Piers Corbyn Watch

My understanding of the story is:
Para reg (association etc) gave their names to Police as they were identifiable at a protest where it turned violent in parts (by violent, alleged criminal behaviour).
Whether they were commiting any criminal activity is for Police to determine.
How did you come to that understanding? When there is a abit of football violence at the match is it usual to tell the police that you know someone was at the ground?.

Para reg (past, present and association) also state they do not condone such behaviour by past or present persons, and do not wish to have the reg associated with these persons, protests or public disorder.

I think that’s why they dobbed them in.

I dont think its normal for someone to report a person to the police because they are at an event that you disagree with.
 
Attacking the fake building with the beret of an elite unit was “a special kind of special,”; Fox said

So there's 'fake' buildings now...?

No in this case

Bu there are in London, usually facades to hide gaps between houses backing on to rail lines, cunningly disguised to look like a real house
 
No in this case

Bu there are in London, usually facades to hide gaps between houses backing on to rail lines, cunningly disguised to look like a real house
Like several doors down from me when I lived in Leinster Gardens, W2 and the overhang above the lorry entrance to my local Tesco in Westbourne Park Road, W11. The street and the entrance are both rather narrow and a sport of us nobbeds outside the nearby boozer is betting on how many passes and the length of time taken to back the artic' into the yard as well as how many impatient cretins, held up at the junction, will get themselves into stupid trouble by trying to bully their way through.
It keeps us simpletons happy.
 
Last edited:

NSP

LE
Auditing Britain inadvertently capturing PC’s latest police station appointment:

If this Ring doorbell privacy/GDPR case goes the way of the plaintiff I can see the old bill using the ruling in their favour to stomp on these "auditor" pricks.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind...
 

NSP

LE
2021-10-16_21-05-35.jpg


Oops...
 
If this Ring doorbell privacy/GDPR case goes the way of the plaintiff I can see the old bill using the ruling in their favour to stomp on these "auditor" pricks.

Oh dear, how sad, never mind...
They will have to change the law to make filming police stations illegal, because the "audit" pests are not breaking any laws. ( even the special laws the police have invented )
 

NSP

LE
They will have to change the law to make filming police stations illegal, because the "audit" pests are not breaking any laws. ( even the special laws the police have invented )
Presumably if the court rules in favour of the Ring plaintiff that the recorder of the image is a data controller under GDPR and has to provide all the assurances and protections, etc. then the police - or anyone, for that matter - can claim that, in filming them, the recording falls under GDPR, the recorder is a data controller and thus may not make public without written consent of the subject...?
 
Presumably if the court rules in favour of the Ring plaintiff that the recorder of the image is a data controller under GDPR and has to provide all the assurances and protections, etc. then the police - or anyone, for that matter - can claim that, in filming them, the recording falls under GDPR, the recorder is a data controller and thus may not make public without written consent of the subject...?
Plaintive wins.

 

Latest Threads

Top