This might get interesting

I wouldnt knwo how to tape a convo.. secretly or otherwise... this photogrpaher was recording before anything bad was said... hmmm always a bit suspicous.. but maybe thats just me :)
 
Two sides to every story. We only seeing & hearing edited footage.
 
gus607 said:
Two sides to every story. We only seeing & hearing edited footage.
Click to expand...

....Exactly! We don't know in truth how the photographer behaved. The words of someone's trade union are not to be relied on as the actual truth because they will have both vested and political agendas. The court system is the fairest way for opposing viewpoints to be heard, assessed, and judgements passed.

All the Police guys I know will only behave 'unofficially' when very badly goaded and consistently given serious attitude and it's right that Police react accordingly in my opinion.
 
RedRobin said:
....Exactly! We don't know in truth how the photographer behaved. The words of someone's trade union are not to be relied on as the actual truth because they will have both vested and political agendas. The court system is the fairest way for opposing viewpoints to be heard, assessed, and judgements passed.

All the Police guys I know will only behave 'unofficially' when very badly goaded and consistently given serious attitude and it's right that Police react accordingly in my opinion.
Click to expand...


I have to agree with this. Once again it's too easy to knock the Police when we don't have all the facts.
 
BRASH said:
I have to agree with this. Once again it's too easy to knock the Police when we don't have all the facts.
Click to expand...

....My god! You are agreeing with someone who is called Robin! :D
 
BRASH said:
I have to agree with this. Once again it's too easy to knock the Police when we don't have all the facts.
Click to expand...

"the officer swore at a member of the public, follows that up by saying he was lucky not to have been assaulted by the police, is threatened with arrest, mistreatment and a remand in custody"

its still no way for the police to talk to the public. Threatening to assault someone is a criminal offence. Its easy to knock the police given all the issues that surround them. I've got no doubt there are good police but there are also bad ones like the guy in the video.
 
POAH said:
"the officer swore at a member of the public, follows that up by saying he was lucky not to have been assaulted by the police, is threatened with arrest, mistreatment and a remand in custody"

its still no way for the police to talk to the public. Threatening to assault someone is a criminal offence. Its easy to knock the police given all the issues that surround them. I've got no doubt there are good police but there are also bad ones like the guy in the video.
Click to expand...


Like I said, we've only one side of the story. Christ, if I had a quid for every tome a copper told me to eff off I'd be a very rich man. I've been thrashed by the Police too and never even complained.
 
BRASH said:
Like I said, we've only one side of the story. Christ, if I had a quid for every tome a copper told me to eff off I'd be a very rich man. I've been thrashed by the Police too and never even complained.
Click to expand...

there is being told off and there is threating to assault someone.
 
So what if an officer swore at a member of the public. It might not be official policy but they're human and have to put up with a hell of a lot of abuse, both verbal and otherwise, from 'members of the public' who take advantage of such rules of good behaviour.

But I agree that there's far more satisfaction in managing to stay cool, remaining verbally pure as the driven snow, and then making an arrest when some scumbag doesn't take heed of being warned about his/her behaviour.

Reading anywhere in the media, including the BBC News, that something happened or was said is merely an allegation and cannot be relied upon. News reports aren't written under oath.
 
POAH said:
there is being told off and there is threating to assault someone.
Click to expand...


Is that what he did? You know that for a fact.? Oh wait its in the paper, it must be true. Jeeeezzzz!!!!
 
POAH said:
there is being told off and there is threating to assault someone.
Click to expand...

....Oh come on!! Dearie me, are your delicate sensibilities offended by someone threatening to give you a slap? It's just words and letting off steam which diffuses a situation. If someone is really going to hit you they'll usually do it first and ask questions, or not, afterwards.
 
RedRobin said:
....Oh come on!! Dearie me, are your delicate sensibilities offended by someone threatening to give you a slap? It's just words and letting off steam which diffuses a situation. If someone is really going to hit you they'll usually do it first and ask questions, or not, afterwards.
Click to expand...


Once again I find myself agreeing with this red thing:D. Big problem with today's society is we're all to ready to run an tell tales. Bloody blame culture and lack of discipline. I'm from an era when a copper would literally hoof yer arse or clap yer lug if you stepped out of line. Teachers would to the same and you just took it but it was better than detention or being locked up (and I've been there to). Some folk just need to suck it up and bloody well get on with their lives instead of being sniveling little cry babies:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
And I surprisingly perhaps, find myself agreeing with Brash about lack of discipline in today's society - Hence proving yet again that things are never so black and white.
 
I'm not going to tell anyone here that their opinion or grasp of fact is shamefully wrong.

I will say however, REGARDLESS of what the other side of the story might or might not be, the officer in the video did not act in a professional manner, had no right to tell the photographer to delete images (only a court order can do this), threatened assault and illegally confiscated personal items prior to caution/arrest THAT IS THE LAW.

This officers conduct is not correct nor is it acceptable. That is why there will be an investigation into his behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Digifrog said:
I'm not going to tell anyone here that their opinion or grasp of fact is shamefully wrong.

I will say however, REGARDLESS of what the other side of the story might or might not be the officer in the video did not act in a professional manner, had no right to tell anyone to delete images (only a court order can do this), threatened assault and cannot confiscate personal items prior to caution/arrest THAT IS THE LAW. This officers conduct is not correct nor is it acceptable. That is why there will be an investigation into his behaviour.
Click to expand...

^^^ This ^^^ and as a result his conduct has been displayed all over the Internet and local news broadcasts so he will have to give an account.
 
Digifrog said:
I'm not going to tell anyone here that their opinion or grasp of fact is shamefully wrong.

I will say however, REGARDLESS of what the other side of the story might or might not be, the officer in the video did not act in a professional manner, had no right to tell the photographer to delete images (only a court order can do this), threatened assault and illegally confiscated personal items prior to caution/arrest THAT IS THE LAW.

This officers conduct is not correct nor is it acceptable. That is why there will be an investigation into his behaviour.
Click to expand...

regardless of anything that was said or done by the police can you imagine finding out your parent had died on FB with graphic pictures?? yes the tog says he took no nasties but again thats hearsay
 
well we do have some of the facts ,,,and the police officer seemed to be way out of order ,disgusting behaviour

( now waiting for certain people to come along and defend his actions to the death )
 
^^^ This ^^^ and as a result his conduct has been displayed all over the Internet and local news broadcasts so he will have to give an account.
Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't have to give an account.
It's for the accuser to prove, not the accused to disprove.

There is an investigation taking place, let it take it's course rather than prejudging from a position of total ignorance, which doesn't work!
 
bobsbabes said:
regardless of anything that was said or done by the police can you imagine finding out your parent had died on FB with graphic pictures?? yes the tog says he took no nasties but again thats hearsay
Click to expand...

Not the point. There are ways of communicating with the public by the police and here there was a massive failure.

Even if the photographer did that, it is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter.
 
Last edited:
The police are supposed to be courteous and professional at all times.
However, we don't know all the facts and are hearing only one side of the story.

That said, if the photographer had behaved in a way that made the officer threaten to knock him out, then that's OK in my book too ;)
Sometimes, all polite and courteous wording just doesn't cut it.

*awaits more info on the rest of the story*
 
maybe he dosent have to give an account ,,,but what does it look like if he dosent ?
 
Bernie174 said:
Of course he doesn't have to give an account.
It's for the accuser to prove, not the accused to disprove.

There is an investigation taking place, let it take it's course rather than prejudging from a position of total ignorance, which doesn't work!
Click to expand...

Sorry but he will have to give an account ... to his senior officers and evidently the Police Commissioner at least.
 
Bernie174 said:
Of course he doesn't have to give an account.
It's for the accuser to prove, not the accused to disprove.

There is an investigation taking place, let it take it's course rather than prejudging from a position of total ignorance, which doesn't work!
Click to expand...

Sorry - but you're wrong.....
 
donut said:
maybe he dosent have to give an account ,,,but what does it look like if he dosent ?
Click to expand...


With regards to the investigation, what it looks like if he doesn't give an account doesn't mater a toss . The facts are what are relevant.

Having seen the video at no time did I see the officers face or lips move. At this stage how do we know it's not been overdubbed and a wind up. It has clearly been edited, conveniently for the photograhers benefit pehaps?? We just don't know at this point.
 
Digifrog said:
Not the point. There are ways of communicating with the public by the police and here there was a massive failure.

Even if the photographer did that, it is not a criminal matter, it is a civil matter.
Click to expand...

but again do you know the full story ?? is there more behind it ? was there a reason for the failure in comminication ? so many variables that you ( and I )dont know
 
Marcel said:
The police are supposed to be courteous and professional at all times.
Click to expand...

Exactly

Marcel said:
However, we don't know all the facts and are hearing only one side of the story.
Click to expand...

Again not the point. The officer was caught on camera acting unlawfully, that's the point here.

Marcel said:
That said, if the photographer had behaved in a way that made the officer threaten to knock him out, then that's OK in my book too ;)
Click to expand...

Not if you are supposed to act in a professional manner.

Marcel said:
Sometimes, all polite and courteous wording just doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...

Maybe correct assertiveness, training and attitude will?
 
BRASH said:
Once again I find myself agreeing with this red thing:D. Big problem with today's society is we're all to ready to run an tell tales. Bloody blame culture and lack of discipline. I'm from an era when a copper would literally hoof yer arse or clap yer lug if you stepped out of line. Teachers would to the same and you just took it but it was better than detention or being locked up (and I've been there to). Some folk just need to suck it up and bloody well get on with their lives instead of being sniveling little cry babies:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And when yu got home you kept your gob shut otherwise you'd get it the double from your old man/mam ;)
 
bobsbabes said:
regardless of anything that was said or done by the police can you imagine finding out your parent had died on FB with graphic pictures?? yes the tog says he took no nasties but again thats hearsay
Click to expand...

Indeed. Which is why I said the photographer was being a bit of a tit. He should have asked for the Officer In Charge, checked that he wasn't in danger of crossing into a crime scene, identified himself, and said why he was taking pictures. And yes, I know that he is under no obligation to do any of this, but there are such things as common sense, decorum, and courtesy. Possibly professionalism as well, but I doubt if that was a professional photographer or in all probability none of that would have happened.

But that Sergeant is going to be filing traffic reports in the Outer Hebrides for the rest of his career. If he has any more career.
 
jon ryan said:
Indeed.

But that Sergeant is going to be filing traffic reports in the Outer Hebrides for the rest of his career. If he has any more career.
Click to expand...


Eh, no he wont unless he transfers from Gloucestershire to Police Scotland (albeit his voice did sound Scottish):D
 
Digifrog said:
Exactly



Again not the point. The officer was caught on camera acting unlawfully, that's the point here.



Not if you are supposed to act in a professional manner.



Maybe correct assertiveness, training and attitude will?
Click to expand...
Its all about context. You've probably got a police officer here he has just had to deal with fatal accident of an elderly man, who knows what he has just seen or had to deal with. Then you've, maybe, got an obnoxious photographer who's probably trying to tell him his rights to photograph whatever he likes in a public place. Sometimes you've acted like an arse and you get what you deserve putting the tape on a social network site, possible losing the officer his job is for me the most disgraceful part of this episode.

Steve
 
Sonriendo said:
For showing them up :D
Click to expand...


Indeed. it was seen as a great social embarrassment having the Police at yer door back then. It's almost a badge of honour in some quarters these days:rolleyes:
 
Who cares what the full story is, what point is their in defending his threats, what will that achieve in the long run?
Do we want the most excellent police force or not?
I think police officers should lead by good example, no excuse, no get out, no bloody wishy washy waffle about unofficial behavior or but its cos im having a difficult job init!

If they can't do the service correctly they should be gone or subject to disciplined like the rest of us.

Lack of discipline some one said, well in todays society its caused by poor examples such as the one caught in this video, no matter the inferred right or wrong, the damage has been done! ..again!
 
Last edited:
Of course he doesn't have to give an account.
It's for the accuser to prove, not the accused to disprove.

There is an investigation taking place, let it take it's course rather than prejudging from a position of total ignorance, which doesn't work!
Sorry - but you're wrong.....
Click to expand...

Am I? Show me where in PACE someone HAS to account for their actions.

The words of a criminal Caution are
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely upon in court. Anything you do say will be put into writing and given in evidence"

Note the first 7 words.


Gramps

You claim to be ex old bill, in which case you know as well as I do, thats utter crap. There is no requirement ever in any disciplinary or criminal matter for the accused to incriminate themselves. He can smile sweetly when asked, and that is that, no sanction for doing so, nothing.

As for the rest of you, cast your minds back.....G some number between 1 and 25 in London. 2 bits of video were published showing apparent criminal acts by police officers.

In both cases the criminal courts acquitted the officers having heard all of the evidence, not part of it. My point being, that some of you may have seen some of something, but you have not seen or heard all of it.

So leave it to the investigation, and if there is one the prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Am I? Show me where in PACE someone HAS to account for their actions.

The words of a criminal Caution are
"You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not if you do not mention something when questioned you later rely upon in court. Anything you do say will be put into writing and given in evidence"

Note the first 7 words.


Gramps

You claim to be ex old bill, in which case you know as well as I do, thats utter crap. There is no requirement ever in any disciplinary or criminal matter for the accused to incriminate themselves. He can smile sweetly when asked, and that is that, no sanction for doing so, nothing.

As for the rest of you, cast your minds back.....G some number between 1 and 25 in London. 2 bits of video were published showing apparent criminal acts by police officers.

In both cases the criminal courts acquitted the officers having heard all of the evidence, not part of it. My point being, that some of you may have seen some of something, but you have not seen or heard all of it.

So leave it to the investigation, and if there is one the prosecution.
Click to expand...


Excellent post and factually accurate.(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top