- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes I know.
I was replying to Snapshot who said no civilian staff have any police powers.
Last edited:
Hove town hall incident, civilian member of staff?
- Thread starter Alastair
- Start date
Yes I know.
I was replying to Snapshot who said no civilian staff have any police powers.
- Messages
- 9,836
- Edit My Images
- No
OP
Alastair
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
About 80% of photographers business websites.
Would you provide your name and address to someone that stopped you on the street? - someone in regular clothes who claimed to work for the police?
Allegedly.
So why have you got a bee in your bonnet about this? What prompted you to sign up for an account on this forum to vent your opinion with people you don't know and who don't know you?
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Follow (what was) ACPO guidelines, in that the police are not to act as moral guardians but instead advise the photographer that some people are unhappy with their actions. They may not prevent a photographer from taking lawful images.
mickledore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,372
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But she has a hi viz stab vest and an ID badge. She can give orders. We, the innocent, have to do what we are told. We have no rights. Now if we were criminals we would be treated with kid gloves because we would have rights, but where's the fun in that?
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Front desk reception. No requirement for special powers.
She approached Eddie and asked what he was doing. He explained he was taking GVs of the town hall. She then asked what he was 'really' doing and produced a police ID and requested that he accompany her to the station inside the hall.
It was not made clear that she was civilian staff until they were inside and he requested to speak to a senior officer.
If I'd have pulled crap like that when I was civvie staff, I'd have been booted immediately.
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It certainly does seem she overstepped her powers, especially if she was an SEO who have no granted powers at all.
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
She didn't have a stab vest?
mickledore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,372
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No. I'm talking about our new member who has joined up merely to tell us all that we are wrong.
the black fox
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,082
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
sooner or later we all need the police ,they do a outstanding job under difficult circumstances but idiotic things like this just turn law abiding members of the public into authority hating m.o.p's .
totally no need for it even under a state of emergency ,he wasn't toting a gun ,hove town hall is not a military target ,if its allowed to keep on like this sooner or later the only things left to photograph will be scenes of our back gardens ,thats unless the neighbours object of course .i used to do wildlife pics in a council run attraction/nature reserve near me .there also happens to be a kiddies area there which you have to pass to get to the nature bit ,i happen to know the manager who quiet often gets reports of men with big cameras lurking around so they must be up to no good ,i'm sure you know what i mean .
if allowed to continue we will end up living in police state with all the freedoms our fathers and grandfathers fought for eroded . there was a oft used saying around when i grew up "its a free country " for lords sake lets keep it that way and start using some f*****g common sense ,
totally no need for it even under a state of emergency ,he wasn't toting a gun ,hove town hall is not a military target ,if its allowed to keep on like this sooner or later the only things left to photograph will be scenes of our back gardens ,thats unless the neighbours object of course .i used to do wildlife pics in a council run attraction/nature reserve near me .there also happens to be a kiddies area there which you have to pass to get to the nature bit ,i happen to know the manager who quiet often gets reports of men with big cameras lurking around so they must be up to no good ,i'm sure you know what i mean .
if allowed to continue we will end up living in police state with all the freedoms our fathers and grandfathers fought for eroded . there was a oft used saying around when i grew up "its a free country " for lords sake lets keep it that way and start using some f*****g common sense ,
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I live a very active photographic life, all over the world (but mainly over here) and continue to do so, shooting pretty much everything. I've never been challenged by any authorities, asked what I'm doing, had any equipment seized etc, so I think calling out "police state", eroded freedoms from the wars etc is a bit OTT (and at the same time let's not trivialise what they fought for, it's not just so we can take pictures...)
Clearly it happens but let's not exaggerate what now luckily and fortunately is a rare occurrence.
Last edited:
Teflon-Mike
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,076
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because we are notionally endowed with some 'rights of privacy', and we do NOT have to give our personal details or provide formal ID to a ANY-ONE let alone random member's of the public, who just happen to presume we must have some, and that we 'must' show it to them, just because they want to see it!
I have absolutely NO photo-identification, and so far, resisting the draconian 'police state' regulation of other durastictions, and NOT legally required to carry any! EVEN driving a car, where I might be expected to possess a driving-licence, that might include Photo-ID as a part, I am STILL not required, by law, to carry even that about my person, even when in charge of a motor-vehicle it pertains to, and even LESS show it to irksome counter clerks at an off-licence or tobacconist, or shoe shop, even LESS still to any random civilian in the street who believes I 'must' have some, and they have some ordained right to see it!
I do NOT need to provide ID to a uniformed, and warrant card carrying police officer, on demand!
No law requires I HAVE ANY! So how can another endow police the right to demand something I need NOT have?!
That is just for starters, an anomaly of law, that ONE bit of legislation (Terrorism Act) assumes, I 'should' possess some sort of official Photo-ID, and more, carry it with me at all times! When ACTUALLY no law makes possession of official ID mandatory!
It is then a perversion that legislation that DOES NOT, endow the police with the blanket authority they so often presume or rely upon to invoke that 'act' to demand something they believe they are entitled to, that NO law actually requires I even possess!
In the UK serving, warrant card carrying members of police are CIVILIANS. What rights, privileges and powers they MAY hold, are conferred upon them entirely by that 'Warrant', which charges them AS A CIVILIAN, to deter, detect and prosecute CRIME. Otherwise, they remain subject to ALL other UK law, AS any other CIVILIAN, and have NO legal rights or privileges over and above those of ANY other CIVILIAN... other than by EXCEPTION, where legislation, MAY, offer them "as required in the course of their duty"...as provided by warrant!
Otherwise, EVEN a uniformed and warrant card carrying police officer has NO RIGHT that any other CIVILIAN has, EXCEPT by exception, AND upon fully supportable argument as to WHY those rights might be invoked, as necessary to discharge Warranted duties 'within the law'.
UK police are JUST as accountable to UK law as ANY other civilian; They are merely 'charged' with 'policing' it...
Err. Do-WHAT?!?!?
Sorry, severe terrorist alert'?!?!?!? I have to ask... do you remember the 80's? Plates being bolted to letter boxes to stop bombs being shoved through the slot? Car bombings in major cites, and a hotel collapsing in rubble around half the MP's in the country? Innocent Irish brickies, banged up, for decades, because their accent was a bit thick?!
THAT was a "severe terrosist alert"! Geez! I bet you believed the Cheshire cat when he said, emphatically, like willy-woolage commenting in the car tyre advert "I am CONVINCED, that Iraq has Weapon's of Mass Destruction"......
WHAT, even barely palpable 'terrorist threat exists in the UK? And even IF you can suggest there is one, AND from actual devastative or fatal instances caused by it!!! Suggest that it IS 'severe'..... How do YOU, get from that, to justifying that some-one in the street, holding a camera, could 'reasonably' be 'believed' to be engaged in it......and hence use that to invoke powers-by-exception, above and beyond common law, to presume on clauses under the terrorism act, to demand Photo-ID NO LAW actually requires any-one even HAVE! Let alone carry!!!!!!
Jeez! 2/3 of the population you come across in the street have photo-making devices in their ruddy hands! Most f them FAR more 'covert' than a Digital SLR! What are you suggesting? The police should invoke the EMERGENCY provisions of the terrorism act, and stop and question ANY-ONE and EVERY-ONE in the street with a camera-phone, and demand ID they are NOT legally obliges to even have, less carry!!!!!!
Are you suggesting, that, the police ARE, as they would seem to so often believe (or prefer us to!), actually 'above' the law, and the published statutes of the land, and MAY do as they please, with impunity, and stop and harass ANY member of the public they don't like the look of...!Because they, what, are carrying a camera, or maybe wearing a burka, or what? A Rasta-Flag hat, or.... oh... have a thick Irish accent perhaps? More ANY concerned civilian, with a works ID round their neck should also be endowed with such powers?
If so, well, perhaps you do remember, more, actually MISS the 1980's!!!
Hmmm.. so media hysteria SHOULD take precedence over the actual law of the land, should it?
And laws shouldn't matter; 'The Police' shuld be able to make it up as they go along, do as they please, without check or constraint or accountability to, well, any-one! As long as maybe the 'media' approve!!!
Hmmmm.. so lets give the police cart blanch to stop, harass, hold and interrogate ANY-ONE.. who looks like you or me... why stop there! What about people who dont look like you or me? Transvestites? Dwarfs? Ronald Mc-Donald, any-one who wears socks with sandals, or has other bad fashion sense, perhaps!!!!! Lock'em all up! Be sure to get the 'bad guys then'!
Get real! THIS is what the POLICE are for! Remember that warrant, to deter, detect and prosecute!
No-one said it was an easy job! But IF they cant do that job, WITHIN THE LAW OF THE LAND, then it is the POLICE that need to work out how to do their job.. WITHIN THE LAW, not for the law to be changed to save them having go do it! OR the law to be ignored! Even LESS, for WE the public to accept and endorse them stepping BEYOND the powers they are actually entitled to, and harassing any-one and every-one on any pretext they can think of, AS was endemic in the 70's & 80's, and saw however many locked up on charges that DON'T, today, on evidence that has subsequently been shown to be false or manufactured or otherwise stand scrutiny!!! As long as they don't bang up 'respectable' folk like you and me [sigh]
Why should he have a press-pass? What IS a press-pass? AFAIK, it's nothing more than a 'union card' if you pay your dues to the press-agency, or a 'works' ID if full-time employee of a paper... It has barely No legal standing or worth what so ever...
But STILL no 'law' states that ANY-ONE must have photo-ID' let alone, upon their person at all times, NOR that even a uniformed, warrant card carrying member of the police has the unquestionable right to demand it!
Without "Due Cause" to invoke the exception to the law that MAY give them rights, as part of their 'duty'... just like "other civilians" even THEY have NO powers to stop and question members of the public going about their business. Civilian contractors, without a warrant card, have almost none what so ever. They are 'just' an ordinary member of the public.
What was the officer supposed to do? THEIR JOB!!! The coppa may not have 'liked' what he was doing during THAT incident, but what LAW was he actually breaking? What LAW gave the police officer any legal power to try confiscate his radio controlled toy?
The bloke may have been unpleasant; the bloke may have had intentions of being exploitative; BUT, the police do NOT have cart balance powers to seize property or detain people!! their powers are provided solely by 'exception' IF the coppa can provide 'reasonable' justification to evoke any caveat of law under warrant. So, what provision of law, did the officer, actually evoke to justify sizing the blokes radio controlled toy? Without any, justifiable cause, THAT is technically theft, the police officer was committing criminal act, NOT the objectionable chap with the drone! And it is probably THAT that explains the £10K compo pay-out!
People in glass houses. THAT is quite possibly 'libel'... But so what he doesn't publish his address. Now it should to be legal to persecute and prosecute ANY-ONE who is socially objectionable?!?!?!
AND the civilian 'police force' shouldn't actually police the civilian population from which they are drawn, BUT, like oooh.... Nazi 'Black-Shirts', be the 'enforces' of the 'regime' and socially accepted, media approved 'Political Correctness'.... yeah... you REALLY must have missed or miss the 1980's!!!!!! Or maybe the 1930's!
Every darn YEAR, though, these media storms seem to kick off, when mumsnet types get all irate that some-one has a camera on the beach, and so must be a pedophile, or if in town, so must be a terrorist, which is actually more revealing of the neurosis of the folk stirring up the Witch-Hunt, (and why so many supposed witches got burned in the puritanical purges of the 1600's!) than anything else....really!
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wow, what a crazy post, and off the mark with matters of the law. Firstly, police powers don't come from a "warrant", they are written in U.K. statute. An officer swears an "oath and warrant to hold the Office of Constable" which is where you might be confused.
Secondly, the Terrorism Act does NOT state you need to carry ID. But under some conditions you need to *provide* ID in common with many law enforcement activities, which is simply providing your name and date of birth, which can be done verbally.
(Note - "providing ID" or identification doesn't mean handing over an ID card or other artefact, you seem to be hung up on this, providing ID is simply giving the officer your name and date of birth. Everyone has an identification!)
Thirdly, It is an offence to fail show your driving licence to a police officer on request whilst driving a motor vehicle, but it's hardly ever required to be enforced as the details can be checked on the PNC record live at the roadside (you used to get issued a '7 day wonder to produce it at the station) but you do have to confirm your ID if you don't have your licence so the officer knows the details pertain to the individual in question and they haven't given false details. But UK law still states you should produce this to a police officer on request.
You do also have to identify yourself reliably when driving if you don't have your driving licence, even if you're not committing an offence as if you're driving a motor vehicle the police have the right and duty to check you are properly documented at any time. Although there is no prescribed way to do so (normally only photo ID will be sufficient but the law still states you must produce your licence on request) if you are committing an offence and your identity cannot be confirmed reliably you might well find yourself being arrested for a relatively minor offence in order for your identity to be confirmed for service of summons, or for driving otherwise than in accordance with a driving licence until your driving entitlement can be confirmed.
This bits just bizarre, more bizarre than the rest. UK Policing is based on consent, and the officers are drawn to represent a cross section of the community they represent and police. Who should police the country if not them? Robots, royalty, some unearthly presence??
Last edited:
OP
Alastair
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Fell better after that rant? (not that disagree with the basc sentiment), our new member is right about the current official terror alert level being "severe".
https://www.mi5.gov.uk/threat-levels
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And it has been for some time.
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Eddie Mitchell has a twitter runs as @brightonsnapper https://BANNED/brightonsnapper
His contact details on on his aerial website: http://www.aerialnews.co.uk/?load=html#!/page/270430/info-page
Interesting person to have posting on the forum. I think she would know about libel, checking sources
His contact details on on his aerial website: http://www.aerialnews.co.uk/?load=html#!/page/270430/info-page
Anna Roberts I remember used to be a journalist on the Reading Echo newspaper, won young journalist of the year, I think moved onto the Argus in Brighton. If it's the same person then they are now an online editor for the press association.
Interesting person to have posting on the forum. I think she would know about libel, checking sources
Last edited:
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's also interesting to remember that Sussex police have a history of stopping photographers under terrorism act, despite showing press cards, who then went on to win compensation
https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/sussex-police-apologise-to-nuj-photojournalists/
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...r-unlawful-searches-under-terrorism-act-63601
The Argus did run the story of Eddie Mitchel and the drone
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11695624.Photographer_arrested_for_flying_drone/
And the Press GAzette have a detailed account of the event, for which the photographer sued and won his case against Sussex Police, so in the eyes of the law was correct.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/drone...nment-after-arrest-scene-surrey-caravan-fire/
https://www.nuj.org.uk/news/sussex-police-apologise-to-nuj-photojournalists/
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...r-unlawful-searches-under-terrorism-act-63601
The Argus did run the story of Eddie Mitchel and the drone
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11695624.Photographer_arrested_for_flying_drone/
And the Press GAzette have a detailed account of the event, for which the photographer sued and won his case against Sussex Police, so in the eyes of the law was correct.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/drone...nment-after-arrest-scene-surrey-caravan-fire/
Last edited:
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
However a Nikon DX and 28-300 lens - Those Nikon users are suspicious
The Daily Mail have the full account from Mr Mitchells point of view
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4474974/Photographer-arrested-terror-picture-town-hall.html
Last edited:
Byker28i
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 21,339
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The chief superintendent of Sussex police, Lisa Bell, defended her officers, saying their actions were “completely appropriate when the threat level is at severe”. She added: “If the man had identified himself, then the matter could have been resolved in minutes.” Mitchell claimed his identity was established quickly from his BBC pass and a credit card.
According to the Register: Sheffield University lecturer Mark Hanna, author of media law bible McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, said to us: "We all want the police to be vigilant. But ideally the Chief Constable would have admitted clearly that there was no ground ‘to reasonably suspect’ Eddie of being a terrorist, or explained what his officers felt that ground was. The Chief’s statement does not refer at all to the process his officers followed under the 2000 Act. Eddie conducted himself with dignity. The Chief’s statement is ‘flannel’.”
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/05/photographer_stop_search_terrorism_act/
According to the Register: Sheffield University lecturer Mark Hanna, author of media law bible McNae’s Essential Law for Journalists, said to us: "We all want the police to be vigilant. But ideally the Chief Constable would have admitted clearly that there was no ground ‘to reasonably suspect’ Eddie of being a terrorist, or explained what his officers felt that ground was. The Chief’s statement does not refer at all to the process his officers followed under the 2000 Act. Eddie conducted himself with dignity. The Chief’s statement is ‘flannel’.”
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/05/photographer_stop_search_terrorism_act/
- Messages
- 43,206
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
The fact that I'm viewed as a potential terrorist or more likely as a weirdo / paedophile because I have a camera and yet anyone can snap away and film video clips with a phone with no one giving a flying is one of the most irritating and annoying things about our reactionary outraged society.
- Messages
- 21,611
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Now that I do agree 100%, plus there will be a lot taking photos today in town as it is the London to Brighton Historic vehicle run.
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
The point is he was asked what he was doing. He was taking photographs, it was bloody obvious so a pointless question. To quote ACPO guidance “There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.”
As far as terrorism (and crime generally) is concerned, the more photos everyone takes, the better. How often do we hear the police calling for anyone who may have taken photos in the area of a crime? Similarly for the drone incident, it could well have been useful to have drone footage for later investigation of the incident.
As far as terrorism (and crime generally) is concerned, the more photos everyone takes, the better. How often do we hear the police calling for anyone who may have taken photos in the area of a crime? Similarly for the drone incident, it could well have been useful to have drone footage for later investigation of the incident.
Last edited:
shapeshifter
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,444
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The problem is the police have been handed far too much power in the last 10- 15 yrs.
Many police officers get drunk on a power trip and get the " I must be obeyed" head on regardless if any law has been broken they just "say I had cause to suspect" when they don't in truth. What they should say if they were telling the truth is " I did not like being disobeyed and it hurt my feelings as I feel I have power and it was not being recognised".
The law 10 yrs ago was a person could only be arrested for arrestable offences. The law "now" it's any reason the police officer thinks is necessary (crazy) this rule change has caused a large increase in complaints about the police.
The police since the 80's have had many things granted that where previously resisted by previous goverments such as battons (replaced truncheon), pepper spray, Tassar (supposedly to be used instead of firearms to detain armed suspects but now regularly reported as being used as a diciplinary tool) and now they say they want spit hoods and they are on trial use around the country.
How do you know if someone is going to spit on you! you don't and here it comes, yes you guessed it " I suspected " he was going to spit at me so that's why I put the hood on his head.
Police have been handed far to much power due to fear being whipped up in the name of terror and a view now being taken that "their" safty now carries greater importance than has in the past (more female police officers and and an alteration in the physical requirements to join the police)
The police fedderation can be seen continually campaigning to "protect the protectors". But I do not see them campaigning for full independant complaints proceedure (the IPCC is for very seriouse complaints only).
The poice fedderations zeal to "protect the protectors" can only be matched by their lack of desire for a completely independent complaints proceedure and proper disciplinary and dismissal process commensurate with other industries. Should such a disciplinary system ever transpire there may not be so many police officers having "reason to susspect"as there are at present.
The terrorist succeeds when he creates a stuation of fear which results in peoples freedoms being erroded, and they are succeeding. Especially if you have one of those camares with a white lens (it's your own fault LOL).
How long before we get a firearm stuck under our nose? all in the auspices of "I had reasonable cause to suspect"
All the world watches and waits!
Many police officers get drunk on a power trip and get the " I must be obeyed" head on regardless if any law has been broken they just "say I had cause to suspect" when they don't in truth. What they should say if they were telling the truth is " I did not like being disobeyed and it hurt my feelings as I feel I have power and it was not being recognised".
The law 10 yrs ago was a person could only be arrested for arrestable offences. The law "now" it's any reason the police officer thinks is necessary (crazy) this rule change has caused a large increase in complaints about the police.
The police since the 80's have had many things granted that where previously resisted by previous goverments such as battons (replaced truncheon), pepper spray, Tassar (supposedly to be used instead of firearms to detain armed suspects but now regularly reported as being used as a diciplinary tool) and now they say they want spit hoods and they are on trial use around the country.
How do you know if someone is going to spit on you! you don't and here it comes, yes you guessed it " I suspected " he was going to spit at me so that's why I put the hood on his head.
Police have been handed far to much power due to fear being whipped up in the name of terror and a view now being taken that "their" safty now carries greater importance than has in the past (more female police officers and and an alteration in the physical requirements to join the police)
The police fedderation can be seen continually campaigning to "protect the protectors". But I do not see them campaigning for full independant complaints proceedure (the IPCC is for very seriouse complaints only).
The poice fedderations zeal to "protect the protectors" can only be matched by their lack of desire for a completely independent complaints proceedure and proper disciplinary and dismissal process commensurate with other industries. Should such a disciplinary system ever transpire there may not be so many police officers having "reason to susspect"as there are at present.
The terrorist succeeds when he creates a stuation of fear which results in peoples freedoms being erroded, and they are succeeding. Especially if you have one of those camares with a white lens (it's your own fault LOL).
How long before we get a firearm stuck under our nose? all in the auspices of "I had reasonable cause to suspect"
All the world watches and waits!
Last edited:
- Messages
- 14,819
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
''Twas ever thus. To quote a comment from the El Reg article cited by @Byker28i above:
"It reminds me of the music hall "Gendarmes Duet" song from 1859
We're public guardians bold, yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When anger looms, we're never there
But when we meet a helpless woman
Or little boys that do no harm
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
We show them we're the bold gendarmes
http://monologues.co.uk/musichall/Songs-G/Gendarmes-Duet.htm"
"It reminds me of the music hall "Gendarmes Duet" song from 1859
We're public guardians bold, yet wary
And of ourselves we take good care
To risk our precious lives we're chary
When anger looms, we're never there
But when we meet a helpless woman
Or little boys that do no harm
We run them in, we run them in
We run them in, we run them in
We show them we're the bold gendarmes
http://monologues.co.uk/musichall/Songs-G/Gendarmes-Duet.htm"
JackBell
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 723
- Edit My Images
- Yes
[QUOTE="
The terrorist succeeds when he creates a stuation of fear which results in peoples freedoms being erroded, and they are succeeding. Especially if you have one of those camares with a white lens (it's your own fault LOL).
How long before we get a firearm stuck under our nose? all in the auspices of "I had reasonable cause to suspect"
All the world watches and waits! [/QUOTE]
Very much THIS.
The terrorist succeeds when he creates a stuation of fear which results in peoples freedoms being erroded, and they are succeeding. Especially if you have one of those camares with a white lens (it's your own fault LOL).
How long before we get a firearm stuck under our nose? all in the auspices of "I had reasonable cause to suspect"
All the world watches and waits!
[/QUOTE]Very much THIS.
- Messages
- 43,206
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not sure about too much power. I think it's more jobsworth and little Hitler syndrome and the tendency these days for anyone and everyone to be act all knee jerk, offended and enraged at any and every opportunity. In fact I think that a lot of people go out of their way and actively look for opportunities to get all bent out of shape about something and then run around casting accusations and wailing. I don't see this as a police problem as such, it's just what a lot of people are like these days.
Keith W
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 7,408
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Indeed
A quote from the linked Guardian article:
Eddie Mitchell said:
A case of ego's collide
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok I've snipped and left in the relevant parts of your post.
This is BS.
The police cannot arrest "anyone they see necessary". There is strict criteria for an arrest and it has to be met. Police can arrest for *any offence* now in effect, but the reason for arrest HAS to be one or more of the following things (following the offence);
- Ascertain the persons name
- Ascertain the persons address
- Prevent physical harm to self or another or suffering physical injury
- Prevent loss of or damage to property
- Prevent an offence against public decency
- Prevent an unlawful obstruction of the highway
- Protect a child or vulnerable person
- prevent any prosecution being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question
- Allow a prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of theconduct of the person in question.
Whilst some previously non arrestable offences can now be arrested for under the above circumstances, a lot more offences that were arrestable now become non arrestable as if none of the above applies you can't arrest and the person would then come to the station voluntarily. So actually, it could be argued they have less power. Work that out.
Please post evidence of the increase in complaints due to the change in law. That just isn't true. In fact complaints overall have gone down.
As for spit hoods, these are in use and have been roiled out for normal use by a lot of forces and quite rightly. Why should an officer be spat at and receive nasty communicable diseases such as aids, hepatitis, etc just for doing their job and trying to protect the public?? How can you tell if they're going to spit?? Well, perhaps they've already spat a glob of blood filled sputum at you or your colleagues and is intent on continuing to do so? That would be a pretty good indicator. And there is NO risk to an individual by having one placed on their heads. Again, their use is regulated and it has to be justified and recorded after their use, you can't just put these on anyone. Recently the first police death occurring as a direct result of catching a communicable disease by being spat on was recorded. So yes, they are a necessity evil enforced on us by society.
And taser (as it's spelt) isn't to replace or use against someone using a firearm. It never has been intended for that, and You would never use a taser for this (for one thing, you can only use it within a very short range), you'd use another firearm. They can be used in any situation the officer decides as long as it's justifiable and proportionate, exactly as if the officer was to use their baton or CS spray. It's a very useful tool and used by police, airline stewards and security worldwide, but the UK has the strictest restrictions on use. Remember here were talking about police officers, who deal with very violent individuals on a daily basis, not primary school teachers, a little perspective goes a long way.
What has the Police Federation got to do with anything? They are independent of the police and a separate organisation set up to support officers. They have no sway with regards to how officers are disciplined or set up of complaints procedures, they are just there to support the rights and welfare of officers if a complaint is made against them or they are subject to an investigation. Believe me, when officers are subject of a complaint, professional standards departments are ruthless in their attempts to prove the case, even if it's malicious against the officer. I'm sure if the Polfed could instigate a fully independent process for complaints they would. But again I'm not sure why the Fed have been brought into this thread.
I try to avoid posting in anything that becomes an anti police tirade, but reading rubbish like this is starting to get my goat.
Last edited:
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Mate, you went full wibble. Never go full wibble.
PS: note how I managed to emphasize a word without resorting to shouting (Caps).
Last edited:
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
All the world watches and waits!
Actually most of the world sits there, scratching its head and wondering why we have one of the least authorised and armed police forces on the face of the planet!
Last edited:
Steve27752
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 23
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Most police Officers do not let power go to there heads. What they do not need are smart arses that make a difficult job even harder!
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
With a bit of co operation the detentions, searches and escalation could be avoided. 99% of cops are reasonable and sensible (taking aside the civvy in this incident, which is very much an exception). Basically, everyone on both sides need to communicate sensibly with each other.
OP
Alastair
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
I disagree with that one, there have been several incidents where hoods have been incorrectly fitted and have impeded the breathing of the person being restrained. The resulting investigations have blamed poor training. In one UK incident the improper use of a spit hood was a contributing factor in a death in custody incident, and there have been several deaths involving these hoods in the US.
Worth mentioning that this was in the Ukraine and the disease was tuberculosis.
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
You're forgetting one tiny point (well two actually):
PACE requires the police to obtain a court order to view special proceedure material - which a press photographer's images are; remember Eddie had identified himself as a member of the press before the search took place.
Sect 43 of the Terrorism Act is very specific. In this case it was wrongly used to cause an embuggerance to someone.
There'll be a fairly hefty damages bill for Sussex Police to pay after this.
Last edited:
DemiLion
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 13,016
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
You know that TB is quite common in the UK now?
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In the Mr Puck case it was indeed the lack of training and improper use that contributed (vomiting into the hood and filling the void designed to catch vomit, but not being emptied). Used properly this shouldn't present any risk, as with so many things.
I'm not sure what your point is about the Ukraine case, it was indeed TB which is still present in the U.K and a clear and present risk.
There are other cases in the U.K. where officers have been infected with Hepatitis and other diseases as a result of having blood spat on them which is why they have been introduced. They haven't died yet, and hopefully they can manage their conditions and live a full life. But I bet them and their families wish the officers had access to spit hoods at the time [emoji52]
But here's an idea - don't want a spit hood placed on your head, don't spit at police.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,208
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't disagree in this case the act was wrongly used and I'm talking I general terms (hence why I added aside from the civvy in this case, who it was likely couldn't enact these powers anyway).
I'm not sure if PACE would have come into it as I don't know the full ins and outs, but that can be circumvented if the individual volunteers the material to police at the time. But like I said I don't know (you might?) the circumstances of the physical search if one was conducted and how the material was viewed or accessed.
Last edited: