View Full Version : Another UK cop getting confused over photographers' rights


StaceyF
1st Feb 2010, 11:43
HERE (http://www.blip.tv/file/3106879)

:ugh::ugh:



ab33t
1st Feb 2010, 13:09
Some good video there .

Captain Stable
1st Feb 2010, 14:04
Yeppers - and some good info at Metropolitan Police Service - About the Met - Photography advice (http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm) in case any flatfooted woodentop doesn't understand - not much use, though, if he can't read or write.

Capot
1st Feb 2010, 14:47
That video is perfect training material for a session on how NOT to arrive at a place and make enquiries about the activity taking place there.

Who told those morons that what they should do is pull up, stay in the car, shout "Woss goin' on mate?", then (the driver) to emerge aggressively and demand that filming is stopped, only to eventually retreat with some infantile behaviour, having already made themselves look like the a***holes they are, without getting the information they wanted in the first place.

How's about parking a little way off, getting out, walking over and asking politely what is happening? As in; "Excuse me Sir, could you tell me what you are doing, please?". OK, it's only a fantasy.

An aggressive approach provokes an agressive reaction. If that's standard behaviour from the Met no wonder they need to go about in pairs.

Still, it was fortunate they didn't spot someone of Brazilian appearance who needed to die because he looked a bit like a terrorist.

fitliker
1st Feb 2010, 15:08
Speaking of idiots ,morons and those people who should not be let out in public without adult supervision.

What kind of idiot/moron would aim a small object at a policeman .Good job those coppers did not mistake it for a gun and 'Return fire"at the first nervous movement.

Funny how when the police are filming troublemakers at public events all these same idiots are the first to yap about privacy rights and how they feel intimidated and threatened by being filmed by the plod.

The sooner the police start carrying more cameras the better ,then you might have seen just how the camera was being used in a threatining manner that caused the police to exit the vehicle.

Although the police seemed a bit quick to back away.You would think that they might have looked at some of the videos that where in the camera.After all who knows what these people where up to.They might have been filming little boys and girls at play or potential targets for the next taliban attack.
They should have at least asked for ID.

Captain Stable
1st Feb 2010, 15:14
fitliker, could you do me a favour please? Could you look out of the window and check what colour the sky is wherever it is you are? Because I suspect you may have been abducted.

Alternatively, you may need to reduce the dosage just a tad.

StaceyF
1st Feb 2010, 15:22
fitliker, could you do me a favour please? Could you look out of the window and check what colour the sky is wherever it is you are? Because I suspect you may have been abducted.

Alternatively, you may need to reduce the dosage just a tad.

My thoughts as well, first aroused by the phrase "how the camera was being used in a threatining manner" :rolleyes:

It's not half-term is it?

bingofuel
1st Feb 2010, 15:29
I think they beat a hasty retreat because they realised a fence was rapidly being prepared around them and they were in danger of being fenced in! Now that would be embarrassing!

G-CPTN
1st Feb 2010, 16:11
I agree that the approach by the Police was confrontational - sometimes I don't think they know any other way. Maybe it's a ploy to establish 'authority' - whereas it serves to alienate the 'suspects' IMO . . .

BTW I think that fitlicker might just be pulling your plonker.

SASless
1st Feb 2010, 16:32
Ah.....now if the folks had erected the fence.....and refused to let the Coppers leave.....I can see several criminal charges that could have been readily used to arrest the entire lot. False Imprisonment, Interfering with a Police Officer, Acting like a Dumbass (That being a Southern Redneck POleese crime).....the Plod showed good sense in leaving and thus de-escalating the situation.

Mind you their approach was not the most polite.....I would have thought the famous line....." 'Ere then....wot's going on 'ere?" would have been the traditional approach?

El Grifo
1st Feb 2010, 18:20
Although we hear all sorts of crap about Cops like that being the minority and only a small percentage of the force, who otherwise, are trained to the highest standards and are true professionals, we are looking at the absolute reality here.

All one has to be, is very slightly right or left of the accepted norm and these bozo thugs will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

British policing today is an effing disgrace :ugh:

Thier role is no longer to protect society from the criminals, it is to protect the state from society.

G-CPTN
1st Feb 2010, 18:32
What right of access do the Police have?

For example, can they demand entry to your house (without a warrant)?

What about entering private land (such as your garden)?

How about a private field?

What grounds do they need in order to 'investigate what's going on'? Do they have to believe that an offence is being committed? (How serious does the offence need to be?)

Can they pursue a motorist that they have seen acting erratically because they suspect that the driver might be 'drunk' - and force entry to a private house - or even just private 'property' such as the grounds of a house?

hellsbrink
1st Feb 2010, 18:56
Do they have to believe that an offence is being committed? (How serious does the offence need to be?)

