The police farce.

Some do it seems.

One on YouTube goes around filming police stations desperately trying to get a reaction and he does sometimes get what he wants, thats the polices fault really for not having the professionalism to ignore him.

The knock on effect is eventually cops will miss someone who is filming a recce for something unpleasant or decide not to engage rather than be humiliated on you tube. This will be because they don’t get the support they deserve and legislation puts them in an impossible position.

Then when the inquiry comes, maybe people will listen.
 
Some do it seems.

One on YouTube goes around filming police stations desperately trying to get a reaction and he does sometimes get what he wants, thats the polices fault really for not having the professionalism to ignore him.
Whereas police stations can also be the subject of ‘intelligence gathering’, the French had a station attacked a couple of weeks ago, and I wouldn’t be surprised if certain types put an eye on our police stations now and again.



If ‘auditors’ were just testing then they could be asked a couple of questions, give their name and quite peacefully carry on with their ‘rights’. But then they wouldn’t get good ‘oppression’ footage.

The guy concerned in the original video on this thread was doing what the security guards had alledged when they reported him to the police. When he eventually gives his name to avoid being taken into the station he is left alone
(and in avoiding be taken in he also avoided getting his camera examined which would have shown the footage that he denied taking and also later published on YouTube)


 

Mr_Relaxed

War Hero
The knock on effect is eventually cops will miss someone who is filming a recce for something unpleasant or decide not to engage rather than be humiliated on you tube. This will be because they don’t get the support they deserve and legislation puts them in an impossible position.

Then when the inquiry comes, maybe people will listen.
Gave this a like, but I think you’re writing your last paragraph more in hope than expectation?

What legislation would you see as being effective? We’re in a world where everyone has a phone and an inclination to be a pain the proverbial, so how do you legislate for people being people?
 
I see you and raise you [an individual known to me, unfortunately]

 
I think the " auditors" ( unemployed gits ) are just playing on a grey area of law, they are right that you don't have to give your details in certain circumstances and the police are right that if you don't they can take things further?
 
Gave this a like, but I think you’re writing your last paragraph more in hope than expectation?

What legislation would you see as being effective? We’re in a world where everyone has a phone and an inclination to be a pain the proverbial, so how do you legislate for people being people?

How can police attend reports of people who are acting suspiciously in the view of the person reporting and when they attend, have no legal power to ascertain who that person is and be expected to walk away having resolved the matter, by being able to make an informed decision on whether that person is actually a threat?

If the country is happy with that situation then so be it.
 
Gave this a like, but I think you’re writing your last paragraph more in hope than expectation?

What legislation would you see as being effective? We’re in a world where everyone has a phone and an inclination to be a pain the proverbial, so how do you legislate for people being people?

Filming police is fine, I have no problems with that. That is the age we live in.
 
You lost me there.

How can the police be expected to attend reports of suspicious people, and then not be able to ascertain whether the person is actually suspicious because they have no legal obligation to tell you who they are?

Only by carrying out a PNC check or local police system check on a person, can you really work out whether that person is a potential offender or someone who is innocently filming or someone looking to provoke a confrontation and publish it.

Eventually cops will either refuse to engage with them and miss something important because they are sick of being humiliated and put in a no win situation.

Either the country accepts this and the potential outcome or they support them and give them the legislation to require a persons details.

I don’t care either way, but don’t complain if it all goes wrong.
 
How can the police be expected to attend reports of suspicious people, and then not be able to ascertain whether the person is actually suspicious because they have no legal obligation to tell you who they are?

Only by carrying out a PNC check or local police system check on a person, can you really work out whether that person is a potential offender or someone who is innocently filming or someone looking to provoke a confrontation and publish it.

Eventually cops will either refuse to engage with them and miss something important because they are sick of being humiliated and put in a no win situation.

Either the country accepts this and the potential outcome or they support them and give them the legislation to require a persons details.

I don’t care either way, but don’t complain if it all goes wrong.
For someone who doesn't care you're making a bit of a fuss. I lost faith in the police quite a few years ago. Full of spotty youths and women.
 
For someone who doesn't care you're making a bit of a fuss. I lost faith in the police quite a few years ago. Full of spotty youths and women.

I made one post and responded to a couple of replies.
 
What would you rather it was full of?
A few blokes like these mainly.

thumbnail.jpeg
 

Latest Threads

Top