Plod's out of control
Somebody should remind this bunch of Gene Hunts that they work for us.
The Metropolitan Police Force cannot be guaranteed to abide by the law when it comes to allowing the public their right to take photographs. That was the startling admission made last week by Met Police Commissioner John Stephenson under sharp questioning from Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member Dee Doocey during a Police …
Sounds about right.
But that's always going to be a problem with any sort of job. There will always be those who will abuse a position of power. The important thing is that the employer admits that it happens, and comes down hard on those who do it. It doesn't matter if it's the police, hospital, town hall or supermarket. It's a form of corruption.
If the police start clamping down on corruption within the force, where might they look next for corruption? No governing body can afford a police force that tries to clean up corruption. If this ever becomes the case, the laws with change rapidly so as to allow the corruption in question.
Same as it always was.
and causing the death on an innocent individual in the street, or shooting some innocent electrician in the head six times in front of a packed train. Or running a student in Coventry down and not even stopping to help
Then what's the big deal with pushing a few spotty photographers around...
Joke or not, you are a complete f**king prat and a perfect example of why this country is slowly going round the U-bend.
When we simply turn a blind eye to a few out-of-line coppers "pushing a few spotty photographers around", then we lose what little freedoms we have.
So after all the dangerous "terrorist" photgraphers have been removed from the streets, what next? I know lets pick up kids, they are simply trainee terrorists and trouble makers, so what if a few die in custody, no biggy. Next let's teach a few women to stop wandering the street at night on their own, "learn 'em good and proper".
Perhaps if you opened your tiny little mind one iota and took in the wider world, you would learn there are places in the world where the police are feared more than any criminal gangs. In a lot of case the local criminals work hand-in-hand with the local coppers to get what they want. Police brutality against innocent men, women and children is endemic and "accepted" as the norm in some places.
Just f**k off back under your stone and pray you never get picked up by some bored coppers looking for an easy nick!
"pushing a few spotty photographers around"
The Police in this country are getting away with killing people in broad daylight and on TV. I personally think we are much further around along the road to a police state than worrying about pushing a few photographers around. Not that abusing photographers should be tolerated. It is their state given right to record what they see but…...
Let's weigh it up. 1 person being assaulted on live on TV allegedly causing his death and broadcast around the world. No criminal prosecutions as the CPS couldn't be sure of a conviction. Quite a few Policemen running around thinking they are Robocop. It's obvious why the police think they can push Photographers around. Well if I can KILL somebody live on TV and get away with it then pushing some kid around is unlikely to cause me too much trouble.
If we could address the over zealous policeman picking on the kid that would be good so we can carry on taking pictures of policemen killing people in the street. Ahh enjoy your freedom confident in the knowledge if a policemen decides to shoot you in the head six times somebody will be able to photograph it for posterity.
Believe it or not I do agree with you but I cannot understand why people are getting more upset about a photographer getting harassed in the street to somebody being killed! I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
Or maybe I'm just being trolled?
I realise your /Sarc commet tag was on as i was going to make a similar comment.
Seems more and more mail readers are signing up round here or could just be people drinking and commenting which can be as bad as drinking and txting.
sarc
I say let them do what they want there the police and are accountable to know one.
/sarc
"They suggest that a small minority of officers see the law as being "what they say it is", and these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between."
And even when they get filmed assaulting or murdering innocent members of the public they are get off. Do we have any respect of faith in our police force? No, none. When police officers step out of line they need the book throwing at them, they should be punished at least as hard as members of the public. Closing ranks and covering up is standard behaviour for the police.
"Closing ranks and covering up is standard behaviour for the police."
Then they wonder why nobody comes forward to help them. They need to learn that respect is a two-way street and that it is earned and not given away/assumed.
On similar lines when was the last time an unlawful police shooting was ever properly prosecuted rather than excused with "it's a difficult job"?
You remember all the good times and forget all the bad one. Summers were warm and sunny, the snow was crisp - never slushy. Birds sang joyfully and the local bobby was a happy and fair person.
On the other hand, we tend to remember things we like. Things that give us status, things that empower us. So when we're told to treat every member of the public as if they were a terrorist and to investigate every suspicious activity we imprint such information with glee. The power this gives us is immense. We can stop, search, question. We demand respect or we lock you up - sorry, ask you politely to assist in our inquiries ... or get tazered for your insubordination.
However when we're told that maybe, just possibly, that person with a camera is simply pursuing a harmless hobby, or photographing a curiosity we tend to prefer to remember the days when we could and did act like Bodie and Doyle - or Arnie (depending on the haircut): crush liberties first, ask questions later - after all, you can't be too careful. So, just like you can't teach old dogs new tricks, we've still got a way to go before the excesses of the past can be rehabilitated back into normal policing - back to the memories of that fair and happy constable, now wth a stab-proof vest.
My thoughts exactly. So many powers have been bestowed upon the police in recent years that undermine the burden of proof, assumption of innocence, and general freedoms of your average citizen that it was only a matter of time until the average copper thinks they're Judge Dredd.
In general they used to be, and in the main doubtless still are, pleasant to deal with provided you don't act like an utter cock - and I have witnessed a few amusing "why are you doing this to me" incidents after behaviour where I'd have happily slapped the issuer. However you do get that inkling with quite a few of them that it wouldn't take much for the line to be crossed from Dickson of Dock Green to Judge Dredd. The ones that make the headlines are obviously just total wankers to begin with that get off on the power and should have been weeded out in selection - perhaps so few want to do the job these days that only tossers apply.
Question is who starting losing respect for whom first?
I vote for cock up every time - your average plod hasn't got the wits to collude in something and like all lies, it requires you to remember what lies you told to whom. Your average plod in London can' walk and talk and leave the thinking to senior officers.
Its just old old fashioned incompetence of the type to which we have grown accustomed over the years. Tell them something new, they forget something they were told earlier.
As a police officer it is your job to know. If you do not know, you ask your superior. It is as simple as that. You do not go around acting like a thug stating "facts" of which you are unsure. If you truly believe you don't need to be enforcing any particular law to shove innocent people around without any other extenuating circumstance then you should not be in the force. It's common sense and it transcends any defence of incompetence.
Lets get it right - they are stealing high end DSLR's from folks they can con into handing over thier goodies under the "terrorist laws". If they know the law, and stand thier ground then they call in the big boys with the metal truncheons. The reality is that the Met can assault anyone they like.
The one good thing is that more and more tourists are realising this.
....but can anyone tell me what the hell he is blathering on about?
"And I admit, I could not be confident at that time, because they were happening, and it was a matter occasionally of morning despair of what we were doing on occasions around it."
GJC
If they really meant it ...
Officers would be personally liable for damages, if found to have acted unlawfully
If they really meant it ...
It would be a criminal offence for a policeman to attempt to criminalise innocent behaviour
draw your own conclusions
This is becoming a more frequent problem here in Yankville as well.
Coppers who don't know the law; surveillance cameras popping up everywhere; civil liberties being trampled upon left and right; government completely out of control. Yep, we are becoming more and more like the mother country each day.
Also a problem here in Canada. The police here are well trained, but they just don't care that they are breaking the law.
And if they break the law because they lost their temper (a common cause for criminals of all kinds to break the law) their co-workers who are present cover up for them, become accomplices or accessories, and co-workers assigned to any investigation botch it, committing obstruction of justice.
And our judges and politicians do nothing, because they depend on police to protect them.
It seems to me freedom and democracy are doomed.
Make misrepresenting the law by Police Officer an offence.
Police are trained and given written guidance in the law, and they can at any time consult a lawyer over the radio, and most officers do this. However, a significant minority is essentially 'inventing' the laws as they see fit to the current situation with no legal basis.
Additionally, it is not a defence for a citizen not to know the law - why should it be to the Police?
Why the contribution is important
This page is about restoring civil liberties. However, even with the best laws in place, these may still be infringed on when the Police Officer 'invents' new or misuses an existing law to stop the person from legal activities. In cases where wrongful arrest has been made, the act committed by the Policeman may be punished by prosecution; however, where no arrest was made, personal freedoms have been infringed and there is no usable legal recourse. It is therefore important to, as a part of process to restore civil liberties, introduce this or similar offence.
