This could be expensive - M25 Journalist arrest
Discussion
Also in the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/21/he...
So Herts police, despite saying their officers acted "in good faith", reveal their officers were actually instructed to arrest journalists.
The good police officers they are decided to follow this unlawful request, rather than challenging it or just, perhaps, actually knowing themselves what the law was.
Will the person who gave this instruction be charged with misconduct in a public office I wonder? (Which is probably the most serious offence it could be tried under?)
If it seemed more like an "honest" mistake, then perhaps a suitable penalty would be to mirror the honest mistakes made by members of the public each day. (See the thread on camera vans for examples)
But this appears to be a deliberate mistake - more akin to a professional foul in football?
It's crossing a line though, so I'm glad it's finally getting some more attention though, and Herts police are realising a "sorry we got caught" letter isn't going to be sufficient.
Ian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/21/he...
So Herts police, despite saying their officers acted "in good faith", reveal their officers were actually instructed to arrest journalists.
The good police officers they are decided to follow this unlawful request, rather than challenging it or just, perhaps, actually knowing themselves what the law was.
Will the person who gave this instruction be charged with misconduct in a public office I wonder? (Which is probably the most serious offence it could be tried under?)
If it seemed more like an "honest" mistake, then perhaps a suitable penalty would be to mirror the honest mistakes made by members of the public each day. (See the thread on camera vans for examples)
But this appears to be a deliberate mistake - more akin to a professional foul in football?
It's crossing a line though, so I'm glad it's finally getting some more attention though, and Herts police are realising a "sorry we got caught" letter isn't going to be sufficient.
Ian
Somebody needs to lose their jobs over this. A deliberate instruction to obstruct the freedom of the press and detain journalists? In the UK, not some tinpot dictatorship?
No...the courts need to stamp that out hard, now. They won't of course, but they should...this is dangerous stuff...
No...the courts need to stamp that out hard, now. They won't of course, but they should...this is dangerous stuff...
havoc said:
Somebody needs to lose their jobs over this. A deliberate instruction to obstruct the freedom of the press and detain journalists? In the UK, not some tinpot dictatorship?
No...the courts need to stamp that out hard, now. They won't of course, but they should...this is dangerous stuff...
The thread on the JSO protests in NP&E was quite eye-opening at the time.No...the courts need to stamp that out hard, now. They won't of course, but they should...this is dangerous stuff...
Plenty of people seemed to think the way the Police behaved was fine or the journalists in some way brought it on themselves by covering the protests.
Draxindustries1 said:
havoc said:
.this is dangerous stuff...
So is the exaggeration,sensationalism and lies perpetrated by the press/ media in general...One of the photographers arrested had recorded it right up until the handcuffs went on, and it was plain that the officers performing the arrest had just been instructed to arrest them and take them away no matter what was said. The LBC presenter (the following day I think) was even more obvious - you'd just need to turn on any radio to understand that she was legit, even if you hadn't recognised her name.
Gareth79 said:
One of the photographers arrested had recorded it right up until the handcuffs went on, and it was plain that the officers performing the arrest had just been instructed to arrest them and take them away no matter what was said. The LBC presenter (the following day I think) was even more obvious - you'd just need to turn on any radio to understand that she was legit, even if you hadn't recognised her name.
They knew who she was Gareth there is no argument about that Hertfordshire police have a vendetta with Global radio (LBC) and they stupidly tried to exercise what they believed they could do
We might not like some media people but when this happens it is an attack on democracy we need a free press
Ian Geary said:
Also in the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/21/he...
So Herts police, despite saying their officers acted "in good faith", reveal their officers were actually instructed to arrest journalists.
The good police officers they are decided to follow this unlawful request, rather than challenging it or just, perhaps, actually knowing themselves what the law was.
Will the person who gave this instruction be charged with misconduct in a public office I wonder? (Which is probably the most serious offence it could be tried under?)
If it seemed more like an "honest" mistake, then perhaps a suitable penalty would be to mirror the honest mistakes made by members of the public each day. (See the thread on camera vans for examples)
But this appears to be a deliberate mistake - more akin to a professional foul in football?
It's crossing a line though, so I'm glad it's finally getting some more attention though, and Herts police are realising a "sorry we got caught" letter isn't going to be sufficient.
Ian
Having read the story, it seems a slight overstatement to say that they were ordered to arrest journalists: it reads more to me that they were advised to arrest ANYONE that was there, and gave no thought to the fact that there might be journalists present.https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/21/he...
So Herts police, despite saying their officers acted "in good faith", reveal their officers were actually instructed to arrest journalists.
The good police officers they are decided to follow this unlawful request, rather than challenging it or just, perhaps, actually knowing themselves what the law was.
Will the person who gave this instruction be charged with misconduct in a public office I wonder? (Which is probably the most serious offence it could be tried under?)
If it seemed more like an "honest" mistake, then perhaps a suitable penalty would be to mirror the honest mistakes made by members of the public each day. (See the thread on camera vans for examples)
But this appears to be a deliberate mistake - more akin to a professional foul in football?
It's crossing a line though, so I'm glad it's finally getting some more attention though, and Herts police are realising a "sorry we got caught" letter isn't going to be sufficient.
Ian
Clearly wrong, and they shouldn't have been arrested, but not quite the Stasi-esque clampdown on journalism that the headline implies.
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Having read the story, it seems a slight overstatement to say that they were ordered to arrest journalists: it reads more to me that they were advised to arrest ANYONE that was there, and gave no thought to the fact that there might be journalists present.
Clearly wrong, and they shouldn't have been arrested, but not quite the Stasi-esque clampdown on journalism that the headline implies.
But what right DID they have to arrest anyone who was there?Clearly wrong, and they shouldn't have been arrested, but not quite the Stasi-esque clampdown on journalism that the headline implies.
Are innocent bystanders / observers not allowed in society anymore?
...and at what point did anyone say/think 'hang on, the press are allowed to go anywhere that's not got a security restriction?'
If the police don't bother to know the law, why should "ignorance of the law is no excuse" continue to be allowed to stand for the rest of us?
I'm sure it will be expensive.
My step-son was detained in a group by West Midlands Police while traveling to watch a football match before they were eventually marched back to the station to get a train home. He had to argue that he would prefer to get the train home (to where he had a ticket) and not be put on a train to Bristol, in the opposite direction.
The supporters trust (and supporters directly) funded legal action against WMP, who eventually settled for a reasonably noticeable amount out of court.
It was noticeable that there were some significant untruths told by the WMP Officers. One officer did go with the truth - she was out of her area so I suspect had not toed the line.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/sport/football/foot...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-4982...
My step-son was detained in a group by West Midlands Police while traveling to watch a football match before they were eventually marched back to the station to get a train home. He had to argue that he would prefer to get the train home (to where he had a ticket) and not be put on a train to Bristol, in the opposite direction.
The supporters trust (and supporters directly) funded legal action against WMP, who eventually settled for a reasonably noticeable amount out of court.
It was noticeable that there were some significant untruths told by the WMP Officers. One officer did go with the truth - she was out of her area so I suspect had not toed the line.
https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/sport/football/foot...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-4982...
surveyor said:
I'm sure it will be expensive.
That's properly s
t...glad your son finally got it all recognised.As for the cash...they probably won't care, as they're taxpayer funded. Chief Constables aren't measured on any sort of financial performance, so s
t like this doesn't get anywhere near their appraisal radar in the same way that it would if a private-company CEO presided over a big fine....so yes, those ten supporters (and probably the journalists) get some recompense, but there's nowhere near the same incentive for the organisation to learn and change...
One quick question - the coppers that lied in court - was any sort of perjury charge brought against them?
havoc said:
surveyor said:
I'm sure it will be expensive.
That's properly st...glad your son finally got it all recognised.As for the cash...they probably won't care, as they're taxpayer funded. Chief Constables aren't measured on any sort of financial performance, so s
t like this doesn't get anywhere near their appraisal radar in the same way that it would if a private-company CEO presided over a big fine....so yes, those ten supporters (and probably the journalists) get some recompense, but there's nowhere near the same incentive for the organisation to learn and change...
One quick question - the coppers that lied in court - was any sort of perjury charge brought against them?
havoc said:
That's properly st...glad your son finally got it all recognised.
As for the cash...they probably won't care, as they're taxpayer funded. Chief Constables aren't measured on any sort of financial performance, so st like this doesn't get anywhere near their appraisal radar in the same way that it would if a private-company CEO presided over a big fine.
...so yes, those ten supporters (and probably the journalists) get some recompense, but there's nowhere near the same incentive for the organisation to learn and change...
One quick question - the coppers that lied in court - was any sort of perjury charge brought against them?
It didn't get to Court, so no perjury.t...glad your son finally got it all recognised.As for the cash...they probably won't care, as they're taxpayer funded. Chief Constables aren't measured on any sort of financial performance, so s
t like this doesn't get anywhere near their appraisal radar in the same way that it would if a private-company CEO presided over a big fine....so yes, those ten supporters (and probably the journalists) get some recompense, but there's nowhere near the same incentive for the organisation to learn and change...
One quick question - the coppers that lied in court - was any sort of perjury charge brought against them?
havoc said:
But what right DID they have to arrest anyone who was there?
Are innocent bystanders / observers not allowed in society anymore?
...and at what point did anyone say/think 'hang on, the press are allowed to go anywhere that's not got a security restriction?'
If the police don't bother to know the law, why should "ignorance of the law is no excuse" continue to be allowed to stand for the rest of us?
Clearly at some time there will be a tipping point where lawful protest becomes unlawful and people are arrested. I don't know what right they had or didn't have to arrest anyone there, as I wasn't there, so to speak. Are innocent bystanders / observers not allowed in society anymore?
...and at what point did anyone say/think 'hang on, the press are allowed to go anywhere that's not got a security restriction?'
If the police don't bother to know the law, why should "ignorance of the law is no excuse" continue to be allowed to stand for the rest of us?
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Clearly at some time there will be a tipping point where lawful protest becomes unlawful and people are arrested. I don't know what right they had or didn't have to arrest anyone there, as I wasn't there, so to speak.
But these were bystanders. Observers. Not protesting at all. The most the coppers should have been able to do at that point was ask them to move along (not sure on the limits there, but possible)Moreover, they identified themselves as press. At that point the coppers had NO excuse for arresting them.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff