[Jimbuna]

I'm not going to debate the rights and wrongs or who I believe is at fault but having been involved in civil disorder on quite a few occasions and commenting only on the live coverage I have seen on tv it is obvious there are faults on both sides.

If a protest is peaceful and the advice of the authorities is adhered to....and don't forget that is the job of the police and not the protestors as far as the statute books go....then there should be no need for violence.

There were obviously anarchists within the ranks of the protestors and the physical input originally stemmed from those within the protestors ranks.

As soon as that happens it is obviously seen as a breach of the law and the police have the lawful right to take whatever corrective measures their superiors deem acceptable.

Those measures must be 'reasonable' and whilst I readily admit there are faults on both sides, there may not have been any injured parties had the protestors remained 'peaceful' and not resorted to attempts at assaulting officers in the course of their lawful duty.

The protestors feel passionate about their treatment by the government and I agree with them but the minute they resort to violence I suspect they lose the majority of the public sympathy vote.

I watched a documentary about Rev Jessie Jackson today and was frankly shocked at the way Dr King and peaceful protestors were treated by the authorities in areas such as Alabama....now that is what I call excessive.

If similar treatment is passed out by one of our officers (the case above about the death of an innocent byestander being a classic example) and film/video footage is available (which is generally the case considering the depth of media coverage these days) then that officer will be dealt with under the same laws as those of said protestors who commit offences....of that I am confident.