Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI
Discussion
La Liga said:
You demonstrate my point perfectly as someone who is willing to spend some time doing something to make things better rather than just sit and criticise from afar.
ICVs have contributed to many improvements over the years.
It was a bit of effort at first - initially seen as interfering busybodies, but that didn't last too long. A fascinating experience, definitely an eye opener.ICVs have contributed to many improvements over the years.
I've come to the end of my term, so looking for something else, possibly the prison monitoring board - which looks fairly challenging.
La Liga said:
I think prisons are very challenging places at the moment with fewer staff and less funding. You only need to look at the HMIP reports over the last few years to see what they're up against.
I still think you are missing the point.I find the resistance of police officers to uncontrolled filming devices rather disconcerting, I would be very happy if, confronted with a camera, a police officer was to sigh with relief and accept there was evidence on his side.
When someone tries to stop the camera I tend to think it is to suppress evidence and find myself wondering why.
I'm not missing any point. You said:
stitched said:
What I really can't condone is what appears to be a general hatred of video cameras from people who should welcome them. If there is nothing to hide then perhaps you or other BiB could explain the general reluctance of your colleagues to being filmed.
stitched said:
I was referring to the general reaction of police officers to a camera not in their control.
I replied I don't think there is a 'general hatred', 'general reluctance' or 'general reaction' in the manner which you describe, partly because everyone's used to it. La Liga said:
I'm not missing any point. You said:
Perhaps I could have phrased it better.stitched said:
What I really can't condone is what appears to be a general hatred of video cameras from people who should welcome them. If there is nothing to hide then perhaps you or other BiB could explain the general reluctance of your colleagues to being filmed.
stitched said:
I was referring to the general reaction of police officers to a camera not in their control.
I replied I don't think there is a 'general hatred', 'general reluctance' or 'general reaction' in the manner which you describe, partly because everyone's used to it. I quite often see clips on you tube and other clip sites where police officers have a problem with a camera which is out of their control being used to film a situation.
Personally I would see the camera as a good thing, extra evidence to support any case I was called to gather evidence for.
I find it disconcerting that some officers dislike being filmed.
Do you disagree?
Think of the number of interactions with the public that are videoed daily ( must be hundreds of thousands if you include custody and other CCTV). Then think how many end up on You Tube.
A minute proportion. I don't think we are talking about a representative sample to be drawing any firm conclusions about.
From a personal point of view never bothered me in the slightest, and was advantageous on a couple of occasions, when I was assaulted.
A minute proportion. I don't think we are talking about a representative sample to be drawing any firm conclusions about.
From a personal point of view never bothered me in the slightest, and was advantageous on a couple of occasions, when I was assaulted.
stitched said:
Perhaps I could have phrased it better.
I quite often see clips on you tube and other clip sites where police officers have a problem with a camera which is out of their control being used to film a situation.
Personally I would see the camera as a good thing, extra evidence to support any case I was called to gather evidence for.
I find it disconcerting that some officers dislike being filmed.
Do you disagree?
No-one has to like being filmed. I expect if I walked up to you and starting filming you for doing your job you probably wouldn't like it either. I quite often see clips on you tube and other clip sites where police officers have a problem with a camera which is out of their control being used to film a situation.
Personally I would see the camera as a good thing, extra evidence to support any case I was called to gather evidence for.
I find it disconcerting that some officers dislike being filmed.
Do you disagree?
So no, I don't find it disconcerting an officer may not like being filmed per se.
What is disconcerting is if an officer acts unlawfully and try to prevent someone from filming them when they have a right a to do so. I'm not overly concerned with how an officer feels about something, but how they act.
La Liga said:
stitched said:
Perhaps I could have phrased it better.
I quite often see clips on you tube and other clip sites where police officers have a problem with a camera which is out of their control being used to film a situation.
Personally I would see the camera as a good thing, extra evidence to support any case I was called to gather evidence for.
I find it disconcerting that some officers dislike being filmed.
Do you disagree?
No one has to like being filmed. I expect if I walked up to you and starting filming you for doing your job you probably wouldn't like it either. I quite often see clips on you tube and other clip sites where police officers have a problem with a camera which is out of their control being used to film a situation.
Personally I would see the camera as a good thing, extra evidence to support any case I was called to gather evidence for.
I find it disconcerting that some officers dislike being filmed.
Do you disagree?
So no, I don't find it disconcerting an officer may not like being filmed per se.
What is disconcerting is if an officer acts unlawfully and try to prevent someone from filming them when they have a right a to do so. I'm overly concerned with how an officer feels about something but how they act.
Walking up to me with a camera and I would need to object (data protection not SAS) It just seems to me that a lot of police officers object to cameras.
I was of the opinion that the remit of the police service was to gather evidence?
I find it rather goes against that ethos when a serving officer tries to block a camera.
If you want 'yes or no', then yes.
I pretty much already said that with my previous answer: "What is disconcerting is if an officer acts unlawfully and try to prevent someone from filming them when they have a right a to do so. I'm not overly concerned with how an officer feels about something, but how they act."
I pretty much already said that with my previous answer: "What is disconcerting is if an officer acts unlawfully and try to prevent someone from filming them when they have a right a to do so. I'm not overly concerned with how an officer feels about something, but how they act."
La Liga said:
o you actually read any of the reports you comment on? It's already been concluded...
You more likely sleep easily because there are men and women willing putting themselves at risk on your behalf to deal with the most violent and dangerous people in society and keep our courts and prisons full.
It appears you are too dumb to recognize irony or sarcasm. I was well aware of the predictable outcome of both psudo-enquiries. Both are just further examples of the culture of impunity and cover-up that pervades the police force.You more likely sleep easily because there are men and women willing putting themselves at risk on your behalf to deal with the most violent and dangerous people in society and keep our courts and prisons full.
davidball said:
I think exactly the same of you. Your eagerness to defend the indefensible speaks volumes and confirms my opinion of you. BTW I am never offended by your infantile taunts. I firmly believe it is only possible to be offended by the opinions of those you respect.
'Infantile taunts' from the person who wrote, "too dumb" whilst misusing the word 'irony'. Do you get offended by the opinions of those who you respect? I think you need to develop a little more resilience if so. Sticks and stones and all that.
I don't defend the indefensible - evidently the things I defend are defendable because they have an outcome that was achieved by someone defending their actions, so your point doesn't even make sense. I provide rationale into why I believe a particular outcome was achieved. In contrast, whenever I've seen you post you clearly have little to no idea of the subject matter at hand and don't provide anything of substance to give you opinions any weight. It's a shame your willingness to learn what you're talking about isn't equal to your willingness to share your ignorant opinions.
La Liga said:
You've not written anything ironic. I'd probably get my head around that before calling someone 'too dumb'. I expect your knowledge of this area is a in-depth as your knowledge in police firearms threads where you manage to embarrass yourself every time you post.
You come across as a smug " I'm the law so I'm right" type, so you no doubt on the fast track to promotion. La Liga said:
o-one has to like being filmed. I expect if I walked up to you and starting filming you for doing your job you probably wouldn't like it either.
So no, I don't find it disconcerting an officer may not like being filmed per se.
What is disconcerting is if an officer acts unlawfully and try to prevent someone from filming them when they have a right a to do so. I'm not overly concerned with how an officer feels about something, but how they act.
Personally, I suspect that you are spot on that You Tube evidence is not representative of the norm. While I have, in recent years been on the receiving end of very clearly bent plods or plods who have confused their job with that of being in the special needs division of US border control and even a couple of plods who very, very clearly were properly thick as pig wSo no, I don't find it disconcerting an officer may not like being filmed per se.
What is disconcerting is if an officer acts unlawfully and try to prevent someone from filming them when they have a right a to do so. I'm not overly concerned with how an officer feels about something, but how they act.
k the reality is that the majority are good people doing a good job. With regards to video footage. I would however, tend to be of the view that we are in a new world today where anything and everything can and is filmed and made public and that this simply isn't going to change back and the Police need to train their staff to wholly accept this and adapt and retrain to account for it.
Very clearly the policeman who simply tells someone to stop filming is producing a result that is detrimental to the image of the police. Training that person to explain more clearly why someone should not be filming is clearly needed if only because huge swathes of society now have no moral compass that informs them that standing there videoing an incident such as someone dying is not appropriate. At the same time, all uniformed police officers should be recording footage at all times as there will be far more cases of it being needed to protect them than there will be of it rooting out misconduct. And at the same time, finding misconduct more easily will allow for the more efficient cleansing of the employment pool to weed out the uniform nazis, the dishonest and the plain thick. All of whom drag everyone else down.
TerryThomas said:
La Liga said:
You've not written anything ironic. I'd probably get my head around that before calling someone 'too dumb'. I expect your knowledge of this area is a in-depth as your knowledge in police firearms threads where you manage to embarrass yourself every time you post.
You come across as a smug " I'm the law so I'm right" type, so you no doubt on the fast track to promotion.I'm a little blunt with people like David because I've taken the time to explain matters to him, often in police firearms threads which he seems to have a particular interest in. I've tried to give him an insight into tactics, thinking and considerations, the legal processes and why certain decisions and outcomes are forthcoming. He has demonstrated no interest whatsoever in expanding his knowledge and seemingly no idea (or just doesn't care) that he has very little knowledge in the subject matter he is so keen to provide an opinion about.
If I have something to say about a particular subject and am speaking to someone who is an 'expert' in that subject then I'm open-minded, and not ignorant enough to think I know better than them, especially when they will actually explain why they are providing such an opinion.
DonkeyApple said:
Personally, I suspect that you are spot on that You Tube evidence is not representative of the norm. While I have, in recent years been on the receiving end of very clearly bent plods or plods who have confused their job with that of being in the special needs division of US border control and even a couple of plods who very, very clearly were properly thick as pig wk the reality is that the majority are good people doing a good job.
With regards to video footage. I would however, tend to be of the view that we are in a new world today where anything and everything can and is filmed and made public and that this simply isn't going to change back and the Police need to train their staff to wholly accept this and adapt and retrain to account for it.
Very clearly the policeman who simply tells someone to stop filming is producing a result that is detrimental to the image of the police. Training that person to explain more clearly why someone should not be filming is clearly needed if only because huge swathes of society now have no moral compass that informs them that standing there videoing an incident such as someone dying is not appropriate. At the same time, all uniformed police officers should be recording footage at all times as there will be far more cases of it being needed to protect them than there will be of it rooting out misconduct. And at the same time, finding misconduct more easily will allow for the more efficient cleansing of the employment pool to weed out the uniform nazis, the dishonest and the plain thick. All of whom drag everyone else down.
I pretty much agree with all of that. k the reality is that the majority are good people doing a good job. With regards to video footage. I would however, tend to be of the view that we are in a new world today where anything and everything can and is filmed and made public and that this simply isn't going to change back and the Police need to train their staff to wholly accept this and adapt and retrain to account for it.
Very clearly the policeman who simply tells someone to stop filming is producing a result that is detrimental to the image of the police. Training that person to explain more clearly why someone should not be filming is clearly needed if only because huge swathes of society now have no moral compass that informs them that standing there videoing an incident such as someone dying is not appropriate. At the same time, all uniformed police officers should be recording footage at all times as there will be far more cases of it being needed to protect them than there will be of it rooting out misconduct. And at the same time, finding misconduct more easily will allow for the more efficient cleansing of the employment pool to weed out the uniform nazis, the dishonest and the plain thick. All of whom drag everyone else down.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff