Police abusing thier powers yet again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holden Caulfield
  • Start date Start date
H

Holden Caulfield

Guest
Link

The above link is to the guardian site where yet again police officers are abusing their power and not being accountable the public.

If they are not carefull policing by consent will disapear in this country and we will be left with us and them

Just to show how topsy turvy the police are at the moment a dog handler in Nottingham is being charged with animal cruelty Link

Yet the police officer who pushed Ian Tomlinson over has yet to be charged , the message is clear if you want justice you are better of being a dog in Merry England.
 
The dog handler should be charged with cruelty and I believe the other case is still pending.
 
Nope, nothing wrong with filming the Police, it's not against the law. This is another example either of abuse of power, or gross ignorance on the part of the Police.
 
fastworldimages said:
To be honest, id say she was a bit pathetic filming the police to begin with.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with filming the police in the execution of their duty - in a public place - unless they're doing something they would prefer not to be recorded?
There have been a few instances of that in recent times.
Strikes me they haven't quite grasped yet that a lot of what they need to do legitimately would be very much more difficult without public support IMHO.
 
fastworldimages said:
To be honest, id say she was a bit pathetic filming the police to begin with.
Click to expand...

Not at all. She was quite within her rights.

Although this incident didn't involve photographers, it clearly shows that some police do not understand the law relating to photography, and that is worrying. We hear of meetings to thrash out these problems and new guidance, but nothing appears to be changing.
 
she seems to have wanted to provoke a reaction, one which she got.

She could have shown her phone to the officer, and not just hidden it. As she seems to have believed it was ok to film so therefor should have informed them in an appropriate manner.
 
theMusicMan said:
Nope, nothing wrong with filming the Police, it's not against the law. This is another example either of abuse of power, or gross ignorance on the part of the Police.
Click to expand...



Yep that seem to be the problem
"misinterpretation" or "overly enthusiastic"

A friend of mine is a "police trainer"
and half the time after several hours in the class room
he says that he has wasted his time.
They are not really interested in learning the "new or revised laws"
and as some travel from other areas
look upon it is a "jolly"
 
I'll stick my head above the parapet. Clearly, these officers (whoever they were - I haven't watched the footage) are a little uncertain of the legislation relating to gathering photographs / films of police officers for terrorist purposes. We haven't had much guidance on the matter, and I get bombarded with so many legal changes / procedural changes, I really can't recall if I've seen anything on the new legislation beyond my own research.

As for not being accountable, she should be given a stop / search form outlining any reasons for the stop, the officers will have had to justify any use of force and she has an open avenue of complaint.

And no, I have no problem being filmed in the execution of my duty.
 
Photo Plod said:
I'll stick my head above the parapet. Clearly, these officers (whoever they were - I haven't watched the footage) are a little uncertain of the legislation relating to gathering photographs / films of police officers for terrorist purposes. We haven't had much guidance on the matter, and I get bombarded with so many legal changes / procedural changes, I really can't recall if I've seen anything on the new legislation beyond my own research.

As for not being accountable, she should be given a stop / search form outlining any reasons for the stop, the officers will have had to justify any use of force and she has an open avenue of complaint.

And no, I have no problem being filmed in the execution of my duty.
Click to expand...
... and bravo to you for doing this too, I applaud you :clap:

I know it's a minority we hear about, but if only all police officers were as pragmatic as you demonstrate you clearly are.
:thumbs:
 
fastworldimages said:
To be honest, id say she was a bit pathetic filming the police to begin with.
Click to expand...

paulyoung666 said:
agree . sounds to me as though she wanted a reaction :shrug:
Click to expand...

You 2 have never been pushed around by the police have you? I've been grabbed and dragged backwards by a police inspector before, I wish someone was filming it. before you say I was doing something to provoke it, I wasn't. My dad was with me at the time and he is a Met police officer and couldn't believe the attitude of the inspector.

I do find it amusing how so many police officers say it's illegal to film them yet release the people they have arrested so quickly without an explanation.
 
fastworldimages said:
she seems to have wanted to provoke a reaction, one which she got.

She could have shown her phone to the officer, and not just hidden it. As she seems to have believed it was ok to film so therefor should have informed them in an appropriate manner.
Click to expand...

There have been publicised incidents reported in the media where misinformed police have insisted photographers delete their images. This can not be done without a court order. I am not a street photographer, but am like many more photographers aware of what is happening and of the law. She was described as a film maker, so would be aware of her rights. I would assume she would be rightly concerned the police would delete her phone video.

This aside, why would the police be concerned if nothing underhand was going on, and they were clearly heard making untrue statements relating to British law, a very worrying trend. It makes you wonder in what other areas they get it wrong.
 
I know her! (sort of) And her boyfriend, really nice people, I met them at my friend's birthday last summer. She's also a very very good photographer.

I'm with her on this one. She's probably the nicest girl you'd ever meet and wouldn't do something like that to "provoke a reaction".
 
Society gets the Police Force it deserves.........end of.
 
An interesting point that was made on flickr recently that brings a new perspective to these incidents - the police use filming (stills and moving image) as a form of intelligence gathering and perhaps they need reminding that not everyone is filming/photographing for that purpose. I certainly don't think it would hurt if the guidelines issued to officers pointed out that it was an art form long before photo-fit images were invented ;)
 
As for not being accountable, she should be given a stop / search form outlining any reasons for the stop, the officers will have had to justify any use of force and she has an open avenue of complaint.
Click to expand...

Oh yes that works when was the last time you heard of an officer being reprimnanded and a full appology being given... unless you are a dead police dog.:shrug:
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Oh yes that works when was the last time you heard of an officer being reprimnanded and a full appology being given... unless you are a dead police dog.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Holden, I have no intention of getting into some forum-based slanging match with you. Suffice it to say that I have seen officers dismissed for their conduct for a variety of reasons, and get notified of it on a weekly basis through our intranet service. I have also known some of my fellow officers forced to apologise when they were in the wrong for everything ranging from dodgy parking to discourtesy.

Will you believe me? I doubt it. I don't seek to change peoples' attitudes to the police...I'm an officer, and can only be accountable for my own conduct and actions. I'm just seeking to put some of the other side across without getting too personally involved.
 
Photo Plod said:
Holden, I have no intention of getting into some forum-based slanging match with you. Suffice it to say that I have seen officers dismissed for their conduct for a variety of reasons, and get notified of it on a weekly basis through our intranet service. I have also known some of my fellow officers forced to apologise when they were in the wrong for everything ranging from dodgy parking to discourtesy.
Click to expand...

The difference being the media which seems to have a large impact in public opinion wont ever report that so it isnt true surlely :lol::lol:
 
fastworldimages said:
The difference being the media which seems to have a large impact in public opinion wont ever report that so it isnt true surlely :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

:p

Like so many other occupations and aspects of life, we are beholden to the media. My only advantage is that I speak from personal experience, but of course it still remains 2nd-hand information to anyone I tell it to here!

Policing is, unfortunately, not a science. It's a high-profile occupation where any cock-ups we make are picked up on and placed in the full glare of the public spotlight. There's nothing wrong with that...but, almost all of our good work is unknown and almost never reported.
 
What gets me is that in the 'interview' (edited for publicity and maxium 'I am a victim' Daily Mailesque) the woman says that she was sure her boyfriend did not have any drugs on him.

The sniffer dog 'sniffed' and the boyfriend was collared.

Either shoot the dog for failing in it's duty or get the boyfriend to own up and say yes I use drugs but I do not have any on me at this time. Maybe the dog 'sniffed' some on my clothes from an earlier 'trip'.

Don't do drugs. Simples.
 
tiler65 said:
What gets me is that in the 'interview' (edited for publicity and maxium 'I am a victim' Daily Mailesque) the woman says that she was sure her boyfriend did not have any drugs on him.

The sniffer dog 'sniffed' and the boyfriend was collared.

Either shoot the dog for failing in it's duty or get the boyfriend to own up and say yes I use drugs but I do not have any on me at this time. Maybe the dog 'sniffed' some on my clothes from an earlier 'trip'.

Don't do drugs. Simples.
Click to expand...

Without taking us too far off topic, sniffer dogs are rarely inaccurate. The last time I was involved in a dog operation at a tube station, every single person the dog stopped had either taken drugs within the last day or so (they told us) or had stuff on them. In a scenario similar to this one, the most vocal protest of the night came from the girlfriend of a man who began recording the stop of her boyfriend on her mobile phone. She protested that he didn't do drugs, hadn't been anywhere near them, we were abusing our powers, etc. I found a cannabis grinder in his pocket and began to suspect (shock!) that we were being lied to. We opened his backpack and it was absolutely full of self-seal bags of cannabis. He was arrested and prosecuted.

I am not seeking to excuse occasions when officers get things wrong - as I said, we don't only have to cope with legal changes (of which there are hundreds every year - have a look at the government's record), but also procedural changes within our respective forces - and there are often several of these each week. However, most suspects will protest their innocence even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - and get very vocal about it. And before I get bombarded with "innocent until proven guilty" comments - a principle I both accept and understand - I'm talking about cases like the above, or the classic drink driver who is so smashed they can't even stand up, which is more common than you may think.
 
Photo Plod said:
Suffice it to say that I have seen officers dismissed for their conduct for a variety of reasons, and get notified of it on a weekly basis through our intranet service. I have also known some of my fellow officers forced to apologise when they were in the wrong for everything ranging from dodgy parking to discourtesy.
Click to expand...

Also, just about all the cases we hear about where an officer has mis-interpreted the rules and detained a photographer or prevented him/her from photographing have ended up with an apology being made.


Steve.
 
Photo Plod said:
I'll stick my head above the parapet. Clearly, these officers (whoever they were - I haven't watched the footage) are a little uncertain of the legislation relating to gathering photographs / films of police officers for terrorist purposes. We haven't had much guidance on the matter, and I get bombarded with so many legal changes / procedural changes, I really can't recall if I've seen anything on the new legislation beyond my own research.

As for not being accountable, she should be given a stop / search form outlining any reasons for the stop, the officers will have had to justify any use of force and she has an open avenue of complaint.

And no, I have no problem being filmed in the execution of my duty.
Click to expand...

Good on you for joining the thread mate, I sincerely hope that folk can keep it civilized.

The problem as I see it, is not only rotten apples spoiling the bunch but the 'curricula' that is being fed.

The truth is we need police, not all officers are mindless and not all officers abuse rules and regs.
All of us will be reaching for the phone and calling our local station if we come home to find we've been broken into and there must be huge percentage of officers that do a bloody good job, ready to assist.

Anti 'terror' legislation is need of serious review and amendment. If this becomes more realistic then reports of police 'abusing' the law will diminish.

Steve Smith said:
Also, just about all the cases we hear about where an officer has mis-interpreted the rules and detained a photographer or prevented him/her from photographing have ended up with an apology being made.
Click to expand...

Apologies, sometimes can be sufficient but I'm sure an apology would quite hit the spot with you if you had been on the receiving end of one of the more sever cases.

To be honest Steve, apology or not it's besides the point.
It shouldn't be occurring in the first place and something has to give.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
It shouldn't be occurring in the first place and something has to give.
Click to expand...

I totally agree.

The root problem is that expectations have been put on front-line officers to prevent terrorism, which is a monumental task. s44 of the Terrorism Act, which is what most photographers are being stopped under, allows an officer in uniform to stop and search anybody (or vehicles) without having any grounds to do so. One of the many things officers are asked to look out for is "hostile reconnaissance" - in other words, activity in preparation for terrorist acts. We know that it goes on. However, what has happened is a misguided application of s44 caused by a lack of direction, which has translated to "street level" with photographers often being stopped indiscriminately.

