More idiotic police behaviour?

#4
ximmeh1987 said:
Or perhaps the bint should of shut the f*ck up and let the plod do their job?
She wasn't doing anything to get in their way whilst they were searching her boyfriend. She was simply filming so in what way was she not letting the police do their job. If they had ignored her they could have carried on quite happily searching him and let him get on their way. Then, if she had uploaded any footage onto youtube very few would ever bother watching it becuase it would be routine.

By making such a fuss about filming the police have now managed to get more media attention than they would and have managed to impede their own work by investigating how this happened. If it had been a matter of national security then fair enough but holding to the police to account is perfeclty legitimate in society.
 
#5
Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
 
#6
pio12345 said:
ximmeh1987 said:
Or perhaps the bint should of shut the f*ck up and let the plod do their job?
She wasn't doing anything to get in their way whilst they were searching her boyfriend. She was simply filming so in what way was she not letting the police do their job. If they had ignored her they could have carried on quite happily searching him and let him get on their way. Then, if she had uploaded any footage onto youtube very few would ever bother watching it becuase it would be routine.

By making such a fuss about filming the police have now managed to get more media attention than they would and have managed to impede their own work by investigating how this happened. If it had been a matter of national security then fair enough but holding to the police to account is perfeclty legitimate in society.
What was the need to hold the police to account for? Were they breaking the law serching her boyfriend?
 
#7
So she struggles with the police and wonders why its gets a bit rough????
I really wish these types would stop trying to prevoke Plod doing there job.
If I was a copper I certainly wouldnt want myself plastered all over the internet either!!!
 
#8
ximmeh1987 said:
Or perhaps the bint should of shut the f*ck up and let the plod do their job?
Indeed! Well done sir.

the article doesnt say if her boyfriend was arrested for drugs or not.

It says she 'filmed them because she believed they had unfairly targetted' her boyfriend.

It doesnt matter if she thought they'd unfairly targetted him or not, thats not her decision. Idiots who think being a pain and squealing 'Im gonna film you! you cant do this' will put officers off doing what they are doing are wrong, it wont, it might get you nicked for obstructing police if youre that much of a pain and get in the way.

But, I dare say in this case the officers are on very dodgy ground using the S58 amendment here. Just standing in her way woudve worked I reckon, though obviously I wasnt there and we only have some whining woman's word in the police hating Guardian.
 
#9
smartascarrots said:
Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
Right up to the moment it turns out that they are both criminals but were not carrying anything, how everlater they are showing all their criminal mates the faces of the coppers.
 
#10
pio12345 said:
ximmeh1987 said:
Or perhaps the bint should of shut the f*ck up and let the plod do their job?
She wasn't doing anything to get in their way whilst they were searching her boyfriend. She was simply filming so in what way was she not letting the police do their job. If they had ignored her they could have carried on quite happily searching him and let him get on their way. Then, if she had uploaded any footage onto youtube very few would ever bother watching it becuase it would be routine.

By making such a fuss about filming the police have now managed to get more media attention than they would and have managed to impede their own work by investigating how this happened. If it had been a matter of national security then fair enough but holding to the police to account is perfeclty legitimate in society.
how do you know?

and the obsession with 'holding police to account' when the police and IPCC do it adequately themselves has led to most of the paperwork that has now hamstrung the police
 
#11
MSI64 said:
So she struggles with the police and wonders why its gets a bit rough????
I really wish these types would stop trying to prevoke Plod doing there job.
If I was a copper I certainly wouldnt want myself plastered all over the internet either!!![/quote]

an acquaintence of mine had to take his kids out of one school because other kids recognised his face and bullied his children
 
#12
I have been stopped before by the police for no reason I can figure.
I turned out my pockets had a quick chat and went on my way?????
If you get lippy then expect something back.
I have to add the female copper that was there made the 20 minutes or so much more bearable lol
 
#13
Presumably Boris isn't likely to post the footage of undercover officers faces on You tube. Tbh I dont see what the issue is, the police perform random stop and searches all the time and aren't meant to stop someone on the basis of their appearence so the fact that the lady thought it wasnt fair that they were searching her boyfriend is redundant.
 
#14
If I decided to pull my mobile out and film every stop or interaction I had with the public, so that they could be held to account later if they did something wrong, they'd be the first to scream "human rights".

Where are the Police's human rights? We just have to grin (for the camera) and bear it. Nobody wants to be plastered all over youtube etc but there is nothing there to back you up. You are clutching at straws using obstruct police or the terrorism act and the powers that be will never back you.

I hope the Met defend it and back the WPC. But I expect the complainant will get a nice little out of court settlement instead.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#15
There's the law, and there's acting outside it. You can't expect us to abide by the law of the land, but give the police carte blanche to disregard it - therein lies the road to tyranny.

In this particular case, they were turning over her boyfriend (legally) in a stop and search to see if he was carrying drugs - no suspicion of terrorism. She was filming their behaviour, again, perfectly legally with a view to making a complaint - she's entitled to do so.

The police then falsely used anti-terrorism legislation to cuff her and demand access to her mobile phone. Quite rightly, they got female officers involved, and quite rightly, they got back to base on what they could and couldn't do - quite rightly, base told them they had no right to detain her or demand her phone, so, quite rightly, they released her.

She's now seeking a judicial review in the High Court to curtail this sort of behaviour and missuse of the anti-terrorism act by the police. Good on her.
 
#16
hmmm, as per usual with such reportage there's probably a lot more to this than is reported. (I must admit I couldn't be bothered to watch the video though)

If her bloke was being searched using anti terrorist powers (the legality and proportionality of which has been done to death) then I imagine it's perfectly acceptable for officers engaged on Anti Terrorist duties to ask for any filming of them whilst doing so to stop or any such footage to be at least examined.

On the other hand, if they were searching him under other powers (sect 1 PACE or Misuse of Drugs act) then it's not really proportionate to ask or demand her to do so and, if it were me, I'd just get on with the job in hand because if her bloke has nothing to hide and they deal with him in a professional manner then happy days as she's proved it was all done by the book, but if they do find something on him she's unwittingly provided evidence to that fact.

She mentions drugs but doesn't mention what powers were used to authorise the search.

Though I do wish officers would learn their powers under this new act instead of using it as a way of trying to beat their camera shyness.

If she was subsequently unhappy with her treatment there is a reporting system either via the force in question or direct to the IPCC and perhaps via their own solicitor. I don't know how people feel it's going to strengthen their complaint by squealing to the likes of the Guardian.
 
#17
public now has access to video camera's often they can load straight to the web.
just because you don't like does'nt mean its wrong. anti terror legislation is meant to be used against bad guys not.
not old men shouting at blair.
not coachloads of hippys
not somebody reading out the names of the dead
not tourists taking photos of buses etc etc etc :roll:
 
#18
Are you serious? If its against the law to film police officers conducting there work, and she filmed them then she is breaking the law.. When challenged she cries out about it? Get a grip. If she hadn't have broken the law she wouldn't have been put into that situation, not to mention they would have probably sent her on her way after deleting the video...

Seriously, some people need to get a grip!

And on the matter of her saying that her boyfriend was stopped and searched unfairly is bloody rubbish1 I was stopped and questioned as i got off a train last friday night. They were just doing their job.
 
#19

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
Kent89 said:
Are you serious? If its against the law to film police officers conducting there work, and she filmed them then she is breaking the law.. When challenged she cries out about it? Get a grip. If she hadn't have broken the law she wouldn't have been put into that situation, not to mention they would have probably sent her on her way after deleting the video...

Seriously, some people need to get a grip!

And on the matter of her saying that her boyfriend was stopped and searched unfairly is bloody rubbish1 I was stopped and questioned as i got off a train last friday night. They were just doing their job.
My Bold

No, it's not against the law to film the police. It is only illegal to film the police or other members of HM services in order to commit acts of terrorism. She was not doing that.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top