More idiotic police behaviour?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by pio12345, Jul 21, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Do you really mean more Guardian?
  2. Or perhaps the bint should of shut the f*ck up and let the plod do their job?
  3. 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.
  4. Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
  5. What was the need to hold the police to account for? Were they breaking the law serching her boyfriend?
  6. 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!!!
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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. 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
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Biped

    Biped LE Book Reviewer

    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.