I want his badge....

[surveyor_101]

pavarotti1980 said:

I think you need a separate thread as it has absolutely fk all to do with this one

If your a violent psychopath who enjoys molesting venerable ladies and playing whack-a-mole with members of public the police service is for for.

Neither of which he was sacked for!

Yet my local force sacked a Special for saying something derogatory about Muslims to another non muslim colleague !

So if its WOKE cultural agenda your gone, sex crimes good, picking on a religion your out!

[pavarotti1980]

surveyor_101 said:

If your a violent psychopath who enjoys molesting venerable ladies and playing whack-a-mole with members of public the police service is for for.

Neither of which he was sacked for!

Yet my local force sacked a Special for saying something derogatory about Muslims to another non muslim colleague !

So if its WOKE cultural agenda your gone, sex crimes good, picking on a religion your out!

And what relevance is that to a bloke videoing police/prisons/other random sites?

Oh PC Musto was convicted in the summer. Has his misconduct hearing taken place yet or should he have just been sacked on the spot without a criminal trial and subsequent hearing with his employers?

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 29th October 14:29

[Durzel]

The court of public opinion has no time for such frivolities like due process and fair hearings.

[surveyor_101]

pavarotti1980 said:

And what relevance is that to a bloke videoing police/prisons/other random sites?

Oh PC Musto was convicted in the summer. Has his misconduct hearing taken place yet or should he have just been sacked on the spot without a criminal trial and subsequent hearing with his employers?

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 29th October 14:29

They covered his bum in 2013 the conviction stems from April 2007, and look how he uses the batten as a lethal weapon, breaking ribs, shin bones all on someone who doesn't appear to be a threat.

The guy as far as I am aware had no flags for danger to police and was not wanted for a violent crime just DWP wanted a word! He is clearly a Psychopath and internal arse covering division covered up his behaviour long before me crippled this guy!

The conduct is a complete over reaction to the situation and he was cleared of beating a guy face down with a batten! Its on cctv, shows the force is rife with bent bum covering maggots!

[surveyor_101]

Durzel said:

The court of public opinion has no time for such frivolities like due process and fair hearings.

He was let off in 2013 over the charges in 2007, plenty of time for due process.

Also the guy got £100k payout but not one officer has been held accountable, Musto just left and then he was finally charged with 2007 sex stuff.

[pavarotti1980]

surveyor_101 said:

They covered his bum in 2013 the conviction stems from April 2007, and look how he uses the batten as a lethal weapon, breaking ribs, shin bones all on someone who doesn't appear to be a threat.

The guy as far as I am aware had no flags for danger to police and was not wanted for a violent crime just DWP wanted a word! He is clearly a Psychopath and internal arse covering division covered up his behaviour long before me crippled this guy!

The conduct is a complete over reaction to the situation and he was cleared of beating a guy face down with a batten! Its on cctv, shows the force is rife with bent bum covering maggots!

fking hell you are boring like

Davidball new login?

Edited by pavarotti1980 on Thursday 29th October 17:59

[Mojooo]

Jinba Ittai said:

Apparently, the identity of ‘Auditing Britain’ has now been revealed and confirmed online. I wonder how he would feel if people turned up outside his house pointing a camera?

A guy that does similar to him was arrested for a public order offence for filing people leaving the Police station*
So he could certainly argue that! I daresay the Police would say it doesn't apply.

• In that incident the Police made a meal out of it by telling him the people had anonymity for life. I suspect if they hadn't mentioned it then they would just have been two walking in the background that no one cared about. The Police also made a mess of it when asked how the people had complained in the few seconds between him filming them and the Police coming out.

You lot will be glad to know I have laid off some of these videos as they were all consuming but I feel like I am being dragged back in, lol.

[Pickled Piper]

jakesmith said:

When does it become harassment then?

I believe it has to be sustained / repeated for it to be considered harassment. However, I'm no legal expert.

[NMNeil]

Durzel said:

The court of public opinion has no time for such frivolities like due process and fair hearings.

You are either guilty, or very guilty, no third choice.

[NMNeil]

Pickled Piper said:

I believe it has to be sustained / repeated for it to be considered harassment. However, I'm no legal expert.

May be the same as here. A "pattern of behavior" is needed for it to be harassment or stalking.

[surveyor_101]

NMNeil said:

May be the same as here. A "pattern of behavior" is needed for it to be harassment or stalking.

The police as an organisation would struggle with that plus he goes to new sites all the time.

[Bigends]

surveyor_101 said:

NMNeil said:

May be the same as here. A "pattern of behavior" is needed for it to be harassment or stalking.

The police as an organisation would struggle with that plus he goes to new sites all the time.

Exactly - you cant harass an organisation

[surveyor_101]

Bigends said:

Exactly - you cant harass an organisation

That's my reading on the law, as is crimebodge as he has a case of a chap who has published social media police profiles (so publically available) from Essex police and CCTV if an incident he was involved in and Essex Police have gained entry unlawfully to his home to arrest him for the crime of harassing Essex police, which seems unlawful and bullying to me.

Seems some please forces and officers are shameless in their misinterpretation of the law!

Also, the arresting officer is scripted in the video and therefore I doubt she has a constable has satisfied herself of 'reasonable suspicion' as she was acting under orders. As no warrant existed and the offence at best would be a Summary Offence to attend at the address to gain entry would also be unlawful as they have no power of entry for a summary offence.

[Bigends]

surveyor_101 said:

Bigends said:

Exactly - you cant harass an organisation

That's my reading on the law, as is crimebodge as he has a case of a chap who has published social media police profiles (so publically available) from Essex police and CCTV if an incident he was involved in and Essex Police have gained entry unlawfully to his home to arrest him for the crime of harassing Essex police, which seems unlawful and bullying to me.

Seems some please forces and officers are shameless in their misinterpretation of the law!

Also, the arresting officer is scripted in the video and therefore I doubt she has a constable has satisfied herself of 'reasonable suspicion' as she was acting under orders. As no warrant existed and the offence at best would be a Summary Offence to attend at the address to gain entry would also be unlawful as they have no power of entry for a summary offence.

This one was discussed on another thread - she was clearly given a script to read - the whole thing smacked of inexperience - not their fault - just the way it is now - Sgts with just over 3yrs service - says it all

[surveyor_101]

Bigends said:

This one was discussed on another thread - she was clearly given a script to read - the whole thing smacked of inexperience - not their fault - just the way it is now - Sgts with just over 3yrs service - says it all

Yes, Essex Police seems to be giving the Chinese police a run for their money on that one.

Clearly, if he hadn't opened the door they probably would have nowhere to go.


Also allegedly his bail conditions prohibited him from filming anyone in a public place for any purpose!

[Tom1312]

Bigends said:

Exactly - you cant harass an organisation

I would argue by highlighting officers personal social media accounts or other details and releasing information about them, it could be seen as such, he is harassing the individuals, not the organisation and not in their role as an officer.

[surveyor_101]

Tom1312 said:

I would argue by highlighting officers personal social media accounts or other details and releasing information about them, it could be seen as such, he is harassing the individuals, not the organisation and not in their role as an officer.

Its not clear if it's personal or police, many officers now have police social media pages. I know some officers who have fake profiles just so they fly under radar.

If they can prove he is targeting individuals and its a pattern of behaviour against an individual maybe but the wording of the arrest speech calls out Essex police and names no individuals.

surely his bail condition should be cease that not videoing people in public.

[Tom1312]

No idea.

But if he is repeatedly targeting the same officers, even whilst on duty, that would be a course action that amounts to harassment.

The wording of that arrest paperwork is odd and very vague.

However his bail conditions make perfect sense. If he is using the excuse of filming people to facilitate the offence, take that away from him and potentially prevent further offences.

Seems a clever way of avoiding impacting his day to day life (i.e not banning him from an area) and it's quite an easy condition to abide by.

Also... If I knew he was going to film the arrest, I probably would avoid naming the victims on film, otherwise you're potentially making life even harder for them. Even if the cost of doing so is looking a bit of a knob on his heavily edited videos.

[Mojooo]

Post the video .....?

[PorkInsider]

Motorrad said:

PorkInsider said:

I have no intention of watching whatever it is on YT but the sort of nonces who go out deliberately provoking a response from the police deserve whatever they get.

.

A nonce is slang for a sex offender who targets children. There is no evidence this individual targets children for sexual purposes. I think you might want to edit your ignorant comments.

I think you might want to research the etymology of the word before you call someone else ignorant based upon your own ignorance.