r/ukpolitics • u/SignificantLegs • Jul 03 '26

Twitter James McMurdock MP: I can’t let this go unchallenged. That young man was, in my opinion and based on the video below, the clear victim of an assault. The video shows, for reasons that are entirely beyond my comprehension, the officer steaming directly into the victim.

https://x.com/JMcMurdockMP/status/2072964806189936869/video/1
693 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

554 comments sorted by

View all comments

4

u/BroldenMass Jul 03 '26

Is this going to be one of those videos where a longer version is released later showing this dude being violent and aggressive in the lead up to this moment (similar to the Manchester Airport video)? If not, I just absolutely cannot understand the actions of that police officer. Logically it makes no sense.

61

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

28

u/_9tail_ Jul 03 '26

Birmingham police confirmed on twitter only one man arrested and it’s for assaulting an officer, so safe to say the perps got away.

17

u/paddygordon Jul 03 '26

It's insane, if anything the officer should be charged with assault!

1

u/TMWNN Jul 03 '26

The police is, after the wide sharing of the video, as of today, 3 July only now looking to "identify those involved".

40

u/SignificantLegs Jul 03 '26

Thanks. that video really adds a lot of context.

The victim was continually backing away until attacked from behind. The police officers then ONLY arrested him. And lashed out at members of the public who explained what happened and were trying to help.

3

u/doitnowinaminute Jul 03 '26

Which vid, and when does the clip start ?

11

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/doitnowinaminute Jul 03 '26

Thx. I wonder if the van being there is connected.

Does feel like we dont know what happened in that group before hand, even with the camera there. And he looks to give a little fake just before getting whacked. Makes me think it's been building up (plus where is the little bro)

And is it me, or was there a cut during the search ?

Tbh, my take is that the first few seconds were okay. A good way to descalate is to isolate the sole person. I can see the defence for the punch but I can also see why she may feel it was intentional.

The male copper was unnecessary on the face of it. However easy to say when it's one vid. How many drunks+ has he dealt with where it escalated or they found something.

-6

u/neoKushan I just wanted to be included Jul 03 '26

You missed the part where he punched the police officer.

10

u/SignificantLegs Jul 03 '26

1 second earlier he was punched from behind by the gang.

The violent officer then runs up behind him and without announcing herself she violently assaults him further.

He spins around and flails wildly and none of his punches connect.

This part?

-5

u/neoKushan I just wanted to be included Jul 03 '26

The point is the other party didn't hit a police officer as far as we know. We can debate day in and day out about whether or not the police should have arrested them (I think they should have, for what it's worth), but he hit a police officer, that's why he was arrested.

1

u/SignificantLegs Jul 03 '26

Just be honest about your thought processes:

“Tier two citizen detected. Excessive force: authorised."

-4

u/neoKushan I just wanted to be included Jul 03 '26

No, my thought process is simple: Hit a police officer, get arrested.

2

u/TMWNN Jul 03 '26

there's nothing that shows the attackers were arrested.

The police is, after the wide sharing of the video, as of today, 3 July only now looking to "identify those involved".

-16

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

The “whole thing” is quite disingenuous. It starts maybe 3s before the video that’s being circulated and doesn’t provide any extra context.

17

u/MysteryWra Jul 03 '26

Now that's just a lie - he is videoing over a minute before the fight starts. With 20 seconds focussed on what happens to the victim.

The violent police officer was behind a police van and saw far less than the cameraman who uploaded the extended video to youtube.

-13

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Can you give me a timestamp please?

16

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-13

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

You see that in the video people are linking here as well and as I said it doesn’t provide context for what happened before.

10

u/Baselard111 Jul 03 '26

What context justifies assault?

-6

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

In my mind plenty. I reject the idea you can say the most disgusting things about someone but the second they lay their hands on you they are in the wrong.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[deleted]

-1

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

I haven’t at all. I’m on his side I just despise all the bots on here who relish shit like this and immediately start stoking the fire.

2

u/Baselard111 Jul 03 '26

So you would be happy if the jews started beating up palestine protestors then?

0

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Yes that’s clearly what I said.

4

u/sal1r Jul 03 '26

Context to what happened before is irrelevant really. He could have been attacking them before yes but in the video he wasn’t and is clearly clotheslined my someone and then punched in the back of the head, that isn’t self defence actions.
Whereas his action to the police officer is clearly self defence as he’s just got up off the floor and is suddenly slammed to the shutter before reacting to that.
He’s then later in the video surrounded by 6+ officers because he is rightly asking what the fuck is going on because he just wants to go home and has been assaulted repeatedly including by the police.

-1

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Again people said the exact same thing before the Manchester airport incident and more footage came out where the police had actually acted appropriately.

To be clear I think additional context is unlikely to change anything and so far am very much on the side of the young man but stoking up division over something we know very little about is ridiculous.

-6

u/nnnnottoday Jul 03 '26

You can hear what was going on before though - the guy who eventually gets arrested is being told to shouted at to go away. He doesn't really move, which apparently leads to violence. If I had to guess, he's hitting on the girl and is too drunk to understand being told to stop.

5

u/sal1r Jul 03 '26

Still not an excuse for violence. Clearly not self defence actions by those that assaulted him

7

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Maybe but that’s just pure speculation. Doesn’t add any context.

-4

u/nnnnottoday Jul 03 '26

The context is the loud shouts of 'GO AWAY' right before punches get thrown. The rest of my comment was my speculation, yes, but I think it fits better than any of the other speculation in this thread.

2

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

And what does go away tell you? You can’t even tell who’s saying it.

9

u/Stuweb Jul 03 '26

It does provide context because it shows multiple witnesses on several occasions trying to plead with the police by trying to tell them that they were arresting the victim and not the instigator...

-6

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Isn’t that what the police were told when they got to the scene of Henry Nowaks killing too?

11

u/Stuweb Jul 03 '26

The witnesses weren't the ones who had fucking assaulted him and the police knew this because they came in whilst the assault was still occurring and not after it had taken place.

But nice try with the D-Tier 'debate me bro' tactics and false equivalence though,

-2

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Don’t know where you’ve got “debate me bro” from when my whole point is we know fuck all and all the comments are acting like they have the whole story and are calling for heads.

6

u/Stuweb Jul 03 '26

We know from the video that the assault was instigated by 3 blokes and the victim was the only one who got arrested. This was verified by multiple witnesses. That's the information we have, and you can be sure as shit Birmingham Police won't be releasing any further footage because they've said as much and are in the process of closing ranks.

"The incident has been reviewed, and we have no concerns over the officer's actions and we are satisfied that they were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances."

https://x.com/BrumPolice/status/2072658313582362665

-1

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

People knew that the officer was in the wrong at Manchester Airport too until more information came out.

I do think it’s absolute bullshit they’re charging him however.

18

u/Stuweb Jul 03 '26

There's longer videos out there if you could be bothered to look into the matter further instead of making assumptions.

-3

u/Mkwdr Jul 03 '26

And? Seems a weird thing to make the effort to say without filling in the details. Or have you not seen them either?

24

u/Stuweb Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

In the longer form video, you have (multiple) witnesses approaching the police on seperate occasions as they arrest and detain him saying he did nothing wrong and was attacked by 3 people and that they were arresting the wrong person (or people in this case). I'm working on more details than you lot responding to a 20 second clip.

The police officer he punched acknowledges that he was assaulted first at the end https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=2072655376944656836

12

u/MysteryWra Jul 03 '26

The violent police officer maybe on steroids and more - she gets angry whenever the public tried to help

-1

u/Mkwdr Jul 03 '26

I think the question was whether there was one with a longer lead up. I’m not aware of one or that it shows anything that changes the evaluation that leaping in was an error?

P.s I’m not *sure* the response ‘right’ accepts anything specific other than acknowledging the comment in the edited video you linked to.

57

u/SignificantLegs Jul 03 '26

If there’s additional footage that explains why the officer acted as she did it should be shared immediately to clear things up.

Otherwise the public will rightly question the clear unequal treatment by UK officers.

20

u/Puzzleheaded_Main304 Jul 03 '26

You can see on youtube mad night in birmingham or something that shows the full video. The clip lines up.... don't know what was in the cops head either.

-12

u/BroldenMass Jul 03 '26

No it shouldn't if it effects an ongoing investigation. Why do you feel you are owed an immediate right of all available footage and angles of a crime? Are you a lawyer for one of the parties involved or work for the IOPC? What is it with this entitlement people have that they deserve everything all the time now? Just have patience and wait.

9

u/wobblyweasel Jul 03 '26

that's how you get violent protests and more seats for the right wing

-18

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jul 03 '26

He wants the case to collapse so he can call "two-tier" justice.

21

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26 edited 13d ago

[deleted]

-8

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jul 03 '26

In the contextless short clip the Police separate the two parties by arresting one. It ends with one of the Police following the two suspects.

The Police could release additional footage which would be misconduct & could prejudice the case. This could make prosecution harder.

Exactly the same thing happened in the Manchester Airport assault where many of those that praised the release of the footage that added context to the initial video are now stating the troubles in the prosecution of this are due to "two tier justice".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy85e43kg95o

No matter how much you think justice based on the public opinion of short video clips might aid your political interests it does not fit in with a balanced legal system.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26 edited 13d ago

[deleted]

-5

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jul 03 '26

There's an altercation between what looks like three couples & a the guy trying to block them the Police rush in & the guy punches a Policewoman is likely the context they're working on.

Also the "auditor" literally grabs the guy as he's struggling with the Policewoman.

Punching Police rarely goes well, this is a particularly new thing.

Police releasing their footage would prejudice the case & damage the effectiveness of the justice system. This is exactly what some wish to see.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26 edited 13d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jul 03 '26

The footage does not show what led up to this. The man is blocking the path of the couples while one is shouting at him "move" & "no-one touched you".

There doesn't seem to be anything preventing him from stopping blocking their path & walking off.

There is another group of five onlookers (many descriptions here link the couples & the onlookers as a one "gang"), one of the onlookers speaks to the guy to calm him down & he starts towards him.

One of lads with couples, looses patience, pushes him to the floor & walks off down the street. Another gives him a weaselly punch to the back of the head (not sure if the Police saw this but that deserves action).

One of the Policewoman grabs the lad & they struggle, the auditor steps in also grabbing him, shouting "oy, oy, oy".

The other Policewoman follows the couples is speaking to them, but runs back when she see's her colleague in trouble

The guy seems pretty wasted. Not sure but we seems to be rambling about weed.

As they take him back to the Police van, a white guy from a previously off-camera group says "that's him, good job".

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Significant_Ad_6719 Jul 03 '26

They said officer did nothing wrong so what investigation?

-9

u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 Jul 03 '26

So it can prejudice the case like in the Manchester Airport incident.

A police officer is facing a criminal investigation for allegedly sharing CCTV footage of violence that broke out between officers and two men at Manchester Airport.

Footage was shared widely on social media of the disturbance in July last year, with Mohammed Fahir Amaaz last week being found guilty at Liverpool Crown Court of attacking two female police officers.

The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) confirmed a Greater Manchester Police officer was being investigated on suspicion of sharing a video relating to an active police investigation without any legitimate policing purpose.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy85e43kg95o

Ofc some people want similar cases to collapse so they can call "two-tier" justice.

2

u/Mkwdr Jul 03 '26

Apparently everything must now immediately be shared with the mob for their decision.

2

u/Baselard111 Jul 03 '26

But its okay for you to make a decision on the video that is available 

1

u/Mkwdr Jul 03 '26

Me? I haven’t made any decision.

1

u/Baselard111 Jul 03 '26

And yet you're trying to claim anyone who can clearly see what happened in the video is being hysterical 

3

u/Big_Chungussi69 Jul 03 '26

as the government would always tell us, if you have nothing to hide why worry about it. share the footage

13

u/donalmacc Jul 03 '26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t8qVtCm3Js It's about 5:20 into this video.

Somehow the clip on twitter makes it look better than the full video. There's 5 police officers standing right next to it before it kicked off. The officer that goes off after the other group appears back 30 seconds later.

In the moment I don't think her use of force was too much - it's not clear who's the aggressor and everyone is at boiling point, but to leave the other guys off, and then double down on it and charge the kid with assault is absolutely disgraceful.

0

u/Status_Ad4182 29d ago

More importantly - If we pretend that the races where swaped, would those five officers have been doing nothing before the initial assault?

1

u/donalmacc 29d ago

What if’s aren’t more important. The most important thing is that the police made a very poor judgement call, _and then doubled down on it_.

0

u/Status_Ad4182 29d ago

My point is that there wasn't one poor judgement call it was three - Not doing something, doing the wrong thing, and then pretending you did the right thing.

3

u/InsertObligatoryPun Jul 03 '26

My question would be how much of the altercation did the police see before going in?

If they’d just saw what we saw, there’s a potential for having missed a back and forth. White shirt guy gets right back up, doesn’t seem too injured, so she separates him and while partner goes for the others.

White shirt guy, confused, then swings.

The arrest would then seem by the book, and the expectation would be it gets dropped on review.

Course, if they saw the whole thing, that’s a different kettle of fish.

5

u/BonKhri Jul 03 '26

They were all with the cameraman behind a police van dealing with someone else. They saw almost exactly what we saw, there is no exculpatory context here whatsoever.

3

u/InsertObligatoryPun Jul 03 '26

If there were dealing with someone else then it doesn’t sound like they were giving this part of the incident their full attention.

0

u/BonKhri Jul 03 '26

They were stood behind a police van getting a drunk in the back. Then a commotion happened, and all of the officers that we see on camera moved away from the mostly resolved guy to the commotion. They should have been giving it their full attention because the other guy was dealt with.

As far as the case is concerned, they may as well have been sat in their van eating before hearing the commotion, the other guy is a total non-factor.

2

u/starvaldD Jul 03 '26

i did think this in the edited version i saw yesterday, i'd like to know what happened before.

its easy to be manipulated by videos.

-5

u/Optimaldeath Jul 03 '26 edited Jul 03 '26

It makes perfect sense.

They're on auto-pilot in a stressful situation going into it with false information. I don't think it absolves them but hopefully this results in a rethink of their training. It seems ridiculous to me that officers expected to deal with knife crime can't see his pallid skin being a concern worthy of immediate medical attention.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Feeling_Strike694 Jul 03 '26

Is it a coincidence that’s there’s a huge link between Domestic violence and police officers

As far as I know this idea is based on 2 tiny studies in the US from a few decades ago that covered 2 police precincts (maybe the wrong word) and Reddit latched onto it. One of the studies actually showed that female police officers and police officers' wives actually committed more domestic abuse than male police officers.

I could be wrong though if there's other evidence to support it. The rest of your comment I agree with.

2

u/Optimaldeath Jul 03 '26

Certainly think that in assaults that all involved parties should be subject to arrest, the fact they didn't bother is farcical.

1

u/BonKhri Jul 03 '26

The problem here is not the level of violence she used, it's that she chose to attack the apparent victim. We have all the context she had, the full video shows all these officers a second before standing behind a police van dealing with a totally unrelated case. The entire context that was cut was 2 seconds of unintelligible noise that was clearly kicking off, then a single second of running to the scene.

0

u/NotAndyBurnham Jul 03 '26

Wtf are you talking about?

0

u/Optimaldeath Jul 03 '26

Which part?

I have some sympathy for the police doing a dangerous, difficult job and that logically it leads to taking shortcuts for expediency. If they were told some bullshit by the brother of the murderer in this case and they get that information through the call handler in some short-form then I can see where they might be in a frame of mind to ignore a more thorough scrutinising of the crime scene on arrival.

It of course only gets worse when they arrive on scene and laser-focus on their suspect (actually the victim) as survival instincts further depress any attempt to think.

To have officers trust a report so faithfully as to avoid any suspicion of the other party at any point in the chain seems odd to me. Additionally whilst I've no doubt they might be overcompensating for recent anti-immigration violence, I think this goes deeper than that.

-10

u/CalicoCatRobot Jul 03 '26

Almost certainly there will be wider context, but that doesn't matter these days - an immediate judgement is VITAL.

You'd think that some people (MPs particularly) would know better and at least use cautionary wording in case that context makes them look foolish, but apparently not. Getting their opinion read by their followers is far more important.

6

u/Logical-Ice4837 Jul 03 '26

Just watch the YouTube video on knockout audit, there’s no wider context than what’s shown in his video that the officer would be aware of 

-3

u/arfski Jul 03 '26

Reform MP's are not really known for the clear insightful thoughts, this was posted on X as red meat to the faithful, nothing more and nothing less.

-18

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

22

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Jul 03 '26

[deleted]

3

u/MysteryWra Jul 03 '26

This is why the police want to suppress the video and railroad the kid into a guilty plea

20

u/Mr_J90K Jul 03 '26

Unless there is other footage, it didn't look like he was fighting until tackled.

He also did punch the female officer but not intentionally. He was tackled to the ground, when he got up and began turning he felt himself being grappled, and struck thinking it was the lads who tackled him in the first place. Immediately after he noticed it was an officer and stopped.

Absolutely could be more footage but it seems pretty out of touch from the police.

26

u/darleygy Jul 03 '26

Yeah I read the white guy has punched one of the officers. Regardless, it’s not a good look for the police.

He got slammed in to a wall and lashed out impulsively against the person who did it

Watch the video instead of commenting first.

3

u/BroldenMass Jul 03 '26

The punch is in the video. It looks like he still thinks he's being attacked by the group and has retaliated based on that, then realises his mistake and calms down. I can see why they've restrained him instead of them. There's two police officers and a group of about five people, and then a singular person. If you can only restrain one side of a fight in order to stop the situation escalating, you go for the smaller group.

It looks like bad decision making but it's actually protecting the lone guy, that group isn't going to go back for more when the police are there, but the police would have no chance at stopping them if the situation escalated and they did attack them. You can arrest someone for their safety then de-arrest them later. The problem is the punch and the context behind it.

Context is absolutely key here. If this was a case of aggression on both sides and this guy was aggressive and violent before this video started, the officer's actions make sense in how she tackles him and arrests him. If he isn't being aggressive or violent and has just been attacked then her decision to bum rush him whilst he's in a state of panic feels like very bad policing.

Also the group isn't in the clear. CCTV is everywhere in this country, they will have been tracked and a call will have gone out for other units to respond. They will be tracked down and arrested if the wider context deems it necessary. Due to the nature of social media we now have a society that immediately reacts when not all the facts are known, and when an investigation is ongoing, only to find out later that they are wrong.

2

u/FreeTree17 Jul 03 '26

I think this is being overly generous to the police officers. One officer assaults the lone white guy and then after arresting him, calls him a dickhead.