What utter tosh! It's people like you that steadfastly refuse to believe that any copper can do no wrong that are one of the great dangers to freedom in this country. In each of these cited cases, any reasonable person would be very hard pressed to see a genuine breach of the peace or genuine anti-social behaviour. It is abundantly clear that the constables involved had no genuine grounds for an arrest so create a fictitious scenario in order to get their way. It is no more than bullying ... plain and simple. And how the WPC in incident number 6 managed to nick someone on the grounds that she felt intimidated by the bloke's height I'll never know. If that was genuinely the case then she should be arresting everyone she comes across who is taller than her. In truth, all of these cited incidents are a case of police abusing their powers and, to be frank, it's people like you who persistently turn a blind eye that will allow such abuses to perpetuate and even gather pace. You do this country no favours.
where did I say a copper could do no wrong - three of those cases involved cops being disciplined for over stepping the mark. However the real irony is that its the cops you are so ready to vilify that keep you safe on the street and in your bed... often putting their lives on the line to do so.
Also you are making the common mistake of judging the police based on hear say evidence - you don't know why the WPC in case 6 felt threatened - we've only go the photographers word for it being because of his height - and that's something that I strongly doubt is true... you don't get to be a cop by being a shrinking violet
you are also judging me on the basis of what you think I sais rather than actually reading the thread... the point I was making was a very specific one steve said you couldn't be arrested for an uarrestable offence - peter said you could and that these 6 cases were evidence of that ... the point I was making was not that these were all good arrests but that they did relate to arrestable offences.
In case 1 the police were busy dealing with a violent altercation in the street when the photographer decided to get in their way and unsurprisingly found himself getting nicked for breach of the peace - it may not have been the best police work but on the other hand how many violent street fights have you broken up ? The photographer should have had more sense than to bother them while the fight was on
case 2 and 3 were lousy police work although there was an arrest for an arrestable offence - there were later apologies and the officers involved were disciplined
case 4/5 (one case quoted twice) didn't involve an arrest so its irrelevant in the light of the particular discussion - the officer concerned was disciplined for the way he behaved
case 6 - as above we don't know why the officer felt threatened , or what the photographer said etc , but threatening a police officer is definitely an arrestable offence
and case 7 involved section 44 of the terrorism act - now that isn't a 'good' law by any means but the police aren't tasked with deciding what laws are well drafted they just have to enforce them... again we are dealing with 'evidence' from a highly biased source so we don't know exactly what happened or why the police decided to arrest under that legislation.. don't know means don't know.
In all 7 cases a "reasonable person" wouldn't blindly judge the officers involved based on a preconceived agenda, blind predjudice and half the facts
At the end of the day the average British copper isn't some fascist on a power trip - they are by and large good men and women doing a nasty difficult job for the good of society and attacking them based on biased evidence and hearsay does the country no favours - while trying to make them out to be the Sicherdenheist in blue is as insulting as it is laughable.
