More anti-social photographers

[skwdenyer]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Then you don't know much about what happened then. Plenty of people did but ( I did reply to this earlier) there was less willingness in the media to challenge it. Less ability to make people aware.

The Internet has made it more reportable.

Did you see my reply about the Met and TFL.

Sorry, I think there are cross purposes at work here. Whilst it may be true that a lot of people had their personal freedoms trampled-upon, that was done - in many cases - illegally and under the radar, "24" style. What did not happen was the wholesale erosion of individual freedoms at a legislative level, nor the introduction of blanket, catch-all "we'll make sure we convict you of something if we think you're a wrong'un" offences.

Lest it be forgotten so early, the old "sus" law (based upon a Victorian vagrancy act, IIRC) allowed - by precedent - police to, in effect, search and/or arrest almost anybody they liked, purely upon suspicion of being in a public place. Why was it abolished? Because the public - or at least those sections most strongly affected by it - rose up, quite literally, in rebellion. Riots in Bristol, Toxteth and Brixton were largely caused by the indiscriminate and discriminatory use of this ancient, re-purposed legislation.

Thankfully, Lord Scarman's enquiry recommended that the law be scrapped, and Parliament heeded his advice. History tells us that terrorism cannot be tackled by a "clampdown" on the lives of ordinary people - for a start, the terrorists are quite capable of being a little more subtle than sending a scruffy "terrorist-looking" guy with a large lens into the nearby railway station.

[DWP]

Lets face it PCSO officers are dumb. End of. From watching the gum chewing moron in the other clip on the site, I wouldn't trust him to know his own name with out help. The sliver by sliver erosion of our rights, supported by over promoted traffic wardens is not only a disgrace but extremely worrying. Not least for the "if you have done nothing you have nothing to fear" Daily Mail reader like acceptance. That some people seem unable to grasp this is even more worrying. That some of them, in this forum, give the impression of being police officers is truly terrifying.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Did he ever get his chips?

[havoc]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Did he ever get his chips?

Depends if he looked on his shoulders...

[Parrot of Doom]

Well well, what do you know, its still going on.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photo...

Not that I wish to denigrate the police in general but this appears to me to be a good example of "Do what you're told, or we'll make stuff up and arrest you".

I hope the officers concerned, including a bloody Inspector, get their arses handed to them for not knowing the laws they're quoting.

[Zod]

Some Policemen need to be reminded of the fundamental English legal principle that everything in this country is legal unless prohibited by law, not the other way around.

[havoc]

Parrot of Doom said:

I hope the officers concerned, including a bloody Inspector, get their arses handed to them for not knowing the laws they're quoting.

This is the Met - what do you think?!?


As usual, a lot missing from this so-far (why do we hardly ever get the full, (nearly-)unbiased picture from the press nowadays?!?) - ethnicity / social class of the 'youth' (which I suspect may have had an effect on the officers, rightly or not), who started being mouthy first, whether the Met have offered any sort of apology or not, whether the Met are going to investigate YET ANOTHER over-reaction by their officers...

[streaky]

Zod said:

Some Policemen need to be reminded of the fundamental English legal principle that everything in this country is legal unless prohibited by law, not the other way around.

No, no, no! You really don't get what Nu Labia was about, do you?

Use your majority to pass lots of laws (over 4,300 new criminal offences were created between 1997 and 2010) that are more loosely phrased than in the past and thereby allow the police to interpret them to fit almost any circumstance. Whilst that had been something of the case for many years, it reached a new peak under B'Liar and his cronies.

Ayn Rand was prescient (about Nu Labia's approach) when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Let's hope the Lib-cons undo as much of the damage as they can.

Streaky

[FishFace]

streaky said:

Zod said:

Some Policemen need to be reminded of the fundamental English legal principle that everything in this country is legal unless prohibited by law, not the other way around.

No, no, no! You really don't get what Nu Labia was about, do you?

Use your majority to pass lots of laws (over 4,300 new criminal offences were created between 1997 and 2010) that are more loosely phrased than in the past and thereby allow the police to interpret them to fit almost any circumstance. Whilst that had been something of the case for many years, it reached a new peak under B'Liar and his cronies.

Ayn Rand was prescient (about Nu Labia's approach) when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Let's hope the Lib-cons undo as much of the damage as they can.

Streaky

There's certainly some legislation that could do with being undone, but I think we need a little reality to put the new laws into context. The mass majority of police 'business' is dealing with the standard repertoire of offences. Assault, drugs, theft, deception (now fraud), other acquisitive, damage and public order. Things that at the core, have been the same for decades. This is reflected by the population in prison and what they are there for.

There has been no new legislation which has greatly affected this under the old Government.

[munroman]

FishFace said:

streaky said:

Zod said:

Some Policemen need to be reminded of the fundamental English legal principle that everything in this country is legal unless prohibited by law, not the other way around.

No, no, no! You really don't get what Nu Labia was about, do you?

Use your majority to pass lots of laws (over 4,300 new criminal offences were created between 1997 and 2010) that are more loosely phrased than in the past and thereby allow the police to interpret them to fit almost any circumstance. Whilst that had been something of the case for many years, it reached a new peak under B'Liar and his cronies.

Ayn Rand was prescient (about Nu Labia's approach) when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Let's hope the Lib-cons undo as much of the damage as they can.

Streaky

There's certainly some legislation that could do with being undone, but I think we need a little reality to put the new laws into context. The mass majority of police 'business' is dealing with the standard repertoire of offences. Assault, drugs, theft, deception (now fraud), other acquisitive, damage and public order. Things that at the core, have been the same for decades. This is reflected by the population in prison and what they are there for.

There has been no new legislation which has greatly affected this under the old Government.

I saw a concerted effort to create divisions and fear, driving a wedge between Adults and Children, through things like the CRB, the Police and Public through scameras and 'terrorism' laws, and various 'politically correct' policies, all done by politicians who either sought to push their minority agenda, (Mandelson, Harrperson, Abbot), or who saw it as a politically expedient thing to do to support their careers.

There is now a whole class of minions in Local Government brainwashed into thinking in 'newspeak', hopefully the cull in LG spending will shake these minions out, never to return.

All of this has harmed society, when the role of a Government should be to reflect the wishes of Society, understand that where there is a majority, this should be reflected, whilst protecting minorities from discrimination, NOT by undertaking policies which harm the majority.

[voyds9]

A test of these laws would perhaps be what happens if they are applied to the police.

Is causing you to check your speed(alarm/distress) if you see a police car enough for a section 59.


What about anti-social behaviour
Anti-social behaviour is any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person's quality of life.
I would certainly feel intimidated if confronted by a policeman threatening to lock me up.

[rypt]

Parrot of Doom said:

Well well, what do you know, its still going on.

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photo...

Not that I wish to denigrate the police in general but this appears to me to be a good example of "Do what you're told, or we'll make stuff up and arrest you".

I hope the officers concerned, including a bloody Inspector, get their arses handed to them for not knowing the laws they're quoting.

The most they will get is a slap on the wrist...
I reckon any officer caught abusing their power should be at a minimum instantly fired, forfeiting their pensions. Though I wouldn't mind if they added custodial sentences to the above as well, to be served in general population

Edited by rypt on Tuesday 29th June 17:59

[streaky]

FishFace said:

streaky said:

Zod said:

Some Policemen need to be reminded of the fundamental English legal principle that everything in this country is legal unless prohibited by law, not the other way around.

No, no, no! You really don't get what Nu Labia was about, do you?

Use your majority to pass lots of laws (over 4,300 new criminal offences were created between 1997 and 2010) that are more loosely phrased than in the past and thereby allow the police to interpret them to fit almost any circumstance. Whilst that had been something of the case for many years, it reached a new peak under B'Liar and his cronies.

Ayn Rand was prescient (about Nu Labia's approach) when she wrote in Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers."

Let's hope the Lib-cons undo as much of the damage as they can.

Streaky

There's certainly some legislation that could do with being undone, but I think we need a little reality to put the new laws into context. The mass majority of police 'business' is dealing with the standard repertoire of offences. Assault, drugs, theft, deception (now fraud), other acquisitive, damage and public order. Things that at the core, have been the same for decades. This is reflected by the population in prison and what they are there for.

There has been no new legislation which has greatly affected this under the old Government.

Legislation passed in the 13 years of Nu Labia misrule has amended and extended definitions of assault, drugs, theft, fraud and public order - Streaky

[dilbert]

stitched said:

The arrest was never about photographs it was because he refused to acknowledge the power of the plod.

Representative 'o the plod said:

"Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town."

"I believe your behaviour was quite suspicious in the manner in which you were taking photographs in the town centre … I'm suspicious in why you were taking those pictures.

"I'm an officer of the law, and I'm requiring you, because I believe your behaviour to be of a suspicious nature, and of possibly antisocial [nature] … I can take your details just to ascertain that everything is OK."

Translated that's;

I'm new and everyfing. I don't really know what I'm doin, but I just saw you, and I fourt you were a peedo.
My boss is acting up at ver moment, and he wonts me to get sum practiss, so ee can becum a regyoolar.
It's gud for mee to cos I get a chance for prumoshin.
So gimeee yer stuff so Shelley can poot yer name in ver compooter.

If yer don't mee boss wiw "KICK YOU IN THE bkS SUNSHINE"

To be honest. They're talking about downsizing the Police. On the evidence, it could be a good thing. The real problem is knowing how the force will decide who is surplus.

From my own perspective, I'd say that there are PCSO's and Policemen alike that we need to keep. Equally there are PCSO's and Policemen alike that we need to ditch. Sadly I'm not sure we're going to get it right. Remember, the Police serve you, and you should co-operate. It's difficult to do that, when the officers don't even speak the Queens English.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 29th June 18:45

[Richard C]

one of the big problems is that with 4,300 new laws, all sloppily drafted, the average policeman cannot be expected to keep up. So its not really suprising that some make it up as they are going along and claim all sort of powers that they are not entitled to, particularly as sloppy drafting blurs the edges.

I was told 15 years ago by a solicitor that " the average policeman knows about 19 laws reasonably well - theres a few that know more than that but any more is beyond what we expect from them "

[dilbert]

Richard C said:

one of the big problems is that with 4,300 new laws, all sloppily drafted, the average policeman cannot be expected to keep up. So its not really suprising that some make it up as they are going along and claim all sort of powers that they are not entitled to, particularly as sloppy drafting blurs the edges.

I was told 15 years ago by a solicitor that " the average policeman knows about 19 laws reasonably well - theres a few that know more than that but any more is beyond what we expect from them "

I thought that was what all the training we pay for, is supposed to do.

At the very least you would think that if the Police officer was uncertain of the law, they would refrain from prosecuting it.

The only thing they really seem to know, is that if they don't apologise, then the victim must prove that the Police were negligent.

At least the medical profession has the good old "Do no harm" mantra. With the Police, it's more like "Might is right". If they were the military, then I would have some sympathy. Sadly the military literally risk their limbs and lives every day. They get paid less for it, and I think they'd probably be more sensitive in the role of UK police force.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 29th June 19:11

[havoc]

dilbert said:

Sadly the military literally risk their limbs and lives every day. They get paid less for it, and I think they'd probably be more sensitive in the role of UK police force.

I would suggest you're probably right, and I'd suggest a lot of it is down to training*. Not the PC-liberal crap that the police probably get taught about "how to present yourself in public" and "how to sensitively deal with an ethnic minority disabled lesbian immigrant", but the repetitious and robust training that instils discipline, self-confidence, and trust in your team and your leadership. Wonder if any police would care to comment on how much of those they and their colleagues have?!?



* That and the reason of a lot of them for signing-up. A lot of people who join the military do so out of a desire to either/both of serving their country and learning a trade/skills. Not sure if there's any consistent reason for joining the police (well, not a good reason, anyway...).

[herewego]

dilbert said:

stitched said:

The arrest was never about photographs it was because he refused to acknowledge the power of the plod.

Representative 'o the plod said:

"Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town."

"I believe your behaviour was quite suspicious in the manner in which you were taking photographs in the town centre … I'm suspicious in why you were taking those pictures.

"I'm an officer of the law, and I'm requiring you, because I believe your behaviour to be of a suspicious nature, and of possibly antisocial [nature] … I can take your details just to ascertain that everything is OK."

Translated that's;

I'm new and everyfing. I don't really know what I'm doin, but I just saw you, and I fourt you were a peedo.
My boss is acting up at ver moment, and he wonts me to get sum practiss, so ee can becum a regyoolar.
It's gud for mee to cos I get a chance for prumoshin.
So gimeee yer stuff so Shelley can poot yer name in ver compooter.

If yer don't mee boss wiw "KICK YOU IN THE bkS SUNSHINE"

To be honest. They're talking about downsizing the Police. On the evidence, it could be a good thing. The real problem is knowing how the force will decide who is surplus.

From my own perspective, I'd say that there are PCSO's and Policemen alike that we need to keep. Equally there are PCSO's and Policemen alike that we need to ditch. Sadly I'm not sure we're going to get it right. Remember, the Police serve you, and you should co-operate. It's difficult to do that, when the officers don't even speak the Queens English.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 29th June 18:45

Shouldn't that be Queen's?

[dilbert]

herewego said:

dilbert said:

stitched said:

The arrest was never about photographs it was because he refused to acknowledge the power of the plod.

Representative 'o the plod said:

"Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town."

"I believe your behaviour was quite suspicious in the manner in which you were taking photographs in the town centre … I'm suspicious in why you were taking those pictures.

"I'm an officer of the law, and I'm requiring you, because I believe your behaviour to be of a suspicious nature, and of possibly antisocial [nature] … I can take your details just to ascertain that everything is OK."

Translated that's;

I'm new and everyfing. I don't really know what I'm doin, but I just saw you, and I fourt you were a peedo.
My boss is acting up at ver moment, and he wonts me to get sum practiss, so ee can becum a regyoolar.
It's gud for mee to cos I get a chance for prumoshin.
So gimeee yer stuff so Shelley can poot yer name in ver compooter.

If yer don't mee boss wiw "KICK YOU IN THE bkS SUNSHINE"

To be honest. They're talking about downsizing the Police. On the evidence, it could be a good thing. The real problem is knowing how the force will decide who is surplus.

From my own perspective, I'd say that there are PCSO's and Policemen alike that we need to keep. Equally there are PCSO's and Policemen alike that we need to ditch. Sadly I'm not sure we're going to get it right. Remember, the Police serve you, and you should co-operate. It's difficult to do that, when the officers don't even speak the Queens English.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 29th June 18:45

Shouldn't that be Queen's?

Whaddaya meen? I can't even spell apostle!

[Richard C]

dilbert said:

Richard C said:

one of the big problems is that with 4,300 new laws, all sloppily drafted, the average policeman cannot be expected to keep up. So its not really suprising that some make it up as they are going along and claim all sort of powers that they are not entitled to, particularly as sloppy drafting blurs the edges.

I was told 15 years ago by a solicitor that " the average policeman knows about 19 laws reasonably well - theres a few that know more than that but any more is beyond what we expect from them "

I thought that was what all the training we pay for, is supposed to do.

At the very least you would think that if the Police officer was uncertain of the law, they would refrain from prosecuting it.

The only thing they really seem to know, is that if they don't apologise, then the victim must prove that the Police were negligent.

At least the medical profession has the good old "Do no harm" mantra. With the Police, it's more like "Might is right". If they were the military, then I would have some sympathy. Sadly the military literally risk their limbs and lives every day. They get paid less for it, and I think they'd probably be more sensitive in the role of UK police force.

Edited by dilbert on Tuesday 29th June 19:11

Yes - you are right. But I guess that even thorough training is not going to make one an expert on what is far too many badly worded laws. The "Might is right" response is easier. Maybe indicative of a deeper lack of confidence.