The new Commissioner, Paul Stephenson, issued new guidance to officers regarding photography and Section 44 stops within a couple of months of taking office. New arrangements are currently being trialled in several boroughs, and I expect it will soon spread across London. I haven't got a copy to hand, but hopefully it should change working practices in the Metropolitan Police. I have no idea if other forces will take the lead, but I hope they do.

By way of further examples, I have only ever stopped two photographers under s44. One of them had broken through a fence around a busy terminal station and was taking photographs of the tracks. The other appeared to be taking photographs of security shift changes at another high-profile station. Both stops were satisfactory (apart from the damaged fence, though I couldn't prove anything), and I hope others would agree that - on the basic facts I have given you here - they were both reasonable.
 
I must admit I have not really had any personal problems with the police. Even on the odd occaision (In my younger days I hasten to add) when I managed to get myself arrested a couple of times. I remained polite and totally non-abusive, and as a result the police officers gave me the same courtesy. As a press photographer I worked alongside the police on a few assignements, and found them all to be helpful when spoken to in a courteous manner. I think many situations are escalated because of the way police officers are spoken to. If they are pushed into a reaction to use their power, they will do so. If I'm stopped by a police officer and aksed to see what pictures I have taken, then I am more than happy to show him or her, because there is nothing on my camera which would cause concern.

I will still of course be adding my image and support to the NOT A CRIME campaign because I think it is as important for the general public, as well as the police to realise that photographers are not criminals or terrorists.
 
I got stopped and challenged a couple of weeks back whilst wandering around our town centre. I hadn't even realised I was taking photo's of the plastic copper (PCSO) and his local force minder, I was concentrating on this rather attractive girl handing out leaflets.

We had a little chat, during which I did point out that they were in a strange place to object to being filmed, due to the number of CCTV cameras around. :D
 
She didnt really help her cause when the officer asked do you know it is ilegal to video an officer. she said yes three times:shrug: im sure a police officer cant keep track of every law, but they are normal people. If she had perhaps mentioned that it isnt illegal, the officer may well have detained her while he checked, but at least she hasnt agreed she had done anything wrong
 
Photo Plod said:
I totally agree.

The root problem is that expectations have been put on front-line officers to prevent terrorism, which is a monumental task.
Click to expand...

And also quite explanatory to why such extremities have occurred. Not only is this a monumental task, it's unrealistic and very unfair IMO.
Let's say that there were serious terrorist threats, frontline police officers are going to be the last in line to hear of it and even when they are informed they wouldn't get all the significant detail anyway.

The term "hostile reconnaissance" is a little inconsistent isn't it really?

Pretty much anyone with a camera, (I wonder why :thinking:), as all terrorists are known to take pictures regardless of the global knowledge that a tube station, bank, office block or high street etc is going to be at it's most populated after am and before pm rush hour.
After all that's what these so called, 'extremists' want isn't it, to cause as much damage and to take as many lives as possible?

Terrorism to a degree, exists, but it does not exist on the scale that has been fed down to us to conclude/justify all these vague and manipulative 'laws'.
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
To be honest Steve, apology or not it's besides the point.
It shouldn't be occurring in the first place and something has to give.
Click to expand...

I agree. My point is that no one has actually been convicted of anything yet. None of these 'cases' has ever got that far because there is no case to answer for.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I agree. My point is that no one has actually been convicted of anything yet. None of these 'cases' has ever got that far because there is no case to answer for.
Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that if you were searched under s44, it goes down on record regardless of conviction or of your innocence. :shrug:

The ramifications of this are not 'beneficial' to you in anyway and an apology won't wipe your name off the list.

Say you wanted to visit the USA, do you think they'll let you continue your travels with 'searched under the anti terrorism act' against your name?
 
Tomas Whitehouse said:
I'm under the impression that if you were searched under s44, it goes down on record regardless of conviction or of your innocence. :shrug:

The ramifications of this are not 'beneficial' to you in anyway and an apology won't wipe your name off the list.

Say you wanted to visit the USA, do you think they'll let you continue your travels with 'searched under the anti terrorism act' against your name?
Click to expand...

Are you 100% sure that if you're being stopped and searched under S44 or any other law that this will be on the record and on top of everything scanned by another Nation?

If that would be true, any ex-convict or prisoner on bail (without restrictions of leaving the country) would be denied access to other countries. I highly doubt it but feel free to leave sources to check out :)
 
All stops and searches are recorded on individual forces' databases for administrative purposes, including those under s44. This is because an individual has a right to have a copy of any search record within 12 months of the stop being made.

Foreign travel involves a PNC check, which is nothing to do with stops & searches. The PNC holds details of convictions, cautions, impending prosecutions, disqualifications, etc - but not stops.

The majority of searches turn up nothing, and I have never heard of a case of someone landing themselves in that kind of trouble as a result of being stopped.
 
I think this is a bit heavy handed.
they had a reason to stop and search the male
fair enough, reasonable cause. she filmed them as she felt it unfair? I think her mistake was hiding the phone which is bound to wind an officer up when he asks to look at something. It's not an reasonable request to view footage taken is it? but to claim that it's illegal to film officers and threaten to arrest her on that basis? that's a bit out of order. Fair play to photoplod. it's a hard job but if you do it correctly, with so many witnesses on the street surely you can't feel threatened. If the footage had ended up on youtube, without any form of censorship...well that could wind someone up. not sure what the legal implications of that are to be honest
 
Thanks for clearing that one up. It's appalling how people say the Police hasn't got a clue about the law, but then people bitching about the Police haven't got a clue either...
 
bakedbeans said:
Thanks for clearing that one up. It's appalling how people say the Police hasn't got a clue about the law, but then people bitching about the Police haven't got a clue either...
Click to expand...

Bitching? I had hoped that rude behaviour wouldn't surface, nice one for being the first to blow that out of the water :)

Now, to clarify.
I said I was under the impression that any searches would go on record (which they do), so it's not a million miles away to suggest that this could also turn out to be a problem for folk travelling to the states.

I read a lot and I don't bookmark everything, sorry.

Besides, your widely missing the point Beans, maybe read my posts again if you persist in thinking that I'm 'bitching'. :thumbs:
 
DizMatt said:
Fair play to photoplod. it's a hard job but if you do it correctly, with so many witnesses on the street surely you can't feel threatened. If the footage had ended up on youtube, without any form of censorship...well that could wind someone up. not sure what the legal implications of that are to be honest
Click to expand...

It depends who those "witnesses" are! :lol:

The problem with footage comes when it *is* edited, because you can edit it to look like something else. To give an example, I was threatened with a hypodermic needle a couple of years ago by a shoplifter. He pulled it out and held it straight up. I was on my own. I grabbed his wrist as hard as I could, twisted it until he dropped the needle, then put him on the floor and held him until backup arrived. While he was on the floor, he was screaming and shouting to draw as much attention as possible to himself - which is a common tactic. He was shouting about "police brutality", how he "hadn't done anything", etc. He was face down on the floor, with me on top, my knee into his shoulder and his arm held in a very strong lock. To anybody passing by, it would have looked very forceful - which it was. It was also perfectly reasonable - but would it have looked so if somebody had just turned up when he was on the floor and started filming? No. There would have been no context - why I had stopped him in the first place (staff had pointed him out as being a shoplifter and that he had threatened them when they stopped him), and the incident with the needle.

Personally I've never been bothered about being filmed on someone's mobile phone because I'm confident that I'm doing my job properly. However, I'm well aware that "use of force" is not something that most people encounter in their everyday lives, and so it can look very unpleasant when people see it. The fact is we deal with any situation as either an "unknown risk" or a "high risk", because things can turn on you in an instant.

As for putting footage of officers on Youtube, well...I don't think there are any legal implications if the footage isn't being used for criminal purposes. I've been on there when my colleague was being told by a motorist that she was breaking the law by not wearing her stab vest :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top