Woman detained for filming police

[detective-boy]

I'd be amazed if this law caught a single terrorist...

I'm not sure anyone has ever suggested that it will (other than effectively by chance). What it IS intended to do is put another level of difficulty in the way of terrorists - making it more difficult for them to plan and carry out whatever it is they are doing, making it more likely that they are challenged / caught when going about their business, basically putting them on the back foot a bit. (This is the same rationale as behind a lot of stop and search and other proactive police activity - it is a deterrent to some extent, it is an exercise in crime prevention rather than crime detection.)

It is also intended as a reassurance exercise - the majority of people feel safe when they see high-visibility police presence / activity and they do not necessarily associate that with any empirical measure of effectiveness of that activity (see everything from "We want more bobbies on the beat" onwards!).

Whether or not these two outcomes merit the effort and the downsides you mention is a moot point ... but they should be taken into account in the debate.

... doubtless because they're afraid of letting a terrorist slip through. Hand-wringing is the order of the day.

The blame culture which infests this country, particularly in the media and amongst politicians, is behind a huge amount of what is perceived as (and actually is, in many cases) excessive police activity - if something does go wrong (as it inevitably will one day no matter how restrictive you are) there is a chorus of allegations that police fucked up (witness the ongoing allegations that the police should have been on top of the 7/7 bombers even though they were way, way, way down the list of probable / possible suspects in the intelligence gathering operation ...).

We need to grow up and accept that nothing is perfect and things will always go wrong - you simply cannot legislate all risk away in all situations and we fuck up a huge amount of other things in society if we try. (This applies equally to the current fuckwittedness about swine flu; the worst excesses of the health and safety regime; the "compo" culture we seem to have developed; the ridiculous levels of vetting for anyone that may walk past a child in the street next Tuesday; the mindless application of the Data Protection Act which gets in the way of (e.g.) protecting the public from fraudsters ...)

 

[detective-boy]

That leaves the bosses having to promote some right gimps.

And there's too many fucking bosses anyway ... stripping out the rank structure was one of Sheehey's good ideas ... his problem was he didn't understand the police service at all and he did not suggest doing so in a way which would have left any operational resilience.

 

[detective-boy]

... but don't see why academic knowledge translates into being an effective police commander.

Why not? Why any different from any other organisation?

And being a police leader is way, way more than simply "command" (though that is an important aspect). If you want cultural change, doing more with less, improved HR, all that community consultation and partnership working stuff you need people with the whole range of leadership skills that in every other organisation are acknowledged to be indicated by degree level and higher academic achievment.

To be honest, if nursing is a vocational degree occupation, so should policing be. EVERY police officer should either have a relevant degree or they should achieve a vocational degree in their first few years of service as in nursing.

(Personally, as a sound bite, I agree with "Bin accelerated promotion" but, being realistic, that only applies to the operational aspects of policing and police leadership is way, way more than that.)

 

[detective-boy]

Im sure we'll be told this is an exception rather than a common occurance.

Why? There have been plain clothes police officers for ever.

My only question would be why the surprise?

 

[editor]

In relation to deleting images, there is certainly now 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.

What powers are they then? Could you list the laws concerned please?

The police can 'demand'' and request' all they like, but police officers have no legal powers to force anyone to delete their images under any circumstances.

And that's exactly how it should be, otherwise dodgy cops would go around forcing press photographers to delete incriminating images of brutal and illegal police conduct - like, for example, at G20.

 

[Jonti]

... and dodgy shills would put it about that it's OK to do that

 

[Barking_Mad]

Why? There have been plain clothes police officers for ever.

My only question would be why the surprise?

it was in reference to the officer in the original story.

Seconds later, an undercover officer wearing jeans and a black jacket enters the shot, and asks Atkinson: "Do you realise it is an offence under the Terrorism Act to film police officers?" He then adds: "Can you show me what you you just filmed?"

She said the officers walked away – all but one of them refused to identify themselves to her.

Officers in plain clothes refusing to identify themselves.

Normal procedure?

 

[detective-boy]

What powers are they then?

It was a (very unfortunate) typo - "now" should have been "no" (as should be plain from the context of the rest of post. Now corrected.

 

[detective-boy]

Officers in plain clothes refusing to identify themselves.

Normal procedure?

Officers in plain clothes, yes (it is common for plain clothes officers to be close to high-profile stop/search operations to pick up those who "give themselves up" by seeing the uniforms and doing a quick U-turn ....)

Officers in plain clothes refusing to identify themselves, no (and a subject worthy of complaint).

 

[editor]

It was a (very unfortunate) typo - "now" should have been "no" (as should be plain from the context of the rest of post. Now corrected.

Amazing how just one l'il letter can totally change the meaning!

 

[Kaka Tim]

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?

Oh come on - these commitees have no say whatsoever on police operational matters, police tactics, how they enforce the law or the laws they enforce. They are there to monitor targets and stats on police repsonse to crime figures. as it happens I've atteneded some of these meetings in the course of my job, its no surprise that the general public dont attend. AS for accountability - the police hardly ever have to account for their actions, its only in cases where they're is overwhelming evididence of thuggery/violence/ gernal shittienss (i/e lots of explicit videio footage) that they grudgingly repsond.

The g20 example is a case in point. The police tacitcs were to violently intimidate, illegally detain, harrass and assualt anyone connected with the demonstration. Depsite masses of video footage and witness statements to corrobarate this all we have is a few junior cops suspended and a few mutterings about 'lack of adequate training' - and thats only becasue that poor bastard got killed. The tactics - and stuff like the removal of numbers - is standard cop practice at demos and has been for years. As is breifing the press with lies and distortions and attempts to smeer the victims.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Why not? Why any different from any other organisation?

And being a police leader is way, way more than simply "command" (though that is an important aspect). If you want cultural change, doing more with less, improved HR, all that community consultation and partnership working stuff you need people with the whole range of leadership skills that in every other organisation are acknowledged to be indicated by degree level and higher academic achievment.
To be honest, if nursing is a vocational degree occupation, so should policing be. EVERY police officer should either have a relevant degree or they should achieve a vocational degree in their first few years of service as in nursing.

(Personally, as a sound bite, I agree with "Bin accelerated promotion" but, being realistic, that only applies to the operational aspects of policing and police leadership is way, way more than that.)

Let's not confuse 'management' with 'leadership'. They are different, and only loosely connected, skills.

 

[Azrael]

What [stop & search] IS intended to do is put another level of difficulty in the way of terrorists - making it more difficult for them to plan and carry out whatever it is they are doing, making it more likely that they are challenged / caught when going about their business, basically putting them on the back foot a bit.

The government certainly sell it as a tool to catch terrorists, but even if vague criteria like disrupting terrorism in general justify a search (and I don't believe they do, searches should require individualized suspicion) I don't think it's very effective. Just from traveling around the Tube on a regular basis, I've picked up where and when officers are most likely to be present. Besides, since terrorists are most likely to blow themselves up on a packed train, detailed intelligence isn't necessary. Just get on at a suburban station, travel to the centre of town, and boom. What the government can't admit is that they're powerless to prevent this however authoritarian they get.

Personally I don't think being randomly searched reassures. If anything, it heightens panic.

You're right about the risk culture, a product of idealists who want a perfect world and can't accept inevitable misfortune and mistakes. I agree with everything you list. Liberal types like Henry Porter attack vetting, but don't join the dots between that specific procedure and idealist thought in general. (Mr Porter is getting closer, but it's taking a tortuously long time.) That idealism might lead to authoritarianism, as it undoubtedly does, is overlooked entirely by the left-wing approach to civil liberties.

And being a police leader is way, way more than simply "command" (though that is an important aspect). If you want cultural change, doing more with less, improved HR, all that community consultation and partnership working stuff you need people with the whole range of leadership skills that in every other organisation are acknowledged to be indicated by degree level and higher academic achievment.

Personally I don't want the police to be all things to all men. I want them to deter crime and catch crooks. The old system of beat patrolling (yes, that again ) ensured regular contact with Joe Public. I suspect that this unofficial and practical contact did far more good that cultural change and partnership.

By the by, I'm not fond of accelerated promotion in general, and think degrees are being treated as a panacea, but that's a different thread.

 

[detective-boy]

Amazing how just one l'il letter can totally change the meaning!

Indeed ... reminds me of a case I dealt with where the police had fired shots at some armed robbers ... the computer record of the 999 calls had a number of calls received, one of which included "Informant states she heard police warning shots" ... which would have been a problem had it not been for the fact that a "u" was missing ...

 

[detective-boy]

Oh come on - these commitees have no say whatsoever on police operational matters, police tactics, how they enforce the law or the laws they enforce. They are there to monitor targets and stats on police repsonse to crime figures. as it happens I've atteneded some of these meetings in the course of my job, its no surprise that the general public dont attend.

Whilst I would not disagree that they are pretty ineffective in most places, that is largely due to the public not actually taking hold of them and using them for their proper purpose. In most areas (including many where there are real, significant issues which should be discussed and debated) hardly any members of the public can be arsed to get involved and so (a) there is little attendance; (b) they tend to be frequented by people with little direct experience of policing (e.g. elderly residents that turn up and spout about the country going to hell in a handcart or whatever Littledick has been wittering on about in the Mail recently) and (c) no-one actually challenges what the coppers blather on about.

The structures are there: use them! Instead of encouraging people to get out on the streets and demonstrate, get them to get involved in the structures that are there at every level from ward to national level and to take the away from "the establishment" and the "great and the good". The only one which I have ever seen which came anywhere near what it could be was the Lambeth Community Police Consultative Group (which insisted on being the CPCG not the PCCG that everywhere else used! )

 

[detective-boy]

Let's not confuse 'management' with 'leadership'. They are different, and only loosely connected, skills.

Indeed (I've just written 8000 words about precisely that topic! ) ... but lets not also forget that changing organisation culture (which is sort of the core thing we're talking about here) most definitely requires leadership!

 

[detective-boy]

(and I don't believe they do, searches should require individualized suspicion)

In general I'd agree with you (see my regular posts against the blanket, back-to-back authorisations under s.44 Terrorism Act)... but there could well be specific circumstances (e.g. a high-risk event against which specific threats have been received where random searches could well be a deterrent if searching all was simply impractical).

Just from traveling around the Tube on a regular basis, I've picked up where and when officers are most likely to be present.

That is where competent use of the tactic comes in - no proactive policing activity should be predictable in that way.

Personally I don't think being randomly searched reassures. If anything, it heightens panic.

That is certainly a downside - not sure any reliable data exists to allow us to devide where the balance lies between raising fear of crime and reassurance.

I want them to deter crime and catch crooks.

Except by using things like stop and search ...

 

[Azrael]

In general I'd agree with you (see my regular posts against the blanket, back-to-back authorisations under s.44 Terrorism Act)... but there could well be specific circumstances (e.g. a high-risk event against which specific threats have been received where random searches could well be a deterrent if searching all was simply impractical).

There can be blanket searches upon entry to high-risk events. I walked through metal detectors when I attended remembrance Sunday, and have had a very thorough pat-down whenever I visited Parliament -- I object to neither since these are voluntary. Section 44 (thanks for the correction ) wouldn't be needed for these, and now abuses have led to the met to restrict it's use on the streets, it seems it'll mostly to be used to search people at train stations.

That is where competent use of the tactic comes in - no proactive policing activity should be predictable in that way.

True, but I think it's inevitable that it will. The police tend to be present at busy times. If they appeared randomly, then the terrorism powers would take manpower from standard public order duties, when they're most likely to be needed.

Except by using things like stop and search ...

I've no problem with stop and search if there's individual suspicion and the burden of proof is raised to an equivalent of the American probable cause.

 

[detective-boy]

I object to neither since these are voluntary.

In public places they can't be - the law does not allow the police to require voluntary searches (PACE Code A, 1.5) http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/pub...cing/pace-code-a-amended-jan-2009?view=Binary

(Though they could be on entering any private place, such as Parliament)

 

[detective-boy]

I've no problem with stop and search if there's individual suspicion and the burden of proof is raised to an equivalent of the American probable cause.

I'm not sure that it isn't actually pretty much the same now - do you have a reliable definition of US "probable cause"?

 

[Azrael]

In public places they can't be - the law does not allow the police to require voluntary searches (PACE Code A, 1.5) http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/pub...cing/pace-code-a-amended-jan-2009?view=Binary

(Though they could be on entering any private place, such as Parliament)

At the Remembrance Sunday parade they had the road blocked off and a metal detector/bag search set up. It was voluntary in the sense that they were only searching people who queued up to enter. In general, I don't see why the cops shouldn't be able to conduct voluntary searches. They do it all the time in the USA.

I'm not sure that it isn't actually pretty much the same now - do you have a reliable definition of US "probable cause"?

This page seems pretty comprehensive. In short, it's "reasonable belief" instead of "reasonable suspicion" (which the USA also has, and justifies minor searches like frisks or traffic stops). I doubt it's that much higher than reasonable suspicion, but it's likely high enough to stop the most blatant misuse of power.

Possibly more important that the exact amount of individual suspicion is that there's a requirement for some.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Indeed (I've just written 8000 words about precisely that topic! ) ... but lets not also forget that changing organisation culture (which is sort of the core thing we're talking about here) most definitely requires leadership!

Management... Leadership....

Well, not to derail or do 8000 words, I have a horrible feeling that many organisations are run by people who think they are leaders, think the organisation needs leaders, and think they have to demonstrate just how leader-ey they are.


I've been in organisations (the Army, Civil Service) where there was a clear need for moral and physical leadership on occasion, and also for good management.

I've also been in organisations where there was NO NEED AT ALL for any sort of leadership, but we still have some dick making an utter fool of himself tryng to act like Douglas Bader when, had he looked about himself, he would have noticed a clothes factory and not a war zone.

Did your essay (defence speech??? ) comment on the rarity of leadership being actually useful? If not, what would your view be, with respect to your coppering background?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Douglas Bader was an heroic character. He was much admired for his courage. However he lost his legs in an egotistical stunt flying incident at his home airbase, not in conflict. He was a very courageous man but really an individualist. He was very daring in his war service and successful in battle which was recognised in the medals he got. He was often in conflict with his superiors. He had no respect for hierarchies. He is to be admired for his sheer guts, but not followed as an example of leadership.

The woman who photographed the policeman exceeding his duty was also heroic but she didn't realise it until later. Bader would have approved.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Douglas Bader was an heroic character. He was much admired for his courage. However he lost his legs in an egotistical stunt flying incident at his home airbase, not in conflict. He was a very courageous man but really an individualist. He was very daring in his war service and successful in battle which was recognised in the medals he got. He was often in conflict with his superiors. He had no respect for hierarchies. He is to be admired for his sheer guts, but not followed as an example of leadership.

The woman who photographed the policeman exceeding his duty was also heroic but she didn't realise it until later. Bader would have approved.

Read up a bit - Bader was one of those mesmeric leaders who would, literally, have people dying for him. Basil Embry was a contemporary with similar attributes who didn't leave the question moot (by being and staying captured) as to where a continued career would have taken him. Worth a wiki if you are interested in examples of leadership.

Leadership and heroism are again, largely unconnected. Bader happened to have both.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Basil Embry was a leader. His career shows that. Being a contemporary of Douglas Bader doesn't make Bader a leader. He was an example of courage, and much to be admired for that. He was a hero, undoubtedly. I don't want to do any disservice to his memory. He is an iconic character. Leaders need to be of lesser material though. Theirs is a different role and involves humility and respect for the led. It is a pity that so few who find themselves in leadership roles don't know this. In my view people like Bader are superior to mere 'leaders' who are just operatives working within a set of rules laid down by their so called 'superiors'.

It is good that people are willing to challenge the appointed leaders and authority figures (like the police) by filming them in action on mobile phones. This is an important shift in power from the rulers to the ruled. Our leaders, in fear at this moment are planning how to re-establish control.

 

[detective-boy]

In general, I don't see why the cops shouldn't be able to conduct voluntary searches. They do it all the time in the USA.

Neither do I ... but the New Labour government, in the ceaseless drive to turn the UK into a police state, as part of their relentless erosion of civil liberties based on scaring us shitless about terrorism ... er ... changed the PACE Codes and ... er ... made it unlawful (insofar as the Codes set out "law").

This page seems pretty comprehensive.

I think it is exactly what our "reasonable grounds to suspect" amounts to - that is more than suspicion, or even reasonable suspicion and there is a key aspect which is that the grounds must be objectively assessable which sounds very much like the USA "person of reasonable caution or prudence" test.

As the US also has reasonable suspicion, it suggests that "probable cause" is too high as a starting point for any effective policing system. I think our level is probably somewhere between the two and perhaps reflects the fact that procedurally we have a single stage where the US seems to have two, for which different tests can be applied.

 

[detective-boy]

Did your essay (defence speech??? ) comment on the rarity of leadership being actually useful? If not, what would your view be, with respect to your coppering background?

Essay actually (Professional Doctorate).

Basically it distinguished between situations requiring competent management (e.g. the management of performance, etc.) and situations requiring competent leadership (e.g. leading public order policing teams, changing organisational culture) and concluded that (a) any one individual rarely had the ability to be good at both and (b) individuals tended to be what they were and found it difficult to change ... which probably meant that if any particular organisation at any particular time in it's life was going to have the right Chief Executive for the job they'd either have to change them every few months or ensure that there was a team approach to the task, comprising with a number of different horses for different courses (sadly neither of which has been understood by the Met, hence we have a "leader" for a few years (e.g. John Stevens) followed by a "manager" for a few years (e.g. Paul Condon, Ian Blair).

 

[detective-boy]

... but not followed as an example of leadership.

It depends what "type" of leadership you are talking about! I would suggest he's a sound example of the "charismatic" leader, a model based on "trait theory" where the leader relies on their personal traits which other wannabe leaders try to identify and emulate.

 

[tar1984]

I've also been in organisations where there was NO NEED AT ALL for any sort of leadership, but we still have some dick making an utter fool of himself tryng to act like Douglas Bader when, had he looked about himself, he would have noticed a clothes factory and not a war zone.

That is so true of some of the places I've worked. Wtf is wrong with these idiots? They just tend to make the job more difficult.

/sorry, derail

 

[chainsaw cat]

Essay actually (Professional Doctorate).

Basically it distinguished between situations requiring competent management (e.g. the management of performance, etc.) and situations requiring competent leadership (e.g. leading public order policing teams, changing organisational culture) and concluded that (a) any one individual rarely had the ability to be good at both and (b) individuals tended to be what they were and found it difficult to change ... which probably meant that if any particular organisation at any particular time in it's life was going to have the right Chief Executive for the job they'd either have to change them every few months or ensure that there was a team approach to the task, comprising with a number of different horses for different courses (sadly neither of which has been understood by the Met, hence we have a "leader" for a few years (e.g. John Stevens) followed by a "manager" for a few years (e.g. Paul Condon, Ian Blair).

Probably worth a new thread but..

This is very interesting stuff, and goes right to the heart of (imo) many woes we suffer at the hands of organisations. I mean, as customers/victims of organisations or as people within them. Widening it out, surely the politics of this country have been writhing in the grip of manager leaders or leader managers for a couple of decades? More?

What you say, DB, is doubtless correct, but jumps over the horrible truth that 'leader-ey' people tend to get themselves promoted. And they don't like teams. They like minions. Thus we get these pointless fuckers running things where some mild mannered nerd would be far the better bet for all concerned.

Yes we need leaders from time to time as a nation. But I'd suggest, strongly, that those times are short lived and widely seperated.