British Cops get Schooled.

[karlf]

il do a bit of digging, those were the main ones our media dept gave out as advice to anyone setting up private CCTV. Im still convinced you cant film the public without permission from your own private property.

Thanks

I'd be interested to know the outcome. I'm no lawyer, but I'm going off how I understand it.

[Stevecarter200]

il do a bit of digging, those were the main ones our media dept gave out as advice to anyone setting up private CCTV. Im still convinced you cant film the public without permission from your own private property.



inoffensive to who? if it was you he was filming youd be very offended.

I spend my entire working life in the public eye so i expect a relative level of recognition etc, hence my previous examples. however theres numerous lines of police work, test purchasing of drugs, football spotting etc that having your face plastered across youtube is seriously hazardous to your health.

a prime example is the guardian published an archive picture of my regular crewpartner , face and torso as clear as day, last month which was taken in 2001 for an article relating to uniforms standards. they had no idea what his current duties were etc and what detrimental effect that may have.

So youre out in public, with your face on show, in uniform(?) and even the police take publicity/publicly available photos of their officers but youre worried about the public videoing you? Surely if an officer is undercover then its the polices job to protect their staff by NOT putting them in the public eye? Your partners pic should have been withdrawn from public availability by the police if its a concern to his safety, its not the Guardians fault.

As for the video, its not like its the first time an officer has made up an offence in his head.

[Easy007]

I dont think the officer had a rod up his arse, imagine you are going about your work and some complete stranger unconnected starts filming you, i bet your reaction would be 10X worse.

I'm afraid i do Now i don't want to start an argument with an officer of the law as i realise you all do a hard/worthy job and most of you don't deserve what you get......

For a start they walk straight into his garden with completely the wrong attitude. They claim straight away it's an offence and when asked what the offence is the chap says "i'll find out" (or whatever he said).... i'm mean come on really you can't claim everythings an offence unless you actually know it is.

[danny-mac]

Exactly what proir said... innofensive to who. I know if I was being filmed by some random from his garden he'd be told to quit it or prepare to make a video of the inside of his arse.

The guy was doing it to get a reaction, which he did. Simple as that. I bet the guy videoing doesnt have a job or **** all else to do. Would everyone support his behaviour if you found out he was a soap dodging dole que waste of fresh air lay about c1nt?

Police officers shouldn't act according to how offended they are, but in accordance to the law.

Who knows the background of the guy, we can only judge on his actions

[Prior]

Thanks

I'd be interested to know the outcome. I'm no lawyer, but I'm going off how I understand it.

Hmmm well after a bit reading to say its a grey area is an understatement.

now *technically* the most relevant police offences would be breach of the peace or section 5 of the public order act. breach of the peace is where your actions are likely to incite somebody to breach the peace i.e smash your nut for filming them. section 5 is where by you filming them they are caused harassment, alarm or distress.

both the above could, but more likely wouldnt be applied to CCTV cameras. but its far more likely with some idiot and his camera.

there are some civil offences but my knowledge on them is nil.

[danny-mac]

Yeah they were undercover. They were going to a fancy dress party where there was likely to be lots of drug dealers and were dressed as coppers so nobody would even think they were coppers

I don't quite understand you point here. They were in uniform and so were transparent as police officers. They can not, with this in mind stop people taking pictures/film of them in duty. I hope you understand me, although I will stop short of unleashing the head banging on wall smiley.

[Prior]

So youre out in public, with your face on show, in uniform(?) and even the police take publicity/publicly available photos of their officers but youre worried about the public videoing you? Surely if an officer is undercover then its the polices job to protect their staff by NOT putting them in the public eye? Your partners pic should have been withdrawn from public availability by the police if its a concern to his safety, its not the Guardians fault.

As for the video, its not like its the first time an officer has made up an offence in his head.

Im in the public eye and recorded on CCTV all the time, but that footage doesnt end up on youtube. I have no issue generally as i keep myself squeeky clean and ive never been in that situation. When im on public order i have dozens of girls all wanting their pictures taken with me. I usually politely say no, but if theyre insistant i say o.k as i dont want to be appear stand offish. But il also ask them not to post them on facebook, which 100% they will do anyway, but at least i asked.

I'm afraid i do Now i don't want to start an argument with an officer of the law as i realise you all do a hard/worthy job and most of you don't deserve what you get......

For a start they walk straight into his garden with completely the wrong attitude. They claim straight away it's an offence and when asked what the offence is the chap says "i'll find out" (or whatever he said).... i'm mean come on really you can't claim everythings an offence unless you actually know it is.

they handled it wrong, no question there. The correct way would have been to ask him why he was filming and then take it further depending on his answer. If he would of said 'because i can' then it can be put to him that without a valid reason then im forced to assume its for sinister reasons.

[TrIcK^]

they handled it wrong, no question there. The correct way would have been to ask him why he was filming and then take it further depending on his answer. If he would of said 'because i can' then it can be put to him that without a valid reason then im forced to assume its for sinister reasons.

I get your point, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious. If he had replied with something like "to ensure you were carrying out your duty correctly with regard to civil liberties" then ill be guessing its not something you can counter.

Plus by his confidence Im guessing there is nothing that can be done really as he was on his own property and point blank refused to co-operate anyway, and they could take it no further despite the fact they both seemed to be aggravated by him.

[Tordy3002]

hahaha, I just spat my dinner everywhere. That was magic, they looked completely lost lol.

[Prior]

I get your point, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just curious. If he had replied with something like "to ensure you were carrying out your duty correctly with regard to civil liberties" then ill be guessing its not something you can counter.

Plus by his confidence Im guessing there is nothing that can be done really as he was on his own property and point blank refused to co-operate anyway, and they could take it no further despite the fact they both seemed to be aggravated by him.

if he said that then how can you argue, except if you dont believe him. like i said the terrorism act can be used but in my sleepy end of the country i wouldnt even consider it or worry about it. Id have probably given him my supervisors details so he could forward the footage staright on to them to show what a sterling job i was doing, but then i am a cheeky sod.

[ian_83]

That women is being a right arse! She heard what he said, she knew what he meant, im sure we all did. She's trying to get him to bite to do him for sweet FA! My mate got stopped last week for walking home form work at 3am! Just because someone is out at strange times doesn't meant their upto no good >_<

[ian_83]

Just thought id add the ultimate schooling!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9bfmW3iMqk

[59bhp]

.

[59bhp]

section 58a terrorism act 2000. and i wouldnt have been so nice to the twat.

Oh please that law was invented so police could pretty much do whatever the hell they want without so much as a sniff of evidence. It's pathetic and such a cop out.

I admit being a policeman is one of the hardest jobs and I sure as hell wouldn't do it but the terrorism act is essentially an excuse for Marshall law.

Face it the guy wasn't doing anything wrong apart from acting like a twat, but unfortunately that isn't against the law........no matter how much I wish it was.

[Easy007]

My mate got stopped last week for walking home form work at 3am! Just because someone is out at strange times doesn't meant their upto no good >_<

Very true but wheres the problem if he not up to no good? I personally don't mind getting stopped in my car as i know i'm fully legal and not up to anything... i would hate to think my car was stolen and the police just ignored it.

[ian_83]

Well he was just walking home. There's more to it then a simple stop, asking questions and then some disbelief on the part of the police. You should be able to simply walk in the street at any time without being stopped and questioned.

[Prior]

Oh please that law was invented so police could pretty much whatever the hell they want without so much as a sniff of evidence. It's pathetic.

I admit being a policeman is one of the hardest jobs and I as wouldn't do it but the terrorism act is essentially an excuse for Marshall law.

It's a law none the less, if you don't like it write to your m.p or lobby government In one of the many groups dedicated to repealing it. It doesn't bother me as I'm too busy dealing with domestic violence or trying to catch burglars to even consider it in 99.9% of my working life.


And Ian, whilst I appreciate your friend doesn't like being stopped at 3am, that's how we catch people breaking into cars or burgling houses. Criminals love the early hours to work in. Once again if he was stopped by someone with a bit of tact and who gave an explanation of why I.don't think many people would mind it.

[ian_83]

Well, I admit its a tainted view, I've had bad experiences. Stopped with a friend walking home from a night out, in full dress gear:

"Have you been stealing cars" - clearly a daft question, wouldn't be walking now would we?

"what's that for?" - referring to a phone, not for making sandwiches that's for sure.

Of course I didn't say them things, i'd be in a cell for a night, but still bloomin' daft questions.

[Liam]

or how about stopping me when I'm running to catch a bus and holding me until the bus had passed and me missing a meeting.

C**TS!

[davecoupe]

He definately wouldnt have got away with filiming the police over here, for obvious reasons. Correct or not, he would have been in the back of a landrover before he knew what was going on. While i think you should be able to film them, I can completely understand the police not wanting to get filimed, its a risky enough buisness as it is.