This was a report from the BBC on the 2nd April.

Then there was this on the 3rd.

This article claims that the reports on the extent of the alleged police brutality have been played down. It links to the footage released in the Guardian here.

Now, that footage is fairly worrying in and of itself. Admittedly it's hard to hear what the man is saying but certainly it seems as though he wasn't being a physical threat. What's more worrying is the implication that this was kept quiet. Look at the difference between this article on another assault on a woman compared with this one from the BBC. In the Guardian it says "He is then seen drawing a baton from his pocket and striking the woman on her legs", whereas in the BBC report, "The officer also apparently strikes the woman on the leg with his baton."

How do you feel about this kind of journalism? Do you think it's merely a matter of what information has been released rather than any kind of coordinated cover up? Can sources such as youtube videos and such be trusted when it comes to reporting on matters such as these?

You know...I work in a civillian role for the police and some of the stuff the officers themselves have to go through is truly awful.

Theres two sides to every story and the media will always be biased against the police.

I'm a big supporter of the police. I think it's a very difficult job and that not just anyone has the mentality to do it. They take abuse day in, day out, it's true.

However, in this case, the media wasn't biased against the police - they were playing it down. Whether this is that mainstream media is reporting correctly or that they're keeping it quiet is the subject of the discussion here. Are youtube videos a valid place to find evidence?

Also, while I think we should support the police, we should also expect them to conduct themselves in a way befitting that respect. The way the police officer casually backhanded the woman made me cringe. It seems unnecessary.

I will get on the desk top and watch the footage..laptop screen is minute.

Our police here are incredibley strictly controlled...and while they often voice to us what they think I dont believe theres much at all go on thats doubtful in Australia anymore. Even if I...as a civillian employee..were to be involved in any sort of questionable activity i have to answer to Ethical standards. Which of course is a good thing.

I will be back when I have watched the footage.

I think one thing to remember is that the media sensationalises EVERYTHING. And lets face it, everyone LOVES a story about cops taking things too far... whether they have or haven't. Everyone wants a reason to hate the police. Personally I don't see WHY, when they are here serving our community. Generally - don't take the word of the most media sources as gospel because they usually on have half of the story and then they will only tell you half of that... and it's always the pat that will get the ratings.

I dunno about O/S, but here in Australia we don't have massive issues with Police brutality (I like Pagan work in a civvie role for the Police) and quite frankly I have times where I think that they would be well within their rights to smack out some smart ass, aggressive offender. They receive a hell of a lot of abuse and problems and its always the person dishng it out that runs off to play the Victim. Some of the scum these officers have to deal with and the things they are exposed to... you try put youself in that role.

I haven't, and won't be able to, watch that footage due to issues with my computer. So can someone tell me... is the footage only of the officer backhanding the woman... or is there more either side?

The woman is a few feet away from him walking about a little bit, then he lashes out and his her with his baton and he just carries on standing there as though nothing had happened, if she deserved to be hit, then why didn't he arrest her?

She is clearly shouting at him, even before he hits her - although there has been some other pushing and shoving with a man that starts off camera so you don't know who initiated it. I'm sure I heard her yell something about him hitting a woman.

As I said in a different comment - I'm a huge supporter of the police. If I see a police car about or people in uniform or community support officers I will always feel inherently safer. It is a hard job and when I finish university one of the things I'd like to do is volunteer to help the police. However, because of that, it's hugely important to be sure that things like this are looked into and examined properly - the way he backhands her seems unnecessary. If anyone else reacted to a woman shouting at them like that I would be equally concerned.

There is always someone who takes it to far. The best we can hope for really is that it's looked into and the appropriate action taken toward the officer. Whether that being suspended/fired etc... If something like that happened in Australia his ass would be hauled over the coals.

if it was the footage from that link that you are wondering about, it wasn't even a woman, it was actually a male. According to the website, the man was walking home from work and ended up heading over towards where the protest was. I read the article and watched the video late last night, so I can't quite remember everything, but the video shows the man walking away from the police officers, hands in his pockets. The officer then strikes him and he ends up on the ground. The police don't appear to really be talking to him while he is on the ground. The officers never make an effort to help him up. Another male helps him up. It then shows him walking away, and apparently a few minutes later he collapses due to a heart attack and dies. Whether the actions of the police caused the heart attack, I'm not sure.

Having worked in the media, I can tell you that it has NO allegiences to anyone. They will kiss your ass oneday and screw you over the next: whatever will result in them selling more papers or getting more viewers.

The only reason the media would play down a story is if there was a court case pending. For example, if the paper was to report "THE POLICEMAN WHACKED THE WOMAN AROUND THE HEAD WITH HIS BATON! IT WAS DISGUSTING! THERE WAS BLOOD EVERYWHERE," then that would be held in contempt of court, as it has the potential to be read by possible jurors and thus prejudice the trial, as the jurors would read those statements, remember them, and take them as truth, when in a fair trial they are supposed to only judge what is put before them in court.

What you can report depends entirely on if somebody has been arrested/charged in connection with the case, if identity parades have been carried out, if wittnesses have given statements, what has been made public, what the courts have placed restrictions on... so the papers will release further information accordingly, as matters change.