Whilst I agree that the reporting was indeed very one-sided, and no doubt the man was given numerous warnings to move on or be arrested, and that upon his resisting to be cuffed he was subjected to 'control and restraint' techniques (having used them myself in the Mental Health environment), to say that 'if he hadn't have been acting the pratt he would have had nothing happen to him' seems to smack of 'Do as we say or else'.

The police have and indeed should have extensive powers to deal with people who's behaviour puts themselves or others at risk or who have commited a crime, or who have not commited a prosecutable crime (breach of the queens peace), this country still makes the pretence of being a 'free democracy' and as such the police should be limited in when and under what circumstances they can exercise their powers. Possible abusive remarks from an unarmed, drunk man who is over 10ft away and posing no immediate threat should not have been met with the force with which these three officers chose to employ.

It could be said that by their choice of method in dealing with this individual provoked the response they got. Other methods of dealing with the drunken man may well have gotten a different, response.

All in all, I think these officers showed poor judgement in their handling of this situation, although the actions saw on the video (barring the face-rubbing) could be seen as valid uses of force in order to control a person. The face rubbing was certainly IMHO a disciplinary offence.