Video: From snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect

[EdinburghGary]

The photographer in question wasn't arrested either.... merely engaged in conversation. Well, I say engaged.... he wasn't too willing. Which lead to problems.

If he had been 'preparing an act of terrorism' and had refused to answer the officers questions, then what? Who's hands would be covered in the blood?

The officers just wanted to know what he was up to, nothing more.

I feel very :bang: that he didn't just tell them. He didn't have to hand over his name, or even show them the film. All he had to say was that he was a journalist filming for work. Job's a good'un. The officer gave him plenty of opportunities to talk. There was no mention of detention or arrest until he started actually asking about it, when he was obviously looking for trouble.

He was simply baiting the police, and FORCING them to prove that they really don't stick to the rules. As such, he has come across as a bit of a knob. The point is, if he had not been such a knob, then the police might have been less pushy, and there would be no story. Trouble is, there needs to be a story, as I have experienced police be much pushier for much less, personally. Not photographically related, but still. I have been on the wrong end of the guys in charge, who were clearly on power trips.

The more people than can prove Police are abusing power, and the more people watching and recording, the better for all of us.

Gary.

 

[Groucho]

I wonder what would happen if it was a film camera, they would not be able to view the film, so if they stopped him under section 44 they are saying it is on suspicion of him
carrying out some form of terrorist activity, so would they then have to get the film developed or just let him go on his way without being able to determine whether the photos he took were terrorist related or not.
Just a thought

 

[purpleclouds]

He was simply baiting the police, and FORCING them to prove that they really don't stick to the rules. As such, he has come across as a bit of a knob. The point is, if he had not been such a knob, then the police might have been less pushy, and there would be no story. Trouble is, there needs to be a story, as I have experienced police be much pushier for much less, personally. Not photographically related, but still. I have been on the wrong end of the guys in charge, who were clearly on power trips.

The more people than can prove they are not able to stick to there own rules, and the more people watching and recording, the better for all of us.

Gary.

I understand his motives for doing it... but as I said earlier in the thread, we should be promoting education and cohesion. Acted like a knob does neither of those. Just gives photographers a bad name.

If Joe Public watched that, they would get the impression all photographers behaved in such a 'rebellious' manner. Remember, they don't all know the law.. they just know what they see.

In that sense, he is preaching to the converted.

 

[Musicman]

Correct me if I'm wrong but under section 44 of the terrorsim act an officer has to have reasonable grounds to detain and search a suspect ie a reasonable suspision that the person is about to commit a terrorist act or is planning to commit a terrorist act.

I'm afraid not. No suspicion is required for s44, merely your presence in a designated area.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44

Section 45 defines how the power is to be used on the ground

45 Exercise of power

(1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—

(a)the vehicle;
(b) the driver of the vehicle;
(c) a passenger in the vehicle;
(d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger.​

(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.

(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.

(5) Where—

(a)a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(b) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.​

A Section 43 search (which is more intrusive) requires reasonable suspicion, however.

The intent, as explained by the government when the Bill was going through Parliament, was for police to use it in the immediate aftermath of an attack, where specific intelligence led police to believe an attack was about to take place or specific public events.

It's probably worth quoting Charles Clarke's evidence to the House of Commons when the Bill was going through Parliament to understand how it was presented and intended to be used.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmstand/d/st000201/am/00201s05.htm

On human rights, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that there was a risk of arguably contradicting article 5 of the convention. However, we do not accept that the clause faces difficulties in respect of the European convention on human rights. The action that we propose is proportionate, limited in time and area and is subject to confirmation. The European convention on human rights stresses the importance of how long a person is detained, and clause 43(4) makes it clear that the time should be strictly limited to how long it takes for the search. We do not therefore believe that there is any risk of non-compliance with the ECHR.

It is common ground that the police have stop-and-search powers at their disposal in certain circumstances to prevent acts of terrorism. The issue is what the test should be--expediency or strict necessity? We view it as a practical issue. If I may give an example, on occasion an officer may have two courses of action open to him regarding the policing of an event--for example, a public event such as a military band appearance, a large sports meeting or a Remembrance Sunday service--in the wake of a terrorist threat. In the light of that threat, the police may be aware of intelligence suggesting that the event could be the target for terrorist activity. Obviously, the safety of the public is the officer's first responsibility in the wake of that threat. He may believe that that can be secured either by cancelling the event altogether or by putting in place heightened checks in the vicinity to eliminate, so far as possible, the chance of an attack being mounted successfully. The police have faced that genuine operational choice on many occasions when they have been notified of terrorist threats.

It is indeed possible that the checks that are put in place in the vicinity of the event will include stopping and searching people in vehicles to prevent acts of terrorism. In such circumstances, I am sure that most of us would support a decision to go ahead with the event if that were assessed as a safe option. The organisers and those who were planning to attend would be happy, and the terrorists would have been denied the oxygen of publicity that often accompanies the cancellation of such events on security grounds. If, however, the officer or his senior could authorise the use of stop-and-search powers only if that were strictly necessary to prevent acts of terrorism, he would not be able to take the second option. The word "expedient" gives the power to set in motion an alternative to cancelling the event.

The emphasis here is that such authorisations would be time-limited.

This is somewhat different to the ongoing permanent s44 authorisations that exist in large parts of London (i.e. the whole of the Metropolitan Police area between 2001 and 2009 by dint of bringing new authorisations into force as each 28-day period lapes)

 

[EdinburghGary]

I understand his motives for doing it... but as I said earlier in the thread, we should be promoting education and cohesion. Acted like a knob does neither of those. Just gives photographers a bad name.

If Joe Public watched that, they would get the impression all photographers behaved in such a 'rebellious' manner. Remember, they don't all know the law.. they just know what they see.

I agree there must be 100 better ways to do it. The whole situation is pretty sad TBH, the balancing act police need to walk, especially in London, can't be easy at all. The guy has flawed the entire thing by acting in a way in which perhaps most of us would not act. If he had been reasonable, and given his name, his job, etc, and the police STILL insisted on the Section 44 stuff...it would carry more weight.

Gary.

 

[PhotoTalk]

Hacker, afraid your 'factual' list is still peppered with your opinions and assumptions, most notably with regard to 'suspicion'. I doubt very much that there was ever any real suspicion in this case. It seems quite clear to me that suspicion was ascribed to the journalist under Section 44 because he was being awkward.

As said previously, whether it's a good idea to conduct such tests is another argument.

I must also add that for you and everyone else who try to justify your case based on (a) emotive arguments associated with previous outrages, and (b) labelling the journalist a knob / idiot / plonker < insert here the various name-calling that has been resorted to >, you aren't producing a very plausible case for anything other than your own fears and prejudices. That's how I see it anyway.

 

[Arkady]

I'm with Squawk on this one I'm afraid - I am actually fighting for the freedoms we take for granted and I'll be mightily P'd off if they're no longer available to me and my kids (if and when I get round to all that), especially after all the sand I've had to eat.

It's irrelevant that this situation could be easily resolved by instant co-operation with the officers concerned, it is a right not to have to supply that information and as Squawk rightly points out, that's what our country is all about...
It's not about how the officers approached the Journalist, or how the Journalist acted or behaved, or about his motives for setting all this up...
It's about our RIGHTS as subjects in a free Sovereign State...

If I wanted to live in a Communist-Bloc State, I'd have moved to one years ago...

 

[corbystock]

Well if my wife & son are saved from being blown to pieces because of the actions of an 'over zealous' copper then fair play. For all we know, this could be happening every day ! I would much rather a nosey copper to one sat on his arse filling in paperwork.

 

[Hacker]

*snip*

I must also add that for you and everyone else who try to justify your case based on (a) emotive arguments associated with previous outrages, and (b) labelling the journalist a knob / idiot / plonker < insert here the various name-calling that has been resorted to >, you aren't producing a very plausible case for anything other than your own fears and prejudices. That's how I see it anyway.

The emotive arguments associated with previous outrages is precisely why we are in this position, if they had not happened this legislation would not be in place.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Well if my wife & son are saved from being blown to pieces because of the actions of an 'over zealous' copper then fair play. For all we know, this could be happening every day ! I would much rather a nosey copper to one sat on his arse filling in paperwork.

Seriously, how many terrorists do you think do their reconnaissance using a dslr and a sodding great big lens? Do you really think that that plain clothed police officer (why, oh why did he have to be a Scot? ) really thought the photographer was a terrorist? If he did it really doesn't say an awful lot for his deductive powers.

Not once has any evidence been put forward to show that photographs taken with a dslr (as those using "professional" cameras are the ones being stopped/searched) have been instrumental in the commision of any terrorist act.

I'm sure the law was written with the best intentions, the problem is that those tasked with enforcing it (low ranking police officers and PCSOs) and those who think that their job is to enforce it (security guards, park wardens etc) tend to have, at best, a limited knowledge of the law.

In the case of the Met they should be training those officers for whom the use of S44 is a regular occurance to apply it sensibly. It also probably do any harm for them to run awareness courses for the security industry to drive home the point that, in general, photographers aren't terrorists.....

 

[Musicman]

Metropolitan Police Authority: Stop and Search leaflet

The officer will ask you for your name, address and date of birth. You do not have to give these unless you are being arrested or reported for an offence. You will be given a receipt and it is important to keep this as you will need it if you wish to make a complaint or see the full record of the stop and search at a later date.

[emphasis added]

 

[PhotoTalk]

The emotive arguments associated with previous outrages is precisely why we are in this position, if they had not happened this legislation would not be in place.

If you mean 'the previous outrages' rather than the 'emotive arguments' about them, then yes, that's true. My point though was that we should be seeking to minimise emotion when discussing laws and crimes (in exactly the way Squawk has been doing so admirably). In the same way, we shouldn't fall back on the cheap trick of calling people names to make our point. It's simply another form of emotive rhetoric.

 

[PhotoTalk]

EDIT: Deleting as it was distracting from the main point.

 

[Squawk]

Some interesting discussion since I was last here, thats just what we need.

The people arguing in favour of the police in this incident all refer to one point over and over: the withholding of information by the journalist.

The implication of this is that you feel that by exercising your legal right to withhold that information you are arousing suspicion. I ask you to consider the wider implications of this, the notion that a legal act arouses suspicion.

Hacker, you listed the "facts", as you put it, asking us to remove the assumptions. I suggest you failed to list these adequatly. I invite you to consider the following, without reference to a specific act. For arguments sake, let us say that the incident I am about to detail took place in another country, say an african dictatorship.

####

A citizen is in a public place, one where he is free to move.

The citizen has not broken any law or shown any sign of doing so.

The citizen is approached by the authorities, who inform him that a person with no connection to the authorities has informed them that he is engaging in a legal activity, but one which they do not like. The citizen exercises his legal right not to provide information.

The officer reiterates no less than three times that his only reason for questioning is a report from a another citizen of a man engaging in perfectly legal activity.

More officials arrive and state that they do not require any suspicion in order to search the person or his things.

For a fourth time the officials note that they are acting on a report of the citizen carrying out an entirely legal activity.

The official states that he DOESN'T NEED grounds on which to perform the stop and search.

At the end of the interaction, the official notes that the citizen is trying to catch the authorities abusing their powers.

###

Now, if you heard a report like that from a dictatorship what would you think? A person, engaging in legal activity, approached by the authorities due to a complaint about his entirely legal activity and subsequently detained when he continued to behave entirely legally. The authorities confirm that they do not know what their own authority is.

From the film it is blatantly obvious that the officers do not have the first clue what they actually are allowed to do, since they constantly ask each other and phone back to base twice. This shows that they lied when they provided certain information to the reporter.


Hacker, you seem to be arguing that obeying the law and observing your rights is reasonable grounds for suspicion. Being un-cooperative and obstruction are not the same things. You are not required to give details, and on a legal footing this does not provide any grounds for suspicion. It might annoy the police officer, but it should not impact, in any way, his actions in dealing with the situation.

You asked this

Look at it from the police officers point of view - what would you do? They are there as the result of a call and must deal with the incident - I would be interested to know how you would approach it;

I would try to uphold the law to the best of my abilities. The first thing to do would be to ask the man exactly what he was doing, as the officer did. I would probably have explained the reason I was stopping him and asked again for an explanation. I would have engaged him in conversation.

I would not have abused my powers when the man became un-cooperative as the officer did, as I would recognise that this was not grounds for suspicion. I would probably have been annoyed, I would hope that this would not negatively effect my own judgement. I say this with knowledge that less than a week earlier all members of the force were reminded that recording images is not illegal.

Maybe you have been fortunate enough not to have to deal with immediate aftermath of a bomb but unfortunately I have and I have witnessed up close and personal the death, maiming and destruction it can cause so this 'journalist' gets no sympathy from me for his behaviour. He was trying to set the police up (when they have got better things to do) and make a sensationalist piece of film backed up by a questionable report in the Guardian.

I am reminded here of a quote from Benjamin Franklin

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

The journalist was only able to "set the police up" because they abused their powers. If they had sought to uphold the law and operate within their powers it would not have been possible to "set the police up" in any way. The police exist in order to uphold the law of the land. If you wish the law of the land to extend to detention due to lack of co-operation then I see no hope for liberty in this country. I have the right to be an asshole should I so choose, as long as I do not break any laws.

He was taking pictures and then acted like a knob - it's not that important. Sometimes you have to give up some of your 'liberties' for the greater good in order to preserve life.

I refer you once again to the quote from Franklin, it mirrors my own opinion on the matter.

 

[gazedd]

You can tell its a blatant attempt to provoke a story, but he is testing the waters. The guy was clued up with what he was talking about to the police and was prepared.

Genuinely, how many people would have just stopped and been "Bullied" / "Forced" to move on?
The security guards explanation made no sense either making me feel that he didn't realy know what he was going on about. If the buildings reception (lower region) is out of bounds but the top half is, Whats stopping you from going up an adjacent building and shooting in? I'm sure his argument would soon change!

Its a mine field out there and this is what puts me off shooting on the street. I just don't know where the law starts and finishes and would rather just stay away from the confusion!

 

[desantnik]

If I wanted to live in a Communist-Bloc State, I'd have moved to one years ago...

And very safe places they were too. Hardly any crime, terrorists got what was coming to them and generally nothing happened... except for a total security state that spied on everyone and trusted nobody.

 

[Arkady]

And very safe places they were too. Hardly any crime, terrorists got what was coming to them and generally nothing happened... except for a total security state that spied on everyone and trusted nobody.

Remind me again of the beginning to every KGB 'questioning'...?

"Relax... if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear..."

I know a few people now who were guests of the Sicherheitstaatspolitzei or East German Stasi and they prefer to be living in the terrible unsafe modern Germany than the warm and cuddly Democratic Republic...

A good movie on the subject if you've not seen it already is 'The Lives Of Others'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_Others

 

[bomberman]

what an absolute *****er, I'm not surprised the police were annoyed with him. Just making things worse for us togs. It'll go one of either 2 ways: photography will be banned on streets and they'll get the full right to stop and search you and probably arrest you. OR it'll be easy as pie for any terrorist to document anything they like about the security of buildings in cities. Nieter outcome is good.

 

[oldnick]

I think its entirely feasible that a terrorist planning an attack on the city would act like, and behave like a tourist. Entrances would interest him, how close could he get a vehicle? what is the security like? are there cameras? The City is a prime target. The Police had ample reason to question him. As one who works in London I'm glad the Police are actively looking after my safety. This incident was in no way similar to Squawk's innocent citizen.

 

[Squawk]

I think its entirely feasible that a terrorist planning an attack on the city would act like, and behave like a tourist. Entrances would interest him, how close could he get a vehicle? what is the security like? are there cameras? The City is a prime target. The Police had ample reason to question him. As one who works in London I'm glad the Police are actively looking after my safety. This incident was in no way similar to Squawk's innocent citizen.

Can you point out which law he broke? Can you point out which law he could be suspected of breaking? Do we even know if this was a section 44 area?

