Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The police farce.

It's a shame that the OP Bobbies didn't have that attitude with the security guards?

"I understand what you're saying, but you have him recorded on your CCTV, he's known to us for doing this, just ignore him, he isn't actually doing anything wrong. FYI, I have much more important things to do than come down to your shopping centre."
Though he was doing wrong.
If they got to the point of arresting him and then watched his footage they would have found that he was filming into the shopping centre, and was lieing when claiming that he was only taking photos of the sign outside the shopping centre until security came out.
It’s hardly major crime, but shopping centres are protected (due to bombings etc)
However ultimately not a lot would have happened to him.
Your drugs evidence was circumstantial - there are some people who do actually use bongs (water pipes) to smoke flavored tobacco.
The white powder is very likely to be drugs, but wasn’t worth their effort
 
But Karen can flick through your private photos just because she has a suspicion that you don't think she's a very good police officer?
No - she can’t and she didn’t
However if he continued to be uncooperative she could have arrested him under suspicion based on the complaint from the security guards and his continued obstruction and refusal to identify himself

Funnily enough when he realised he couldn’t talk his way out of it and was heading towards being arrested and getting the contents of his camera looked at (which would show that he was lieing to the police all the way through) that he instantly gave all his details and he was allowed to go
 

Flight

LE
Book Reviewer
Though he was doing wrong.
If they got to the point of arresting him and then watched his footage they would have found that he was filming into the shopping centre, and was lieing when claiming that he was only taking photos of the sign outside the shopping centre until security came out.
It’s hardly major crime, but shopping centres are protected (due to bombings etc)
However ultimately not a lot would have happened to him.
Your drugs evidence was circumstantial - there are some people who do actually use bongs (water pipes) to smoke flavored tobacco.
The white powder is very likely to be drugs, but half a dozen bags with a tiny amount at the bottom are not evidence of dealing. They are used
The grinders are for weed / marijuana (or for legal herbal products)

You have found items relating to their drug use
It wasn’t worth their effort

Can't help noticing that policemen and the like seem to have an explanation for everything, except their own lack of moral courage and values.

Generally someone else's fault, too expensive this, other people won't follow it up etc.

Not one poirot has yet even expressed surprise that none of the several police or call handlers asked for the name of the drug dealers.

Who cares how many people they might sell drugs to right?

As Adam Smith noted..

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience."
 
No - she can’t and she didn’t
However if he continued to be uncooperative she could have arrested him under suspicion based on the complaint from the security guards and his continued obstruction and refusal to identify himself

Funnily enough when he realised he couldn’t talk his way out of it and was heading towards being arrested and getting the contents of his camera looked at (which would show that he was lieing to the police all the way through) that he instantly gave all his details and he was allowed to go
The law says you can't arrest for refusing to give your details, or infer suspicion from it.

There has to be reasonable suspicion of being involved in terrorism, way more than taking snaps of Poundland or using a camera in public.
 
Can't help noticing that policemen and the like seem to have an explanation for everything, except their own lack of moral courage and values.

Generally someone else's fault, too expensive this, other people won't follow it up etc.

Not one poirot has yet even expressed surprise that none of the several police or call handlers asked for the name of the drug dealers.

Who cares how many people they might sell drugs to right?

As Adam Smith noted..

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience."

Locally at least, much to my annoyance, Users are not of interest to the police. Only dealing.
 

Green_Homer

War Hero
The law says you can't arrest for refusing to give your details, or infer suspicion from it.

There has to be reasonable suspicion of being involved in terrorism, way more than taking snaps of Poundland or using a camera in public.
The law also says if a person is behaving in an anti social manner likely to cause injury, alarm or distress than an officer can require their name and address. Failure to provide can lead to arrest.

I'm not saying that simply being obnoxious with a camera taking photos in itself falls under this however it could go this way depending on the behaviour of the person involved.

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 

Green_Homer

War Hero
The law also says if a person is behaving in an anti social manner likely to cause injury, alarm or distress than an officer can require their name and address. Failure to provide can lead to arrest.

I'm not saying that simply being obnoxious with a camera taking photos in itself falls under this however it could go this way depending on the behaviour of the person involved.

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
Official definition of anti social behaviour:

Antisocial behaviour is defined as 'behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to persons not of the same household as the person' (Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 and Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 ).

Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk
 
I don’t think people realise- the very laws that appear to protect criminals- also protect themselves. People seem surprised when told their neighbour will not get their house raided off the back of an “I can smell cannabis being smoked in the garden” report.
People don’t realise just how petty, and often vindictive people who often consider themselves fine upstanding members of the community actually can be. The Covid thing has brought it all to a head.
“My neighbours having a party and I have work in morning”.
When told it’s a council matter...
”I can smell drugs and there’s children there”
”can hear arguing too”.

On the occasions an officer does go round...I can’t remember last time it didn’t all turn out to be a load of bollocks spouted by the neighbour.
 
Nice bit of kit. I think your post sums up the situation perfectly:- it’s all too easy for photographers to get all militant and “I know my rights,” when it really is much easier to communicate. If you talk to people reasonably they’ll usually be fine- perhaps even suggesting a better vantage point. I would say the old days of street photography have gone, for instance I’d never take candid pictures of kids without their parents’ prior knowledge and permission, which means that you might miss “the moment.”
Also taking crowd scenes- especially stuff like the crowded beach pics seen in recent “social distancing” stories- you’ll probably find there’s one bloke who sees himself as a bit of an Alpha, and takes offence on behalf of everyone else. I’ve found the best way to deal with these is to tell them what I’m doing and why and offer to crop him out of the pic, or if you’ve got plenty without him, just delete the ones with him in. Make some joke asking whether he’s on the run or in the SAS to make him feel a bit silly. If you need more pics just keep him with you as you take them or tell him to turn his back to the camera.
Railway platforms were always a no-no without clearing it first.
Funny though isn’t it? Today’s phones are capable of taking great photos and everyone is photographing everything all the time (I had to tell some scrote the law after he saw me doing a court snatch of some nonce outside Crown Court and he was all set to go into the courtroom and do some pictures on his phone :)).
But it will still be the bloke with the “proper” camera who gets asked what he’s up to. A few years ago the equivalent would have been to ignore the bloke with the 35mm Leica but interrogate the geezer in the beret with his easel up doing an oil painting!
I have a Zorki 4K and a Leitz 13.5 cm I want to try out...with a turret viewfinder. As used by the Stasi.

I was in transit at Fiumancino (sp?) Airport in Rome the Caribinieri got cross with me as I tidied up some sketches in a note book...whereas everyone else was happily snapping away with their phones. I BLAME THE EU.
 
I have a Zorki 4K and a Leitz 13.5 cm I want to try out...with a turret viewfinder. As used by the Stasi.

I was in transit at Fiumancino (sp?) Airport in Rome the Caribinieri got cross with me as I tidied up some sketches in a note book...whereas everyone else was happily snapping away with their phones. I BLAME THE EU.
Was it mounted on a PhotoSniper?
 
Was it mounted on a PhotoSniper?
I had a Soviet 600 mm (I think it was. It went missing on a move 25 years ago) PhotoSniper kit for my Pentax Spotmatic. I wish I had it today as its use would guarantee an armed response form the police and claims of a "gun".

Yeara ago I saw a Ross Camera Gun that looked like a Lewsi Gun. It was going for about £150 - cheap way to guarantee a city wide lockdown!
 
'behaviour by a person which causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress
Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

I think that is the problem. I didn't see that in the video, but it can be interpreted as such for any eventuality.

Anyone could claim that a screaming/crying child would or is likely to cause all of the above.
 
I think that is the problem. I didn't see that in the video, but it can be interpreted as such for any eventuality.

Anyone could claim that a screaming/crying child would or is likely to cause all of the above.
Children playing / shouting/screaming whilst playing does not come under the 'nuisance' laws though. Thats why people will often elaborate and add a 'concern' aspect... "Thery're always smoking drugs...I can hear arguing..."
 

In_Twists

Old-Salt


So can't answer the questions still?

As it happens I'm all for routine arming but can't see it happening for a while for 2 reasons.

Firstly cost and secondly given how easy the public and judiciary will hang an officer out for the slightest minor use of force are you honestly surprised that many don't have faith that they will be supported if they use lethal force?

But again.. you knew that didn't you?

Did the nasty MoD police tell you no once or something? Maybe they didn't snap to attention and listen to your wide range of policing experience? I mean I'm mearely degree educated, with infantry and home office experience which means I'm only allowed blue crayons to eat rather than purple.



Sent from my HD1913 using Tapatalk

I agree with the last - lets face it, the Army dont get protected after pulling the trigger so what hope have the rozzers got?

Im of the mind theres more to it than just cost though. Partly its us (the people), not wanting to follow the US, and trying to cling to romantic notions of yesteryear.
But apart from that, theres an unwillingness from the govt. It might be Boris the Tory in power but he sure as hell aint no Conservative. Strong on Law and Order is what we need, and him and weasel Cummings and that mad Dick woman are simply against that.
IMO of course.
 
Partly its us (the people), not wanting to follow the US, and trying to cling to romantic notions of yesteryear.

why does everyone throw in USplod?

OzPlod and CANplod are 100% armed and not known to act like a paramilitary armed militia.. Oddly enough, British rozzers have no issue emigrating to go work for them and carry a gun.
 

In_Twists

Old-Salt
why does everyone throw in USplod?

OzPlod and CANplod are 100% armed and not known to act like a paramilitary armed militia.. Oddly enough, British rozzers have no issue emigrating to go work for them and carry a gun.

Exactly. But its this govt, MPs and limp wristed liberals who use the USA as a yardstick.
I say get on with it.
 
Particularly odd given that phones have cameras on both sides..

Hence you can't actually tell whether someone is selfying ( as I think it is called ) or filming in front of them.

Personally I'd consider suspicion of photographers to be suspicious. What activity do they not wish the public to know about?
Very true- if you’re doing a recce and want to clear up points impossible to get from the web why not hold that phone to your head whilst videoing your surroundings?
Tbh I think most of the int required by today’s terrorists isn’t imagery anyway. They don’t want to leave a device or kill a specific person and make good their escape, they want to kill as many people as possible before being martyred. All they need to know is how to get to the target, the busiest times, whether entry points are guarded, security locations, routes, patterns and response times.
I know for sure that the photographer in the OP is a bellend interested more in youtube than he is in his supposed project. The reason I know this is that he walked straight past one of the best pictures he could’ve taken to illustrate post covid Britain- the police officers wearing their surgical masks.

Instead of stalking past them muttering under his breath, he should have marched straight up to them, introduced himself and told them what he was doing. Then he should have asked them for a couple of pics with the deserted town in the background.
What a ******* loser.
 

Green_Homer

War Hero
I agree with the last - lets face it, the Army dont get protected after pulling the trigger so what hope have the rozzers got?

Im of the mind theres more to it than just cost though. Partly its us (the people), not wanting to follow the US, and trying to cling to romantic notions of yesteryear.
But apart from that, theres an unwillingness from the govt. It might be Boris the Tory in power but he sure as hell aint no Conservative. Strong on Law and Order is what we need, and him and weasel Cummings and that mad Dick woman are simply against that.
IMO of course.

You're not wrong with regards to the public perception, although I believe that as soon as they realise that people aren't getting shot left right and centre they will soon get over it.

Cost sadly is a major driver behind most things - it's not as simple as buying X number of Glocks (plus ancillaries , ammo etc) and on your way for instance. Training costs alone will be massive bearing in mind that you will need to have:

A suitable number of qualified trainers available (of whom the existing lot have their hands full with the existing AFO (and above) training) - So that means more trainers to be trained up.

Suitable armouries in stations

Training days to initially qualify - how long would this be for example? Existing AFO training has massively ramped up over the years due to the changing threats and increased expectation... Will a week of basic operating and SAA be enough? Will the standard response officer with his / her glock be expected to conduct an emergency search of a building involving an active shooter? In my opinion let's say a minimum of 2 weeks simply to give the officer a standing chance.

Most home office teams barely operate at minimum staffing levels (and often below) - Even staggering training will involve having to draft in others on overtime to plug gaps.

Ditto regarding re qualifying - remember this will be on top of every other refresher training that needs to be conducted.

It's not impossible to achieve this but it will cost a lot of money in the short - medium term. That's before anything else is taken into account such as your comment ;)
 

Latest Threads

Top