complaints about officers were investigated,
>so that the public would be able to see how efficient the investigations
>were and whether the end result was fair. If the expectation was that
>the public would be reassured that the police can discipline their own,
>then that probably hasn't worked.
>
>Perhaps the most preposterous part was the officer who was accused of
>raping the drunken woman claiming that actually she raped him, forced
>herself on him and made him have an erection. If he hadn't been a police
>officer would anyone have found that story credible?

There was an article about this series before it was broadcast in the
Guardian or the Observer, so on the Guardian website. Said the makers
were shocked at what they found, that they expected to see the police
against the world, as it were, and instead found that the police were
incompetent. (I summarise. It was a few weeks ago that I read it.)

On 12/02/2024 10:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>>> apology.
>>>
>>> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the
>>> police
>>> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
>>> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
>>> care
>>> that he was.
>>>
>>
>> I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
>> police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
>> black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
>>
>> That qualification shouldn't be needed.
>
> You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
>
>

And maybe it was, I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't see it. Possibly
some black people would agree.

But I assume the bus was filled with a diverse set of people and it would seem
odd that only black people found it unacceptable, if it was.
--
kat
>^..^<

The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:

> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>> see
>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>> bullying and callous.
>>>
>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
>>> defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
>>> of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
>>> spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
>>> they acted
>> reasonably
>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>
>>
>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>
>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>
> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>

This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.

We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
to their treatment, whether justified or not.

I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

>
>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>> 3. Police called.
>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>> could not remian.
>
> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
> anywhere.
>

What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.

>
>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>
> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
> imminently.
>

So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?

>
>> 6. Subject to further refusal to depart the only remaining option was
>> one of arrest to facilitate removal and permint the bus to continue
>> its journey.
>> 7. Physical resistance to arrest left no option option other than to
>> use Pava to control the situation.
>
> Pava (pepper spray) should not be used as punishment or as a way of
> forcing compliance when the person is unarmed and could be restrained
> by officers without using weapons. It would have been possible for two
> officers to lead this woman off the bus. They were too impatient to
> spend time calming her down or negotiating with her. Had she been
> white and middle class, perhaps she might have been treated with more
> courtesy.
>

Again we are both the victim of the soundbite nature/editing of the
programme, neither of us know what happened between the initial arrest
notification, the initial(secondary) kickoff and the parvo event. From my
memory there were already a number of officers attempting her (lawful)
constraint (IMV a fully lawful arrest) so I feel that parv was only used as
a last resort. I don't feel it was used as a punishement but that is an
area that I am prepared to be convinced on, with convincing evidence rather
than speculation.

>
>>
>> Further ISTR that the officers responded positively to the
>> passenger's cause of disress in needing to collect another by
>> offering her a lift in their police car. This was refused.
>
> As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
> car is not a good look.
>

Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the
car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her
out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
negative association. If however the subject had a negative history with
both the school and the police then I can understand why they might wish to
avoid further negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the
'victim's' own negative former behaviour.

Also whilst she may have wanted to be close to her child during her (self
imposed<?>) stressful situation that she chose to remove her child from the
pushchair and hold it to her as a human shield to protect herself from the
legitimate actions of the police in ejecting her from the bus.

>>
>> All in all I view this situation as one entirely of her own making
>> and beligerence.
>>
>> Sadly followed by a massive climbdown by the police authority and
>> apology.
>
> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that
> the police closed ranks and the officer who was expected to
> investigate the incident was totally out of step with the feelings of
> black community leaders and didn't care that he was.
>

Is this an out of sequence response? Is this in response to the drugs
search. If so then we agree. If related to the female passenger then we
disagree for the reasons above.

>>
>>
>> In the case of the black guy who was stopped and searched for drugs
>> however I was very surprised by the rejection of his complaint and
>> claim for racial bias and targetting. The IOPC ruled that his
>> non-violent non- cooperation with the officer who had accosted and
>> searched him with negative results in the past was suspicious and
>> gave reasonable suspicion for the drug search. It felt like Constable
>> Savage sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News.
>>
>
> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had
> sex with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who
> complained that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and
> seemingly wasn't punished in any way.
>

Both appalling abuses of police powers. In the former there was clear
frustration at the extensive previous history with subject and previous
suicide attempts at the same location leading to their loss of control and
professionalism. I sympathise with their loss of professionalism based on
repeated same situation attendances but I do not condone it

In the latter I found the vicitim credible and the story of the accused
officer absuolutely incredible. Despite the lack of corroboration I feel it
was a case that justified a prosecution or dismissal under gross misconduct
following investigation. The whole concept of resignation under full
benefits or health related retirement whilst under investigation to be
alien to natural justice and something I would like to see an end to. There
are far too many cases of errant officers escaping justice by
resigning/retiring(hurt) and being permitted to simply transfer to other
regions in similar roles and I would like to see this ended.

On 2024-02-12, Peter Walker <not@for.mail> wrote:
> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
> news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>
> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
>
> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
> to their treatment, whether justified or not.

This is a rather bizarre paragraph. If I get onto a bus I almost
certainly do have "expectations" as to my treatment, in particular
that the bus driver will transport me and the other passengers
along the bus route. I imagine all the other passengers have
similar expectations. Why are you implying this is a negative,
or something that only applies to this specific passenger?

> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

That doesn't sound remotely conciliatory.

>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>> anywhere.
>
> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
> pay.

You keep saying this, but Todal has said she did have the means to pay.
So which is it? Did you and he watch different programmes?

>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>> imminently.
>
> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
> in their defence?

What threats are you talking about? You haven't identified any so far.

>> As a commentator said, being taken to your child's school in a police
>> car is not a good look.
>
> Many views can be taken from that position. A grateful mother departing the
> car and waving backwards, expressing thanks to the officers in helping her
> out of a difficult situation would be difficult to attribute a to a
> negative association.

This is pie in the sky stuff.

> If however the subject had a negative history with both the school and
> the police then I can understand why they might wish to avoid further
> negative association. Again perhaps a situation of the 'victim's' own
> negative former behaviour.

You appear to be making multiple completely-unsupported assumptions.

On 12/02/2024 16:50, kat wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 10:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>>>
>>>>> apology.
>>>>
>>>> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is
>>>> that the
>>>> police
>>>> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the
>>>> incident was
>>>> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and
>>>> didn't
>>>> care
>>>> that he was.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is,
>>> that if the
>>> police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not
>>> just the
>>> black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
>>>
>>> That qualification shouldn't be needed.
>>
>> You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
>> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
>>
>>
>
> And maybe it was, I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't see it.
> Possibly some black people would agree.
>
> But I assume the bus was filled with a diverse set of people and it
> would seem odd that only black people found it unacceptable, if it was.

I think the bus was empty of passengers other than the woman, her small
child and a number of police officers.

The black people who protested were witnessing events from outside and
maybe didn't have all the facts. But the black people assessing events
were watching the video footage from the police officers

On 12/02/2024 12:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2024 at 11:20:46 GMT, "JNugent" <jennings&co@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> In episode 1 a suicidal woman on a suspension bridge was manhandled,
>>> handcuffed and arrested for being a public nuisance and subjected to
>>> Pava (pepper spray) seemingly to punish her. And an officer who had sex
>>> with a drunken woman to whom he was given a lift home, who complained
>>> that she had been raped by him, was found not guilty and seemingly
>>> wasn't punished in any way.
>>
>> To what punishment should someone who is not guilty be subjected?
>>
>> I ask merely for information.
>
> Dismissal for gross misconduct. That would certainly have happened to me had I
> done something similar.
>

Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if
allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.