 

[desantnik]

I know a few people now who were guests of the Sicherheitstaatspolitzei or East German Stasi and they prefer to be living in the terrible unsafe modern Germany than the warm and cuddly Democratic Republic...

I know a few who prefferred the protection of the Stasi actually

Quite a few posters in this thread would probably feel safer too

Remind me again of the beginning to every KGB 'questioning'...?

"Relax... if you are innocent, you have nothing to fear..."

Actually, the probable first question would have been "When did you first betray the Motherland?"...

 

[oldnick]

Can you point out which law he broke? Can you point out which law he could be suspected of breaking? Do we even know if this was a section 44 area?

A great deal of Policing relies on common sense, and common sense tells me that these building are potential targets and that photographing the entrances and security arrangement might be helpful to a potential terrorist. What is the alternative - a law banning all street photography?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

What is the alternative - a law banning all street photography?

That's what Martin Parr reckons will happen...

 

[PhotoTalk]

A great deal of Policing relies on common sense, and common sense tells me that these building are potential targets and that photographing the entrances and security arrangement might be helpful to a potential terrorist. What is the alternative - a law banning all street photography?

erm .. whose common sense would that be exactly? Yours? The police officers'? The reporter's? Mine? Squawk's?

Or to put it another way, judging from your posts on this thread, you and I have have very different views of what is sensible -- which is exactly why we don't rely on the fiction of so-called 'common sense' when discussing law.

 

[Squawk]

A great deal of Policing relies on common sense, and common sense tells me that these building are potential targets and that photographing the entrances and security arrangement might be helpful to a potential terrorist. What is the alternative - a law banning all street photography?

Walking down the street observing the things you walk passed might be useful to a potential terrorist. It does not constitute grounds for suspicion and is perfectly legal.
Taking photographs of a building might be useful to a potential terrorist. It does not constitute grounds for suspicion and is perfectly legal.

The point is that not the photographer in this case was stopped and questioned by the officer. I have already said, in this thread, that in the position of the police officer I would have approached and done the same. The officer had received a report of a man acting suspiciously, it was his duty to investigate. The problem is the abuse of police power and the escalation of the situation when the photographer in question was approached.

The officer claimed the tog was obligated to provide his name under section 44. He is not. The officer openly stated that his only reason for supicion was the word of the security forces. It became clear instantly that this was not grounds for suspicion, and so the interaction should have ended.

Common sense might tell you that these buildings are targets. It might also tell you that a terrorist might photograph them. That is irrelevant in this situation. The situation being discussed is the abuse of police power, and of particular note the ignorance of the police of the rights of the person they were questioning despite their assertions that they knew his rights.

Throughout the interaction the various officers involved continually asked for information that they said they were entitled to, information that when pressed they revealed wasn't actually required. The issue here is not the tog being approached, it is the nature of the interaction and the abuse of police power after the initial approach when the tog was uncooperative.

A lack of co-operation is not a criminal offense and is not grounds for suspicion, yet it was taken as being both by the police in this instance. That is the abuse of power being discussed.

 

[alpina]

I'm with Squawk on this one I'm afraid - I am actually fighting for the freedoms we take for granted and I'll be mightily P'd off if they're no longer available to me and my kids (if and when I get round to all that), especially after all the sand I've had to eat.

It's irrelevant that this situation could be easily resolved by instant co-operation with the officers concerned, it is a right not to have to supply that information and as Squawk rightly points out, that's what our country is all about...
It's not about how the officers approached the Journalist, or how the Journalist acted or behaved, or about his motives for setting all this up...
It's about our RIGHTS as subjects in a free Sovereign State...

If I wanted to live in a Communist-Bloc State, I'd have moved to one years ago...

 

[oldnick]

Common sense might tell you that these buildings are targets. It might also tell you that a terrorist might photograph them. That is irrelevant in this situation. The situation being discussed is the abuse of police power, and of particular note the ignorance of the police of the rights of the person they were questioning despite their assertions that they knew his rights.

Agreed, the Police did not seem that sure of the law, however the article and all your previous posts imply that photographers should be able to take pictures of any building without the involvement of the Police, and it is this that I dispute.

 

[Squawk]

Agreed, the Police did not seem that sure of the law, however the article and all your previous posts imply that photographers should be able to take pictures of any building without the involvement of the Police, and it is this that I dispute.

I have no problem with a discussion on changing the law, but this discussion concerns the enforcement of the law as it now stands.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I didn't realise that ALL railway staions in the UK were subject to S44 regulations, according to the BBC Viewfinder blog

 

[Simmotino]

You know, this can all be solved with a simple rewrite of the procedures for Section 44 et al:

Act like a pillock, cause yourself grief. Act like a grown up, be on your way inside of two minutes.

The only thing that journalist needs is a bl**dy good slap from his mother!

 

[Squawk]

You know, this can all be solved with a simple rewrite of the procedures for Section 44 et al:

Act like a pillock, cause yourself grief. Act like a grown up, be on your way inside of two minutes.

In effect, that is what is being argued for here.

 

[George7]

I don't see how taking photos of a building can be deemed as terrorism but still. From reading that article, it seems the journalist acted a bit of a **** which quite simply does photographers NO favours whatsoever.

I've been stopped once. Me and my friend were taking some light trail shots on a motorway bridge and some police stopped and asked us what we were doing so I showed them the shots and they pretty much just said "ohh cool, is that for a project or something?". If you have nothing to hide then I don't see the problem with showing a policeman your photos. Being friendly really makes a difference.

 

[Simmotino]

I don't see how taking photos of a building can be deemed as terrorism but still.

Depending on what you are taking pictures of within that building and how, I can understand as to why suspicions may be aroused.

As the security guard said, take shots of the buildings by all means, just not the reception areas or fire escapes etc.

 

[coldpenguin]

If I were more of an Anarchist, I might actually consider doing what I am going to suggest here.

I think we should have a TP meet. No Cameras allowed. Tripods only.
We will meet outside of the Gherkin, on the public street. For 10 minutes each person, we will set up our tripod and 'frame up' our shot.

If (/when), we are questioned by police about what we are doing, the answer should be that we are thinking about performing some photography in a public place. There should be no other question from the policeman surely? We have explained what we are doing, it is perfectly legal and could in no way be considered to be a terrorist act. Surely we are allowed to think still??

 

[Arkady]

Thinking about performing some photgraphy...lol

I like...

 

[coldpenguin]

Thinking about performing some photgraphy...lol

I like...

Its the UK, in winter, not a lot else you can do with the light

 

[Foggy]

Agreed, the Police did not seem that sure of the law, however the article and all your previous posts imply that photographers should be able to take pictures of any building without the involvement of the Police, and it is this that I dispute.

So what buildings should I not be able to photograph?

 

[PsiFox]

So what buildings should I not be able to photograph?

You are allowed to photograph the Top Secret bunker in Essex. Just follow the road signs from Brentwood.

 

[GrittyShaker]

The day terrorism enters your life and i pray it does not i will reply to your incoherant rant !!

I have been a victim of an act of terrorism when I was ~12 years old. The tourist coach I was on in Egypt had a nail bomb launched at it. By sheer good luck for me, my family, and the other SOB (not for the poor bloke in the car in front of us), whomever made the attack was a terrible shot.

I grant you, this was a different country. In fact, the perpetrators were hanged shortly afterwards, or so I heard. But I don't believe for one second that stopping someone with a camera beforehand would have made a blind bit of difference to whether the attack happened or not.

I also believe the same is true today, probably even more so. As previously mentioned in most of the threads similar to this one; more information is available via t'interweb than ever before. It is not necessary for anyone planning an attack to do any recon work with a DSLR.

Thankfully, being 12 and only having a disposable camera on me, meant that I was able to get this shot afterwards, without being questioned by the many armed police present.

As for the "incoherent" bit; well, your double-spacing and double exclamation marks are making my brain hurt.

 

[Doug]

I am sure it has been said before but the reporter is a complete badger trying to cause problems. The plain clothes copper handled the situation perfectly IMO.

The police put up with too much **** tbh