Army Rumour Service

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.

What video clip were you people watching?

I saw two (one and a half, really) coppers swagger up to some bloke on the say-so of a couple of jobsworth mall-cop types and start demanding information.

At the point where he had politely explained why he was taking photos, it should have ended there and then with "Very good sir, thank you for your co-operation; please take care where you point your camera in future, and if possible speak to the security staff before you start taking photos."

The actual shitshow that followed was a textbook example of someone exceeding their authority (with overtones of showing off to the rookie) and escalating a pifflingly trivial matter into threats of arrest, bullying, exceeding their authority, woeful unfamiliarity with the law and causing a member of the public alarm and distress.

All amplified by the need to refer back to HQ at least twice presumably because

a) they didn't want to admit they'd lost control of the situation,

b) didn't really know what to do when someone didn't shart themselves at their specious bandying about of the word "terrorist"

and

c) had no clue how to back out of an embarrassing situation of their own creation without making themselves look ever bigger tools.

You can almost guarantee that any rubber dinghy rapids types wanting to photograph that place would have their granny drop a box of eggs next to the security station as a distraction while they went through the place filming on their mobile phones, so any of this anti-terrorism nonsense directed at a bloke standing outside with a huge camera on a tripod is complete and utter bollocks.

Even worse, the poor sod was white, so he won't even get a grovelling, knee-bending apology from the Chief Constable.
 
Last edited:
The clue is earlier in the post, when I mention being a MP.
But, a MP doesn’t have the same jurisdiction or authorised abilities as a Civ Plod, so how many years civ, how many military?
 

Gout Man

LE
Book Reviewer
I think that is what they used to call 'policing skills'.
And of course there was always that chap or lady just round the corner who waved me down and told me how the group of young lads were acting.
Policing skills, means and ways, every one is happy, PACE, the policeman’s friend.
 
If that’s what people want, then so be it.
Let criminals operate with impunity to recce, prepare and logistically equip themselves up until the point that they actually embark on committing the crime.

Don’t stop them and ask what they are doing or try and discourage them by first guessing or disrupting their preparation.

A bit like cold callers in an area who are knocking doors and nosying. They aren’t breaking the law but turning up and interrupting them let’s them know that we know.
We already have the check of " reasonable suspicion" in law for this this reason.
 
What video clip were you people watching?

I saw two (one and a half, really) coppers swagger up to some bloke on the say-so of a couple of jobsworth mall-cop types and start demanding information.

At the point where he had politely explained why he was taking photos, it should have ended there and then with "Very good sir, thank you for your co-operation; please take care where you point your camera in future, and if possible speak to the security staff before you start taking photos."

The actual shitshow that followed was a textbook example of someone exceeding their authority (with overtones of showing off to the rookie) and escalating a pifflingly trivial matter into threats of arrest, bullying, exceeding their authority, woeful unfamiliarity with the law and causing a member of the public alarm and distress.

You can almost guarantee that any rubber dinghy rapids types wanting to photograph that place would have their granny drop a box of eggs next to the security station as a distraction while they went through the place filming on their mobile phones, so any of this anti-terrorism nonsense directed at a bloke standing outside with a huge camera on a tripod is complete and utter bollocks.

Even worse, the poor sod was white, so he won't even get a grovelling, knee-bending apology from the Chief Constable.


I watched, and admittedly-stopped halfway through. I'm well versed with the attitude and tone of voice and...believe it or not - they all seem to have the same accent!
He knew what he was doing. He appeared to deliberatly bring himnself to the police / PCSO attention and wanted to ellicit a response.

There are well documented cases where people who have later gone on to do other things have been found to have condcuted prior 'hostile recces'.

I'm betting that bloke is also well known to police and a frequent caller for various reasons. There are actually people who have this as a hobby.

PC with hands in pocket looked a biit scruffy and- helpless PCSOs would have been better off just making themselves scarce-as opposed to trying to look like they were doing something out of embarrassment every 10 seconds (checking phone etc).

Now the other side of the coin...bloke could have quite easily...and its been done...filmed away then posted an expose on Youtube of how he filmed people going in and out of a public building in full view of police-and was not questioned at all - raising concerns under various terrorism acts.

You think people like that don't exist??

I don't expect to hear you ever complain on this forum about how BLM protesters are treated by police / perceived lack of police action when they do start to "play up".
 
What video clip were you people watching?

I saw two (one and a half, really) coppers swagger up to some bloke on the say-so of a couple of jobsworth mall-cop types and start demanding information.

At the point where he had politely explained why he was taking photos, it should have ended there and then with "Very good sir, thank you for your co-operation; please take care where you point your camera in future, and if possible speak to the security staff before you start taking photos."

The actual shitshow that followed was a textbook example of someone exceeding their authority (with overtones of showing off to the rookie) and escalating a pifflingly trivial matter into threats of arrest, bullying, exceeding their authority, woeful unfamiliarity with the law and causing a member of the public alarm and distress.

All amplified by the need to refer back to HQ at least twice presumably because

a) they didn't want to admit they'd lost control of the situation,

b) didn't really know what to do when someone didn't shart themselves at their specious bandying about of the word "terrorist"

and

c) had no clue how to back out of an embarrassing situation of their own creation without making themselves look ever bigger tools.

You can almost guarantee that any rubber dinghy rapids types wanting to photograph that place would have their granny drop a box of eggs next to the security station as a distraction while they went through the place filming on their mobile phones, so any of this anti-terrorism nonsense directed at a bloke standing outside with a huge camera on a tripod is complete and utter bollocks.

Even worse, the poor sod was white, so he won't even get a grovelling, knee-bending apology from the Chief Constable.

The funniest was the photographer arrested because a WPC stated she had felt threatened by his size - 5' 11" and about 12 stone - and implied that she found it intimidating.

He complained about the arrest, so a police internal investigation was carried out, and unsurprisingly arresting someone because they were too tall was deemed unlawful
 
811DEC04-0E3F-4825-A7A9-E2D652D0B578.jpeg


the Police Farce- and they wonder why the public hold them in contempt
 
I don't particularly care what you expect.

I would expect that. Your contradictions in opinion are preserved though-should you later choose to flip-flop.
 
by bowing down like craven wretches.
I agree but - in the current climate- as directed by vast members of the population..and establishment - they probably thought they were doing the right thing, and possibly also enhanced their career progression.

The police are a product of the populace at the end of the day.

"police are not policing lockdown enough!"
"police are being too strict..checking shopping...!"

Which one do you want?
 
Are you The Internet Police?
No- I just expect you to at some point argue a point totally perpendicular to the one just made.
If you are confident you would never then...what's your problem?
 
Exactly, but how do the state assist the officer in doing that?

If the answer is tough shit they don’t have to give their details then fine. But don’t complain when crims use it to their advantage and flourish.

Criminals have always sought to use the law to their advantage, some successfully, others not so much. There's nothing new in that.

I have mentioned before that 10-12 years ago I applied to join the police but because of the circumstances at the time all applications were cancelled before I managed to get to the assessment centre, even though I'd passed the paper sift. Would I want to do the job now? Absolutely not. I appreciate the police have a difficult job to do but sometimes they don't help themselves. This 'taking the knee' bollox is a prime example of that. The police officers doing that certainly didn't cover themselves in glory and I would say that became a bit of a low point with the police losing an awful lot of respect. I know it was only a few coppers doing it but perception is everything and it only takes a few to tarnish the reputation of the rest.

It is often said that when the police deal with members of the public they apply the attitude test. That works both ways. If a copper is on a bit of a power trip that can easily irritate and annoy a normally law-abiding member of the public. The police need the trust of the public, not resentment and resistance. I'm just wondering if that trust is becoming harder to come by.
 
Criminals have always sought to use the law to their advantage, some successfully, others not so much. There's nothing new in that.

I have mentioned before that 10-12 years ago I applied to join the police but because of the circumstances at the time all applications were cancelled before I managed to get to the assessment centre, even though I'd passed the paper sift. Would I want to do the job now? Absolutely not. I appreciate the police have a difficult job to do but sometimes they don't help themselves. This 'taking the knee' bollox is a prime example of that. The police officers doing that certainly didn't cover themselves in glory and I would say that became a bit of a low point with the police losing an awful lot of respect. I know it was only a few coppers doing it but perception is everything and it only takes a few to tarnish the reputation of the rest.

It is often said that when the police deal with members of the public they apply the attitude test. That works both ways. If a copper is on a bit of a power trip that can easily irritate and annoy a normally law-abiding member of the public. The police need the trust of the public, not resentment and resistance. I'm just wondering if that trust is becoming harder to come by.

Define a "normally law-abiding member of the public".

Recent COVID shennanigans has shown that many who consider themselves as such are in fact-complete bellends.

I've mentioned on other threads the crap received from your neighbourhood watch 'pillar of the community' types...

Classic example-from recent memory - RTC- damage only- woman driver who clipped the car stops but then becomes hysterical. Won't exchange details and starts screaming for help. Bloke in car who was hit phones 999 - I can hear it all. She starts phoning her husband saying she's just been crashed into and a nasty man is trying to get into her car...

Police turn up and find Mrs Miggins - a 57 year old school teacher who "doesn't get involved with those sort" sobbing into her steering wheel and getting further hysterical when a breath kit is called for. She'd had no prior involvment in crime herself but - records showed she was a frequent reporter of various things. She considered herself on a different level to the Pakistani taxi driver she went into, and he unworthy of her engagement.

I don't know whether she ended up being found OPL or not but - just an example how some people have perceptions of themselves.
 
Last edited:
If you go from the original video to YouTube and to his channel then he’s also published the video he recorded which generated the original complaint.

He is doing exactly what security had claimed and that he lies to the police denying.
They complained that he was filming the shopping centre entrance, he denies that and claims he only took photos of the signs. (And adds that he only filmed the entrance and pointed at security cameras when security came to him.
He did film the signs, but only because they were in view while he was filming into the entrance.


In his channel he has two videos of the police and the original of the shopping centre, plus other videos of him seeking a confrontation with security, police erc


In the second of the police videos he eventually gives his name and address.

Legally for street photography (and filming) he wouldn’t be doing any wrong
To get enough details from him they put up that he isn’t required to voluntarily give his name and address just for photography, but that in not giving them and in the circumstances they could arrest on suspicion under the terrorism act, and for the way he was acting potentially under anti social legislation. When he asks how to get the police bodycam footage they advise that they would need his name and address to be logged to allow his later request to collect copies of the footage

In the last few minutes of the second video of the police he argues and doesn’t want to take the common sense advice to not film into private property, shopping centres etc - he keeps arguing against them:
“Shopping centres are protected under the terrorism legislation, if you keep filming into them then it raises suspicion”.... etc

She also lets him know that “this isn’t the first time that you’ve been spoken to about this”, to which he feigns ignorance and / or but it’s not been for some time

He’s now put up a video tonight responding to fellow “auditors” who have criticised him for giving his details in the end
 

Latest Threads

Top