No Officer thats what MPs are for

#2
I watched this clip with an increasing amount of disbelief. This "Barrack-Room" lawyer with his video camera, making a proverbial mountain out of a molehill could spend his time more effectively filming the little scroats in the area misbehaving, and pass that footage onto the police instead of trying to be a smart-arse! I thought the two police officers showed considerable restraint by not inserting his camera where the sun doesn't shine!
No wonder the country's gone to the dogs if he's representative of Joe Public!
 

oberon

Lantern Swinger
#3
True Skyvet but the copper made a law up! Thats the point! It is not up to the police to make up the laws of this country, thats what we've got the "fat-cats" who are MPs/MSPs/MEPs for not young coppers who think they know better! The film maker was bang out of order but the Police Officer should not have provoked the situation by going off half cocked at the guy.
 

theGimpMK2

Lantern Swinger
#4
Camera guy is a nob and the police were not prepared or experienced enough to deal with him.

A bit of common dog, would have seen them smile and walk away. Maybe discuss if he'd think about setting up a neighbourhood watch scheme in his street......anything but bite which is what they did

Personally I'd have taken the camera off him, smashed it under my size 12's and pushed the sharp broken bits up his skinny brum arrse sideways

But then I'm not a copper
 
#5
I think that camera guy was spot on.
It was those "coppers" that were in the wrong, and proved to be so.
This is why two noobs should never work together.
 
#6
oberon said:
Seems this Police Officer thinks he doesn't need our MPs/MSP/MEPs to make the Law for him...he just makes it up as he goes along!!

Police Guide to the Law
As previously stated the camera man is a nob who 30+ years ago when I joined the Police (twats like him couldnt have afforded the camera then ) would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and spent the night in the slammer. This all encompassing common law charge is well used inScotland.It is also against your human rights to be filmed without your permission,even L.A.s/shops etc have to place signs to inform you that CCTV is in operation.
 

oberon

Lantern Swinger
#7
lamptramp63 said:
oberon said:
Seems this Police Officer thinks he doesn't need our MPs/MSP/MEPs to make the Law for him...he just makes it up as he goes along!!

Police Guide to the Law
As previously stated the camera man is a nob who 30+ years ago when I joined the Police (twats like him couldnt have afforded the camera then ) would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and spent the night in the slammer. This all encompassing common law charge is well used inScotland.It is also against your human rights to be filmed without your permission,even L.A.s/shops etc have to place signs to inform you that CCTV is in operation.
No its not against the Human Rights act to be filmed in the Street. The Street is a public place and the "film maker" has every right to film there.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#8
*[It is if he has broadcast on a public medium (i.e. the t'interweb) without clearance from the subject of the film, in this case the Police Officers]*
 
#10
lamptramp63 said:
oberon said:
Seems this Police Officer thinks he doesn't need our MPs/MSP/MEPs to make the Law for him...he just makes it up as he goes along!!

Police Guide to the Law
As previously stated the camera man is a nob who 30+ years ago when I joined the Police (twats like him couldnt have afforded the camera then ) would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and spent the night in the slammer. This all encompassing common law charge is well used inScotland.It is also against your human rights to be filmed without your permission,even L.A.s/shops etc have to place signs to inform you that CCTV is in operation.
Oberon is right here. Whilst the HRA 1998 affords the right to privacy this cannot be conflated to making a record of public officials going about their work. If you take a photograph of someone which may be used for publication you have a professional obligation to ask them to give their consent via a model release form. Now the distribution of this video of the police officers may constitute a breach, however... the police are filmed by tourists near where I work and there is no infringement of their liberty or any claim-right to privacy. Also if the policepersons do bring a claim they need to be aware of the risk of a counter-claim for trespass and harassment, not to mention abuse of authority. Ignorance of the law is, after all, no defence. To pre-empt any of the inevitable adverse comments: that's nothing to do with the HRA.

Head down awaiting incoming....... :threaten:
 
#11
oberon said:
lamptramp63 said:
oberon said:
Seems this Police Officer thinks he doesn't need our MPs/MSP/MEPs to make the Law for him...he just makes it up as he goes along!!

Police Guide to the Law
As previously stated the camera man is a nob who 30+ years ago when I joined the Police (twats like him couldnt have afforded the camera then ) would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and spent the night in the slammer. This all encompassing common law charge is well used inScotland.It is also against your human rights to be filmed without your permission,even L.A.s/shops etc have to place signs to inform you that CCTV is in operation.
No its not against the Human Rights act to be filmed in the Street. The Street is a public place and the "film maker" has every right to film there.
If you view the "film" there are 2 children in camera, one of whom was spoken to by the PCs, In todays climate you cannot film children without their or their guardians permission. Yes it is a public place but without permisssion of those filmed you cannot film and then publish the film in the public domain.As I said before the camera man was lucky not to have been lifted for a Breach and his camera " dropped " during the arrest.The attitude that the PCs were out of order is sad. If society does not back rank and file officers whislt doing their duty in public ,they will become further allianated from whom they serve and then you will see what a Police state really is.
 
#12
lamptramp63 said:
oberon said:
lamptramp63 said:
oberon said:
Seems this Police Officer thinks he doesn't need our MPs/MSP/MEPs to make the Law for him...he just makes it up as he goes along!!

Police Guide to the Law
As previously stated the camera man is a nob who 30+ years ago when I joined the Police (twats like him couldnt have afforded the camera then ) would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and spent the night in the slammer. This all encompassing common law charge is well used inScotland.It is also against your human rights to be filmed without your permission,even L.A.s/shops etc have to place signs to inform you that CCTV is in operation.
No its not against the Human Rights act to be filmed in the Street. The Street is a public place and the "film maker" has every right to film there.
If you view the "film" there are 2 children in camera, one of whom was spoken to by the PCs, In todays climate you cannot film children without their or their guardians permission. Yes it is a public place but without permisssion of those filmed you cannot film and then publish the film in the public domain.As I said before the camera man was lucky not to have been lifted for a Breach and his camera " dropped " during the arrest.The attitude that the PCs were out of order is sad. If society does not back rank and file officers whislt doing their duty in public ,they will become further allianated from whom they serve and then you will see what a Police state really is.
The children were only filmed later and this should certainly have been edited out, as with the youth on the bike. The public should not however back officials who are abusing their power. It is the sustained tolerance of misconduct by officials, that erodes civil liberties and risks the backdoor slide into an authoritarian state or a state where certain groups are denied justice, not, as you suggest, the public turning a blind eye to misconduct.
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
As a counterpoint to this somewhat 'anti-Police' thread, here's a positive story:

The Policeman's Blog said:
...The judiciary aren't always flavour of the month. What with asking who Mick Jagger is and pretending not to know that hip-hop is a form of popular music, they often get branded as 'out of touch'.
So step forward and take a bow Judge Jonathan Durham Hall QC, of Bradford Crown Court fame.
Judge Hall was recently presiding in the case of R v Armstrong.
'Armstrong' was PC Lee Armstrong, a 28-year-old officer from West Yorkshire.
It was four days before Christmas in 2005, and the frosty streets of olde England would have been full of inflatable Santas, the traditional sounds of Slade and violent drunks.
PC Armstrong was called to a shop in Keighley where a man, who was armed with a knife, was threatening a woman.
PC Armstrong arrested the man. (You'll all be surprised to hear that he didn't come quietly, so PC Armstrong used some force. The brute.)
Meanwhile (you'll also be surprised to hear), he was treated to a tirade of abuse from bystanders, who presumably like the idea of knife-wielding men running unhindered around their neighbourhoods, threatening women.
According to the Daily Mail*, "Four months later, the officer was contacted 'out of the blue' about the incident and interviewed under caution. He was subsequently charged with assault and appeared before magistrates where he elected to stand trial before a jury. He was said to have used excessive force to make the arrest, including the "unnecessary banging" of the complainants face on the bonnet of a vehicle."
This week, the case collapsed and he was freed. After 18 months or so.
Judge Hall told prosecutor Paul O'Shea: "There was never any prospect at all of this gallant, young officer being convicted.
"The conviction of yet another man doing his duty, for reasons that are best described as politically correct, is a disgrace. The Crown will pay every penny of his costs."
Turning to the officer, he said: "Mr Armstrong you have in my judgment, if your actions are anything to judge by, a very good career ahead of you.
"I note that this matter took place within a few days of the random shooting of an officer on the streets of this city [PC Sharon Beshenivsky, RIP] and I am sure every police officer is right to bear in mind the courts will, whenever possible, recognise the dangers and difficulties of their duties and will commend officers.
"If the boot had been on the other foot I suspect I would have been commending you for your actions.
"I cannot imagine what you have felt being pursued and harassed in this prosecution over the last few months and I am very sorry.
"Thank you. Leave without a stain on your character."
That's our kind of judge (and our kind of officer).
Can anyone explain why PC Armstrong was charged in the first place?

*I know it's a bit predictable to quote from The Daily Mail, but I tried to find the story on the websites of both The Guardian and the BBC and, strangely, couldn't.

'Stand-in.'

PS We've stuck comment moderation on for the time being as there's been a bit of silliness lately, naming no names. Please feel free to say whatever you like, but keep it as brief as reasonably possible (say, 300 words rather than 200) and stay within the law. Just trying to make it more readable and enjoyable for all. Cheers!
Source: The Policeman's Blog
 
#14
The attitude that the PCs were out of order is sad. If society does not back rank and file officers whislt doing their duty in public ,they will become further allianated from whom they serve and then you will see what a Police state really is.
He was probably filming them because he thought they were something from outer space. He more than likely hasn't seen a policeman since they changed the uniform in 1966 and was curious as to what they were.

It seems that the public are the ones doing all the work for the police. I don't personally have a lot of time for their attitude or for their lack of action in chav control or banishment, unless the chav is in a car, then 300 turn up.
 
#15
Sarge, I'm not anti-Police, just opposed to turning a blind-eye to misconduct by officials. Why weren't these baby plods being supervised by a more mature and experienced police dad?

PS: seeing patrolling plods where I live is always a novelty.
 
#16
lamptramp63 said:
oberon said:
Seems this Police Officer thinks he doesn't need our MPs/MSP/MEPs to make the Law for him...he just makes it up as he goes along!!

Police Guide to the Law
As previously stated the camera man is a nob who 30+ years ago when I joined the Police (twats like him couldnt have afforded the camera then ) would have been charged with Breach of the Peace and spent the night in the slammer. This all encompassing common law charge is well used inScotland.It is also against your human rights to be filmed without your permission,even L.A.s/shops etc have to place signs to inform you that CCTV is in operation.
I fear the police force and the public was not well-served by you if you made the law up as you went along. No criminal or civil law is breached by taking someones photograph in a public place with or without their permission. It is unwise to make the law up .
 
#17
Hmmmm!

I'm a bit confused here.

How come a Reality TV camera crew riding around in the back of police cars filming miscreants is OK, but a guy in his own garden (he may well be a knob, but that's by the by) filming plod is not OK?
 

sgtpepperband

War Hero
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#20
thingy said:
Sarge, I'm not anti-Police, just opposed to turning a blind-eye to misconduct by officials. Why weren't these baby plods being supervised by a more mature and experienced police dad?

PS: seeing patrolling plods where I live is always a novelty.
I always believed it was a sign of getting old was when you thought police officers were getting younger? Who says these officers are inexperienced, purely because they 'look young'? In fact most officers are mentored by another PC who, in reality, has only been doing foot beat a year or two longer than the newbie! The days of Sergeants walking the beat with a young copper - a la "Dixon of Dock Green" - are long gone. Not enough older, experienced officers around these days (see this article for reasons why.)

I'm sorry if you took offence by my generalisation, but I feel we have an obligation (in the greater sense) to support our police officers, much as we do our service personnel. Yes, the actions of the officers concerned my appear questionable by some, but we do not know the full circumstances of the situation.

The officers may have just attended the scene of incident following a particularly unique incident (fatal RTI, autopsy, etc.) which may have emotionally affected their short-term judgement; they may also have been acting on specific intelligence that suspects fitting the description of the youths that were stopped were responsible for other offences; or perhps they may have been frustrated by the actions of a nosey busybody with a 'holier than thou' "My Home Is My Castle" attitude, who wasn't exactly helping the situation.

Police officers are trained to deal with situations without interference or intimidation from bystanders; what credibilty would an officer have if he turned around to Mr. Powell (the camera man concerned) and done a U-turn and apologised there and then? This may have aggravated the situation and, given the factors I mentioned above, might not have been appropriate.

In my current position I have had second thoughts about a particular arrest or Fixed Penalty Notice issued: "Will the suspect lose is job?" "Will he be able to afford the FPN?" And despite my human instinct to walk away and turn the other cheek, I have a moral, social and professional obligation to uphold the law and to do my duty to the best of my abilities. Any decision taken at the time has to be made instantly, without deliberation and maintained with credibility; if police officers do not conduct themselves in this manner and fold under pressure, then the majority of the public will loose confidence in their abilty to do their jobs.

The video clip concerned here finishes with the officers driving away from the scene of the incident; we do not not the subsequent outcome. They may have returned to apologise accordingly. As the clip is now widely posted on the internet it is highly likely that the officers have been identified by their colleagues and superiors; it is probable that they have been rebriefed and reprimanded accordingly (if that was appropriate). It is highly likely that the officers concerned will never deal with a similar situation in the same manner. They may have appearedto be heavy-handed, but we're hardly talking about physical police brutality here, are we?

But those who call for then to be penalised any further are hypocrites: quick and willing to criticise and rip apart an (already undermanned and unsupported) police force when they appear to do something wrong, but are quick to complain to the media/MPs when there are not enough of their officers patrolling the streets.

Unless those critics have themselves walked the streets and experienced what these, or any other, police officer goes through in an ordinary (let alone an extraordinary) day, then I suggest that they consider the alternative. If we do not support our police then how can we expect them to support us?

:roll:
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
J The Quarterdeck 8
M History 3
redshank The Corps 10

Similar threads

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top