Recording Police actions
Discussion
TheAllSeeingPie said:
Bigends said:
As you may have gathered i'm not a great fan of the way Policings gone over the past few years
Unfortunately opinions of Policing created either by antagonistic liberal hippy Guardian readers or hate-stirring Daily Mail readers seem to have culminated in a crazy idea that Policing has gone downhill. This year I've had my house burgled, car stolen, car written off in a non-stop RTC and been violently assaulted (4 separate incidents) and every time the one thing that has made the entire saga even remotely bearable has been the professionalism of the Police and other emergency services involved. I've had similar incidents in the past and always been left with a bitter taste, but something has radically changed over the last few years.As for whether the child locks are one, well I for one think that's a good idea. I would imagine the one incident where someone steps out of a police car and gets hit by passing traffic will enforce the child lock principle into law, but until then it seems like a relatively good idea.
(p.s. still not getting in the back until arrested )
Bigends said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
As long as there was no need to obtain further evidence by questioning, of course.
Think I wont be getting into any cars until nicked if the officers going to pick and choose when to let me go.I'll happily crouch and speak by the open passenger window then leave when i'm ready, obviously asking if its okay and theyve got enough detail to process me.
it really does amaze me the number of people who think they are being clever when dealing with the Police or Health Professionals when all they do is open the door for further delay and hassle by providing suspicion that they are avoiding the truth ...
but then again logic isn;t the strong point of the kind of individual that goes down this approach , nor of the 'professional independent witnesses' of FItwatch and the like who obstruct Emergency workers on a day to day basis ...
mph1977 said:
Bigends said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
As long as there was no need to obtain further evidence by questioning, of course.
Think I wont be getting into any cars until nicked if the officers going to pick and choose when to let me go.I'll happily crouch and speak by the open passenger window then leave when i'm ready, obviously asking if its okay and theyve got enough detail to process me.
it really does amaze me the number of people who think they are being clever when dealing with the Police or Health Professionals when all they do is open the door for further delay and hassle by providing suspicion that they are avoiding the truth ...
but then again logic isn;t the strong point of the kind of individual that goes down this approach , nor of the 'professional independent witnesses' of FItwatch and the like who obstruct Emergency workers on a day to day basis ...
I fail to see what the issue is around people voluntarily sitting in the rear of a marked police vehicle. A lot of the cars, certainly traffic cars and ARVs, have cameras with audio in them these days. This means protection for both parties, and if you feel that the Police are trying to stitch you up then they are less likely to do so if the whole conversation is being recorded. As for people visually recording the stop, I have absolutely problem with it. If people do it to me, all I ask is that they take a picture of my collar number if they so wish but don't film my face as I don't want my face plastered all over the internet. Especially with the role I do I'd rather not be recognised by members of organised crime groups while I'm out shopping with the wife. Couldn't care less about the encounter going on YouTube, just not my face.
Can I stand up and (sort of) agree with Bigends?
I'm also retired Job and like most on here I wouldn't be in the least bit bothered about getting into the back of a Police car.......let's say in the "routine speeding" type of scenario.
However a couple of years ago a 25 year old, very respectable female who I know did exactly this - she'd been speeding (forget how much but she got an FPN) and was invited into the back of the Police car which she did.
The individual officers behaved quite properly, but for some reason this respectable, reasonable and intelligent woman got frightened and tearful as a result of this encounter.
Nobody did anything wrong, but as we all know, we all react differently to the same scenario - so if Bigends doesn't want to get in the back of the car unless arrested then that's fine, and perhaps all the current/ex Job could appreciate that what makes them tick might make him and others feel otherwise.
I'm also retired Job and like most on here I wouldn't be in the least bit bothered about getting into the back of a Police car.......let's say in the "routine speeding" type of scenario.
However a couple of years ago a 25 year old, very respectable female who I know did exactly this - she'd been speeding (forget how much but she got an FPN) and was invited into the back of the Police car which she did.
The individual officers behaved quite properly, but for some reason this respectable, reasonable and intelligent woman got frightened and tearful as a result of this encounter.
Nobody did anything wrong, but as we all know, we all react differently to the same scenario - so if Bigends doesn't want to get in the back of the car unless arrested then that's fine, and perhaps all the current/ex Job could appreciate that what makes them tick might make him and others feel otherwise.
Bigends was trying to turn it into something sinister. It's not. I find it very bizarre that someone who claims to have 40 yrs in the job doesn't want to sit in a car. If he WAS an Officer, he'd know every reason why we ask people into the our car. We don't demand or instruct, we ask. He'd especially know the reasons why we prefer not to stand on a hardshoulder and try and deal with people.
He wouldn't need to ask the questions he has, because it would all be second nature. They are questions and comments a frontline Officer, even one of only a few years service, would know the answers too. So, you will understand why me eyebrows are raised and my scepticism meter is going off the scale.
He wouldn't need to ask the questions he has, because it would all be second nature. They are questions and comments a frontline Officer, even one of only a few years service, would know the answers too. So, you will understand why me eyebrows are raised and my scepticism meter is going off the scale.
Elroy Blue said:
Bigends was trying to turn it into something sinister. It's not. I find it very bizarre that someone who claims to have 40 yrs in the job doesn't want to sit in a car. If he WAS an Officer, he'd know every reason why we ask people into the our car. We don't demand or instruct, we ask. He'd especially know the reasons why we prefer not to stand on a hardshoulder and try and deal with people.
He wouldn't need to ask the questions he has, because it would all be second nature. They are questions and comments a frontline Officer, even one of only a few years service, would know the answers too. So, you will understand why me eyebrows are raised and my scepticism meter is going off the scale.
Elroy - certainly wasnt - check out the post above. I KNOW i I dont have to get in the back of the car - or even get out of my own car for that matter(unlessyou give me good grounds for doing so - breathalyser, arrest, vehicle search under PACE etc) that's merely for YOUR convenience so you dont have to keep running back and forth to the car to carry out the relevant checks. Ive nothing to be worried about when stopped I know PACE and procedures so also know I dont have to blindly obey what i'm told/asked to do. My only point was that I wasnt free to leave until YOU chose to allow me to do so when I wasnt under arrest - Thats all. I drove response cars regularly from the time of passing my advanced course in 1981 until the late 1990's so do have some experience - whether you choose to believe this is entirely up to you. Remember Ive been out for nearly ten years now and dont have a Cops head on anymore. Whilst in the job i'd have had exactly the same views as you -ie why not get in the car, what are you worried about etc - so can understand your views. Once youve done your time, get de-institutionalized and get out of the Policing environment - your views may also change - who knows?He wouldn't need to ask the questions he has, because it would all be second nature. They are questions and comments a frontline Officer, even one of only a few years service, would know the answers too. So, you will understand why me eyebrows are raised and my scepticism meter is going off the scale.
If stopped though i'm sure i'll comply, get out and be amicable
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 30th August 17:18
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 30th August 17:31
Edited by Bigends on Saturday 30th August 21:47
Pepperami said:
I fail to see what the issue is around people voluntarily sitting in the rear of a marked police vehicle. A lot of the cars, certainly traffic cars and ARVs, have cameras with audio in them these days. This means protection for both parties, and if you feel that the Police are trying to stitch you up then they are less likely to do so if the whole conversation is being recorded. As for people visually recording the stop, I have absolutely problem with it. If people do it to me, all I ask is that they take a picture of my collar number if they so wish but don't film my face as I don't want my face plastered all over the internet. Especially with the role I do I'd rather not be recognised by members of organised crime groups while I'm out shopping with the wife. Couldn't care less about the encounter going on YouTube, just not my face.
How would you stop someone taking the photo of your face or video with your face in it? Whilst not knowing what your job involves if it's public facing I personally think you have to accept that it comes with your job. Just for arguments sake you would be dealing with me with a press card with a phone number on back for an nuj solicitor, and we are not in any sort of military area. photosnob said:
Pepperami said:
I fail to see what the issue is around people voluntarily sitting in the rear of a marked police vehicle. A lot of the cars, certainly traffic cars and ARVs, have cameras with audio in them these days. This means protection for both parties, and if you feel that the Police are trying to stitch you up then they are less likely to do so if the whole conversation is being recorded. As for people visually recording the stop, I have absolutely problem with it. If people do it to me, all I ask is that they take a picture of my collar number if they so wish but don't film my face as I don't want my face plastered all over the internet. Especially with the role I do I'd rather not be recognised by members of organised crime groups while I'm out shopping with the wife. Couldn't care less about the encounter going on YouTube, just not my face.
How would you stop someone taking the photo of your face or video with your face in it? Whilst not knowing what your job involves if it's public facing I personally think you have to accept that it comes with your job. Just for arguments sake you would be dealing with me with a press card with a phone number on back for an nuj solicitor, and we are not in any sort of military area. 1. legitimate journalists who believe the concepts of 'Obstruction ' and 'confidentiality' do not apply to the Press and attempt to force themselves into situations or trick Emergency services staff into saying or doing something which will be used against them
2.alleged to be legitimate journalists ( in that they have NUJ membership ) who are also actors in the political or ideological point they are trying to make and attempt to use Press status to get get better treatment
3. 'citizen journalists' , who much like the ' independent legal observers' are in fact actors in the incident and are attempting to directly Obstruct the Police or Emergency Services from carrying out their work .
photosnob said:
How would you stop someone taking the photo of your face or video with your face in it? Whilst not knowing what your job involves if it's public facing I personally think you have to accept that it comes with your job. Just for arguments sake you would be dealing with me with a press card with a phone number on back for an nuj solicitor, and we are not in any sort of military area.
I can't stop people videoing or photographing my face, I do however make a polite request for them not to and a lot of people go along with my wishes because I have done it in a polite and non confrontational way. Mainly because, despite having a public facing job, I don't want to be executed by keyboard warriors on YouTube or forums, with little knowledge or perspective (present company excepted........mostly). 99% of the time if I have been photographed by journalists, my face has been pixellated anyway so that's never been an issue. mph1977 said:
the problem is significant numbers of the 'journalists' who make prats of themselves fall into 1 of three camps
1. legitimate journalists who believe the concepts of 'Obstruction ' and 'confidentiality' do not apply to the Press and attempt to force themselves into situations or trick Emergency services staff into saying or doing something which will be used against them
2.alleged to be legitimate journalists ( in that they have NUJ membership ) who are also actors in the political or ideological point they are trying to make and attempt to use Press status to get get better treatment
3. 'citizen journalists' , who much like the ' independent legal observers' are in fact actors in the incident and are attempting to directly Obstruct the Police or Emergency Services from carrying out their work .
I know who and what you are talking about. But lets assume that I'm not a youtuber who believed in conspiracy theories for a moment. My question was simple - how would you compel someone to delete a photo, or stop them from taking it? The only reason I stated anything about the NUJ (where my membership lapsed years ago), was because it set the stage up for someone who both would probably be aware of the law surrounding their medium, and who would also be trying to earn a living from it, so would be unlikely to stop something when their was no legal basis because they were trying to pay their bills.1. legitimate journalists who believe the concepts of 'Obstruction ' and 'confidentiality' do not apply to the Press and attempt to force themselves into situations or trick Emergency services staff into saying or doing something which will be used against them
2.alleged to be legitimate journalists ( in that they have NUJ membership ) who are also actors in the political or ideological point they are trying to make and attempt to use Press status to get get better treatment
3. 'citizen journalists' , who much like the ' independent legal observers' are in fact actors in the incident and are attempting to directly Obstruct the Police or Emergency Services from carrying out their work .
Furthermore with your examples the police already have offences to stop that. I am talking about taking a photo or video when you are not obstructing or getting in the way. It was merely a personal preference we were talking about.
Furthermore and as a side note - it was the police who pretty much made press cards necessary. I personally always found it odd that the police treated people differently on the basis that they had a card which was very easy to get hold off (if you know how) and really implied no skill or professionalism. However with that card it is the police who decide it's the magic ticket to get into press conferences, be allowed to continue shooting and get away with other stuff. It's pretty much useless outside that sphere as it was only ever the police who asked to see it.
Mk3Spitfire said:
???
If they've committed an arrestable offence, and I need to obtain evidence by questioning, and the suspect subsequently refuses to cooperate, I still need to obtain that evidence. So yes, I would potentially arrest. What's the issue with that?
Will asking for a solicitor to be present be seen as refusal to cooperate?If they've committed an arrestable offence, and I need to obtain evidence by questioning, and the suspect subsequently refuses to cooperate, I still need to obtain that evidence. So yes, I would potentially arrest. What's the issue with that?
Edited by Eclassy on Sunday 31st August 10:43
FuryExocet said:
I must be the odd one out here, I hardly ever let anyone sit in the back of my car. I prefer to leave them in their car.
American BiB appear to handcuff a detained person more often before allowing them in the back of a police car, the reason given being that with hands restrained behind their back it's less likely they can launch a successful attack on the officer(s).Elroy Blue said:
Fortunately, 99.99999% of people are not like 'retired Police Officer' Bigends. They are more than happy to sit in a Police car, exchange pleasantries and discuss their day. Some get quite excited about seeing the kit, even if they are in there due to committing an offence.
I got stopped once for the reason that my 'tyres looked Bald' which I knew was rubbish on a dark wet New Years Eve. It was really just a random breath test. However I wasn't really bothered, I approve of random breath testing. I'd seen him pull out behind me as I drove past the station and knew I all straight up. It was all part of lifes rich tapestry and gave me an anecdote to tell at the Party I was on my way to.mph1977 said:
Except of ofcourse your evasive behaviour gives grounds for further questioning and searches doesn;t it ?
No it doesn't.Refusing to sit in the back of a police vehicle does not provide grounds for further questioning let alone a search.
You may like to research Section 1 of PACE
Practical/ safety reasons may be a good reason to request someone sits in the car but that does not mean you can, in effect, abuse your powers because someone doesn't do what you ask
Red 4 said:
mph1977 said:
Except of ofcourse your evasive behaviour gives grounds for further questioning and searches doesn;t it ?
No it doesn't.Refusing to sit in the back of a police vehicle does not provide grounds for further questioning let alone a search.
You may like to research Section 1 of PACE
Practical/ safety reasons may be a good reason to request someone sits in the car but that does not mean you can, in effect, abuse your powers because someone doesn't do what you ask
Bigends said:
Exactly - you cant detain someone just in order to go fishing for offences - hence my original query about being locked in the back of a police car and not being free to leave - the cause of all this hoo haa and pensioner bashing!
I think on balance, the need to have the childlocks on, and the obvious impracticality of having to turn them on/off for each and every situation, versus the minor inconvenience of having to be let out of the Police car (at any time you request if not being detained), means it's not worth sweating over.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff