Tog arrested for being too tall!!!

:LOL:

I'm only 5'8" but I have a huge lens that looks quite threatening :eek:
 
If the WPC feels intimidated by 5 11 and 12 stone then why the hell did she choose a job in the police? surly by that admission she is intimidated by a large portion of the male population and down town on a weekend she must be quivering in her polished boots.
 
That'll teach him to be too tall :LOL:

Nigel.
 
oh hells teeth. I'm gonna have the riot vans after me next time I go out then, being 6'5" and 18st.
 
I'm 5'9" and 16 stone so she'll probably arrest me for being too wide :LOL:

Paul
 
If your a jockey your laughing.:D
 
22 stone and 5ft 9" and look like a pitbull bring it on girlies lol
 
Bizarre, yes. Funny, no, not really. This was wilful misconduct, or sheer incompetence, by the police, depending which way you look at at it.

The IO apparently said that "However, as there were few terrorist activities in Kent, regular officers generally have a low level of knowledge of anti terrorist legislation....". I can't see how the photographer's actions could possibly be construed in the context of the terrorism laws in the first place, and the IO's explanation is a shocking indictment of his officers. If they don't know the law well enough to apply it, they shouldn't be in the job; or have we just reached the point where's it's easier to bang someone up under the broad scope of "preventing terrorism" and then decide if they've actually done anything wrong?

Police officers aren't barristers and can't be expected to know and understand all the nuances of the law. That's not part of their job, but I served in two forces (UK and colonial) and ignorance of the law was even less of an excuse for us than it was for defendants. We would probably have faced a disciplinary hearing for bringing the force into disrepute, at the very least, and the possibility of dismissal.

I don't know if a police officer can be held personally liable for civil damages in the UK. This is tricky, because we don't want police officers to be constrained in the execution of their duties by the risk of unreasonable law suits, but surely it has some merit in cases of misuse of authority like this?
 
I'm just glad the IO seems to have been quite candid about it. Maybe with this and the G20 report the met will get the idea...
 
ai3x said:
I'm just glad the IO seems to have been quite candid about it. Maybe with this and the G20 report the met will get the idea...
Click to expand...

With respect, I really don't care whether the IO was candid about this incident or not. Turner was apparently "approached by two men, who refused to identify themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID". AFAIK, you have to give your personal particulars to a police officer, if he has reasonable grounds to ask for them, but you are not required to produce identification in this country, and you are certainly not required to give to to unidentified strangers! He was then arrested, searched in public, handcuffed and unlawfully detained. This isn't even remotely funny, it's frightening.

The IO "apologised for the delay explaining that "special branch" had claimed that the burden of proof required to lawfully arrest under terrorist legislation was somewhat less than it is under other legislation, and that they believed Mr Turner’s arrest to have been lawful. For that reason, Kent Police had sought the advice of legal counsel".

This was nothing more than an expensive ex post facto attempt to justify this unlawful arrest once the media got involved by citing SB, the anti-terrorism laws and consulting counsel because an ignorant police officer exercised very poor professional judgement in dealing with a man who was taking photographs, quite lawfully, in a public place. The WPC didn't even mention the anti-terrorism laws, or explain why he was being arrested, other than telling him that she felt "intimidated" by his size, which strongly suggests that she is unfit to be a police officer.

My main concern is this arbitrary misuse of authority, and the sense that the police can effectively do as they please, and rely on the wide powers conferred by the anti-terrorism laws if necessary. It's dangerous, unhealthy and will cost the police their traditional, and deserved, respect from the public.
 
clud17 said:
If the WPC feels intimidated by 5 11 and 12 stone then why the hell did she choose a job in the police? surly by that admission she is intimidated by a large portion of the male population and down town on a weekend she must be quivering in her polished boots.
Click to expand...

I agree - I wonder how tall she is?
 
MartynK said:
With respect, I really don't care whether the IO was candid about this incident or not. Turner was apparently "approached by two men, who refused to identify themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID". AFAIK, you have to give your personal particulars to a police officer, if he has reasonable grounds to ask for them, but you are not required to produce identification in this country, and you are certainly not required to give to to unidentified strangers! He was then arrested, searched in public, handcuffed and unlawfully detained. This isn't even remotely funny, it's frightening.

The IO "apologised for the delay explaining that "special branch" had claimed that the burden of proof required to lawfully arrest under terrorist legislation was somewhat less than it is under other legislation, and that they believed Mr Turner’s arrest to have been lawful. For that reason, Kent Police had sought the advice of legal counsel".

This was nothing more than an expensive ex post facto attempt to justify this unlawful arrest once the media got involved by citing SB, the anti-terrorism laws and consulting counsel because an ignorant police officer exercised very poor professional judgement in dealing with a man who was taking photographs, quite lawfully, in a public place. The WPC didn't even mention the anti-terrorism laws, or explain why he was being arrested, other than telling him that she felt "intimidated" by his size, which strongly suggests that she is unfit to be a police officer.

My main concern is this arbitrary misuse of authority, and the sense that the police can effectively do as they please, and rely on the wide powers conferred by the anti-terrorism laws if necessary. It's dangerous, unhealthy and will cost the police their traditional, and deserved, respect from the public.
Click to expand...


well said, I have to agree
 
MartynK said:
Police officers aren't barristers and can't be expected to know and understand all the nuances of the law.
Click to expand...

I always thought that 'ignorance' was no excuse in the eyes of the law - it seems it's now part of the job description if you want to be a member of the law enforcement.
 
im 6 ft 7 and 15 stone I better watch out eh !! he he

whats the world coming to ....
 
amgard said:
I always thought that 'ignorance' was no excuse in the eyes of the law - it seems it's now part of the job description if you want to be a member of the law enforcement.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing gives your theory some credence! I was a police officer in the 70s, and we weren't expected to know the law as thoroughly as a solicitor or barrister - that's what the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland) - was for, but we certainly had to have a good grasp of the law which we were expected to enforce, and our powers of arrest. You could, and were expected to, call for back up if necessary but any police officer who claimed that they felt "intimidated" by a 5'11"/12 stone man, who was not acting aggressively at all, would have been treated with derision. Escalating the situation to an unlawful arrest, without even giving the "suspect" some sort of reason for his detention, would probably have resulted in disciplinary action.

There was quite a lot of resistance when Robert Peel founded the Metropolitan Police, and not only from the "criminal classes". Many well educated people from the privileged classes feared that the new police would become the law enforcement arm of the government of the day, which has happened in most authoritarian states, and that basic freedoms would be lost. Britain has largely avoided this so far, but I am concerned that the anti-terrorism laws - dressed up in the usual "it's for your own safety and security" blather, and their inappropriate application, may be starting to tip the balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top