More idiotic police behaviour?

#21
Biped said:
[
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.
My Bold

Section 58(a) – a controversial amendment to the Terrorism Act – came into force, making it illegal to photograph a police officer if the images are considered "likely to be useful" to a terrorist.

Direct from the guardian itself.

Posting pictures or video of officers on tinternet excercising powers under the anti terrorism act could be construed as "likely to be useful".

Not trying to pick a fight and be pedantic but there's a difference mate.
 
#22
This is yet another example of the police trying to do their jobs, and being hindered by someone complaining that their 'civil liberties' have been infringed. What are the odds that the same woman would be the first to complain if she was at the nasty end of a knife, and the old bill didnt get there in time?
Takes the piss in my opinion.
 
#23
People need to learn that they cant just whip out a camera and film a copper every time they decide to search someone then file a complaint just because they used their right of stop and search.

They dont know where that video will end up, Youtube, photoshop and the coppers have no power to stop that from happening. If that daft cow would of shut her mouth it would of been over in 20 minutes.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#24
The_Seagull said:
Biped said:
[
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.
My Bold

Section 58(a) – a controversial amendment to the Terrorism Act – came into force, making it illegal to photograph a police officer if the images are considered "likely to be useful" to a terrorist.

Direct from the guardian itself.

Posting pictures or video of officers on tinternet excercising powers under the anti terrorism act could be construed as "likely to be useful".

Not trying to pick a fight and be pedantic but there's a difference mate.


You are absolutely right of course. I stand corrected.

In respect of the plain-clothes officers, they put themselves in the frame when they got involved - she wasn't filming them as she didn't even know they were police, and terrorists would have been non the wiser.

How is filming uniform doing a stop and search with a mobile going to aid terrorist?

Edited to add: If the plain clothes bods were doing anti-terrorism work, why on earth did they break cover over something as small-time as this?
 
#25
Biped said:
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.
using Anti Terror law falsely? I think not, using it wrongly is more accurate.

and her filming it may be legal but her motivation was to 'get revenge' on the police for searching her boyfrind, she was doing it to try to get one over on them.

The officer involved was wrongly using powers she didnt have in that situation, but this obsession with filming police actually causes a real threat to officers' and their families' safety.

Ive been followed home by criminals and colleagues have had their cars and homes attacked and their wive's threatened when their identity has been found out.

This obsession with over accountability - which i think is also a by product of of unpopular laws being brought in by new labour - is damaging the police's operational effectiveness.

Some officers simply wont get involved in anything if they think they are being filmed and a complaint will arise as it causes so much grief - block on promotion/transfer/selection to other depts/ probably taken off the streets whilst its investigated.

as a result if an officer spots something and stops someone and someone starts filming it, the officer may well see this encounter as too griefy and let the person carry on. If this person is a criminal then this affects all of our safety and security. It puts officers off doing their job.
 
#26
Yes in a word, Heavy handed ,ignorant B asterd. I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about the blatant mis use of alledgedly well intentioned legislation by over enthusiastic coppers.
I am sure she probably was a gobby self righteous gaurdian reading muppet, but above and beyond that she is also a british citizen on a british street and as such is at liberty to be a tw*t if she so wishes(within the confines of the law).
Plod need to have a serious evaluation of the way they operate in light of the fact that we are policed by consent.
rant over
P.S. I read the Telegraph as it goes
 
#27
BoomShackerLacker said:
smartascarrots said:
Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
Nailed in one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-kingsnorth-arrests


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint

We're fortunate to have the police we have but they're in danger of alienating the very people who are their advocates; ordinary citizens.
Then the public should remember that their constant criticism, destruction of morale, impeding the police by constantly calling for excessive accountability actually prevents the police from doing waht the public want done - ie preventing and detecting crime.

when there are no officers available to come to your call, whatever it may be, it's most likely because theyre in the station writing up reports and foms that have been brought in to cover their arrses due to excessive accountability demands.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#28
eastcoaster said:
we are policed by consent.
DING DING - we have a winner folks!!!!

They police by the consent of the public, from wherein they draw their ranks.

I'm sure Seagull will help me out on this one, but as I understand it, members of the Constabulary are every bit 'members of the civvy public' as those who do not sign up. They are NOT a government appopinted paramilitary force - they are civilians.
 
#29
What were the police afraid of? Why were they so scared that what they were doing should be filmed?
If they were within their rights to stop and search and they followed all the rules then that's fine, what could a film possibly show?
Message to officers: Be confident in your job, carry out the correct procedures, ignore idiots phoning you on their mobile phones unless you're involved in something really sensitive.
Had they ignored her she would have probably shown the video to her mates or even a brief if she felt hard done by. Brief would then say the police were carrying out all the correct procedures, nothing to see here, move along. As it is brief is now saying "They'll probably settle out of court".
 
