You use extremes to illustrate what you see as an absurb point ... but if you replace murdering someone with getting impatient (getting on / off bus or train or whatever) and maybe jostling someone a bit and / or muttering something like "Oh for fucks sake, get a move on!") under your breath then I think you'd agree that maybe most days, nearly all days you don't but occasionally you do ... and that occasional "bad day" or "bad encounter" doesn't make you some sort of thug.
Woman detained for filming police
- Thread starter Barking_Mad
- Start date
I'd estimate about a million times less than never had a complaint made about them for behaving in such a way in the first place ...
It is not helpful to use outcomes (i.e. sackings) as a measure of what is actually happening as there are dozens of reasons why bad incidents do not directly equate with sackings.
xes
F.O.A.D
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
The police are hardwired to push people about. Its an inevitable consequece of giveing people uniforms, weapons, body armour and power over people (i.e. stanford prison experiment). Combine that with intrusive, inequitable laws - such as the 1994 CJB, the drugs laws, the various terrorism acts, the inexorable growth of the survielance state and the use of police as a politcal tool to suppress dissent and you get an increasing amounts of such behaviour. Its nothing to do with bad training, bad apples or one off incidents - its cops being cops.
The only way to combat that is for people to stand up to them (i.e like they did in brixton etc in 1981) and /or for the police to made genuninely accountable to the communties they supposedly serve.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
I'm not trained, and handsomely paid, to keep my cool in stressful situations. I also don't carry weapons, which fact renders any mutterings or jostlings rather less intimidating. I certainly don't claim to have the authority to shove people about or harass them, and I don't team up with my mates to do it. I do not have the power to imprison those who respond in kind to any unpleasant behaviour of mine. In fact I can't remember the last time I said so much as an unpleasant word to a stranger, still less threatened them or pushed them about. Maybe I just have a bit more self-control than the average copper, who knows.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It is very helpful to use outcomes as a measure of how the police are regulated. It's really very simple. Do you agree with the following statement:I'd estimate about a million times less than never had a complaint made about them for behaving in such a way in the first place ...
It is not helpful to use outcomes (i.e. sackings) as a measure of what is actually happening as there are dozens of reasons why bad incidents do not directly equate with sackings.
If a police officer knowingly abuses his or her power to cause distress to another person, they should be sacked for gross misconduct.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
Everyone else in the universe is expected to make moral judgements every day as a matter of course, what makes your lot so special that they get to abdicate that responsibility? What sort of law would it have to be for you (if you were still a serving copper) to refuse to enforce it? Nobody is allowed to leave their house after 9pm? No talking in a public place? All immigrants to report to their nearest ferryport for deportation by 9am sharp tomorow morning on pain of death? Or is there really nowhere you'd draw a line?
i have by default become a community worker, at times i come across some right wankers both working and middle class, the other week in Sheffield there was a shooting, now allright in the past i have been anti police, i was with local people just talking past midnight and up walks pc plod, stop serach and where can a person like you get such good camera gear, is it yours what are your intentions etc, he did this in front of a few people a complaint has gone, i was not the problem in this circumstance but pc plod saw me as such then a week latter at a local meeting he had the fucking cheek to call me by my first name and come across as a mate, anyone for brixton 1981 2009 style these fuckers need a lesson.
AND for the communities that they serve to actually take an active part in those accountability arrangements. Do you regularly attend the police-community consultative meetings in your ward / Borough / force area? Do you participate in mail / e-mail / telephone / on-line surveys when they are publicised? Do you ask your councillors / MP what, if anything they doi in relation to liaison with the police?
The reason I ask is that there are lots of consultative arrangements in place which all suffer from the same thing - people do not engage with them (unless they have a particular, personal axe to grind which is obviously not best dealt with in a public meeting!).
And if the answer is "no" to most or all of that, how can you possibly whinge about the police not being accountable?
My point was that everyone has off days and one incident should not be used to demonstate entire character ... you'd rightly be jumping up and down quick enough if it was the other way round!
Also you probably don't have a job where people are regularly reluctant "clients" and thus deliberately setting out to wind you up.
That is not a "yes or no" question and it is naive to suggest that it is. It depends on the circumstances: which power? HOW was it abused? And to what extent was that abuse of the power beyond it's lawful use? What was the distress caused? What was the context of it being done? ... all of which would be relevant to the question of (a) whether or not it was gross misconduct and (b) whether or not it was appropriate to result in sacking and whether that would survive challenge in an employment tribunal.
In the case of any law passed by a democratically elected government, the police MUST be expected to enforce it. Otherwise you might as well give up making laws and allow the police to do what they like (which, I presume, you would agree would be a bad thing).
If, as an individual officer, I did not like the laws that government was passing it would be open to me to leave the police. If it got to the point that society was no longer democratically electing a government, it would be open to the police (as a body) to transfer their alliegance to the the people or some other power in society.
But whilst we have a democratically elected government, and a lawful requirement of the police to enforce the law without fear or favour, you simply cannot argue that individual officers should be making individual officers about whether or not to do so. As I said, to a large extent, how they enforce it, and how they exercise their discretion in enforcing it is another matter, but they cannot simply say "I don't agree with it, I'm not doing it". That would be the offence of malfeasance in public office.
AND for the communities that they serve to actually take an active part in those accountability arrangements. Do you regularly attend the police-community consultative meetings in your ward / Borough / force area? Do you participate in mail / e-mail / telephone / on-line surveys when they are publicised? Do you ask your councillors / MP what, if anything they doi in relation to liaison with the police?
The reason I ask is that there are lots of consultative arrangements in place which all suffer from the same thing - people do not engage with them (unless they have a particular, personal axe to grind which is obviously not best dealt with in a public meeting!).
And if the answer is "no" to most or all of that, how can you possibly whinge about the police not being accountable?
After the G20 stuff, I'm beginning to share the same scepticism that in the past has dismayed me here when you've advised similar, but OK, I'll give it a go.
One of my concerns is the widescale use of S44/S60 by the Met.
What route would you advise for that?
Biglittlefish
Active Member
Ok can someone explain this to me? Can I film the police or can't I? They stop me for something and I want to film the process, they try to take my phone, I don't want to give it to them. In what situations will I be going down to the station over this?
I think the best place to start is the Borough community-police consultative group and see if the local use of s.44/s.60 is on the agenda there. Each London Borough also has some arrangements in place regarding stop and search monitoring. If you PM me where you are (working or living) I'll see if I can point you in the right direction.
(Prepare to be bored though ... because people with genuine issues, worthy of discussion and debate, tend not to go to them they tend to be peopled by sad types who focus on things like dog shit, parking and anti-social behaviour by youths! I think if you actually started raising some interesting and important stuff the police would be pleased to see you ...
)There is no specific law which says you can't ...
... but there are a number of situations which may lead to difficulties -
(1) If you have filmed something of a criminal offence, the officers may have a common law power to seize it as evidence of that offence (this is all a bit vague, and would probably only be justifiable in the case of a serious crime). They couldn't arrest you just because you had evidence in your possession ... but if you failed to hand it over that may be enough to lead to a charge of obstruction.
(2) If, by filming them, the officers can show that you obstructed them in the course of their duty in some way, that would be an offence for which they could arrest you. Obstruction is much wider than just physical obstruction ... but I think it would be pretty unusual for any Court to agree that simply filming in a public place would amount to obstruction.
(3) Particularly if they are employed on anti-terrorist duties, it is an offence to "elicit or publish information about a constable which is useful to a person committing or planning terrorism" (s.58A Terrorism Act 2000 as inserted by s.76 Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) - taking a photo, especially with intent to place it on the internet may amount to such an offence and if there are reasonable grounds to suspect it, an arrest would be lawful.
Like most things, therefore, there is no simple yes or no answer and you need to deal with each situation on it's merits. If you do not believe that the police have any right to seize the phone, then do not volunteer it, but be aware that that may mean that they will arrest you. If they do, physical resistance is pretty pointless (you simply won't persuade them not to arrest you by fighting them ...) but make a note of all the details and insist on seeking legal advice as soon as you arrive at the station and every time you are asked your representations on what is happening, state again your position and your feeling that it is all unlawful and ask that it is written down on custody record, etc. Ask to see the Duty Inspector and make a formal complaint about your arrest being unlawful as soon as possible.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
i've been told in the past that the police have a power under pace to seize cameras for evidence, surprised you don't mention that
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
yeh, but that's the common law power as opposed to a power under statute. and i've seen it threatened under frankly quite minor circumstances.
editor
hiraethified
Thing to always remember is that under no circumstances are the police authorised to force you delete your images when they approach you in the street.
If you've broken the law by taking the picture, then the photos are evidence and must not be destroyed, and if you haven't broken the law, then they have no right to demand your photos are deleted.
If you've broken the law by taking the picture, then the photos are evidence and must not be destroyed, and if you haven't broken the law, then they have no right to demand your photos are deleted.
I'm not aware of any specific bit of PACE that I'd say was a "power" to seize cameras as evidence ... PACE does deal with a fair bit of stuff to do with evidence but I'd need to know which particular bit, in which particular way, was being interpreted as such a "power" to comment further on whether it was even arguably such a thing. I've heard s.8 (Power for search warrants to be issued for premises for any evidence of a serious arrestable offence) and s.19 (Power to seize anything believed to be evidence of an offence when lawfully on any premises) mentioned wrongly as being the basis of such a power previously ... but neither of them would apply in the street or any public place (s.19 would on private premises, even if lawfully there because of some explicit or implicit invitation to enter as opposed to some warrant or other lawful power to force entry).
The only power to seize evidence in a public place I am aware of is common law (assuming the person it is being seized from is not arrested for anything - if they are then there is a power to seize and retain anything in their possession as evidence, to prevent injury and to ensure it's safe keeping).
In relation to deleting images, there is certainly NO power to demand they be deleted ... but equally there is nothing to stop an officer explaining their concerns and requesting that you do as a means of helping allay any suspicions of any ulterior intent - you may or may not decide that is a reasonable request dependant on the circumstances. You should always clarify whether or not there is any coercive power to make you do anything that is requested of you and ask what will happen if you refuse so that you knw exactly what the situation is - one thing the Anti-Terrorist (see other thread) is right about is that people frequently assume that a request from a police officer or some other official is a demand or an order and they have to comply when this may not be the case (not least because in many situations (depsite the legislative mountain of the last couple of decades) the police actually have no formal power to do the things that we expect them to do!
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
It's one thing to hear they are being the typical lying bully goonsquad filth. Perhaps they'll get a promotion, but should probably beat someone to death to be sure. What bothered me more was the amount of undercover filth that seem to be around. They are police, but secret at being so. Ergo, secret police. Isn't that nice?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Both points are right. I'd be amazed if this law caught a single terrorist, and even if it did, the bad feeling it'll create between public and police will reduce co-operation and very possibly lead to valuable intelligence being lost. The costs don't remotely justify the alleged benefits.
The only solution is its repeal, along with every Terrorism Act if I had my way, but at the very least, vague and speculative sections like Section 58(a), and Section 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (search without reasonable suspicion). Sadly hardly any prominent person has the guts to come out and say it, doubtless because they're afraid of letting a terrorist slip through. Hand-wringing is the order of the day.
As for resisting the police, their general powers are so excessive that people are afraid to. Restrict their powers, and people might be readier to stand up for themselves.
Beyond the law, the relationship between public and police will only be solved when they're on the same side again, a cultural shift that'll take some time to achieve.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
Yeah. Maybe more varied people should apply to be rozzers.
Like Viz said this week '....every little boy wants to be a policeman when he grows up. And, if he tries hard at school and passes all his exams, he'll probably do something else for a living'
Which, in good Viz style, is an exaggeration masking an uncomfortable truth.
I've been present at police/army joint briefings and planning sessions where it was genuinely embarassing just how dense the senior coppers were. Not to say that there are not some hugely impressive people in the police, of course there are, but they don't all want to be promoted and don't all get the chance anyway. That leaves the bosses having to promote some right gimps.
Like Viz said this week '....every little boy wants to be a policeman when he grows up. And, if he tries hard at school and passes all his exams, he'll probably do something else for a living'
Which, in good Viz style, is an exaggeration masking an uncomfortable truth.
I've been present at police/army joint briefings and planning sessions where it was genuinely embarassing just how dense the senior coppers were. Not to say that there are not some hugely impressive people in the police, of course there are, but they don't all want to be promoted and don't all get the chance anyway. That leaves the bosses having to promote some right gimps.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Ditching, or at least restructuring, accelerated promotion for degree holders would be a start. I know the theory, that the police want to be competitive in attracting graduates, but don't see why academic knowledge translates into being an effective police commander.
Decentralising the police and breaking up the 43 merged forces into their original constituent parts would probably help as well. Chief Constables used to be local notables, ex-military and that sort, appointed from outside the force. Now they're likely to be career coppers who've ingested all the right spiel.
Once the foolish sixties reforms were undone, sensible and cautious reform could be attempted. You'd need to find a government will to admit it lacked the answers though. Good luck in finding one.
Decentralising the police and breaking up the 43 merged forces into their original constituent parts would probably help as well. Chief Constables used to be local notables, ex-military and that sort, appointed from outside the force. Now they're likely to be career coppers who've ingested all the right spiel.
Once the foolish sixties reforms were undone, sensible and cautious reform could be attempted. You'd need to find a government will to admit it lacked the answers though. Good luck in finding one.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Im sure we'll be told this is an exception rather than a common occurance.
Back on subject:
In my urban exploration and contact with the police on this there more than fine, it is often security who are not so haveing this on my pesron and these words on a card
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
But in an age where more people are buying DLSR cameras, there is a paranoia around takeing images, i often think about when doing work at public events who i might be ofending, likewise on protest see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2009/07/434743.html and not all police are like those i come across in my urban exploration hat, ive had to deal with some utter wankers and to be frank job worth types.
In my urban exploration and contact with the police on this there more than fine, it is often security who are not so haveing this on my pesron and these words on a card
has proven to be the right thing, we also have a print out of this
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/
But in an age where more people are buying DLSR cameras, there is a paranoia around takeing images, i often think about when doing work at public events who i might be ofending, likewise on protest see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2009/07/434743.html and not all police are like those i come across in my urban exploration hat, ive had to deal with some utter wankers and to be frank job worth types.
Similar threads
