Police examining terrorist raid photographs.....eep

Holden Caulfield said:
We are in a police state!!

As for becoming paranoid, I think we have good reason to be, as for knowing your rights I think you have been watching to many Dixon of Dock Green episodes.
Click to expand...
I am not naive (I am unfortunately too old for that). I do think however the overreaction by photographers (amongst whom I number myself) just adds to the perception that there is a problem. If there are genuine cases of arrests of innocent photographers under these provisions then we will all have reason to complain, and I will be there complaining long and loud.
Holden Caulfield said:
Basically as we have seen recently with the arrests in the North of England taking pictures of public property can get you detained without charge for up to 28 days, just enough for you to lose your job , and proberbly your home.
Click to expand...
I think I am right in saying that the process requires that after 48 hours in pre-charge detention, additional periods of detention, in seven day increments, may then be granted by magistrates, up to a total of fourteen days. Detention from fourteen to twenty-eight days has to be granted by a High Court judge. Going through this process would require more than just the opinion of your average constable on the street who doesn't want to be photographed using more than "reasonable force". Very senior officers would need to be convinced of, and support the case. Of course those who are convinced the whole of the police force are out to get them will know they're screwed regardless!!!!
Holden Caulfield said:
Basically the UK has some of the most draconian anti terror laws in the world , yet sucessfull prosicutions remain alarmingly low.
Click to expand...
I agree our terror laws are draconian, but there are many countries whose general law is much more draconian than ours. I wonder how one would fare in for example Zimbabwe if the authorities "suspected" you of something? I bet ayone in that situation would rather be in the "care" of our police force. I'm not trying to say our law is right or good, just that it is not as bad as I believe you were trying to make out.
I too am concerned at the poor success rate following these detentions, which of course is the main argument against the 28 day pre-charge detention, and the main reason the ill conceived attempt to extend it to 42 days was defeated in parliament. Either the police are picking up the wrong people (which is entirely possible), or they are not investigating competently (which is also entirely possible).
Holden Caulfield said:
Familerising your self with the law will do you no good, as they will just arrest you anyway , one full cavity search later, you will do exactly as you are told !!
Click to expand...
Familiarising yourself with the law will help - your view is rather defeatest! Cavity search or not, I would never admit to something I hadn't done.
 
Druid said:
Sure but in practice, that means that they can stop photography when it's practical for them to do so, then just let the terrorism prosecution fail or get forgotten about. They don't have to secure a conviction to prevent you taking a photo that they don't want you to take, e.g of them killing some poor guy because he didn't jump to obey their orders, or beating up completely harmless middle-class eco-hippies for example.

The whole point of photography is capturing the moment, if they can stop that, if they can prevent you capturing the precise moment in time where the batons go in when most reasonable people would think they shouldn't or the moment when they attack some guy who subsequently dies because he wasn't obedient enough, then the problem is solved and they don't have to worry about actually proving that you're trying to help terrorists.
The answer to it, as shown by the G20 protests is to saturate the event with photography, so it becomes completely impractical to prevent it.
Click to expand...

:thinking: Sorry, but I don't think that this is entirely fair.

Photography can be even more devisive than the written word (even though you've just done a pretty good job of painting a pretty vulgar and one-sided image of the UK police force :|).

A photograph can be made to tell either the truth, or a complete lie! It's all in the hands of the people who choose and manipulate the images (i.e. the general public, the media or people with an agenda, one way or the other). I think that this discussion is just meaningless, without acknowledging that fact :|.
 
Cheesy said:
If people do not like these restrictions then their elected representatives can be found in London, they are in the big old building, next to the river, across from the big white Ferris wheel.

Cheesy
Click to expand...


I don't like those restrictions ... now how do I get in there to complain? ;)

FWIW, the police are crowing that they found identifiable pictures of shopping centres and a nightclub. Just the sort of things that people have in the backgrounds of their holiday snaps :whistling:
 
Familiarising yourself with the law will help - your view is rather defeatest! Cavity search or not, I would never admit to something I hadn't done.
Click to expand...

Defeatest......realistic it think you will find!! , as for not admitting to something you had not done , that is exactly what the Birmingham six thought.

As for your assertion about the state of affairs in Zimbabwe, I would remind you that they have ended up as we have begun with the drip drip drip erosion of civil liberties.

To conclude I would respecfully to ask to remove those Rose coloured glasses you are wearing and wake up..:gag:
 
Quote of the year from Cheesy

Do we have a 'Freedom of Speech' in the UK? I genuinely don't know and will happily take guidance for those in the know.
Click to expand...

Hitler would have been thrilled to bits to have you as a citizen, you are truly the Homer Simpson of the forum, well done.:bonk:
 
I am not naive (I am unfortunately too old for that).
Click to expand...

Which is Bigblue, a 'naive' position to take, since when did 'age' a 'wisdom' go hand in hand?

You could have had the same barmpot ideas for the last 60 years , which would make you 'old and ill informed' not 'wise':cuckoo:

Your not related to Cheesey are any chance.;)
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Quote of the year from Cheesey



Hitler would have been thrilled to bits to have you as a citizen, you are truly the Homer Simpson of the forum, well done.:bonk:
Click to expand...

Only 2 e's in Cheesy clown shoes! I should have phrased my question in a better way. Do we have a Bill of Rights in the style of the United States? Grown up answers only please (and Holden, try not to take over 15 hrs to answer this time - I can almost hear the cogs ticking!)

Yves Geza - not sure about how to get in, never been to the place before but I did once see a photo ..... :)

Good banter mate!:thumbs:

Cheesy
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Quote of the year from Cheesey
Click to expand...

Cheesy said:
Do we have a 'Freedom of Speech' in the UK? I genuinely don't know and will happily take guidance for those in the know.
Click to expand...

Holden Caulfield said:
Hitler would have been thrilled to bits to have you as a citizen, you are truly the Homer Simpson of the forum, well done.:bonk:
Click to expand...

Deary me Holden,

Are you unaware that Mr Cheese does not actually mean that statement in it's literal sense?

He's intentionally baiting a hook there and your biting like a starving fish.

I would also advise to calm thyself, some members have agreed with points you have raised and raised some very valid points themselves which deserve continuity and not so much retaliation.
In order to continue the discussion one needs a little more patience and dexterity. :thumbs:
 
Thomas ,

No need to jump in and save me, thank you all the same. Cheesy helmet flake or whatever he is called is doing a good job of making himself look like the forum equivalent of a village idiot.
Just Joking your Honour… :thumbs:

But you are indeed correct, there is no sport in having a battle of wits with those ill equipped to defend themselves.

Anyway what about these revelations in the Grauniad, more evidence of how the 'powers that be' cover up police Incompetence

Here
 
oh my gods, its the same old same old..

bladdy trolling

if you guys don't de-troll, my ****ing ignore list will be drop off the bottom of the page, and I'll have to talk to mods.....and they won't like that.
do em a favour
 
when you have all stopped calling each other names, can you please remember to keep it civil and polite?

Joxby if you dont like a post, just hit the report button, much easier than posting something that wont really help the thread..we dont want to antagonise anyone now, do we.
 
Naboo32 said:
:thinking: Sorry, but I don't think that this is entirely fair.

Photography can be even more devisive than the written word (even though you've just done a pretty good job of painting a pretty vulgar and one-sided image of the UK police force :|).

A photograph can be made to tell either the truth, or a complete lie! It's all in the hands of the people who choose and manipulate the images (i.e. the general public, the media or people with an agenda, one way or the other). I think that this discussion is just meaningless, without acknowledging that fact :|.
Click to expand...

Well, from my point of view as someone who has been on a few demos, the behaviour of the cop who attacked Mr Tomlinson is normal and routine. So for me, bringing this behaviour to the notice of the general population seems like a worthwhile thing to do. If it makes people question the behaviour of our police, then that seems to me entirely reasonable, because I think their behaviour at demonstrations is very questionable. For me the video of the masked cop attacking Mr Tomlinson for not moving fast enough, for 'giving cheek' or for not showing sufficiently submissive behaviour seems faithfully representative of the way that the police behave on pretty much every demo I've been on.

Edited to add. See e.g. this footage from about 3.50 onwards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM in particular the backhander to the face of the tiny woman remonstrating with the officers maintaining the 'kettle' and then the baton blow to her legs that drops her out of the picture at about 4.00
 
Hazooz,another thread involving people from thier safe homes slagging the people off who provide that safety.All you people who hate our police so much,should either go and live abroad or opt out of paying for them.You save on your council tax,no sweat, but don`t expect help when you are in the sheite.

Quite simple really...........:)

Cue the usual left wing socialist,do gooding [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].
 
*stands by thread, waving big stick around in a menacing manner*
 
*shrug* I think I've been polite and have simply expressed my experience of demos.

If that upsets people, then I'm happy to be guided by the mods about whether I can express such views here. I think it is relevant from a photographic point of view though, a) because the general public would be unaware of the way police behave on demos without citizen journalism and b) because it seems very likely that the new powers given to the police will be used to prevent citizen journalism in the future.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Basically as we have seen recently with the arrests in the North of England taking pictures of public property can get you detained without charge for up to 28 days, just enough for you to lose your job , and proberbly your home.
Click to expand...

ORLY?

Link, please
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Which is Bigblue, a 'naive' position to take, since when did 'age' a 'wisdom' go hand in hand?

You could have had the same barmpot ideas for the last 60 years , which would make you 'old and ill informed' not 'wise':cuckoo:

Your not related to Cheesey are any chance.;)
Click to expand...
Holden,
I was hoping that you would like to engage in a reasonable discussion, but as your responses to my posts are clearly designed to insult, it seems not. Anyway, this is my last word on this thread.
 
Druid said:
Edited to add. See e.g. this footage from about 3.50 onwards: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V23PGWd46MM in particular the backhander to the face of the tiny woman remonstrating with the officers maintaining the 'kettle' and then the baton blow to her legs that drops her out of the picture at about 4.00
Click to expand...

I Think the police were remarkably restrained actually. People started launching themselves at the police and they were just trying to push them back. People then just started hurling disgusting foul language at them which for me says it all. As for the "small woman", she started abusing the copper and was told to get back, but she still insisted on getting in his face. He waved her away and caught her, we didn't actually see his hand connect with her face and she didn't seem to react as if she was actually hurt. There was a sound at the same time that made it sound a lot worse but I'm pretty sure that came from somewhere else. As for the baton, well how many times do people have to be told to get back?
 
fabs said:
I Think the police were remarkably restrained actually. People started launching themselves at the police and they were just trying to push them back. People then just started hurling disgusting foul language at them which for me says it all. As for the "small woman", she started abusing the copper and was told to get back, but she still insisted on getting in his face. He waved her away and caught her, we didn't actually see his hand connect with her face and she didn't seem to react as if she was actually hurt. There was a sound at the same time that made it sound a lot worse but I'm pretty sure that came from somewhere else. As for the baton, well how many times do people have to be told to get back?
Click to expand...

Here's a picture from the side, after he backhands her with that robocop glove thingy and just as he draws his baton to whack her in the legs.

You can judge for yourself whether she presented a significant threat to anyone, thereby justifying his behaviour as 'reasonable force'.

I personally think that a guy his size, hitting a woman her size with a weapon because she yelled at him should be looking at jail time.

427428.jpg


source

Here's a shorter version of the video, from the time the black guy tries to get out of the 'kettle', which seems to be what set off the confrontation. You'll notice that a senior officer quickly moves to try to get people to stop photographing what's happening. 'Turn away, nothing to see here' or words to that effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16pPRoabhc
 
I agree the police do seem to be getting all manner of flak, some of it undeservedly so.

I personally believe that the behaviour at the G20 summit which may or may not have resulted in Ian Tomlinsons death, has caused a little fuzz fever, the fact that it is no longer in the media's eye adds to this fever and enrages the public even further.
Whether Mr Tomlinson was insulting the officers mothers in the most crude and provocative manner, he should not have been pushed like that. Period. The Officer suffered a serious lapse and I'd like to think he regrets it.

Personally, the events that knocked Mr Tomlinsons death out of the headlines, Bob Quick, the raids, the students who have copped the wrap and the possible ramifications this will have on photography in public places are of concern to me.

Whenever public opinion is against the powers that be you can bet your bottom dollar that something turns up pretty sharpish to sway the opinion, you can almost set your bloody watch by it.

However, to tarnish all of the police with the same brush, is madness. Yes there has been some appalling displays of mindless violence by certain officers and it needs to stop. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16pPRoabhc
See all those camera's in the clip? Those pesky devices that are recording the police striking those people? Well, I think the plan is quite clear when it comes to restricting photography and videography in public.

Protesters can also display similar traits too.
'Yeah, your angry, yeah you have something pertinent to say, how about you put those rocks down, calm down and say it?' Both need a good slap sometimes IMO.

Some say that we are not on our way to a Police State, some heartily disagree.
Some say that the one world government and new world order is a great idea, some don't even believe that it's the plan.

It seems common place with debates or discussions like this, abusive conduct seems to be rife.
Folks feel so strongly about the events and can't talk or communicate without slipping a wee remark in wherever possible. It eventually builds up and then it develops into an argument.

I'm no angel and I should also take my own advice:
If you want to be heard and be involved, watch your attitude.
 
I tend to agree with Druid. The police aren't famous for using their power wisely and these days the only freedom of speech we have left is the freedom to insult people on internet forums. :p

But to lighten the mood slightly, if anyone has half an hour to spare, all three parts of Mark Thomas radio show "My Life in Serious Organised Crime" are available on YouTube


HTML: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M

It's the funniest thing he's ever done, the joke builds and builds and builds and shows just how ridiculous our police state is!
 
Druid said:
Here's a picture from the side, after he backhands her with that robocop glove thingy and just as he draws his baton to whack her in the legs.

You can judge for yourself whether she presented a significant threat to anyone, thereby justifying his behaviour as 'reasonable force'.

I personally think that a guy his size, hitting a woman her size with a weapon because she yelled at him should be looking at jail time.

427428.jpg


source

Here's a shorter version of the video, from the time the black guy tries to get out of the 'kettle', which seems to be what set off the confrontation. You'll notice that a senior officer quickly moves to try to get people to stop photographing what's happening. 'Turn away, nothing to see here' or words to that effect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16pPRoabhc
Click to expand...

You always post valid points but your obvious bias always detracts too much. That cop striking the female with the baton will be in big trouble. The fact that she took it upon herself to gob off for no particular reason leaves me a tad sceptical but she did not deserve the wack, nor did she have any right to touch the cop which she did at least twice before getting wacked. You ignore that one. The fact that the cop was pushing back and was under threat from someone out of camera shot (his right) would no doubt have made things escalate in his mind, but you won't even consider that. i agree the whole thing started due to the guy the otherside of the line in dispute with other cops which immediately raised tensions on both sides. 20 or so cops surrounded by 100's of people - a mixture of passionate people and people with an agenda. Its a bad mix.
But to suggest a 'nothing to see hear' attude by the senior cop - then you lose me again with your almost 'chip on the shoulder attitude' He was talking to a tog was he not?

As for Yves Geza an his police state - :lol: :lol:

Police do use there powers wisely thousands of times a day across the country. Its the unwise use by the stupid few that grab all the attention. Unless you can come up with a fool proof way to vet all jobs(feeling that could be an interesting new thread) then you will get a mix of people. you don't get cops from a cop shop :lol: They are just normal people who go to work and some feel frightened, a few are plonkas, and most are normal. But when crowds get together then normal protesters can turn into idiots too. They follow the masses and only judge afterwards as if they were right, well sometimes they aren't. Don't want to get caught up in a holdback for hours - don't take part or do take part and stop whining, its obviously a police tactic. Is it lawful, then thats what the courts are for, not barrack room lawyers at the event.

Its quite easy to see how passions are inflamed just reading this thread, but standing in a 'gang' with like minded people its easy to see hoy they get carried away with the moment(the crowd I mean) Cops suffer a similar fate but they know they are getting filmed and photograhed by media and protestors alike but some lose the plot and suffer the consequences

As for Fabs :lol::lol:

I don't think she would survive very long on a night out anywear if she jumped in with both feet, if anyone accidentally knocked her organically grown apple cider out of her hand, contained in a no doubt recycled recepticle, whilst eating fair trade crisp to ease her conscience:D

She still shouldn't have been struck by a baton in that set of circumstances. Even if you would just love to!
 
