This might get interesting

Honestly knowing a few coppers personally and having dealt with dozens of them while out photographing all sorts of things I can honestly say the vast majority of the police in the country are polite friendly people that spend their working life dealing with the lowest of the low, people often that have at best no respect for them and their duties and as worst a genuine contempt for them and desire to inflict serious injury or worse...

I'm always sceptical when I see stories like this surface as you only ever see one side of it and an edited version at that...

I prefer to wait to cast judgement..however a couple of points:

- The photographer hasn't responded to the press enquires so all this report is bases on supposition and the information posted by said photographer
- Secondly the officer has not been suspended from front line duties suggesting maybe even a complaint hasn't been made? As surely if a complaint of such a serious nature the officer would be deployed on a non public facing role?
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
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!
Click to expand...

Their human beings often subject to pressures we can only imagine.


perhaps we should be policed by ED-209's "you have 10 seconds to comply" Now when they f**k up they really f**k up

Edit NSFW on the video, forgot how bloody it was.

 
Last edited:
Honestly knowing a few coppers personally and having dealt with dozens of them while out photographing all sorts of things I can honestly say the vast majority of the police in the country are polite friendly people that spend their working life dealing with the lowest of the low, people often that have at best no respect for them and their duties and as worst a genuine contempt for them and desire to inflict serious injury or worse...

I'm always sceptical when I see stories like this surface as you only ever see one side of it and an edited version at that...

I prefer to wait to cast judgement..however a couple of points:

- The photographer hasn't responded to the press enquires so all this report is bases on supposition and the information posted by said photographer
- Secondly the officer has not been suspended from front line duties suggesting maybe even a complaint hasn't been made? As surely if a complaint of such a serious nature the officer would be deployed on a non public facing role?
Click to expand...

Far too much common sense of thinking.....It'll not go down well with those that have already hung drawn and quartered him without the inconvenience of evidence.....

A bit like Police Discipline Boards, this site makes Balckadder's Courts Marshal look like a fair and independently run hearing......
 
I can understand how anyone can defend the police in this situation. The officer should remain professional and couteous at all times irrespective of how the public treat them. Its all well and good to say that the guy was a tit or that he deserved it, but what if it was you? How indignant would you be? Double standards?
 
mejinks said:
I can understand how anyone can defend the police in this situation. The officer should remain professional and couteous at all times irrespective of how the public treat them. Its all well and good to say that the guy was a tit or that he deserved it, but what if it was you? How indignant would you be? Double standards?
Click to expand...


I'm assuming you meant "can't" rather the "can"? I'm the first to think the police should be held to account for their actions, but the guy was dealing with a fatal road traffic accident. I can understand the guy getting a little short with a member of the public who may or may not of being behaving like a cock then I don't really think the officer has anything to apologise for.

I can't help but think photographers who secretly record this sort of interaction with the police are trying to wind a situation up further
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I'm assuming you meant "can't" rather the "can"? I'm the first to think the police should be held to account for their actions, but the guy was dealing with a fatal road traffic accident. I can understand the guy getting a little short with a member of the public who may or may not of being behaving like a cock then I don't really think the officer has anything to apologise for.

I can't help but think photographers who secretly record this sort of interaction with the police are trying to wind a situation up further
Click to expand...
Quite right, I did mean can't.

Does it give the police carte blanche to act above the law just because they are having a bad day?
 
mejinks said:
Quite right, I did mean can't.

Does it give the police carte blanche to act above the law just because they are having a bad day?
Click to expand...


I didn't say it did. But I can understand why you might get a little short with a member of the public who appears ( at least to me) to be out for a confrontation in those highly difficult circumstances. Can't you?
 
boyfalldown said:
I didn't say it did. But I can understand why you might get a little short with a member of the public who appears ( at least to me) to be out for a confrontation in those highly difficult circumstances. Can't you?
Click to expand...
neil_g said:
This. Who really goes around secretly recording if they aren't looking for a confrontation to stick on the Internet?
Click to expand...

The tog in question may well have had previous discussion in which he felt the policeman was acting unlawfully and worried for his liberty, may have recorded it for evidence. If a policeman took your camera from you and threatened you, would you consider that "normal"?

The not making of a complaint is a bit telling however.
 
mejinks said:
The tog in question may well have had previous discussion in which he felt the policeman was acting unlawfully and worried for his liberty, may have recorded it for evidence. If a policeman took your camera from you and threatened you, would you consider that "normal"?

The not making of a complaint is a bit telling however.
Click to expand...


Do you think describing a fatal accident as an 'incident' on your video as normal? That video is IMHO highly biased towards its maker. Especially the written commentary on the introduction.

I agree, it's telling no complaint has been made, and the photographer has chosen to use YouTube instead
 
Firstly we only saw what happened after the camera was confiscated but the main points I noted was

1. The photographer was a bit of a tit, and really laboured the point and was being awkward. I do not have an issue with the officers behaviour, sometimes they need a show of force and get in the persons face to assert authority. As we didn't see the beginning we can't tell if it was justified or not.

2. My main concern is with him incorrectly quoting the law. Even the Met have sent a memo round saying that officers have no power to arrest, delete photos or confiscate equipment.

3. As to the burden of proof, my understanding is that where it is an investigation against a police officer. It is down to them to prove their innocence unlike a member of the public where guilt has to be proven without any doubt.

Personally I think the police have a difficult job to do and get a lot of unfair press. They should be given the support they deserve.
 
Seem a couple people were having a bad day,will wait to see what happens.
But to be honest if i saw polices offices at a crime scene i would always ask if it would be ok to take any photos first,plus not the sort of photographer i am into.
 
All I am going to say about this is the officer said it was a crime scene. Road and pavement closed. How many crime scenes get opened to let people go to the shops. If all that was closed off then no one should have been allowed through, not even to go to the shops. Funny how the officer is so quick to speak about the camera he took, not to notice or say anything about him holding his mobile phone. Also all that ranting and he told him to delete no photos. This world just gets better and better to live in.
 
3. As to the burden of proof, my understanding is that where it is an investigation against a police officer. It is down to them to prove their innocence unlike a member of the public where guilt has to be proven without any doubt.
Click to expand...

No, it's down to the 'prosecution' to prove, the same as it is for every other person in the Country.

The prima facia allegation here is criminal, and that means that the allegations have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Should there be a disciplinary hearing then the allegations have to be proven on the balance of probability. But Police disciplinary boards are notorious for being closer to the "You're here, you're guilty" form of hearing.

I can understand how anyone can defend the police in this situation.
Click to expand...

First point is that you meant can't, and wrote can. So you make mistakes and aren't perfect. Surprisingly, so do Police Officers, them also being human. It's a small point, but maybe it's something that you should keep in mind.

moving to your main point, there's a big difference in defending, and suggesting people should wait for things to be investigated. It's very easy to see part of something, and assume A. It's all factual, and B. thats all the evidence there is. All too often it isn't all, and other evidence disproves what has initially been fed to the public.
 
My last two involvements with the police have involved the police officer swearing at me. In the first case, it turned out he'd just been at a bad domestic incident and still had his adrenaline pumping. On the second occasion, the officer didn't like my driving in heavy traffic on the motorway (I'd accelerated fast to get past a driver who'd nearly hit me whilst absorbed with his phone call).

With both instances, I spent time talking to the officers and calmed the situation, resulting in no further action required by either of us.

Police officers are human. We all act in a human way, but it depends on how you deal with the situation.
 
Bernie174 said:
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.


and then note words eight to twenty- seven

.
Click to expand...
 
personally i think we are not taking human emotions into account here , the police officer may have been first on the scene at a fatal RTA and upset by it ,we also do not know if the tog riled the policeman with either actions or comments prior to the conversation .after 20 years of driving a taxi i know full well how fickle the public can be and how people will complain about the silliest things even when they themselves are the dregs of humanity .
as i started when pushed to the limit emotions take over ,and although the policeman's actions were wrong the togs actions in recording the argument are much much worse
 
Well when I get upset or emotional I don't threaten people!

I mean are all you guys suggesting that becuase he succumed to human emotions its ok for him to threaten then?
So does that mean its ok for everyone to threaten people if they are upset?

jakeblu said:
Their human beings often subject to pressures we can only imagine.
Click to expand...

Do you think this is the first time he threatened someone?

Or do you think its likely he reacted like this before?
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Well when I get upset or emotional I don't threaten people!

I mean are all you guys suggesting that becuase he succumed to human emotions its ok for him to threaten then?
So does that mean its ok for everyone to threaten people if they are upset?



Do you think this is the first time he threatened someone?

Or do you think its likely he reacted like this before?
Click to expand...


Nor do I. But I think on this occasion the photographer acted like a cock. Its self evident his video is very biased and I think he deliberately escalated the situation with the intention of posting on the web. Its telling he hasn't complain to the police but has chosen trial by youtube instead.

I'll be the first to say the police should be held fully accountable for their actions, but I don't think in this case he's done anything wrong besides allow himself to be subject to a wind up.
 
boyfalldown said:
Nor do I. But I think on this occasion the photographer acted like a cock. Its self evident his video is very biased and I think he deliberately escalated the situation with the intention of posting on the web. Its telling he hasn't complain to the police but has chosen trial by youtube instead.

I'll be the first to say the police should be held fully accountable for their actions, but I don't think in this case he's done anything wrong besides allow himself to be subject to a wind up.
Click to expand...

'It appears the officer swore at a member of the public, followed that up by saying he was lucky not to have been assaulted by the police, threatened him with arrest, mistreatment and a remand in custody.'

- Martin Surl, Gloucestershire Police Commissioner
Click to expand...


Looks like he might be in a spot of bother.
 
Its telling that he has lost all trust in the police I think, including their complaints system.

I agree, its a stupid none event in many ways, but unfortunately, and from several personal experiences in the last few years, it seems to becoming far to common for officers to threaten people with arrest and harassment when they don't get 'their' way, rather than correctly the way of the law.

I blame the huge piles of paper work for every little 'action' that officers have to complete myself, from all I can tell on the outside its led to a sort of belligerence of attitude, it causes a back pressure of urgency for officers to get on with initial/main complaints that day, while at the same time overwhelms the officers ability to control events lawfully as they happen in real life....so they have to resort to threats to ensure they get the main job done professionally that day....either that or spend all week filling in paper work and getting no work done at all.

I think we need to un-strangle our officers and allow them to be human again, not just robots to the paper work.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
No, it's down to the 'prosecution' to prove, the same as it is for every other person in the Country.

The prima facia allegation here is criminal, and that means that the allegations have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Should there be a disciplinary hearing then the allegations have to be proven on the balance of probability. But Police disciplinary boards are notorious for being closer to the "You're here, you're guilty" form of hearing.
.
Click to expand...

Thanks Bernie, I thought that it would be more a Poilce Disciplinary board he would face rather than criminal trial

I think the point that has been made about human emotion is a good one. It is all well and good saying I wouldn't react like that, but let's face it when that kind of think is what you see day in, day out for xx years, it must be hard not to become emotional. And again the member of the public was being bit of a tool. Personally I like candid photography, but come on photographing an elderly person fighting for their life is a little morbid, it is hardly a public interest story. I could semi understand taking photos if it was someone of importance and was likely to get media coverage.
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
I think the point that has been made about human emotion is a good one. It is all well and good saying I wouldn't react like that, but let's face it when that kind of think is what you see day in, day out for xx years, it must be hard not to become emotional.
Click to expand...

Actually in most cases the reverse is true, a frontline police officer is going to come across many scenes and situations like this, and worse, and will very quickly become 'adjusted' to it - if they don't they will be unable to continue doing the job.

ChrisHeathcote said:
And again the member of the public was being bit of a tool. Personally I like candid photography, but come on photographing an elderly person fighting for their life is a little morbid, it is hardly a public interest story. I could semi understand taking photos if it was someone of importance and was likely to get media coverage.
Click to expand...

Firstly I didn't see any evidence that he was 'photographing an elderly person fighting for their life', it appears that he was photographing an accident scene - why isn't it a public interest story? It (probably unknown to him at the time) would have undoubtedly made the local news media later in the day and who is to say that it wasn't a notorious accident blackspot?

Yes if he was hanging over the car photographing the dying man I would entirely agree ... but how often have we seen photos or news footage of accidents, war, terrorism etc - should all such coverage be stopped?
 
Bernie174 said:
No, it's down to the 'prosecution' to prove, the same as it is for every other person in the Country.

The prima facia allegation here is criminal, and that means that the allegations have to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Should there be a disciplinary hearing then the allegations have to be proven on the balance of probability. But Police disciplinary boards are notorious for being closer to the "You're here, you're guilty" form of hearing.



First point is that you meant can't, and wrote can. So you make mistakes and aren't perfect. Surprisingly, so do Police Officers, them also being human. It's a small point, but maybe it's something that you should keep in mind.

moving to your main point, there's a big difference in defending, and suggesting people should wait for things to be investigated. It's very easy to see part of something, and assume A. It's all factual, and B. thats all the evidence there is. All too often it isn't all, and other evidence disproves what has initially been fed to the public.
Click to expand...

What has the fact I made a typo and the fact that a police officer:

1. Swore at a member of the public
2. Threatened assault
3. Threatened with unlawful arrest
4. Threatened with mistreatment and remand in custody (illegally)

It would be a mistake for the officer to say "go away or I will arrest you" to carry this on with threats of further violence and unlawful arrest goes FAR beyond the realm of mistake. As for facts, etc, this is video evidence we are talking about. This has been seen by a police commissioner, who has made a public statement. There appears to be no doubt in his mind.
 
Donut

Words 8 to 27 change nothing what so ever, they are a warning not answering questions can be commented on. It is not a requirement for anyone to explain anything at all.

Mejinks

What has the fact I made a typo and the fact that a police officer:

1. Swore at a member of the public
2. Threatened assault
3. Threatened with unlawful arrest
4. Threatened with mistreatment and remand in custody (illegally)

It would be a mistake for the officer to say "go away or I will arrest you" to carry this on with threats of further violence and unlawful arrest goes FAR beyond the realm of mistake. As for facts, etc, this is video evidence we are talking about. This has been seen by a police commissioner, who has made a public statement. There appears to be no doubt in his mind.
Click to expand...

If the PCC has no doubt, then the officer now has an instant defence, it's called abuse of process.

In fact if you read all of what he said, he hasn't decided at all.

Before I cover your points, I was a Police Officer for nearly 20 years. So, I have seen both sides of the fence in general terms.

1. A Police Officer swore at a member of the public? Did they? You were there and saw it happen? Or did you hear words said, and assume they came from a Police Officer on video? The 2 things are not at the moment the same thing.
In context, I have sworn at members of the public. Once, while trying to get someones heart and breathing going again, while everyone else on the bus stood there, examining their shoes. So, yes, I told them if they were not going to help they should F off. They F'd off, which was god, as I then had room to save the guys life.

2. You were there for the whole incident, and therefore know that there was no offence foir which chummy might be arrested?

3. Is the same point as 2, so must be a typo then.

So in summary, you don't know you were not there. You think you know because you have seen a video. I saw Avatar, and guess what, that was fiction.
Like I have said before, all too often a video is published, much outcry, much oh look, he's wrong, bad policeman....etc. Only to have a court hear all of the evidence and then reject the impression given in said video.
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
Personally I like candid photography, but come on photographing an elderly person fighting for their life is a little morbid, it is hardly a public interest story. I could semi understand taking photos if it was someone of importance and was likely to get media coverage.
Click to expand...

We don't actually know the whole story of that day do we, so there's a bit of guesswork going on by all here to make their point.
Local Newspapers do like images as it's less they have to type for the story and fills content. They would print photos of the scene, provided not gory.
 
I don't care what may or may not have been said before the video commenced, or how much of a tit the photographer was, the police officer was out of order and will have to answer to his superiors. He's also ignorant of directions on photography in public places, as shown by him trying to make a distinction between press and public. I'm quite surprised at folk here taking the side of the police officer.

This happened about two hundred yards from where I live. And no, the tog in question is not me :)
 
Bernie174 said:
Donut

Words 8 to 27 change nothing what so ever, they are a warning not answering questions can be commented on. It is not a requirement for anyone to explain anything at all.

Mejinks



If the PCC has no doubt, then the officer now has an instant defence, it's called abuse of process.

In fact if you read all of what he said, he hasn't decided at all.

Before I cover your points, I was a Police Officer for nearly 20 years. So, I have seen both sides of the fence in general terms.

1. A Police Officer swore at a member of the public? Did they? You were there and saw it happen? Or did you hear words said, and assume they came from a Police Officer on video? The 2 things are not at the moment the same thing.
In context, I have sworn at members of the public. Once, while trying to get someones heart and breathing going again, while everyone else on the bus stood there, examining their shoes. So, yes, I told them if they were not going to help they should F off. They F'd off, which was god, as I then had room to save the guys life.

2. You were there for the whole incident, and therefore know that there was no offence foir which chummy might be arrested?

3. Is the same point as 2, so must be a typo then.

So in summary, you don't know you were not there. You think you know because you have seen a video. I saw Avatar, and guess what, that was fiction.
Like I have said before, all too often a video is published, much outcry, much oh look, he's wrong, bad policeman....etc. Only to have a court hear all of the evidence and then reject the impression given in said video.
Click to expand...

These constant deflection tactics don't help your argument, they hinder it.
 
jon ryan said:
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...

Dream job, plenty of time to photograph the wildlife up there.
 
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...

yes I'm offended by the behaviour of the police officer caught on video threatening to assault someone - the police are suppose to be the enforcers of the law not breaking it when ever they see fit. I've got no issue with the police using force when needed. The officer in that video acted unprofessionally and hopefully he will lose his job.
 
POAH said:
yes I'm offended by the behaviour of the police officer caught on video threatening to assault someone - the police are suppose to be the enforcers of the law not breaking it when ever they see fit. I've got no issue with the police using force when needed. The officer in that video acted unprofessionally and hopefully he will lose his job.
Click to expand...


Lose his job for that are you real?? Even if he is found guilty (and at the moment it is IF) of being, in your words 'unprofessional' you think he should be sacked straight away without being given any counselling, assistance or retraining to address any issues he may have with a view to him not repeating this behaviour (if found guilty). You are way out of touch with the way things operate in the modern world. Feel free to step back on the planet at any time.:rolleyes:
 
BRASH said:
Lose his job for that are you real?? Even if he is found guilty (and at the moment it is IF) of being, in your words 'unprofessional' you think he should be sacked straight away without being given any counselling, assistance or retraining to address any issues he may have with a view to him not repeating this behaviour (if found guilty). You are way out of touch with the way things operate in the modern world. Feel free to step back on the planet at any time.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sent on the don't swear at the public or threaten to assault and unlawfully arrest them course? Should a police officer really need to be told not to do those things? Ironically he's just made his own life a living hell courtesy of this power trip.
 
Laudrup said:
Sent on the don't swear at the public or threaten to assault and unlawfully arrest them course? Should a police officer really need to be told not to do those things? Ironically he's just made his own life a living hell courtesy of this power trip.
Click to expand...

So just sack him without even attempting to establish if there are any underlying reasons for his behaviour (if guilty). Gimme a break never heard such utter pish!!!!
 
BRASH said:
So just sack him without even attempting to establish if there are any underlying reasons for his behaviour (if guilty). Gimme a break never heard such utter pish!!!!
Click to expand...

What excuse have you got for acting like that as a police officer?
 
Laudrup

It's a shame you don't seem to have any idea what my point is. There's no deflection going on, simply trying to correcting some of the rubbish being touted.

So, to answer you last point, were you there at the time? Answer is no isn't it? That being the case, you have no idea do you exactly what happened do you?

Still never mind, he's a police officer, ergo he must be guilty. Some bad news for you, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Clearly you think seeing half of a picture qualifies you to pronounce guilt then so be it. Trial by Internet, nothing like it for ensuring a good hanging.

So, any good witch burnings on this weekend?
 
Laudrup said:
What excuse have you got for acting like that as a police officer?
Click to expand...

I said underlying reasons not excuses. There is s huge difference.
 
It doesn't matter what happened before Bernie, the evidence that he threatened is clear, I don't need you or a judge to tell me what I hear with my own ears. ....as usual your blinkered institutionalised opinion of events is clouding your ability to see the event for what is was and you're busy trying to justify his actions with superfluous misdirection and unnecessary avoidance by splitting hairs when they don't need to be split... The fact is you should be supporting good policing and 'leading by example', which this officer just failed at, instead of defending his actions deliberately based on nothing more than accusing the rest of us of having a wrong opinion....which is just like the bullying this officer used to try and get his way...

Take off the blinkers Bernie. ;)
 
Bernie174 said:
Laudrup

It's a shame you don't seem to have any idea what my point is. There's no deflection going on, simply trying to correcting some of the rubbish being touted.

So, to answer you last point, were you there at the time? Answer is no isn't it? That being the case, you have no idea do you exactly what happened do you?

Still never mind, he's a police officer, ergo he must be guilty. Some bad news for you, everyone is innocent until proven otherwise. Clearly you think seeing half of a picture qualifies you to pronounce guilt then so be it. Trial by Internet, nothing like it for ensuring a good hanging.

So, any good witch burnings on this weekend?
Click to expand...

"You are lucky I didn't knock you out"

"I know I swore at you, it got your attention didn't it?"

"I'll nick you now and we'll make your day a living hell because you'll be in that cells all day and what I'll probably do is I'll ask for you to be remanded in custody and put before the magistrate and say this is what this guy was doing , what do you think of that?"

If you want to try and abuse your power then you better hope nobody is secretly recording you, because you are going to be crucified and the nails will be your own words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top