#30
hogspawn said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
smartascarrots said:
Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
Nailed in one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-kingsnorth-arrests


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint

We're fortunate to have the police we have but they're in danger of alienating the very people who are their advocates; ordinary citizens.
Then the public should remember that their constant criticism, destruction of morale, impeding the police by constantly calling for excessive accountability actually prevents the police from doing waht the public want done - ie preventing and detecting crime.

when there are no officers available to come to your call, whatever it may be, it's most likely because theyre in the station writing up reports and foms that have been brought in to cover their arrses due to excessive accountability demands.
Accountability is not a dirty word you know... crevice etc; policing is by consent of the public.

What's your view now of the video clip here; using restraint for a non-violence protest and locking up for four days. Proportionate?
 
#31
eastcoaster said:
Yes in a word, Heavy handed ,ignorant B asterd. I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about the blatant mis use of alledgedly well intentioned legislation by over enthusiastic coppers.
I am sure she probably was a gobby self righteous gaurdian reading muppet, but above and beyond that she is also a british citizen on a british street and as such is at liberty to be a tw*t if she so wishes(within the confines of the law).
Plod need to have a serious evaluation of the way they operate in light of the fact that we are policed by consent.
rant over
P.S. I read the Telegraph as it goes
Really?

Im sick of Armchair Commissioners demanding the police 'do something about *insert rant of the day here*'
and 'get out on the streets more'
etc - whilst also tying their hands at every turn, demanding excessive accountability, demanding that police pay is reduced, demanding coppers be sacked for any mistake, demanding officers have fewer powers and get everything right always.

She may be at liberty to be a twat, but being a twat does have consequences, and if that means (not referring to this case) officers deciding to take enforcement action insted of exercising discretion then, the twat brought it upon themself.
 
#32
public are not nice and are not going to submit to you because just doing your job if they ever did.
threating us with anti terror law when 99.99% aren't terrorists makes the police force look stupid.

yes she was a stupid interfering moo but thats life suck it up.
bit like the injury's caused at the climate camp (wasp stings and trapping your foot in a police car door and not down to violent hippys) :roll:
 
#33
eastcoaster said:
Yes in a word, Heavy handed ,ignorant B asterd. I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about the blatant mis use of alledgedly well intentioned legislation by over enthusiastic coppers.
I am sure she probably was a gobby self righteous gaurdian reading muppet, but above and beyond that she is also a british citizen on a british street and as such is at liberty to be a tw*t if she so wishes(within the confines of the law).
Plod need to have a serious evaluation of the way they operate in light of the fact that we are policed by consent.
rant over
P.S. I read the Telegraph as it goes
Would you also be sick to the back teeth of bombs going off if the OB in London weren't out there detterring terrorists? Remember. Most of our terrorists are British citizens too mate.

Like I mentioned earlier it may well be that these lot were on anti terrorist duties and therefore making the request to see her phone reasonable. If they weren't then they're t!ts for not knowing or misusing their powers.

edited for poor grammar.
 
#35
hogspawn said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
smartascarrots said:
Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
Nailed in one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-kingsnorth-arrests


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint

We're fortunate to have the police we have but they're in danger of alienating the very people who are their advocates; ordinary citizens.
Then the public should remember that their constant criticism, destruction of morale, impeding the police by constantly calling for excessive accountability actually prevents the police from doing waht the public want done - ie preventing and detecting crime.

when there are no officers available to come to your call, whatever it may be, it's most likely because theyre in the station writing up reports and foms that have been brought in to cover their arrses due to excessive accountability demands.
So, in essence what you're saying is that plod should be able to treat members of the public how they like and they can break laws if they like and the public shouldn't complain because it might affect your morale?
I'll just assume that there's no officers available because 7 of them are arresting a woman because she filmed them carrying out a perfectly legal procedure in a public place. Good grief, what if she had had another girl with her, what then? Couple of vans, eye in the sky?
You want public support then stop acting like mindless bullies and get on with your job.
 
#36
Squiggles said:
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"
Plod around here are wearing head cameras already, they also make great use of cameras at demo's, whats the problem with everyone being filmed in public - it keeps everyone honest, both plod and public.
 
#37
hogspawn said:
and her filming it may be legal but her motivation was to 'get revenge' on the police for searching her boyfrind, she was doing it to try to get one over on them.
I'd film a policeman if he was stopping and searching anyone close to me. Not revenge. It's because the police cannot be trusted.

They cannot be trusted to tell the truth, they cannot be trusted to keep the laws they supposedly up hold. They are just thugs who view their gang as a little bigger and with better tools than the other gangs. They are in short legalised thugs in a way I've never seen any "squaddie" behave. Sure there maybe good ones, but I haven't met them. I can only say what I saw with the police I worked with.

What the police have to realise they have lost a huge proportion of the law abiding citizens repect. We see you on our screens beating protesters (countryside alliance/G8) as well as some poor sod who happened to be a little cheaky on the way home from work.

Filming the police isn't about "revenge" or getting a few hits on youtube it's about ensuring if the police do proceed to kick someone to the floor/death you've either got evidence you can take to the IPCC. The main aim is to actually stop them doing it.

Community relations - they've got a long way to go.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#38
hogspawn said:
eastcoaster said:
Yes in a word, Heavy handed ,ignorant B asterd. I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about the blatant mis use of alledgedly well intentioned legislation by over enthusiastic coppers.
I am sure she probably was a gobby self righteous gaurdian reading muppet, but above and beyond that she is also a british citizen on a british street and as such is at liberty to be a tw*t if she so wishes(within the confines of the law).
Plod need to have a serious evaluation of the way they operate in light of the fact that we are policed by consent.
rant over
P.S. I read the Telegraph as it goes
Really?

Im sick of Armchair Commissioners demanding the police 'do something about *insert rant of the day here*'
and 'get out on the streets more'
etc - whilst also tying their hands at every turn, demanding excessive accountability, demanding that police pay is reduced, demanding coppers be sacked for any mistake, demanding officers have fewer powers and get everything right always.

She may be at liberty to be a t**t, but being a t**t does have consequences, and if that means (not referring to this case) officers deciding to take enforcement action insted of exercising discretion then, the t**t brought it upon themself.
I think the police do a great job, and I've never had cause for complaint myself. I DO think they have to do too much paperwork, but they cannot be held to 'too much' account.

They police by our consent, and they are accountable to us. We, the hard-working law-abiding public. If we, the hard-working, law-abiding public feel our rights and freedoms are being abused, and we wish to make a record of it for later presentation to lawyers or police complaints bodies, then we can and we will.

They are granted certain powers, such as the power of arrest, and stop and search and so on, but if they assume powers that are not there, or abuse the powers that they ARE given, just like your average citizen, they must be held to account.

I'm all for the police maintaining their powers, getting proper kit and budgets and so on, but for my buck, I expect professional behaviour, common, decent curtesy and for them to work within their remit.

If you expect them to do otherwise, you are a tw@t.
 
#39
BoomShackerLacker said:
hogspawn said:
BoomShackerLacker said:
smartascarrots said:
Or perhaps plod should have done their job and ignored the camera. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, remember?
Nailed in one. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-kingsnorth-arrests


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/kingsnorth-protester-arrests-video-complaint

We're fortunate to have the police we have but they're in danger of alienating the very people who are their advocates; ordinary citizens.
Then the public should remember that their constant criticism, destruction of morale, impeding the police by constantly calling for excessive accountability actually prevents the police from doing waht the public want done - ie preventing and detecting crime.

when there are no officers available to come to your call, whatever it may be, it's most likely because theyre in the station writing up reports and foms that have been brought in to cover their arrses due to excessive accountability demands.
Accountability is not a dirty word you know... crevice etc; policing is by consent of the public.

What's your view now of the video clip here; using restraint for a non-violence protest and locking up for four days. Proportionate?
What clip?

Accountability is not a dirty word, but if the constraints of over accountability prevent police from being effective then it shouldnt be the case.

People should not underestimate the detrimental effect of excessive demands of accountability on getting things done and providing a decent service - form filling and arrse covering takes time and means officers arent available to do other duties. Plus if the time/resources/effort involved in taking an action is too much because of the arrse covering involved, then people wont take that action wil they - this puts officers off getting things done as the result doesnt justify the grief involved!
 
#40
Biped said:
eastcoaster said:
we are policed by consent.
DING DING - we have a winner folks!!!!

They police by the consent of the public, from wherein they draw their ranks.
I think it was mainly the black population of London who complained that stop and search targeted black people after the Steven Lawrence case stop and search reduced and black on black crime shot up. Result was that the very people moaning about it one minute wanted the next.
That was just an example, the fact they were black had nothing to do with it. People are always whinging that the police don't do enough then when those same people are stopped for a routine check they whinge about that instead.

People just like to be a pain in the arse to hinder the police, yet when some barrack room lawyer does the same to the army this site sells out a double deckers worth of seats on the outrage bus.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top