pasted from bbc london wesite

Nine men were arrested after police were called to a water fight in London's Hyde Park said to involve up to 250 people.

The event had been organised through a chatroom but deteriorated amid reports of knives on view and injuries to three children unseated from their horses.

Police using dogs sealed off the area at 1930 BST and arrested nine men, four of them for assaulting officers.

A spokesman said they were being held at central London police stations.

'High spirited'

Officers described the actions of those involved in the water fight as being "high spirited".

But during the incident horses in the park became frightened and three children, aged between five and 12, were unseated in Serpentine Road.

They suffered injuries ranging from suspected broken bones and concussion.

Reports them came into police that some people involved had been seen with knives.

A police spokesman said officers from the territorial support group, dog handlers and British Transport Police arrived to assist Royal Parks officers.

Those arrested include four for assault, three on charges of behaviour under the Public Order Act, one for affray and one person accused of handling stolen goods.

The event was advertised on Facebook and 200-300 descended on Hyde Park for a water fight. Many people initially complained to the police when the large group became threatening and throwing water over anyone who was in range. The trouble started when a group returned to Hyde Park after initially being disbursed and that's when I came across the final phase on my way back from work. I read today that nine were arrested for offences including assault, affray and handling stole goods. Perhaps you'd like the police to sit back and do nothing and end up with a similar situation as when Frederick Moody-Boateng was stabbed after a similar water fight recently? Finally, what it was not was an attack on the 'Black Community'.

"The event was advertised on Facebook and 200-300 descended on Hyde Park for a water fight."

Members of the public went to a public space to play - wtf does "descended on" mean? It implies something ominous. Why?

"Many people initially complained to the police when the large group became threatening and throwing water over anyone who was in range."

How did the group become threatening? Is it really necessary to call the police if you get splashed? Why not move out of range if its such a problem? Perhaps the title should have been 'White public and Cops overreact to black kids playing in Hyde Park"?

"The trouble started when a group returned to Hyde Park after initially being disbursed and that's when I came across the final phase on my way back from work."

How do you know thats when the trouble started? What right did the cops have to disburse? Why should the kids not return? What trouble are youy talking about?

" I read today that nine were arrested for offences including assault, affray and handling stole goods"

According to the BBC - "Police using dogs sealed off the area at 1930 BST and arrested nine men, four of them for assaulting officers ....Those arrested include four for assault, three on charges of behaviour under the Public Order Act, one for affray and one person accused of handling stolen goods."

How many did the cops assault? Were dogs needed? Were any of the charges justified?- In any case less than 0.5% of those present were arrested and about half the arrests wouldn't have happened if the cops hadn't been there. Arrests for assult PC are usually bogus.

"Perhaps you'd like the police to sit back and do nothing and end up with a similar situation as when Frederick Moody-Boateng was stabbed after a similar water fight recently?"

Sorry - how many people got stabbed? None according to the BBC.

"Finally, what it was not was an attack on the 'Black Community'."

No it was an attack on a group of black kids playing in a park.....

freddy fanta - your comment proves that the title of the article is indeed justified.

Shouldn't you be foaming on the Daily Mail's bulletin boards?

"About half the arrests wouldn't have happened if the cops hadn't been there." I'm fairly certain that if the cops hadn't been there that no arrests would have been made! Just accept it - a group of kids went to Hyde Park looking for trouble and got what they deserved. Don't try to dress it up as racism or the police over-reacting, particularly as it looks like your statement was cut and pasted from other sources. Were you even there?

it seems like a lot of youths were getting rowdy, and when the police tell you to move on, thats what you do.

there was no official plan for a 'water fight', so I wouldn't have been impressed had someone decided to douse me as I walked home from work.

knife crime is a major issue at the moment and clearly the police fear this, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they were told of youths brandishing weapons then something had to be done, whether that claim was false or not.

I think the pics in the Evening Standard of a prat punching a girl to the floor give some idea of the atmosphere there.

I resent those people who assume every PC is racist and violent, and young people need to realise that you respect those with authority. If they tell you to do something, just do it. Thats what we pay them for.

PC Plod:

"I'm fairly certain that if the cops hadn't been there that no arrests would have been made! "

Certainly none for assault a iddle liddle scaredy-cat police man.

"Just accept it - a group of kids went to Hyde Park looking for trouble and got what they deserved."

And you know this how?

"Don't try to dress it up as racism or the police over-reacting, particularly as it looks like your statement was cut and pasted from other sources."

Try reading the whole thread

"Were you even there?"

Did I say I was?

jeff:

"it seems like a lot of youths were getting rowdy, and when the police tell you to move on, thats what you do."

Does that apply to protestors too? End of protest if it does. I'd think it rests on whether the police have the legal power to disperse and whether they inform the crowd in the correct manner.

"there was no official plan for a 'water fight', so I wouldn't have been impressed had someone decided to douse me as I walked home from work."

Those arriving with water pistols obviously thought differently. What officialdom should be responsible for permitting water fights in this wonderful democracy of ours?

"knife crime is a major issue at the moment and clearly the police fear this, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they were told of youths brandishing weapons then something had to be done, whether that claim was false or not."

Arrests for carrying a blade = 0

"I think the pics in the Evening Standard of a prat punching a girl to the floor give some idea of the atmosphere there"

Yes - everything in the Evening Standard is true. I don't buy it cos I have an aversion to Daily Mail style truth.

"I resent those people who assume every PC is racist and violent, and young people need to realise that you respect those with authority. If they tell you to do something, just do it. Thats what we pay them for."

Just like those in authority have respect for the kids? Respect is not earned by donning a uniform and waving a stick at a water pistol. The whole thing reeks of demonisation, victimisation and over-reaction. The evening standard talk board is as good as the daily mail forums for foaming at the mouth.

ok so no knives were confiscated....was every person there searched? no. did people report that they saw knives being brandished? yes. does that surprise me? no.

randomly mentioning protesters in relation to crowd dispersal is a strange one. this was a gathering of people, not a political rally.

as for the 'water fight' not being planned, mayb if your child had been thrown off a horse and had suffered broken bones because of the disruption you would have liked to receive official warning. Our society exists to protect us, and that requires due consideration from everyone. but clearly some haven't been taught to respect others properly.

and disputing the violence of the pic seen in the evening standard is a fairly moot point. mayb a case of you trying to bury your head in the sand???

and finally, yes donning a uniform does earn you respect, if you think anyone can just chuck one on ur more stupid than your comments suggest. in times of greater public safety these were people who were respected to the upmost standing. minor abuses of power (which are inevitable) would be a small price to pay for the crime we see on our streets now.

"randomly mentioning protesters in relation to crowd dispersal is a strange one. this was a gathering of people, not a political rally."

And you think putting on uniforms makes cops bright enough to tell the difference? Do people not have rights to freedom of expression, movement and association when they go to a park? Either the cops exercise lawful powers in the prescribed manner, or they don't. Mostly they don't.

"and finally, yes donning a uniform does earn you respect, if you think anyone can just chuck one on ur more stupid than your comments suggest. in times of greater public safety these were people who were respected to the upmost standing. minor abuses of power (which are inevitable) would be a small price to pay for the crime we see on our streets now."

All that foaming is obviously bad for your critical faculties - your tirade ends up in a meaningless mess. You can choose to respect uniforms if you want - I'm more interested in mutual respect being earned in a respectful way.

I'll leave to you have your heart attack in peace now.

"Reports them came into police that some people involved had been seen with knives."


I smell a rat, quite a topical one eh? with the current media hype around knives question is who made it up? the police to justify their reaction or the media?

- no one was arrested for carrying a knife.

waterfight checklist:

Ballons
Water
water pistol
Flick-knife

"Our aquaphobic xenophobic authoritarian commenteers" = People's poet Rick.

I claim my five pounds.

I was at Hyde Park corner when the police with their dogs and tasers were dispersing the crowd. I was 5 metres away from the guy that got tasered after he started punching several cops. Then he was handcuffed and marched by 2 cops in an armlock to the nearby police van. During this 20 second march a 3rd cop came up, gabbed the guys head and as he forced it down the cop kneed the guy in the upper body.

Then when another observer was trying to video teh police jamming this tasered and handcuffed guy into the van a cop came up and told the videoer to move on or he would be arrested. When asked on what grounds the cop left muttering under his breath.

So in essence form my perspective. An unpanned ocngregationof people in teh park prompt worried bystanders to call the police. The police come and taser a man then handcuff him and knee him. At the same time the cops try to deny the civil liberties of an observer who may spot the police doing an injustice.

This was all justified by what? Some people scream "knife"? Bollocks. Thats just todays favourite scare, yesterday it was Terrorism, and that was used to try and introduce national id cards and extended periods of detention without charge.

How ironic that all this police brutality and infringement on civil liberties took place at Speakers Corner.

And the rights of 300 people to organise an uncontrolled event inviting people to engage in anti-social behaviour in a public place is what exactly? What of the rights of the other users of the park? Did the person who organised it on facebook really expect 300 random young people to come together for a waterfight and for it not to all end in tears?

The widely-published water fight picture clearly showed a white teenage boy attacking a white teenage girl. So it wasn't just a fight by black teenagers that police were trying to stop, as has been suggested.

The fatal stabbing mentioned above did occur: but I don't think the poster who mentioned it was suggesting it had taken place at Hyde Park. The fatal stabbing of Frederick Moody-Boateng two weeks ago, in Stockwell, and was linked to an earlier water fight in Holland Park.

The claim that "if someone in authority tells you to do something, you do it" is fascist, self-hating and hating of humanity. Anyone who believes that is an evil fascist psychopath. Patently such a belief is contrary to any kind of human rights. In this case, the rights under attack from the police include the sanctity of everyday life, freedom of assembly, freedom of movement, and freedom from police violence. People who do not believe in human rights, who obey every order some thug in uniform gives them, are no better than Eichmann and are all potential perpetrators of genocide since they would not disobey unethical orders. It would serve them right if someone in uniform ordered them all to jump off a cliff, which of course they would then meekly do.

People have an absolute right to defend themselves against authoritarian state terror. One can debate ad nauseum the benefits of water fights versus horse riding, but once the issue becomes one of arbitrary state command versus basic liberties, then everyone is ethically obliged to stand with those fighting for freedom. The alternative is to submit to state fascism. How can one claim to value basic liberties if one is not prepared to defend those who enforce these liberties against the state's attempt to corrode them - IN EVERY CASE where liberties are enforced against the police?!

If people "move on" whenever some trumped-up little Hitler in uniform tells them to, then there is no longer a right to free assembly, a right to free movement, a right to free expression. Each of these rights LOGICALLY AND NECESSARILY ENTAILS the consequence of a right to REFUSE to obey fascist orders which violate these rights. And entails that the people defend these rights tooth and nail against encroachments by fascists in uniform. Sadly today, the penetration of everyday beliefs by state fascism have taken away this barrier to fascism, and as a result, the state is running amok.

The scum who have posted in support of the atrocious, barbaric police repression noted above are typical of the kind of far-right hatemongers who have killed British democracy and replaced it with the police-state we have today. It is a shame they didn't all fuck off to China instead of ruining a democratic society with their tyrant-obeying, freedom-hating, pig-fucking filth.

As for the underlying dispute over the water fight. Everyday life is made up of an infinite range of hobbies and pastimes, religious practices, lifestyles, types of social groups. A free society respects all of these. Yet there is barely any practice of everyday life which does not potentially cause some minor inconvenience to others. If we aren't to degenerate into the fascist imposition of a single way of living, we must develop a lot of tolerance for the minor inconvenience which comes with the fact that different people live and act differently. Today, instead, we have a climate of vicious intolerance perpetrated by people who have no idea what basic rights are, who want to live in a police state and who condone any atrocity in the name of social peace, which really means, for the suppression of anything different from a single totalitarian model of how everyone should live. It is no wonder that democracy has died when there are people about who come out with a view as disgusting as that every police order should be obeyed.

A rational person will obey or disobey a request based on the factual and logical validity of the request, not based on morally arbitrary factors such as the attributed status of the requester, the requester's skin colour, the fancy-dress the requester happens to be wearing, and the requester's being backed or not backed by the dominant prejudices of the era.

A requester who believes they have a right to their requests being automatically obeyed - a requester who is therefore clearly deeply egoistic, since they would concede no such right to others - may attempt to back up their request with violence. Such a requester dehumanises the recipient of the request by denying their status as a reasoning being. The archetype of such a requester is the bully. The reproduction of such a schema on an institutional level hence amounts to institutionalised bullying. The institutionalisation of bullying and its association with social taboos does not affect its basic moral emptiness. It may be prudent to accede to the request of a bully, but it is never morally required. Indeed it may be morally preferable to refuse to accede to all requests by a bully on the grounds that they have failed to make an appeal with sufficient moral force to warrant accession. It is possible that a bully may request something which is morally obligatory in any case, but the bully's request does not add any moral weight to the obligation, nor does it serve to present the obligation to someone unaware of it (since it does not present ethically relevant arguments but only an ethically arbitrary threat).

An ethical position of obeying the requests of a person simply because of arbitrary factors or because of bullying involves a denial of rational capacity and as such forfeits its right to be considered as a rational claim. All such claims show by their formal structure an incapacity to grasp the elemental principles of ethical thought and can be dismissed as irrational.