A Policeman: Sgt Willcox
One Policeman, Sgt Willcox, gives his views of his opinions in relation to the actions and protest of the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand. At the time of the tour in 1981 Sgt Willcox's view of the tour was either pro tour or anti-tour but instead preferring to stay neutral. He stated “I didn’t really associate myself on any side of the tour”. Rather later saying that the tour was inevitable due to everything being uncivilised. Also he found that the tour was ‘New Zealand's Baptism’ and because of this he felt like ‘We (New Zealand) grew up over the whole tour.
Another view of his was that he felt like that the tour picked up its own inertia. As the tour progressed Sargent Willcox found that professionals splintering …show more content…
Willcox took was from training right up until the Auckland test. He broke his collarbone during training. Also actions he find himself in were being between pro-tour people to stop fighting. He did as he found himself to uphold law and order. Not taking either side, treating pro-tour people and protester as equal.
He was also looking after people in the cells at the Christchurch Police Station. Willcox had to shut his emotions and make sure that people weren’t safe and not stressed. He also took part in the molesworth st protests in Wellington. In Wellington willcox was part of hundreds of people on the Ground. The police ‘held their lung’ and when the protesters lunged at the police he charged back at the police. He felt as if the protesters had started it. So, he had to uphold law and order.
In the Hamilton game Willcox was part of stopping the kinds of protests, like from Hamilton, from happening. In Hamilton he stated “There were hundreds of people within a kilometre of the rugby ground each other and hundreds of them in buses. But they wanted to do the softy softy thing in order to not create tension or violence.” And in the Auckland test was the exact same thing with upholding law and order and they were encountered with acid bombs. He states that “If you saw someone throw one of those at you. You’d make sure you would nail one of the …show more content…
At the first suggestion of the 1981 Springbok tour the couple believed that the tour should take place. They felt that they tour should’ve gone ahead not because of rugby, as stated “It was never really a question of rugby as such”. But more of the fact of Freedom. Due to the democracy in New Zealand they believed that they had a right to believe what they wanted as long it was inside the law. Which made them feel like the NZRU had the right to invite the South African Rugby team to New Zealand. They believed that “no-one should have to go, if he objected to the tour, but no-one should be prevented from going”. And they felt like too many people attempted to force their views upon other people. And because of this they found that they were appalled at the amount of violence from the protesters and “believe that the protest movement has been used by some professional agitators for their own
One Policeman, Sgt Willcox, gives his views of his opinions in relation to the actions and protest of the 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand. At the time of the tour in 1981 Sgt Willcox's view of the tour was either pro tour or anti-tour but instead preferring to stay neutral. He stated “I didn’t really associate myself on any side of the tour”. Rather later saying that the tour was inevitable due to everything being uncivilised. Also he found that the tour was ‘New Zealand's Baptism’ and because of this he felt like ‘We (New Zealand) grew up over the whole tour.
Another view of his was that he felt like that the tour picked up its own inertia. As the tour progressed Sargent Willcox found that professionals splintering …show more content…
Willcox took was from training right up until the Auckland test. He broke his collarbone during training. Also actions he find himself in were being between pro-tour people to stop fighting. He did as he found himself to uphold law and order. Not taking either side, treating pro-tour people and protester as equal.
He was also looking after people in the cells at the Christchurch Police Station. Willcox had to shut his emotions and make sure that people weren’t safe and not stressed. He also took part in the molesworth st protests in Wellington. In Wellington willcox was part of hundreds of people on the Ground. The police ‘held their lung’ and when the protesters lunged at the police he charged back at the police. He felt as if the protesters had started it. So, he had to uphold law and order.
In the Hamilton game Willcox was part of stopping the kinds of protests, like from Hamilton, from happening. In Hamilton he stated “There were hundreds of people within a kilometre of the rugby ground each other and hundreds of them in buses. But they wanted to do the softy softy thing in order to not create tension or violence.” And in the Auckland test was the exact same thing with upholding law and order and they were encountered with acid bombs. He states that “If you saw someone throw one of those at you. You’d make sure you would nail one of the …show more content…
At the first suggestion of the 1981 Springbok tour the couple believed that the tour should take place. They felt that they tour should’ve gone ahead not because of rugby, as stated “It was never really a question of rugby as such”. But more of the fact of Freedom. Due to the democracy in New Zealand they believed that they had a right to believe what they wanted as long it was inside the law. Which made them feel like the NZRU had the right to invite the South African Rugby team to New Zealand. They believed that “no-one should have to go, if he objected to the tour, but no-one should be prevented from going”. And they felt like too many people attempted to force their views upon other people. And because of this they found that they were appalled at the amount of violence from the protesters and “believe that the protest movement has been used by some professional agitators for their own