On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:36:48 GMT, "Peter Walker" <not@for.mail> wrote:

> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
> news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>>> see
>>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>>> bullying and callous.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
>>>> defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
>>>> of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
>>>> spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
>>>> they acted
>>> reasonably
>>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>>
>>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>>
>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>>
>
> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
>
> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
>
> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

Do the police actually have the power to expel people from buses? Undoubtedly
they could arrest her if she assaulted *the driver* if and when he tried to
expel her.

>
>>
>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>> 3. Police called.
>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>> could not remian.
>>
>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.

My understanding is that she had money, but not the payment type the driver
wanted. And this is not the Wild West. The bus company is heavily subsidised
by the council as a service to people without cars. It is not a private hire
operation taking who they want to when they want to. Was the driver's attitude
reasonable when she had a small child to pick up and could presumably pay cash
or promise to pay?

>
>>
>>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>>
>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>> imminently.
>>
>
> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
> in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
> with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
> before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?

It depends how credible the threat, I suppose.

snip

--
Roger Hayter

On 12/02/2024 18:36, Peter Walker wrote:
> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
> news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>>> see
>>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>>> bullying and callous.
>>>>
>>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
>>>> defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
>>>> of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
>>>> spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
>>>> they acted
>>> reasonably
>>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>>
>>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>>
>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>>
>
> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.

Did you watch the episode, which is available on Channel 4 Catchup? I
hoped everyone would watch it before commenting.

>
> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
> to their treatment, whether justified or not.

Officer (to driver) Hello mate, you alright?
Driver Yeah
Officer Was she being abusive?
Driver She got rude to me and I said there's no need to be rude
Officer What do you want to happen? Do you want her off, or...
Driver I've been told to have her removed
Woman I got on the bus up there, and he said he doesn't have change. So
then I tried to pay by card. The card declined. I said okay can I get a
change ticket then instead? He then looked me up and down and said not
when you speak to me like that. So I was like, sorry if you feel like I
was rude to you. Again I apologise.But I need to get my child from
school. How are you going to get me to my child's school?
Officer We've got a car
Woman I'm not getting in a fed car cause I didn't do nothing wrong,
that's just ridiculous.
Officer I know. Let's put a referral into social services. That you're
screaming and shouting in front of your young daughter.

>
> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".

I disagree.

>
>>
>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>> 3. Police called.
>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>> could not remian.
>>
>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>> anywhere.
>>
>
> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.

See above.

>
>>
>>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>>
>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>> imminently.
>>
>
> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
> in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
> with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
> before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?

If the police want to de-escalate a situation they should ask the member
of the public - to whom they should be courteous and professional at all
times - to confirm that she does not intend to offer any violence.
That's obvious.

On 12/02/2024 21:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:36:48 GMT, "Peter Walker" <not@for.mail> wrote:
>
>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
>> news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>>>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>
>>>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>>>> see
>>>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>>>> bullying and callous.
>>>>>
>>>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
>>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
>>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
>>>>> defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
>>>>> of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
>>>>> spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
>>>>> they acted
>>>> reasonably
>>>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>>>
>>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>>>
>>
>> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
>> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
>>
>> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
>> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
>> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
>> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
>> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
>> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
>> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
>> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
>>
>> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
>> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
>> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
>
> Do the police actually have the power to expel people from buses? Undoubtedly
> they could arrest her if she assaulted *the driver* if and when he tried to
> expel her.

I would hope so, if someone sat in the passenger seat of my car I would
hope the police would remove them. Same if you had an unwanted guest in
your house.

>>>> 2. Refused to leave bus.
>>>> 3. Police called.
>>>> 4. Passenger unreasonble in face of reasoned argument as to why she
>>>> could not remian.
>>>
>>> Passenger clearly didn't feel that she was being listened to. She was
>>> with a very young child. It would have been possible to persuade her
>>> to leave the bus with her child because it wasn't going to go
>>> anywhere.
>>>
>>
>> What was there to be listened to? She was a passenger without the means to
>> pay. She had no reason to remain on the bus when informed of this by the
>> driver. Transit was at the discretion of the bus company.
>
> My understanding is that she had money, but not the payment type the driver
> wanted. And this is not the Wild West. The bus company is heavily subsidised
> by the council as a service to people without cars. It is not a private hire
> operation taking who they want to when they want to. Was the driver's attitude
> reasonable when she had a small child to pick up and could presumably pay cash
> or promise to pay?

I was of the impression she refused. If your scenario is correct then I
feel that is a big failing of the bus company, and the rules set by the
LA. Not everyone has a payment card. Not all cards may be accepted.

>>>> 5. Threats overheard by police during phone call by passenger. Can't
>>>> recall the exact words but something along the lines, "I'm going to
>>>> 'have' a couple of coppers in a minute".
>>>
>>> She said that to someone she was phoning and instead of asking her to
>>> confirm that she was not going to be violent to officers the police
>>> decided to treat her as a person who planned to assault them
>>> imminently.
>>>
>>
>> So if someone threatens another with violence is it necessary for the
>> potential victim to ask them to confirm their intent before taking action
>> in their defence? Whilst not the scenario in this case, if I am presented
>> with an assailant with a knife am I required to ask them their intent
>> before laying them out with the nearest implement to hand?
>
> It depends how credible the threat, I suppose.

Each case is considered on it's own merit. However, if you say you felt
threatened and acted accordingly not many juries would find you guilty.

On 12 Feb 2024 at 22:56:52 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 21:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 12 Feb 2024 at 18:36:48 GMT, "Peter Walker" <not@for.mail> wrote:
>>
>>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in
>>> news:l2sfinF8jo7U1@mid.individual.net:
>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>>>>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>>>>> see
>>>>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>>>>> bullying and callous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on
>>>>>> a bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to
>>>>>> pay for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and
>>>>>> defensive about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang
>>>>>> of police officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper
>>>>>> spray on her. Having investigated the incident the police reckon
>>>>>> they acted
>>>>> reasonably
>>>>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version
>>>> of events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the
>>>> driver said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that
>>>> meant. The police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage
>>>> her to leave the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude
>>>> language it might be necessary to call social services and have her
>>>> child taken away from her, which was a disgraceful threat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This was clearly a soundbite version of the true events on that day so we
>>> both have to fill in the gaps based on our own presumptions and experience.
>>>
>>> We don't have footage of the interacion between the driver and the
>>> passenger so let's not make assumptions about what took place but it might
>>> be fair to assume that the police would not have been called if an
>>> altercation or confrontational conduct had not taken place. What we do have
>>> is footage of an individual finding themselves in a negative position
>>> 'kicking off' when presented with a refusal to comply with their wishes
>>> and that gives foundation to the idea of an individual with expectations as
>>> to their treatment, whether justified or not.
>>>
>>> I found the initial footage of the female officer to be conciliatory and
>>> reasoning. Along the lines of, "you have been asked to leave" (within
>>> denial rights), "so this cannot end any other way".
>>
>> Do the police actually have the power to expel people from buses? Undoubtedly
>> they could arrest her if she assaulted *the driver* if and when he tried to
>> expel her.
>
> I would hope so, if someone sat in the passenger seat of my car I would
> hope the police would remove them. Same if you had an unwanted guest in
> your house.

Whether you can remove an unwanted guest depends on the terms on which they
became a guest. And in many cases bailiffs, with the support of the police
only if resisted, is the only safe answer.
As to your car, do you provide a state subsidised public transport service in
it? If not, it's a bit irrelevant.

Consider if you are a farmer, can you ring the police and tell them you've
seen a rambler crossing your field and expect them to come and remove him?

It's not quite as simple as you appear to suggest.

>
>>>>> snip
--
Roger Hayter

On 12/02/2024 21:35, The Todal wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 16:50, kat wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 10:12, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 12 Feb 2024 at 09:44:11 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> apology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Damages were paid, and I think rightly so. What is of concern is that the
>>>>> police
>>>>> closed ranks and the officer who was expected to investigate the incident was
>>>>> totally out of step with the feelings of black community leaders and didn't
>>>>> care
>>>>> that he was.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen the episode, but the comment i would make here is, that if the
>>>> police were that far out of step it would be with the community, not just the
>>>> black community. Because white people can see injustice too you know.
>>>>
>>>> That qualification shouldn't be needed.
>>>
>>> You can say that, but at least one (presumably white) contributor to this
>>> thread thinks that the police actions were perfectly reasonable.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And maybe it was, I don't know, because, as I said, I didn't see it. Possibly
>> some black people would agree.
>>
>> But I assume the bus was filled with a diverse set of people and it would seem
>> odd that only black people found it unacceptable, if it was.
>
> I think the bus was empty of passengers other than the woman, her small child
> and a number of police officers.
>
> The black people who protested were witnessing events from outside and maybe
> didn't have all the facts. But the black people assessing events were watching
> the video footage from the police officers
>

The bus may have been empty by the time the police arrived - but was it before
and the pissed off at being held up other passengers left?

It seems to me we don't have all the facts either. I gather we hear her side of
the story, which might be sanitised, but not that of the bus driver, truthful
or not.
--
kat
>^..^<

"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:l2vq54Frr68U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> Whether you can remove an unwanted guest depends on the terms on which they
> became a guest. And in many cases bailiffs, with the support of the police
> only if resisted, is the only safe answer.

"Upton Abbey" Season 4 Ep 4

Scene: the dining Room

Lord Uppity: " I say sir ! You've just insulted my wife ! I demand you leave
my house immediately !"

Lord Snotty : " Make me !"

Lord Uppity: "Send for the bailiffs !"

5 minutes later a Ford Transit screeches to a halt on the gravel drive
outside, and two thick-set bald headed men in black tee shirts are ushered
into the Dining Room by Grumpy the Butler.

bb

On 12/02/2024 21:36, The Todal wrote:

>
> Police officers aren't allowed to fuck members of the public even if
> allegedly implored to do so by an attractive drunken woman.
>

I don't understand.

Surely, police officers are allowed to fuck members of the public when
off duty, and are not allowed to fuck anyone when on duty.

On 11/02/2024 17:48, The Todal wrote:
> On 11/02/2024 12:26, Peter Walker wrote:
>> The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in news:l2rq6gF4p50U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> This is a multi part documentary on Channel 4, well worth watching -
>> see
>>> if you think the police actions were reasonable and acceptable, or
>>> bullying and callous.
>>>
>>> In particular, the altercation with the black woman and her child on a
>>> bus, in episode 2. Black woman argues with bus driver about how to pay
>>> for ticket. Bus driver calls police. Woman is agitated and defensive
>>> about her journey being delayed. Eventually a whole gang of police
>>> officers pile in and hold her down and inflict pepper spray on her.
>>> Having investigated the incident the police reckon they acted
>> reasonably
>>> and the hostility of the public is unjustified. Quite remarkable.
>>>
>>
>> I did watch that episode and we have a different interpretation:
>>
>> 1. Passenger did not have the means to pay.
>
> I don't think the police officers bothered to ask her for her version of
> events but she wanted to pay in cash and according to her the driver
> said "not if you're speaking to me like that". Whatever that meant. The
> police didn't try to de-escalate the situation or encourage her to leave
> the bus - but an officer said that due to her rude language it might be
> necessary to call social services and have her child taken away from
> her, which was a disgraceful threat.

She tried to pay by cash, but the driver didn't have change for the
transaction; she then tried a card which was declined; then she asked
for a "change ticket". This appears to be a kind of credit note:
https://www.firstbus.co.uk/bristol-bath-and-west/help-and-support/change-tickets

That annoyed the driver. Which annoyed the woman.

--
Max Demian