Police don't like journalists..

[Ewan]

According to this article.

“It happens constantly. In May I was taking pictures of the party on the London tube — the last day people could drink alcohol — from a good distance when two police officers started pushing me around and put a hand over my lens. There was no reason at all. I was simply recording the event and they stopped me because they thought they could. That’s a very typical incident. That will happen to me once a week if I’m out working.”

There's also this video, in which the officers seem to basically make up an offence on the spot! :shrug:

I'm sure most police officers are well meaning and fair but it seems like a few don't like being photographed while upholding the law :thumbsdown:

I know people on here have been stopped under the Terrorism Act when taking photos quite a few times, but has anyone had any trouble with the police simply being unfriendly and aggressive about being filmed or photographed?

 

[Rozzy]

old ground i think, not worth worrying about!

 

[RichardC27]

There's also this video, in which the officers seem to basically make up an offence on the spot! :shrug:

That is poor policing, but the bloke holding the camera really doesn't help himself there with his attitude.

 

[Ewan]

That is poor policing, but the bloke holding the camera really doesn't help himself there with his attitude.

I agree his attitude isn't great, but neither is theirs. After telling him he's breaking the law, and that 'filming the police is an offence, sir' and finding that they made a mistake, they simply walk off without even an apology. How is that going to restore the publics already dwindling faith and respect of the police?

 

[CT]

PMSL Six of one and half a dozen of the other there I think, but those cops were an embarrassment. No hats either which is common these days, so not technically 'in unform' and putting themselves in an awkward position with regard to many powers which require them to be in uniform.

 

[MG TF 135]

And you can bet your balls that if the fella on the bike they were talking to had pulled a knife and slashed them both, that they would be asking for that video as evidence!!

 

[odd jim]

PMSL Six of one and half a dozen of the other there I think, but those cops were an embarrassment. No hats either which is common these days, so not technically 'in unform' and putting themselves in an awkward position with regard to many powers which require them to be in uniform.

Lol, not wearing a hat doesnt mean the officer isnt in uniform! Shirt, trousers and are enough!

 

[CT]

Lol, not wearing a hat doesnt mean the officer isnt in uniform! Shirt, trousers and are enough!

Oh really? One of the powers which is specifically given to officers IN UNIFORM ONLY is the power to step into the road and stop vehicles. The main reason the traditional police helmet has survived so long is that it's instant recognisable for the office it represents. Similarly, the black and white diced hat band when wearing a flat cap, was only worn by regular officers to distinguish them from special constables, and a host of other people who wear otherwise similar uniforms.

Were you to be prosecuted for failing to stop for a hatless officer in uniform, the most inept solicitor wouild have little diffiiculty in getting you off when the character standing in the road looks essentially no different to bus drivers, council workers, and a host of other people wearing a white shirt or a high visibility jacket.

We sensibly stop for lots of people who step into the road and raise their arm, but there's no legal compunction to do so unless it's an officer in uniform, and no offence disclosed if you don't.

 

[Cathus]

....No hats either which is common these days, so not technically 'in unform'...

That is complete nonsense, an urban myth. There are no circumstances when the wearing of a hat or helmet is required to be deemed 'in uniform'. And special constables have worn diced band hats for 30 years to my knowledge.

We sensibly stop for lots of people who step into the road and raise their arm, but there's no legal compunction to do so unless it's an officer in uniform, and no offence disclosed if you don't.

School crossing patrols?

 

[CT]

See my last post. If you don't see it, then further discussion is really pointless.

 

[toto8462]

That is poor policing, but the bloke holding the camera really doesn't help himself there with his attitude.

I agree, the video only serves to promote an 'us versus them' attitude, where really the guy holding the video camera should be a little more grateful for the work the police do. I know it was wrong of the police, but I don't understand why there needs to be such animosity, I personally think the police do a very difficult job in what have become difficult circumstances, I appreciate the seeming lunacy of some of these laws, but much like the seeming stupidity of the officials enforcing the liquids bad on the airplanes, their rigour prevented a dozen passenger aircraft being blown up over the atlantic.

These aren't normal times, and despite the stupidity of blanket banning some things, I can deal with that if we are kept safe.

... and by the way, if any of you think I'm a police sympathiser because I am a copper or anyone I know is a copper, you're mistaken. I'm just a good citizen, honest gov...

 

[CT]

That is complete nonsense, an urban myth. There are no circumstances when the wearing of a hat or helmet is required to be deemed 'in uniform'. And special constables have worn diced band hats for 30 years to my knowledge.


School crossing patrols?

The school crossing patrol's power to stop is from the sign he carries - not his uniform. It's surrounded by a red circle and is therefore, a mandatory sign which you MUST obey. If the pole isn't resting on the floor then it isn't legally placed.

 

[Cathus]

See my last post. If you don't see it, then further discussion is really pointless.

I did see it, albeit I saw it after I posted. Where did you find this out?

 

[CT]

. And special constables have worn diced band hats for 30 years to my knowledge.

Note I said " WAS only worn by regular officers.

I'm just remembering why I tend to stay out of cop threads.

 

[CT]

I did see it, albeit I saw it after I posted. Where did you find this out?

Ryton On Dunsmore 1966, where it was drilled into you in no uncertain terms, that without a hat you didn't have your full police powers, as well as looking totally unprofessional.

I was once *******ed rigid by a Supt who'd seen me driving a police car without a flat hat, and I had to go to HQ to resceive said *******ing.

 

[Cathus]

All I'm asking is for you to back up what you're saying in relation to the requirement to wear a hat & gettng off at court if the officer wasn't. What's your source for this, I'm very interested.

 

[Cathus]

Internal discipline requirements are usually not legal requirements. (apart from the ones regarding committing offences, obviously)

The funny thing is that I've seen numerous people standing in witness boxes complaining that the officer wasn't wearing a hat at the time they were stopped. I've not seen one, get off because of this.

Perhaps we just have really bad solicitors round here.

My understanding is different to yours, I'd be interested in any hard fact legislation/stated cases you might know about.

 

[CT]

The funny thing is that I've seen numerous people standing in witness boxes complaining that the officer wasn't wearing a hat at the time they were stopped. I've not seen one, get off because of this.

This the internet, so I have to accept that - right?

It really does come down to a little common sense - the officer is required to be in uniform - end of, Carrying your argument to it's logical conclusion how far does he have to disrobe before he's not?

You can carry on arguing with anyone else who wants to play.

 

[Cathus]

Well, sorry but you've stated something as a fact which you assert that everyone has to believe, but question me when I assert you're wrong?

I'm merley saying that I don't believe this to be correct and am asking you to qualify why you think this is so. You can call it arguing, I'm calling it discussion. I'm not being rude or argumentative, just pointing out that I disagree with you.

As far as I'm aware the legislation regarding the power to stop a vehicle does require an officer to be in uniform but legislation doesn't state what the uniform should consist of and doesn't state that the hat should be required, only that the uniform be generally recognised as that of a police officer.

You said that the most inept solicitor would be able to get you off a charge if the officer wasn't wearing a hat. I have stood in the witrness box many times when this defence has been used & am yet to see it succeed.

Oh, and I forgot to add that VOSA officers and HATOs have the power to stop vehicles using the same signals as police officers.

 

[CT]

Definite last post from me. let's try another tack... your wife is driving along a dark country road at night. She's alone in the car when a dark hatless figure steps in the road or perhaps all she sees is a high vis jacket. She's undertsandably feeling rather vunerable and swerves round the figure and continues on. She's every right to expect a copper to look like one and in a contested matter, I couldn't see her being done for one minute.

If you've attended mag's court that often then you'll know people often get away with murder in front of lay mags which they wouldn't get away with at Crown Court.

I'm off shopping.

 

[fracster]

Jesus H Christ............These threads are becoming increasingly tedious.Try doing a search, type in.....hmmmm......Internet/media/idiotic drastic measures to get footage and you`ll find loads of threads with the same crap written by the same people arguing both sides of the argument.I include myself in that list.

If you think are cops are bad, try working abroad.

It is a shame we don`t have an opt out scheme for all the police haters, don`t pay for them, but sure as hell don`t call them when you need them.

CT..........i`m out with you on this one.......

 

[Holden Caulfield]

These aren't normal times, and despite the stupidity of blanket banning some things, I can deal with that if we are kept safe.

'Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety' Benjamin Franklin

I prefer to 'deal' with the above, dictatorships since the dawn of time have alway promoted the loss of freedom for the illusion of safety.

What the NUJ and the media should do know is to refuse to film any police officer including news repots, interviews, appeals and reality cop shows.

After all the law is the law :thumbsdown:

 

[Cathus]

If anyone is thinking of trying the old 'he wasn't wearing his hat so I'm gonna get off at court ploy', I've found one stated case regarding the wearing of headgear.

(Wallwork v Giles [1970] RTR 117 held that a constable was said to be in uniform with or without his helmet, summed up as:

Whether the constable (which includes an officer of any rank, including special constables) was in uniform at the time is a matter of fact for a court to determine in each case. What counts as uniform is unclear but, if the constable can be easily identified from his/her manner of dress as a police officer, the requirement has probably been met

I would suggest that if he was standing in afull police uniform but wasn't wearing a hat then the average person would recognise him as being a police officer in uniform.

This case is in current versions of "Blackstones" which is used as one of the police promotion bibles by officers studying for their sergeants' exams.

 

[CT]

Jesus H Christ............These threads are becoming increasingly tedious.Try doing a search, type in.....hmmmm......Internet/media/idiotic drastic measures to get footage and you`ll find loads of threads with the same crap written by the same people arguing both sides of the argument.I include myself in that list.

If you think are cops are bad, try working abroad.

It is a shame we don`t have an opt out scheme for all the police haters, don`t pay for them, but sure as hell don`t call them when you need them.

CT..........i`m out with you on this one.......

Thanks Frac, but I didn't realise I was on strike.

I'll defend the cops all day long when they're doing their job properly, but all too often, as in this case, they're not, and it isn't just brushes with photographers, the whole way they go about dealing with people is too often totally unacceptable.

The police service has changed out of all recognition, and a lot of it really isn't for the better.

 

[CT]

(Wallwork v Giles [1970] RTR 117 held that a constable was said to be in uniform with or without his helmet, summed up as:

Whether the constable (which includes an officer of any rank, including special constables) was in uniform at the time is a matter of fact for a court to determine in each case. What counts as uniform is unclear but, if the constable can be easily identified from his/her manner of dress as a police officer, the requirement has probably been met

I would suggest that if he was standing in afull police uniform but wasn't wearing a hat then the average person would recognise him as being a police officer in uniform.

Well that makes it pretty clear that the question of whether the officer is in uniform is a matter for the court in each particular case, regardless of what you suggest.

It's pretty simple really - officer dons traditional bobbies helmet and steps into the road, one less loophole for the defendent to use.

 

[odd jim]

Oh really? One of the powers which is specifically given to officers IN UNIFORM ONLY is the power to step into the road and stop vehicles. The main reason the traditional police helmet has survived so long is that it's instant recognisable for the office it represents. Similarly, the black and white diced hat band when wearing a flat cap, was only worn by regular officers to distinguish them from special constables, and a host of other people who wear otherwise similar uniforms.

Were you to be prosecuted for failing to stop for a hatless officer in uniform, the most inept solicitor wouild have little diffiiculty in getting you off when the character standing in the road looks essentially no different to bus drivers, council workers, and a host of other people wearing a white shirt or a high visibility jacket.

We sensibly stop for lots of people who step into the road and raise their arm, but there's no legal compunction to do so unless it's an officer in uniform, and no offence disclosed if you don't.

Sorry CT, you are completely wrong on that one!!! Can you tell me which part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act dictates that? Or the Road Traffic Act? Where is the defination of what constitues uniform? There isnt such a definition.

'The hat' an old wives tale and has never been the case.

 

[CT]

Sorry CT, you are completely wrong on that one!!! Can you tell me which part of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act dictates that? Or the Road Traffic Act? Where is the defination of what constitues uniform? There isnt such a definition.

'The hat' an old wives tale and has never been the case.

Read the rest of the thread. I know everyone watches 'The Bill' these days and has heard of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act, but you really wouldn't be looking there if you want to find out about police powers to stop traffic.

 

[odd jim]

Read the rest of the thread. I know everyone watches 'The Bill' these days and has heard of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act, but you really wouldn't be looking there if you want to find out about police powers to stop traffic.

My expertise extends well past watching the Bill (which I probably havnt seen since the mid 90's!), and I dont actually need to look at anything to know about police powers, especially traffic matters!!!! But to re-itterate Cathus;

What counts as uniform is not actually written in the law, the fact is, its the courts decision in each and every case as to whether the constable was actually in uniform. The test is whether the constable could have been 'easily identifiable' as a police officer by his or her dress. If so the requirement has been met. I'd say if you cant identify a police officer simply because he hasnt got his hat on (but has the shirt, tie, utility belt with cuffs, body armour and a flourescent jacket with POLICE written all over it) then you are pretty silly!

The stated case - Wallwork v Giles (1970) where an officer without his helmet was held to still be in uniform. This is why cases where the helmet / hat defence has been tried hve been thrown out of court.

My personal fave was always "If my wife was pregnant you have to let her wee in your hat". You'd be surprised how many people still believe this one!

 

[Cathus]

I'll defend the cops all day long when they're doing their job properly.....
The police service has changed out of all recognition, and a lot of it really isn't for the better.

well there's something we can agree on!

What the NUJ and the media should do know is to refuse to film any police officer including....snip....reality cop shows.

If they did that there'd be nothing on television except cookery & house buying

 

[CT]

I was recently diverted left (due an accident ahead) by a hatless bobby. There was no mistaking who or what he was as he was sitting on the bonnet of his liveried police car, which was slewn across the road, feet dangling in the air, sunglasses pushed on top his head, and eating what looked like a Mars Bar, casually waving traffc to the left with his free hand.

*shudder*