Palma03/10/2017 00:00
When Margaret Thatcher used the police in the early 1980s to crush the strike by coalminers it created a rift between the two communities - the strikers, their families, their supporters and of course the police themselves. A similar state of affairs occurred in Catalonia over the weekend; police were sent in by the government to crush an "illegal" referendum.
3 comments
To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and logged in
Being residents but outsiders without a vote in this matter it may not be our business to comment. But I see it as more than a 'rift' - rather an even greater challenge to the Spanish state than 23F was in 1981, which then needed Juan Carlos to intervene to assure the Spanish people that there was no 'golpe de estado'. Now the king has acted again in making it clear that this was anti-democratic, contrary to the legal Constitution and that the catalans should calm down, get on with their lives, and follow legal procedures in their quest for independence. It may have been in different times, but in principal Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence by Ian Smith in 1965 against British rule was similar, although it didn't involve the crowds we see in Barcelona. Sancions were applied rather than troops and police being sent in. Perhaps this would be a better option in Catalonia rather than imposing direct rule from Madrid, avoiding more conflict in the streets. And Puigdemont should be put under house arrest, if - for no other reason - for having an offensive haircut!
Jason, I think you have been looking at a different reports to the rest of the world , being a ex policeman in the Poll tax riots and many other situations , as a Police Officer , you act within the law , the law you take to oath to uphold , and nothing in that oath , states that you should kick and beat defenceless people . Regardless of orders from anywhere. The people where standing with their arms held high, no threat , and the actions of the Spanish Police as a whole was totally outside of what they were there to do , they acted like out of control thugs and they are an embarrassment to the uniform and office they hold . So to say they were not to blame , is wrong , they were, because they know that dragging pensioners by there hair , laying the boot in to people on the floor and using a baton on people who are no threat to them , is outside of what they were there to do and outside of the training they had . They have disgraced their office and should be ashamed of there behaviour . They should be criminally liable for their actions.
Everyone is responsible for their actions,orders or no orders,that ''defence'' was rejected at the Munich war crimes trial and still holds good today. Pictures of heavily-armed riot police beating unarmed protesters have been in just about every newspaper in the world,that is not defensible.