Merseyside UAV grounded by Campaign Against Aviation
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Magnetogorsk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bang, Bang, Bang. "Halt. Armed Police!"
Apologies for the continued thread drift but Stu666's comment above cannot be left to stand.
Perhaps you have chosen to remain ignorant of the inquiry results into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. You need to be very clear that everything you said above is wrong – and everything we were initially told about his killing was a lie.
He did not run.
He did not jump over ticket barriers.
He did not flee into a train.
He was not challenged.
He did not threaten any officer.
He said and did nothing unusual.
He was shot at 11 times with hollow-point rounds, by an SO19 officer who was sitting on him - but who managed to miss with three shots while shooting him in the head and leaving his body unrecognisable.
The officer commanding received the Queen's Police Medal.
But if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Perhaps you have chosen to remain ignorant of the inquiry results into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. You need to be very clear that everything you said above is wrong – and everything we were initially told about his killing was a lie.
He did not run.
He did not jump over ticket barriers.
He did not flee into a train.
He was not challenged.
He did not threaten any officer.
He said and did nothing unusual.
He was shot at 11 times with hollow-point rounds, by an SO19 officer who was sitting on him - but who managed to miss with three shots while shooting him in the head and leaving his body unrecognisable.
The officer commanding received the Queen's Police Medal.
But if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Not a million miles from EGTF
Age: 68
Posts: 1,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I am surprised that the CAA didn't just say "Hey Chief Constable, you need a licence for that" and then helped them out quietly, rather than throwing the book at them and publicising it!
What is one of the scariest things you can hear?
"I'm from the CAA and I'm here to help you"
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Receiving a letter on official notepaper from the Head of the Enforcement Branch, CAA, about low flying can be a little un-nerving, too.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house.
Sorry, but could not resist this lovely quote.
I fear that if you were in your house with the above crack heads, then then UAV would not be able to see them, as it would be outside in the sky
.
It may not be any use phoning the police either, as the one copper who is close enough to help you is flying the UAV outside, and can't leave it (in case it gets stolen!).
So, I would suggest two things: First make sure you lock your door; and failing that, get some Vaseline, to sooth your impending medieval bottom
As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house.
Sorry, but could not resist this lovely quote.
I fear that if you were in your house with the above crack heads, then then UAV would not be able to see them, as it would be outside in the sky
.It may not be any use phoning the police either, as the one copper who is close enough to help you is flying the UAV outside, and can't leave it (in case it gets stolen!).
So, I would suggest two things: First make sure you lock your door; and failing that, get some Vaseline, to sooth your impending medieval bottom
Tightgit
Leon, I don't think it was 'conveniently overlooked', just overlooked. ASU's have enough of their own work to do without sticking their noses into anybody elses work! That said, aviation units have been aware of the problems that may be forthcoming with the operation of very light UAVs (or whatever you choose to call them). Up until the recent change in regulations it was perfectly feasible for those small surveillance devices to be purchased and operated on a local level. I appreciate that most people will feel that the police ought to have been aware of the change in the ANO but quite honestly Civil Aviation Regulations are not something that most police officers are required to deal with and it is an understandable error. I suspect that the end result of all this will be that UAV operations, where they take place within the police community, will have to become the responsibility of the respective force aviation unit, even if they are still operated at a local level.
One other thing, those that criticise the use of an increasing number of surveillance devices have a point. Remember we still hope to police by consent, so if the public regard the proliferation of surveillance devices as a step too far then the police should take heed.
One other thing, those that criticise the use of an increasing number of surveillance devices have a point. Remember we still hope to police by consent, so if the public regard the proliferation of surveillance devices as a step too far then the police should take heed.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other thing, those that criticise the use of an increasing number of surveillance devices have a point. Remember we still hope to police by consent, so if the public regard the proliferation of surveillance devices as a step too far then the police should take heed.
May I just add something to this statement. I do not personally believe that the average policeman with a UAV is out to get me in any shape or form. I think that a major reason that any officer would be looking at something he shouldn't would be boredom*, and not any kind of corruption or malice.
The concern I often hear expressed about increased surveillance is generally targeted at the government, and a fear of what they want the info for...Not the police who gather it. Just my two penneth worth
*I am not going to tar any professional officer, but if it were me, I fear that on a hot summers day, the female sunbathers in the local park could become of interest (yes it may be sexist and old fashioned, but at least it's honest)
May I just add something to this statement. I do not personally believe that the average policeman with a UAV is out to get me in any shape or form. I think that a major reason that any officer would be looking at something he shouldn't would be boredom*, and not any kind of corruption or malice.
The concern I often hear expressed about increased surveillance is generally targeted at the government, and a fear of what they want the info for...Not the police who gather it. Just my two penneth worth
*I am not going to tar any professional officer, but if it were me, I fear that on a hot summers day, the female sunbathers in the local park could become of interest
(yes it may be sexist and old fashioned, but at least it's honest)
*I am not going to tar any professional officer, but if it were me, I fear that on a hot summers day, the female sunbathers in the local park could become of interest (yes it may be sexist and old fashioned, but at least it's honest)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Unless you represent the CAA, of course
Hi
Just heard that the Merseyside Police section in the Community Charge is to go RISE by 4'5 %, what for ? I haven't seen a foot policeman in our area (which is a quiet one)for at least 10 Years , and yet they play with toy a/c ???
Just heard that the Merseyside Police section in the Community Charge is to go RISE by 4'5 %, what for ? I haven't seen a foot policeman in our area (which is a quiet one)for at least 10 Years , and yet they play with toy a/c ???
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Papiere bitte--in force in the UK.
Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest | UK news | The Guardian
If you have nothing to hide my arse....
If you have nothing to hide my arse....
I can't believe that your best example is this prize pillock who only needed to give his name and address. His lack of cooperation oozed suspicious behaviour and I suspect it is this foolish act that started to confirm the Police's initial suspiscion.
Say, 50 people were blown to bits in Acrrington Town centre 2 weeks later? You and your Grauniad readers would be the first to complain when the Police revealed that they had been suspicious of an individual but didn't want to ask him and his friend what they were up to...
If a Police Officer approached me in the street and asked me for name and address, I would not withold that information as:
1. I have nothing to hide.
2. I do not want to obstruct the Police's work - they have a hard enough job already.
3. I want to set an example to the Police that as a UK Citizen they can rely on my total cooperation as they should expect from any of us.
This "Bloody Minded" or "Cantankerous" 'wakner' of the "I know my rights" club wasted a lot of Police effort and could have been the distraction that allowed a real terrorist attack to get through un-noticed.
As you might of guessed, this type of individual makes my blood boil.
LJ
Say, 50 people were blown to bits in Acrrington Town centre 2 weeks later? You and your Grauniad readers would be the first to complain when the Police revealed that they had been suspicious of an individual but didn't want to ask him and his friend what they were up to...
If a Police Officer approached me in the street and asked me for name and address, I would not withold that information as:
1. I have nothing to hide.
2. I do not want to obstruct the Police's work - they have a hard enough job already.
3. I want to set an example to the Police that as a UK Citizen they can rely on my total cooperation as they should expect from any of us.
This "Bloody Minded" or "Cantankerous" 'wakner' of the "I know my rights" club wasted a lot of Police effort and could have been the distraction that allowed a real terrorist attack to get through un-noticed.
As you might of guessed, this type of individual makes my blood boil.
LJ
If a Police Officer approached me in the street and asked me for name and address...
There's a case in today's Oxford Mail where some thick plod used anti-terrorism legislation to prevent a 59 year old ex-RAF man on his way to buy fish and chips in Kidlington from taking pictures of police in a public place. See: Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington (From Oxford Mail)
I generally support the police service - but police officers mis-using their powers must be reported.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oxford Mail
Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.
Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.
Interesting that one can be dragged to the cop shop for taking photographs but only told to move on for throwing bottles. OK, so it could be yet more crap reporting but it looks about right.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'd be the thin end of the wedge otherwise and it wouldn't take long before nuLabor's surveillance society routinely extended such powers to "HALT!! Ihre papiere, bitte!".
The state serves US it's citizens not the other way round.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - The Police - Your Freindly Guides
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Last edited by glad rag; 24th Feb 2010 at 15:00.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: bristol
Age: 56
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad rag.
I have just watched the film in the link you posted.
For me this film brings up a minefield of issues.
I do have to say that I found the two chaps who eventually got arrested very annoying, and have no idea at all whether the anti arrest monologue at 9.00 minutes onwards has any legal standing.
BUT on the other hand, the initial attitude of the police was wrong too. It is perfectly lawful to take any photo of anyone in a public place*, and it is worth noting that the police never told them it was illegal to do so at any time.
On the other hand, the second the chap filmed from inside the police van, that was illegal (although by that stage, if he had any sense he may have realised he was more than due for a slap!).
I think the police are far too quick to roll out the anti terror law rubbish, and use it as an excuse for anything quite often, which may be something Leon Jabachjabicz has not come across (with ref to the 'nothing to hide bit, not the refusing name and address bit, which was just stupid and childish).
I remember a friend of mine was stopped by the police (well PSCO's not real police), who demanded to look in his car's boot, and said they had the power under the terrorism law. He at first refused, as he was in a hurry, at which point they said they would have him arrested, and held without charge for several days!
He was apparently stopped as he was driving very late at night (this was suspicious to them). The odd thing is that his being in army uniform and showing them his army ID didn't seem to allay their suspicions (as they had decided to search his car before they had even noticed!)
There is of course the other local (to me) story of a member of the public taking a photo of a policeman in a chip shop (when meant to be on patrol). The policeman saw this, arrested the man under the terror laws (for taking photo's in a public place, which is not illegal) and smashed the camera! This resulted in the policeman being disciplined, an apology from the chief constable, and damages awarded. It seemed the only offence the photographer had committed was to catch the policeman deviating from work.
I think the local police were a bit touchy at this time, after several pictures of them had appeared in the local paper, showing different officers asleep in their cars at various locations of the town!
*I am very confident that I could photograph police/buildings or anything all day long, right under the noses of any police force (and in fact this used to be my job, in my army days). Do the police really think that any terrorist (the modern kind, and not SOXMIS types) would just walk around with a camera out in front of them waiting to be seen?
Barnstormer verdict:
The photographer and friend wasted police time, and seemed childish.
Sentence: In need of a slap, and to get down from their high horse, and to return 'self rightious licences' to the stores
Police and PCSO.
stop following stupid 'political' orders with no base in law.
Sentence: Don't waste time on non crimes, but still book the pair for failing to give details (and without making up bogus public complaints, or telling the suspect how they had been acting with no actual 'eyes on' knowledge).
Then, either arrest the video man for filming in a police van, or just hit the brakes hard at a good moment.
For a very good article on filming in a public place look up YouTube - Comedian Mark Thomas & Video Cops
I have just watched the film in the link you posted.
For me this film brings up a minefield of issues.
I do have to say that I found the two chaps who eventually got arrested very annoying, and have no idea at all whether the anti arrest monologue at 9.00 minutes onwards has any legal standing.
BUT on the other hand, the initial attitude of the police was wrong too. It is perfectly lawful to take any photo of anyone in a public place*, and it is worth noting that the police never told them it was illegal to do so at any time.
On the other hand, the second the chap filmed from inside the police van, that was illegal (although by that stage, if he had any sense he may have realised he was more than due for a slap!).
I think the police are far too quick to roll out the anti terror law rubbish, and use it as an excuse for anything quite often, which may be something Leon Jabachjabicz has not come across (with ref to the 'nothing to hide bit, not the refusing name and address bit, which was just stupid and childish).
I remember a friend of mine was stopped by the police (well PSCO's not real police), who demanded to look in his car's boot, and said they had the power under the terrorism law. He at first refused, as he was in a hurry, at which point they said they would have him arrested, and held without charge for several days!
He was apparently stopped as he was driving very late at night (this was suspicious to them). The odd thing is that his being in army uniform and showing them his army ID didn't seem to allay their suspicions (as they had decided to search his car before they had even noticed!)
There is of course the other local (to me) story of a member of the public taking a photo of a policeman in a chip shop (when meant to be on patrol). The policeman saw this, arrested the man under the terror laws (for taking photo's in a public place, which is not illegal) and smashed the camera! This resulted in the policeman being disciplined, an apology from the chief constable, and damages awarded. It seemed the only offence the photographer had committed was to catch the policeman deviating from work.
I think the local police were a bit touchy at this time, after several pictures of them had appeared in the local paper, showing different officers asleep in their cars at various locations of the town!
*I am very confident that I could photograph police/buildings or anything all day long, right under the noses of any police force (and in fact this used to be my job, in my army days). Do the police really think that any terrorist (the modern kind, and not SOXMIS types) would just walk around with a camera out in front of them waiting to be seen?
Barnstormer verdict:
The photographer and friend wasted police time, and seemed childish.
Sentence: In need of a slap, and to get down from their high horse, and to return 'self rightious licences' to the stores
Police and PCSO.
stop following stupid 'political' orders with no base in law.
Sentence: Don't waste time on non crimes, but still book the pair for failing to give details (and without making up bogus public complaints, or telling the suspect how they had been acting with no actual 'eyes on' knowledge).
Then, either arrest the video man for filming in a police van, or just hit the brakes hard at a good moment
.For a very good article on filming in a public place look up YouTube - Comedian Mark Thomas & Video Cops
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still got nothing to hide?
Another example of, "Name and address, please?" when the 'accused' has done nothing wrong. Compounded by a threat to arrest when the slighted individual vocally protests the unwarranted intrusion and accusation.
Man Accused Of Being A Paedophile For Taking A Photo Of His Own Son While Out Shopping | UK News | Sky News
Man Accused Of Being A Paedophile For Taking A Photo Of His Own Son While Out Shopping | UK News | Sky News
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
With regard to "filming in a public place"; the police need to get their act in order.
On the now common "fly on the wall" documentaries about the police, it is by no means unusual for them to work alongside a cameraman. I have seen a number of instances where a person being arrested has requested / demanded that the filming be stopped. The standard answer from the police is that the cameraman is filming in a public place and therefore they have no powers to prevent this.
On the now common "fly on the wall" documentaries about the police, it is by no means unusual for them to work alongside a cameraman. I have seen a number of instances where a person being arrested has requested / demanded that the filming be stopped. The standard answer from the police is that the cameraman is filming in a public place and therefore they have no powers to prevent this.