Yes, they do have to believe an offence is being committed before they can enter a property without a warrant or the owner/resident's permission.

How serious does the offence need to be? That's something I do not know and wouldn't like to hazard a guess.

An explanation of things is in the links below

Police powers (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/n6w/index/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm#Powersofentry)

Your rights - Entry and search without a warrant (http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-to-search-premises/entry-and-search-without-a-warrant.html)

Your rights - Police Powers to Search Premises (http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/the-rights-of-suspects/police-powers-to-search-premises/index.html)

skydiver69
1st Feb 2010, 20:54
S.17 - power of entry if the police believe someone is wanted under a warrant, if the person has committed and indictable offence, if a person has committed one of a specified number of summary offences, if a person is unlawfully at large or if the police suspect that someone's life is in danger in the premises.

S.32 - to search premises after arresting a person but the search is limited to what the person was arrested for. Premises which can be searched include the place where they are arrested and the place they were immediately before that.

S.18 - power to search premises after arrest but has to be approved by an inspector or above. The search can be for what the person was arrested for or for similar offences.

parabellum
1st Feb 2010, 22:39
Interesting to see the usual left of centre crowd straight in without anymore information than is presented by a short video clip!

1. What were the people erecting a fence doing there?

2. Did they have permission from the relevant authority?

3. Was that the police's first visit to the site or had they been previously and told them to move on as they were in breach of the law, (local by-laws included)?

And at least a dozen more questions in the same vein, that need to be answered, before anyone, having only seen that video clip, can offer any criticism.

Oh yes, and one person, fitliker, steps up and offers possible mitigation and is immediately accused of being off the planet, on drugs, etc. How mature! Rather like a militant students union rally at the LSE!

fitliker
1st Feb 2010, 22:53
It is a good example of culteral insensitivety.
Two people who obviously have very limited command of the English language.
The meaning of the Policeman questions got lost in the slang he was using.
If the police had used formal English politely with the correct elecution and intonation the foreign filmaker may have been able to answer his questions.
Have the police stopped culteral sensitivety programms to allow police to better communicate with persons whose first language is not the Queens English or may have a cognitive disfunction ?

Softly softly catchee monkey :E

Dushan
1st Feb 2010, 23:33
Maybe if the cops carried sidearms and showed up in a real police car instead of some soccer-mom's taxi, they'd get some respects.

SASless
2nd Feb 2010, 00:06
I like the bullet proof vests.....and no sidearm....seems a bit wrong sided. Having been a Cop in a former life....the firearm was essential kit...the vest at that time was just coming out and was a luxury.

But then the UK has no gun crime do they....as handguns, rifles, and the like are illegal....and BB guns have to be licensed. Before long they will be back to using Long Bows and Maces!

11Fan
2nd Feb 2010, 00:22
Before long they will be back to using Long Bows and Maces!

Just don't leave any witnesses next time and pocket the cash they get for the camera from the pawn broker.

SASless
2nd Feb 2010, 00:39
Now you are talking about Charlotte PD!

Ginny Viacente, Mike Green, and a group of others.....got to breaking into buildings....even toted off a Queen sized box spring and mattress set on top of the Patrol car!

They got caught.....were tried....convicted....and sent to Central Prison in Raleigh.

At the scene of a possible break-in (Open Door....middle of the Night) I noticed an interior door that had been kicked open....and the perp had left a beautiful shoe print.....complete with an impression of a logo tag......"Bates Float-A-Way"....just like the police issue brogan we all wore! Promptly notified the Sergeant and called for Crime Scene....to be briefed by the SGT of what had been going on.

Carrier
2nd Feb 2010, 01:15
Did the victims file a complaint? It's no good just whining on an Internet forum. File a formal complaint and keep the pressure up through the media.

Skittles
2nd Feb 2010, 01:42
Don't really see the problem.

Personally, if I'm filming something and a policeman wants to talk to me I turn the camera away. If he asked me what I was doing I'd say "Just filming ........" etc, rather than "Why don't you ask one of the other people filming."

Who told those morons that what they should do is pull up, stay in the car, shout "Woss goin' on mate?", then (the driver) to emerge aggressively and demand that filming is stopped, only to eventually retreat with some infantile behaviour, having already made themselves look like the a***holes they are, without getting the information they wanted in the first place.Morons? Arseholes? And you accuse them of infantile behaviour?

They just asked what's going on. Put a camera in my face after I've told them to stop filming and I'll physically stop them as well. Don't be so soft.

People wonder why the police can occasionally be abrupt (although I've never had that problem), they take enough abuse on the streets, deal with crap day in day out, and get some smart arse coming out with 'why don't you ask the other camera men.' Simple question stupid answer.

MG23
2nd Feb 2010, 02:57
Put a camera in my face after I've told them to stop filming and I'll physically stop them as well. I didn't see anyone 'put a camera in his face': the cop deliberately walked over and put his hand over the camera. Why? After all, if he has nothing to hide, he has nothing to fear, remember.

ChrisVJ
2nd Feb 2010, 03:31
English police are just pussies compared to the Western Canada version.

Chinese chap hears banging on his front door after midnight. gets out of bed to answer it. Spyhole shows two men outside claiming to be the police and demanding entry. He opens the door and is immediately dragged outside and beaten up. He suffers severe bruising, broken bones in his face and various other damage.

After a few minutes the police ascertain from his wife that she did not call the police to a domestic ruckuss, that was the people in the other apartment. At a press conference the next day the police tell the world that they were obliged to 'subdue' the guy because he was violent, uncooperative and attacked them while resisting arrest. The next day the Chief of Police is obliged to admit that they lied, the guy did not resist arrest and was not at all violent. "They admit mistaken identity and aplogise for going to the wrong house."

What I can not understand is that every seems to accept the apology is OK. Apparently if they had gone to the right door it would have been fine to beat up the chap who answered even if he did not offer any resistance and was not violent.

Last year they Tasered to death an immigrant who was disoriented after being lost for 10 hours at YVR. They announced he was violent but had to change their tune when a cell phone video gave them the lie. Then they tried to lie to the Inquiry and were caught out again.

Then there was the policeman up North who shot a prisoner in a cell in the back of the head. According to him the chap was behind him and had him bent over the the table and shooting him in the back of the head was the only solution. (Yes, try working that out.)

Shortly after that an off duty policeman attacked a paper delivery guy over a perceived slight outside a major local hotel. He called his mates to arrest the chap after the beating and claimed he was attacked until witnesses showed up.



The local Police Chief expressed full confidence in his force on TV yesterday. He may have that but I am glad not to be living in Vancouver any more.

maliyahsdad2
2nd Feb 2010, 09:50
I like the bullet proof vests.....and no sidearm....seems a bit wrong sided. Having been a Cop in a former life....the firearm was essential kit...the vest at that time was just coming out and was a luxury.

They are Stab vests, i wouldn't like to face a gun wearing one. The Police don't carry knives either but the thugs do hence the vest..

Storminnorm
2nd Feb 2010, 09:56
They DO carry cute little extendable sticks to wallop people though.

Captain Stable
2nd Feb 2010, 10:19
1. What were the people erecting a fence doing there?

2. Did they have permission from the relevant authority?

3. Was that the police's first visit to the site or had they been previously and told them to move on as they were in breach of the law, (local by-laws included)?
1. I have no idea - the police should have asked the people erecting the fence, not someone filming, who, for all the police knew, could have been perfectly legitimate news journalists - not unlikely since the camera was clearly rather better image quality than your average hand-held camcorder.

2. Ditto

3. Unlikely, since the police clearly didn't know what was going on.

On any scenario the police's behaviour was unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive, and that aggression and confrontation was directed at the wrong target. You investigate with an open mind, you assess whether any offence is being committed and then you take action. You don't start off by taking an aggressive approach to the people watching an event occurring as if you blame them for the event without knowing what the event itself is or its legal basis.

parabellum
2nd Feb 2010, 11:34
On any scenario the police's behaviour was unnecessarily confrontational and aggressive, and that aggression and confrontation was directed at the wrong target. You investigate with an open mind, you assess whether any offence is being committed and then you take action. You don't start off by taking an aggressive approach to the people watching an event occurring as if you blame them for the event without knowing what the event itself is or its legal basis.



So you don't know Stable, you are guessing, assuming, call it what you will. The hard and obviously unacceptable facts are that no one can draw any conclusions based on that clip of video, an awful lot more needs to be known before any conclusions can be drawn.

As for the camera there are plenty of anti-police complainers about but that doesn't make them poor, for all you know the crowd knew what they were doing was illegal, possibly a protest without a permit and hired professional camera men to film it so that they could achieve maximum publicity with their own edited version of the film. Once again, we simply don't know and a few seconds of video is not enough to be conclusive.

Captain Stable
2nd Feb 2010, 12:00
parabellum, I am trying to get across to you that I know as little about what was going on there (actually slightly more now with hindsight) as the police did when they arrived.

And what happened when they arrived? The unedited evidence is there to see. An aggressive approach by the police, without any genuine attempt to ascertain the facts.

Sure, what was going on may have been illegal. It may have been totally legitimate. But the police very clearly acted on the immediate assumption that people were up to no good and went in very heavy-handedly. This is hardly likely to endear them to anyone acting entirely within their rights, as a news camera crew would have been. On that basis and that basis alone, I do not consider it unreasonable to castigate them.

FLCH
2nd Feb 2010, 13:04
Glad it didn't happen in Los Angeles where the police treat you like a King.:E

Sir George Cayley
2nd Feb 2010, 19:32
I thought they treated you like a Count :ok:

Never cud spel :eek:

Sir George Cayley

Tankertrashnav
2nd Feb 2010, 19:54
Interesting that those who would consider themselves to hold right-wing views nevertheless appear to instinctively side with the police in these situations. It is a basic tenet of right wing thinking to hold the rights of the citizen as more important than the power of the state.

In the United Kingdom the police operate, or should operate, with the consent and cooperation of the people, unlike armed gendarmeries which operate in many countries throughout the world. Ham fisted actions such as seen on this video, as a reaction to well-mannered and non-threatening activities by individuals, greatly harm the reputation of the police, which is probably approaching a post-war low in this country.

Late News -Police can apparently claim 4 hours overtime for answering a duty telephone call at home while off duty (around 100 for a sergeant). How about abolishing overtime and informing them they are on duty 24 hours a day? Should prove popular on a military forum.

parabellum
2nd Feb 2010, 20:00
as the police did when they arrived.



We don't know that, they could just as easily have been following up a previous visit by their colleagues who had told them to move on, until we know it was or wasn't a first encounter with the police we can't assume anything yet, in the first few posts on this thread that is all that has happened, blind assumption with scant evidence.

We are not going to agree on this CS so I'll leave it there.

Going off thread, it does surprise me that we don't already have a 'Police, Love 'em or Hate 'em Hamster Wheel", given the number times these kind of threads appear!:)

G-CPTN
2nd Feb 2010, 20:58
Footnote on the original video say that it was the Police 'stumbling' upon the creation of a 'Climate camp' (by Global Warming protesters).
Bemused police stumble upon the Climate Camp set up in Blackheath, Greenwich and politely ask what's going on posted by Imc
Discussion on IMC London Indymedia London | Videos | Show | What's Going On (http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/2001)

So, there was an assumption (?) that the people were engaged in an anarchistic activity, even though they (maybe) weren't actually breaking any laws.

Perhaps that information might put a different interpretation on things for those who have expressed their opinions . . .

For those seeking information about the participants and their activity:-
The Blackheath Swoop Camp for Climate Action (http://www.climatecamp.org.uk/actions/london-2009/swoop)

The interpretation of the law (courts) of other Police action taken against similar 'protesters':- BBC News - Kingsnorth Climate Camp protest policy 'unlawful' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8488613.stm)
(you might not agree with the court's findings . . . )

More here (interesting video worth watching IMO):- visionOntv - Climate Camp TV (http://climatecamp.tv/)

At the end of the first video you can see what the original incident was all about (in the second video).

419
2nd Feb 2010, 22:18
"so you are officer No 169. What borough are you from?

"Why, Does it matter?"

Why was the officer so reluctant to identify where he was from?


And watching the film again, the camera man didn't "stick the camera in anyones face"
The position of the camera didn't appear to move more than a few inches, right up until the time the policeman grabbed it.
It was more a case of the copper sticking his face in the camera.


And people wonder who the police are no longer respected in the UK.

hellsbrink
2nd Feb 2010, 23:49
Interesting to see the usual left of centre crowd straight in without anymore information than is presented by a short video clip!

1. What were the people erecting a fence doing there?

2. Did they have permission from the relevant authority?

3. Was that the police's first visit to the site or had they been previously and told them to move on as they were in breach of the law, (local by-laws included)?

And at least a dozen more questions in the same vein, that need to be answered, before anyone, having only seen that video clip, can offer any criticism.

Oh yes, and one person, fitliker, steps up and offers possible mitigation and is immediately accused of being off the planet, on drugs, etc. How mature! Rather like a militant students union rally at the LSE!

Well, parabellum, I ain't no leftie but even I could read the bit about it being a tree-huggers' camp which does, imo, point to it being legit as far as permissions go. Also, if it wasn't "legit", then why did the rozzers only seem concerned with the camera and with nothing else?

parabellum
3rd Feb 2010, 04:19
Hellsbrink - I have to admit that I didn't know that climate change protests, including the erection of fencing, were automatically allowed on public property and required no permission, but if they are then I would expect the police to know about it too.

Yes protest is legal, of course it is, but simply because it is a protest doesn't excuse the protesters from following any established procedure. (and we don't know whether this crowd did or didn't).
So Blackheath is a bit like Hyde Park corner on Sundays then, open to all comers as they see fit?