Well, you may see it as bias. I see it as providing some balance to what seems to me to be an poorly informed view among the general public of what actually happens at demonstrations in the UK these days and commenting from that openly held viewpoint on official attempts to restrict photography.

I don't think any action would have been taken against the officer who assaulted Mr Tomlinson in the absence of the video published by the Guardian (who were asked to take the video off their website by the IPCC and City Police when they first brought it to their attention) I don't think any action would be taken against the officer in the above clip without citizen journalism, that's pretty clear from the presence of an obviously senior officer who takes no action to remove the officer in question from the police line but instead apparently sees it as a higher priority to dissuade people from taking photographs. I would actually be incredibly surprised if either of them receives any sentence comparable to what a member of the general public would receive for comparable assaults, but at least the public is now aware to a slightly greater degree, that this sort of thing is a regrettably common occurrence on demonstrations.

On the other hand, I have the utmost confidence that the police will use CCTV (like vampires, police committing violent assaults apparently don't show up on CCTV footage, but demonstrators presumably show up just fine) and video evidence taken by FIT officers (some of them conveniently inside the RBS branch) to prosecute the people who smashed the banks windows to the utmost of their ability. I don't think they need any help doing that entirely legitimate part of their duty.

I do think that the police seem to need some help to understand that it isn't their job to try to intimidate citizens into not going on demos or to brutalise them when they 'give cheek' or don't move when they're told to. I think citizen journalism showing the public that this is apparently what at least a significant number of police think they're there to do, is necessary to generate the political pressure to cause a change to their approach. I also believe that the recent tendency for police and other officials to try to suppress photography in this and very often in entirely non-political contexts, and the government's tendency to empower and encourage them to do so is an important issue for all of us.

I recognise that this view is unpopular with some people, but I think I am making a reasonable and polite case for it and being open about doing so.
 
Druid said:
Well, you may see it as bias. I see it as providing some balance to what seems to me to be an poorly informed view among the general public of what actually happens at demonstrations in the UK these days and commenting from that openly held viewpoint on official attempts to restrict photography.

I don't think any action would have been taken against the officer who assaulted Mr Tomlinson in the absence of the video published by the Guardian (who were asked to take the video off their website by the IPCC and City Police when they first brought it to their attention) I don't think any action would be taken against the officer in the above clip without citizen journalism, that's pretty clear from the presence of an obviously senior officer who takes no action to remove the officer in question from the police line but instead apparently sees it as a higher priority to dissuade people from taking photographs. I would actually be incredibly surprised if either of them receives any sentence comparable to what a member of the general public would receive for comparable assaults, but at least the public is now aware to a slightly greater degree, that this sort of thing is a regrettably common occurrence on demonstrations.

On the other hand, I have the utmost confidence that the police will use CCTV (like vampires, police committing violent assaults apparently don't show up on CCTV footage, but demonstrators presumably show up just fine) and video evidence taken by FIT officers (some of them conveniently inside the RBS branch) to prosecute the people who smashed the banks windows to the utmost of their ability. I don't think they need any help doing that entirely legitimate part of their duty.

I do think that the police seem to need some help to understand that it isn't their job to try to intimidate citizens into not going on demos or to brutalise them when they 'give cheek' or don't move when they're told to. I think citizen journalism showing the public that this is apparently what at least a significant number of police think they're there to do, is necessary to generate the political pressure to cause a change to their approach. I also believe that the recent tendency for police and other officials to try to suppress photography in this and very often in entirely non-political contexts, and the government's tendency to empower and encourage them to do so is an important issue for all of us.

I recognise that this view is unpopular with some people, but I think I am making a reasonable and polite case for it and being open about doing so.
Click to expand...

Druid, I have never questioned you politeness on threads which is admirable. I myself have sluipped standards on certain issues that pull at my heart string s and accept them as wrong. I don't disagree with citizen journalism at all and why you think the senior officer was asking people to stop photographing?
removing people from police lines in a situation like that is not viable. its happened, he won't flee the country or lie about who he is or run away and live in caravan sites around the coubtry evading justice. He will now be prosecuted because of legitamate journalism(sky news report says that the IPCC are getting this one to look at) He's screwed as there was zero justification for hitting her. If any of tehm get a normal sentence that a member of teh publiuc would for assaulting an officer(ha most offenders get fines or conditional discharges. Lets not forget that the cop who pushed over that guy did not cause his heart attack, or did he? - he walked away remember. was it a cause of his heart attack, well unless you are a cardiologist you should realy not build up hysterics about it. let the IPCC do there job. Cops should be accountable and the majority of them don't intimidate, is that not what thousands of screaming protestors do - oh but thats ther right to! Protest yes, intimidate no.

I recognise your view point is different to mine and don't get cross when you don't change your mind when you read what I have to say as some posters may. But I see you believe in some big conspiracy, whereas I don't . I believe bad cops should be punsished but so should the bad protestors. There were significantly more of the latter than the former, in my opinion but even if you thought i was right, i don't think you would agree.
 
I guess I should be clearer about what I mean by 'intimidate' here.

I think that the tactic of 'kettling' and the associated use of baton charges and dogs to compress the kettle and of violence like we see applied to the black guy trying to leave the kettle in the video above, are methods of intimidating people into not exercising their perfectly legal right to take part in peaceful protest. (I'd just like to mention in advance here, some other people not being peaceful up the road or on a different day, does not I would suggest, automatically invalidate the right of peaceful protest for others. So for example, some yobs smashing the windows of a bank in no way justifies the violence used against the entirely peaceful climate change hippies up the road.)

We've seen it said here 'If you don't want to be kettled, then don't take part in protests' and variations on that are a frequent response from police during these operations. It appears to me that the practical interpretation of the Human Rights Act in this country, particularly in terms of the application of police powers to control assemblies and other protest activities, are absolutely in violation of the spirit of the act.

The police rationale for their tactics may be expressed in public order terms, but in practice, the tactics are obviously calculated to punish those who take part by making them stand around in puddles of wee getting hungrier and thirstier for hours on end while occasionally being pushed around, menaced by dogs and whacked with clubs if they fail to show sufficient submissiveness for the tastes of the officers imprisoning them.

Why do I think it's obviously calculated to have some other effect than preserving public order? Here's an MP who was caught in a kettle explaining ...

“Kettling” is a tactic that should come under review. At the first sign of difficulty, the police present a wall of riot shields and batons around protesters — the peaceful alongside the problematic — and slowly squeeze them into a tighter space. People are allowed in, but absolutely no one is allowed to leave.

Slowly the number of inmates increases. No access to food. No water. Young trapped with the old. Journalists trapped with anarchists. People, like an elderly couple I spoke to, who simply did not want to be there at all.

It is not surprising that under such conditions an otherwise overwhelmingly relaxed and peaceful crowd can become agitated, then angry, and then violent
Click to expand...
source

You can see it happen in the longer version of that video. The first three minutes show an apparently peaceful crowd of mourners holding a vigil for the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson. It becomes apparent after a minute or so that they've been kettled in, and you can see a couple of people being refused permission to leave the cordon (and one poor sod who looks awfully like a 'tog looking for interesting shots innocently wandering into the cordon) Then the black guy apparently argues the toss a bit too much for the officers' liking and they start manhandling him. At that point everybody's adrenaline levels apparently start going up, the small woman starts remonstrating with Robocop and then he kicks off and violently assaults her ...

If the intention was to maximise the chances of the demo being peaceful, then using tactics calculated to jam peaceful protesters (the vast majority) in with any non-peaceful ones (although hardcore political hooligans like the Black Bloc will have seen the kettle coming a mile off and are unlikely to be caught in it) and to seriously annoy all of them over a period of many hours would obviously not be the optimal way to go about it.

Hence it's entirely reasonable to conclude that maximising the chance of a peaceful demo is not the intention.

What kettling does very well though is to make sure that the demonstrators have as miserable a day as possible consistent with paying lip service to human rights law, including setting up a situation where the likelihood of violence is actually increased, but where it's contained and very arguably dangerous mainly to the protesters jammed together in the kettle, so one reasonably deduces that to be the intent ...

It's just not right to do that sort of stuff ...
 
She still shouldn't have been struck by a baton in that set of circumstances. Even if you would just love to!
Click to expand...


Blatantly misogynistic sir!!, I think the last sentence in that paragraph says all I need to know about you:shrug:
 
Druid said:
Well, you may see it as bias.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it is and it comes across as such. You would do well to heed the comment from Hiddybiddy on this specific point.

I mean this only as friendly and constructive criticism. The way to convince people not sharing your view is to present a whole picture and allow them to form an opinion. Presenting what is very clearly one perspective will only succeed in convincing those who already agree with you.
 
Well, the officer's been suspended, pending an enquir ... everything calming down again, when he'll be told off and reinstated (is my guess).

But the fuzz are in schtuck now - first de Menezes, then Tomlinson, now this. It's not looking good for anyone.
 
I've said it before - give the police an inch and they'll take a mile.

Not all of them, all the time, but......

And when was the last time any police officer was ever given more than a slapped wrist for any misbehaviour - even for killing the "suspected terrorist" de Menezes? No wonder public confidence in the police is so low.

It's a shame this thread degenerated into a barrage of insults. Why are some people so childish?
 
And when was the last time any police officer was ever given more than a slapped wrist for any misbehaviour - even for killing the "suspected terrorist" de Menezes?
Click to expand...

Possibly every day. How would we know?
 
jerry12953 said:
I've said it before - give the police an inch and they'll take a mile.

Not all of them, all the time, but......

And when was the last time any police officer was ever given more than a slapped wrist for any misbehaviour - even for killing the "suspected terrorist" de Menezes? No wonder public confidence in the police is so low.

It's a shame this thread degenerated into a barrage of insults. Why are some people so childish?
Click to expand...

Jerry, while I agree with you, similar generalisations could be made about "protestors" - along the lines of "When was the last time there was a protest without some form of violence?". As such the generalisations drawn aren't really that useful.

But I agree this is not good for the PR of the police at all. I think the officer in question will needs to be publically fired at the very least for this.

Not that I suspect that this will happen.
 
Myky D said:
Jerry, while I agree with you, similar generalisations could be made about "protestors" - along the lines of "When was the last time there was a protest without some form of violence?". As such the generalisations drawn aren't really that useful.

But I agree this is not good for the PR of the police at all. I think the officer in question will needs to be publically fired at the very least for this.

Not that I suspect that this will happen.
Click to expand...

OK then, "Give the police force....."

It's not meant to suggest that all police officers are ******s, but that if the system is open to being misused, it will be.

For example, climate change protestors being detained recently on "suspicion of conspiracy to commit aggravated trespass" or something along those lines...
 
jerry12953 said:
Can you remember a case being reported when any individual police officer was prosecuted for anything - even the killing of innocent people?

No, the courts and the criminal justice system will ALWAYS cover for them.
Click to expand...

The case of the police officer who killed a girl whilst driving at absurd speeds through an estate was in the media only last week. He was found guilty. I don't recall the sentence. There are other cases in which officers were sacked for abusing the email system and circulating inappropriate documents too.

Just because it isn't in the broadcast media doesn't mean that it isn't happening either. It is probable that there are many incidents that simply are not publicised (I say probable because I don't actually know, but I do realise that I don't actually know).

It does not help a reasoned debate to make strident statements that don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Like Myky D I do agree with you in that there seems to be far too much abuse of power reported in recent times I don't see it to be sufficient to damn the entire establishment. Baby, meet bath water, meet street.
 
it's alive said:
The case of the police officer who killed a girl whilst driving at absurd speeds through an estate was in the media only last week. He was found guilty. I don't recall the sentence. There are other cases in which officers were sacked for abusing the email system and circulating inappropriate documents too.

Just because it isn't in the broadcast media doesn't mean that it isn't happening either. It is probable that there are many incidents that simply are not publicised (I say probable because I don't actually know, but I do realise that I don't actually know).

It does not help a reasoned debate to make strident statements that don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Like Myky D I do agree with you in that there seems to be far too much abuse of power reported in recent times I don't see it to be sufficient to damn the entire establishment. Baby, meet bath water, meet street.
Click to expand...

Point taken.

But what I meant was abuse of police power, which we see all too often.

Its not a new thing, but the police have asked for and been given so many new powers in recent years, including powers which directly affect photographers (to bring it back on topic....)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top