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.

The video you posted isn't Aggressive Force, it sounds more like some Scandinavian Black Metal thing. Aggressive Force haven't existed for about 20 years
The wrong version of the song, but my original point of the police considering posters of ‘It’s OK to be white” to be treated as potential hate crime, is more relevant with them being aware of the history of the phrase going back 20 years in white supremacy in songs and used for campaigning to motivate low level racism with a subtle message carrying extremist undertones
 
Part deux.

They were from St Marys Wharf Police Station, Derby.

It morphs from Terrorism to anti-social behaviour. Can you spell C O M P E N S A T I O N.

Doesn't matter if he is the worlds biggest plonker, if he has done nothing wrong then he should not be buggered around. It should have been a case of "we've had a complaint which is why we are talking to you, just stay on public property, apply some commonsense and you will have no issues".

Instead the puppy walker took it upon herself to big it up for the new probationer and give a member of the public a hard time. She then goes on to more or less threaten to arrest him if he continues doing what he is doing..........which is nothing criminal. She mentions from their records he has done it previously too, doesn't matter if he has done nothing criminal. If he is one of these freedom of expression nutters then they have taken the bait, are on the hook and swallowed the line and sinker. This is what happens when you pay less than call centres, run down your staff, lower your standards and have to take anyone who comes knocking.



Pssssst. Local plod will also keep the security guards happy because their office in the centre will be a tea stop location.
 
Last edited:
Part deux.

They were from St Marys Wharf Police Station, Derby.

It morphs from Terrorism to anti-social behaviour. Can you spell C O M P E N S A T I O N.

Doesn't matter if he is the worlds biggest plonker, if he has done nothing wrong then he should not be buggered around. It should have been a case of "we've had a complaint which is why we are talking to you, just stay on public property, apply some commonsense and you will have no issues".

Instead the puppy walker took it upon herself to big it up for the new probationer and give a member of the public a hard time. She then goes on to more or less threaten to arrest him if he continues doing what he is doing..........which is nothing criminal. She mentions from their records he has done it previously too, doesn't matter if he has done nothing criminal. If he is one of these freedom of expression nutters then they have taken the bait, are on the hook and swallowed the line and sinker. This is what happens when you pay less than call centres, run down your staff, lower your standards and have to take anyone who comes knocking.



Pssssst. Local plod will also keep the security guards happy because their office in the centre will be a tea stop location.

St Mary’s wharf, wonderful piece of PFI building, we were not even able to open the concertina doors between incident rooms without the say so of the building manager.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Part deux.

They were from St Marys Wharf Police Station, Derby.

It morphs from Terrorism to anti-social behaviour. Can you spell C O M P E N S A T I O N.

Doesn't matter if he is the worlds biggest plonker, if he has done nothing wrong then he should not be buggered around. It should have been a case of "we've had a complaint which is why we are talking to you, just stay on public property, apply some commonsense and you will have no issues".

Instead the puppy walker took it upon herself to big it up for the new probationer and give a member of the public a hard time. She then goes on to more or less threaten to arrest him if he continues doing what he is doing..........which is nothing criminal. She mentions from their records he has done it previously too, doesn't matter if he has done nothing criminal. If he is one of these freedom of expression nutters then they have taken the bait, are on the hook and swallowed the line and sinker. This is what happens when you pay less than call centres, run down your staff, lower your standards and have to take anyone who comes knocking.



Pssssst. Local plod will also keep the security guards happy because their office in the centre will be a tea stop location.
If he wants to claim his compensation then he may need to explain why he lies throughout to the police.

He was in a public place, but he was filming into the entrance of the shopping centre, which is considered a concern for anti terrorism and guidance to shopping centres etc tells management and security to be vigilant for suspicious people filming entrances



Throughout he tells the police that he was taking a photo of the sign and only started recording because security came out. But unfortunately he decided to upload his footage to YouTube which shows that he was doing exactly what security claimed he had been doing

It’s wrong to claim he cannot photograph private property from public property, but into shopping centres is now different

He also has to put up a response video because other YouTube ‘auditors’ have slated him for getting everything wrong. But during this response he spends his time driving around an airport perimeter acting suspiciously pointing out the control tower and fuel tanks.


He is just being a dick but isn’t entirely in the right
 
If he wants to claim his compensation then he may need to explain why he lies throughout to the police.

He was in a public place, but he was filming into the entrance of the shopping centre, which is considered a concern for anti terrorism and guidance to shopping centres etc tells management and security to be vigilant for suspicious people filming entrances



Throughout he tells the police that he was taking a photo of the sign and only started recording because security came out. But unfortunately he decided to upload his footage to YouTube which shows that he was doing exactly what security claimed he had been doing

It’s wrong to claim he cannot photograph private property from public property, but into shopping centres is now different

He also has to put up a response video because other YouTube ‘auditors’ have slated him for getting everything wrong. But during this response he spends his time driving around an airport perimeter acting suspiciously pointing out the control tower and fuel tanks.


He is just being a dick but isn’t entirely in the right

I agree totally that he is being a dick of the first order. Baiting people to react so that he can say that his freedom has been infringed by the jackbooted thugs of an authoritarian state.

But, the UK is a free democracy with laws that apply to everyone equally, police included, they can’t just make it up. Throwing around words like terrorism if people answer back and do not do their bidding without question is unacceptable, as is threatening to incarcerate if they do not give their personal details. It actually adds weight and credence to the argument of the numpty with the camera.......just read the responses this knobber got for his filming. Be firm, be polite, don’t threaten, don’t intimidate, give everyone a positive outcome and you all look good.

Believe me I understand twitchyness when people are photographing and filming certain locations.

QUESTION FOR SERVING POLICE: Is it actually written NOW that people may not stand in a public place and film shopping centres and The like, or is it internal advice and guidance. Advice and guidance can become expensive for chief constables if stupid misinformed enthusiasm see’s someone detained and Then in court.

The last document I saw on the matter was this letter from ACPO. When I checked in 2018 on behalf of my daughter who is a media student in the UK the letter was still in force. I actually advised her To carry a copy of the letter with her in the UK as she is forever wandering around with her camera photographing things, on top of that her degree course see’s her out and about filming. Having been a copper for a few years I saw the benefit of her carrying the letter to avoid issues such as this.

 
Last edited:
I agree totally that he is being a dick of the first order. Baiting people to react so that he can say that his freedom has been infringed by the jackbooted thugs of an authoritarian state.

But, the UK is a free democracy with laws that apply to everyone equally, police included, they can’t just make it up. Throwing around words like terrorism if people answer back and do not do their bidding without question is unacceptable, as is threatening to incarcerate if they do not give their personal details. It actually adds weight and credence to the argument of the numpty with the camera.......just read the responses this knobber got for his filming. Be firm, be polite, don’t threaten, don’t intimidate, give everyone a positive outcome and you all look good.

Believe me I understand twitchyness when people are photographing and filming certain locations.

QUESTION FOR SERVING POLICE: Is it actually written NOW that people may not stand in a public place and film shopping centres and The like, or is it internal advice and guidance. Advice and guidance can become expensive for chief constables if stupid misinformed enthusiasm see’s someone detained and Then in court.

The last document I saw on the matter was this letter from ACPO. When I checked in 2018 on behalf of my daughter who is a media student in the UK the letter was still in force. I actually advised her To carry a copy of the letter with her in the UK as she is forever wandering around with her camera photographing things, on top of that her degree course see’s her out and about filming. Having been a copper for a few years I saw the benefit of her carrying the letter to avoid issues such as this.

Once while deployed on Operation Stable Door, we were directed to stop and search all lone males taking photographs around Buckinham Police on a hots summer day using anti-terrorist legislation. The aim was appaarently to deter hostile reconnassaince. It was embarrasing. The area was obviously packed with tourists taking photos but very few lone males.

The few that we found were genuinly foreign tourists. Obviously we handled it sensitively and all the people that we stopped were very understanding as their had just been a major terrorist incident.

In the end my collegue and I said "f*ck it" and went and filled out a load of stop slips using the names on the Battle of Britain memorial on the embankment. Our sweet Geordie blonde haired Skipper was as pleased as punch as she was under a lot of pressure from the grown ups to get numbers.

I always remember one lad though saying that if the job kept abusing the power like that, they would lose it and thinking how right he was, and there were rumbles from some MP's about it.
 
If he wants to claim his compensation then he may need to explain why he lies throughout to the police.

He was in a public place, but he was filming into the entrance of the shopping centre, which is considered a concern for anti terrorism and guidance to shopping centres etc tells management and security to be vigilant for suspicious people filming entrances



Other potentially arrestable "terrorism" offences detailed therein include:

Staring or quickly looking away.

Wearing a hoodie.

It's a fair cop guv'nor. I'll come quiet, like.
 
I agree totally that he is being a dick of the first order. Baiting people to react so that he can say that his freedom has been infringed by the jackbooted thugs of an authoritarian state.

But, the UK is a free democracy with laws that apply to everyone equally, police included, they can’t just make it up. Throwing around words like terrorism if people answer back and do not do their bidding without question is unacceptable, as is threatening to incarcerate if they do not give their personal details. It actually adds weight and credence to the argument of the numpty with the camera.......just read the responses this knobber got for his filming. Be firm, be polite, don’t threaten, don’t intimidate, give everyone a positive outcome and you all look good.

Believe me I understand twitchyness when people are photographing and filming certain locations.

QUESTION FOR SERVING POLICE: Is it actually written NOW that people may not stand in a public place and film shopping centres and The like, or is it internal advice and guidance. Advice and guidance can become expensive for chief constables if stupid misinformed enthusiasm see’s someone detained and Then in court.

The last document I saw on the matter was this letter from ACPO. When I checked in 2018 on behalf of my daughter who is a media student in the UK the letter was still in force. I actually advised her To carry a copy of the letter with her in the UK as she is forever wandering around with her camera photographing things, on top of that her degree course see’s her out and about filming. Having been a copper for a few years I saw the benefit of her carrying the letter to avoid issues such as this.

That remains valid, but it is flawed with the statement 'There are no powers prohibiting .... from a public place'.
For the majority of cases that is correct, (you can photograph what you can see from a public place) but it doesn't take into account 'prohibited places' and 'designated areas' under the Official Secrets Act, Communications Act, and some more legislation (covering military sites, CNI, communications, airports etc)
It is also recognised that there is a right to privacy, so zooming through windows from outside and upskirt shots aren't allowed.
The majority of normal people won't fall foul, but may not be aware of the difference between 'public place' and a place that the public can access.

Strictly speaking this affects plane spotters, but they get ignored in the UK..
Equivalent laws in Greece caused a group of holidaying plane spotters to be arrested for espionage.

A practical point of view is here and highlights coming under 'scrutiny' and 'curiousity'

Shopping centre entrances, such as in this case, in recent years with bombings & attacks of places where people concentrate have become an area of concern. They certainly come under 'scrutiny' and may or may not be explicitly under 'prohibited' and 'designated'
 
That remains valid, but it is flawed with the statement 'There are no powers prohibiting .... from a public place'.
For the majority of cases that is correct, (you can photograph what you can see from a public place) but it doesn't take into account 'prohibited places' and 'designated areas' under the Official Secrets Act, Communications Act, and some more legislation (covering military sites, CNI, communications, airports etc)
It is also recognised that there is a right to privacy, so zooming through windows from outside and upskirt shots aren't allowed.
The majority of normal people won't fall foul, but may not be aware of the difference between 'public place' and a place that the public can access.

Strictly speaking this affects plane spotters, but they get ignored in the UK..
Equivalent laws in Greece caused a group of holidaying plane spotters to be arrested for espionage.

A practical point of view is here and highlights coming under 'scrutiny' and 'curiousity'

Shopping centre entrances, such as in this case, in recent years with bombings & attacks of places where people concentrate have become an area of concern. They certainly come under 'scrutiny' and may or may not be explicitly under 'prohibited' and 'designated'

I always wondered, but never looked into, the places with the official secrets act notices on the fences and buildings. I always treated it that as long as any individual photographing was stood on public land then there was no issue - if it was so secret put up a brick wall and not a chain link fence. Yet others I knew would bang on if anyone so much as pointed a camera in the general direction of. Where do you draw the line?

During a "be aware" briefing back in the mists of time the Int bloke told us of a then recent incident about a large sensitive'ish MoD site where some posh homes backed up to an area of the site. A nice couple and their kids had moved into one of the houses as a rental and had lived there for a few months before someone spoke to someone. The couples kids attended the local infant/primary school and one of the other kids was telling their mum and dad all about their new Russian friend at school who lived at the back of the place where daddy worked. This was back in the days when Russians were still Sov's, not that it has changed much. Dad immediately informed work, work called Int&Spy, they investigated and discovered that the nice couple were registered with the Sov embassy as diplomats - husband was suspected GRU. Blanking screens were erected so that the house no longer had clear line of sight to monitor, or photograph, transport movement of sensitive cargo/materials, word got around, people stopped speaking to the nice couple and they moved out.
 
Photography in Africa carries its own risks. I've had to intervene a few times to prevent pax getting banged up when they've whipped out their phones and started taking pics while boarding. Usually it just comes down to negotiating the price to buy their phones back from the cop who's grabbed it from them.
 
Our calls are about 20% up now after lockdown. Its massively busy. Mainly menial shite. Burglaries still seem to be down. And RTCs. Massive increase in 'domestics' though..not the punchy variety but...mal-comms / harassment etc.
This. Domestics have gone through the roof, including the punchy ones. Had one today, he was nicked in his underpants!

Edited to add - tomorrow between 1600-2300 there are two officers for 20,000 people. Two. That's me and Andy W. Neither of us has TASER and back up could be ten miles away unless they have gone North and South in which case add another ten miles.
 
This. Domestics have gone through the roof, including the punchy ones. Had one today, he was nicked in his underpants!

Edited to add - tomorrow between 1600-2300 there are two officers for 20,000 people. Two. That's me and Andy W. Neither of us has TASER and back up could be ten miles away unless they have gone North and South in which case add another ten miles.

Its not changed then. As a special I went on parade on a Friday night shift at 19.00hrs with me and the duty Sgt being the only one's at the table. Population 25,000, rural town with a large rural area and lots of villages with popular pubs. He managed to get a car down from the adjacent area to help cover the patch, luckily a quiet night.
 
Some on this thread may enjoy this little tête-à-tête from the emerald toilet. We are discussing/laughing about it on a separate thread but it feels relevant here too.

Good proactive policing seasoned with a bit of robust banter or deliberately trying to get a rise out of a republican. Either way, it’s all a bit of a farce.

Gets interesting once ginge makes an appearance from the 2 min mark.

You thick ****
 
The Police just don't seem to be able to help themselves

The Metropolitan police force has been ordered to launch an inquiry after a court heard that an escaped prisoner, who had been jailed for firearms offences, spent a month trying to hand himself in to officers but was repeatedly turned away.


I'm not one to bash the Rank & File as I think they are totally hamstrung by the idiocy of PC culture, but if this turns out to be true, then Christ on a bike, it needs scraped and started again.
 
The Police just don't seem to be able to help themselves




I'm not one to bash the Rank & File as I think they are totally hamstrung by the idiocy of PC culture, but if this turns out to be true, then Christ on a bike, it needs scraped and started again.
It could be that Mr Uddin is telling porkies:


“If an individual attended a police station in the Metropolitan police area to confirm they were wanted for a criminal offence, their name would be put through the police national computer to confirm this.

“Even if that person is not wanted, there would be a record of that name having been entered and by whom. From an initial review of our systems, there is no record of an Akram Uddin having attended Lewisham police station on dates between 13 July and 13 August.”
 
It could be that Mr Uddin is telling porkies:

It could be

If an individual attended a police station in the Metropolitan police area to confirm they were wanted for a criminal offence, their name would be put through the police national computer to confirm this.

He didn't turn up saying he was wanted for a criminal offence. He turned up saying he was on the run from an open prison.

Not quite the same thing.
 
It could be



He didn't turn up saying he was wanted for a criminal offence. He turned up saying he was on the run from an open prison.

Not quite the same thing.

? His name would still have gone on PNC, because weirdly enough escaped prisoners are of interest to police.
So PNC would have a record of search for that name from that police station.
No record, no search. Ergo he lied.
 
No record, no search. Ergo he lied.

As I said, it is entirely possible.

But is it not better to await the outcome of the inquiry to establish whether, not just the escaped prisoner, but also his lawyer are lying ?

During several attempts recorded by Channa, Walker told the court Uddin and Channa were variously told that there was and was not a warrant out for his arrest. Uddin’s final attempt was on 13 August, Walker told the court, adding that his client was told to go back to the police station six days later. One day before that, however, he was eventually arrested.

Channa being the lawyer.
 
As I said, it is entirely possible.

But is it not better to await the outcome of the inquiry to establish whether, not just the escaped prisoner, but also his lawyer are lying ?



Channa being the lawyer.


So lawyers cannot lie? Mmmm and there was me thinking they were humans, well educated to be sure. But still human and open to all the faults of the human race.
Police won't just have the fact no pnc requests were made, but cctv of the front desk.
Logs of enquiries... you know standard stuff.
 
So lawyers cannot lie?

Christ on a bike

As I said, it is entirely possible.

The judge, Charles Gratwicke, demanded that the Met police conduct an inquiry and present its findings to the court within 28 days. He told Uddin he had no reason to doubt that he made efforts to hand himself in, though he made no observation in relation to the chronology his lawyers outlined.

The fact that the Judge ordered an inquiry seems to show that it is also entirely possible that they are not lying.
 

Latest Threads

Top