There are so many contradictions in the Alfie Meadows story; it is hard to know where to begin.
Alfie was ‘a gentle Philosophy student’ who told his Mother before the demonstration began that ‘somebody was going to get killed’. Why would a gentle philosophy student be attracted to an event where they thought somebody was gong to be killed? Does the study of philosophy teach them nothing about Ghandi?
Having found yourself, unwittingly, having ignored all the advertising that it would be ‘a riot’, in the centre of a very violent protest, why would you push yourself to the front of the police lines? Surely the philosophical reaction would be to stay away from the action and obey the law? Even in a ‘kettled’ situation, you don’t have to be at the front line – it is quite possible to stay in the centre of the crowd. Is this not the same syndrome that found wheel-chair bound Jody Mcintyre unaccountably at the centre of the action, right at the police lines?
Then we are told – by Alfie’s Mother, (who was also at the event and managed to leave the ‘kettle’ without being hit over the head) that Alfie was close enough to the action to be ‘hit on the head by a police truncheon’. She is quite sure of that; the violence which resulted in Alfie’s brain injury could only have been caused by the Police.
To whom do we attribute the injuries to the other Policemen? Were ‘out of control police’ going around injuring each other? We know that other policemen were injured from that impeccable source, Alfie’s Mother, for she initially claimed that Alfie was refused treatment at the Westminster Hospital because ‘that was where the injured police officers were being treated’. Is it just possible that one or two in this crowd of gentle philosophy students could have been a tad violent themselves?
I am constantly amazed at the way in which the police manage to select as ‘victims for their uncontrolled violence’ entirely innocent passers by who just happen to live in the same block as wanted terrorists; children who may look like 6’ 6” thugs with a scowl on their face, but who inevitably prove to be 17 year olds making their way to university, with school friends to vouch for the fact that they ‘wouldn’t hurt a fly’, Mother’s who attest to their passive nature, insulin dependency, weak hearts and all manner of things that you would imagine might make a university educated student bolt in the opposite direction from the thugs that have caused the police to be massed in the first place.
Cannot the Police, just once, manage to shoot; ‘smash over the head’; violently disarm; or otherwise infringe the human rights of a genuine, dyed in the wool, sociopath, who doesn’t have a 250,000 strong Facebook group prepared to swear blind that he may go round shooting policemen, he may beat up his girlfriend every Friday night, but in truth he is a gentle giant who was only trying to smother them with kisses.
Had Moat survived being ‘tazered’ by those out of control police, (and not have pointed his own gun at himself) do you think he should not have been charged with shooting P. C Rathbone, on the grounds that he had suffered enough from the police injuries?
That does seem to be the general consensus of opinion in the blogosphere this morning, that regardless of what Alfie may or may not have done whilst in that crowd, irrespective of whether he was injured by a police truncheon or a lump of flying concrete, his subsequent illness makes it ‘obscene’ that the CPS should consider they have enough evidence against him to charge him with ‘violent disorder’.
Why too, do we hear nothing from Alfie? According to his Mother, soon after his hospitalisation he was “Smiling, he’s chatting and he’s just Alfie. He’s all there.” Could it be that powerful forces would prefer not to hear any more from Alfie? That it is in their interests to allow the second hand story that he was brutalised by out of control policemen to run and run? Is there no national newspaper that wants to run an ‘Alfie Meadow’s’ exclusive?