Newsstand owner tearfully claims police beat him

Newsstand owner tearfully claims police beat him

A court eviction in Madrid, a woman being dispossessed, and a candidate breaking down on set. Pablo Fernández, known as 'el kiosquero' (the newsstand owner) and presented on the show as a candidate for Madrid's mayorship, tearfully claimed on En Boca de Todos that the police had beaten him during the eviction. Minutes later, the JUPOL union defended the "professionalism" of the Police Intervention Unit (UIP) on the same program and denounced the "political use" of the dispossessed woman. Two versions, one video, and, in the analyzed material, no medical report of injuries presented.

What peine at Mari Carmen's eviction?

The episode begins with a court-ordered eviction carried out in Madrid. Mari Carmen is the tenant being dispossessed, who is the subject of the debate. Pablo Fernández, who according to his own account went to the location, claims that the police assaulted him. His version is supported by his testimony and his tears. The scene from the TV studio – with his voice breaking – is circulating as evidence on social media. It is not.

On the show, a participant demands the obvious: if there were blows, they should be documented with the appropriate medical report and a complaint filed with the duty court. The reasoning is simple and doesn't care about acronyms: an assault without these papers amounts to nothing, no matter how much emotion is invested in it.

Why does JUPOL defend the UIP?

Because the union maintains that the intervention trinc protocol and that the eviction narrative is being used as a political weapon. JUPOL described the role attributed to the dispossessed woman as "political use" and supported the officers involved in the operation.

Conversely, another interpretation, without any sympathy for the candidate, points in the opposite direction: that the UIP attracts aggressive profiles and that some officers should be removed from the unit. This is the uncomfortable position of the matter, the one that doesn't fit into black and white. And a pattern emerges that a commentator summarizes wryly: in a certain ecosystem, you are no longer anyone if you haven't been assaulted by the UIP.

An electoral calculation or a conviction?

Here the analysis splits. One part argues that the tears are pure electoral marketing: two days as a candidate, three crying appearances, and Madrid as the goal. Another responds that the strain is real and that the candidate has gotten into a mess he doesn't know how to get out of. And a third sees an internal clash in the episode: by pointing to the Government Delegate, the focus shifts to the PSOE, and the aggrieved party's story turns against its instigator.

Two live segments on En Boca de Todos make it clear that the issue is being played out in the realm of perception. No poll cited during the day's heated debate clarifies whether crying gains or loses votes in Madrid.

"Limited to the home, not the person"

A technical nuance enters the conversation that, according to some participants, almost no one reads carefully: the court order was limited to the home, not the person. According to that account, the detail clarifies who the ruling obliged.

And to the question of why Palestinian flags appear in demonstrations that have nothing to do with Gaza, no one gives a clear answer. It's the usual mix: causes piling up without order.

---

It remains to be seen whether the tears gain or lose. Without any known medical report or complaint in the material, the episode remains exactly where it started: a contrite face in front of a camera.