Some examples of why this law is necessary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQ1Amd0cRE
One method to help polarise the thinking of police officers when they are making up laws as they go along is if they are personally made to pay at least some of the compensation to those they harass. As long as the Police force pays (i.e. the tax payer pays), the individual officers have no incentive to stop.
Just a thought but perhaps 'The Register' is overreacting to these issues? The Police do a fair job in difficult circumstances most of the time. Photography can cause all sorts of problems, and presumably raises difficulties for the Policeman on the beat.
Just thinking this one through the average copper encounters somebody taking photos for all he knows they could be a terrorist gathering intelligence for an atrocity, they may be a paedophile trying to get snaps, etc. what is the poor fellow supposed to do? On a personal level I have seen photographers taking illicit 'up skirt' shots, clearly doing girl on girl photography, and all sorts of other intrusive photography. Not being a policeman, nor having any legal background, all I could do is just carry on walking.
Just to emphasise the problem last night I watched 'Katie Price Happy Ever After' ** and saw the true evil of unexpurgated photography. Just wondering if just maybe the police should get some understanding here regarding their dealings with these situations?
** Technically I watched 'Katie Price Happy Ever After' but being a bit more accurate my girlfriend stuck it on the telly and then refused to turn the telly, errm either over or off. But as luck would have it I did see the section (i.e. it must have been loud enough to wake me up) where all the photographers were scrambling to get photographs of the unfortuneate Katie.
And how as a law abiding citizen can I not be sure that the person in the high viz jacket and nipple helmet won't batter the shiut out of me for being *near* something they don't like.
The whole "potential terrorist or paedophile" argument is as idiotic as the "my kid was nekkid on streetview, what about the pedos" story and talking of Streetview, that's a much better resource than a couple of snaps from ground level. Especially when the snaps are bing taken by a uniformed schoolchild.
Yes, they do a difficult job and yes, the public by and large think they're a bunch of cunts. OTOH, they don't do anything to improve my perception of them.
"Just a thought but perhaps 'The Register' is overreacting to these issues? The Police do a fair job in difficult circumstances most of the time. Photography can cause all sorts of problems, and presumably raises difficulties for the Policeman on the beat."
Exactly what is difficult about the circumstances when you walk passed someone pointing a camera at nelsons column for instance? Photography only causes problems when you point a camera at a person who doesn't want it pointed at them, and how often do the police come across that, except for celebs?
One day I hope the police stop you in your car and arrest you've because you've got a sticker in your window. Of course they won't be sure if its illegal or not, but better safe than sorry.
@Lottie
If it helps allay your fears I have had a number of dealings with the Police both because I have called them, and because of misdemeanours on my part. If my experience is anything to go by at no time was I battered to a pulp. My perception of the Police is mixed, but is not that they are a bunch of c***s.
@Code Monkey
A friend and I observed a gentlemen taking photographs in the park just outside my work. It was my friend who pointed out that the gentleman concerned was using a telephoto lens, and apparently taking close up photos of the rose bushes in the park.
Again my friend told me that this is the wrong sort of lens for this sort of photograph. The chap concerned was squatting but would occasionally wheel round and point the camera towards a lass about 50 feet away who was sitting in a short skirt with legs akimbo. My colleague observed that quite clearly this chap was in fact doing 'up skirt' shots. I believe that this is a particular genre of pornography.
Not being a photographer myself I have no idea if the camera was a DSLR. Mind following your own argument I would love to know why you consider this relevant?
@Chris
I am struggling to understand your point, are you perhaps illiterate? Have you been arrested for having a sticker in your car? Anyways that has never happened to me, and I am almost certain it will never happen.
Firstly, your friend was incorrect - telephoto lenses are most certainly not the "wrong" lens for taking macro shots. In fact they are by far the most popular choice for the thousands of us who wish to take macro shots but cannot afford a dedicated macro lens.
Secondly, if this guy you're talking about was taking upskirt shots then that would be grounds for him to be stopped should an officer happen to suspect that that was what he was up to. This is completely different to an officer stopping a photographer on spurious, contrived grounds as has been happening up and down the country, especially on the Met's patch.
What you are suggesting seems to me to amount to "it's alright if police stop photographers because they /might/ be up to no good". Do you not see the total lack of logic in that?
bwx
PS: "I believe that this is a particular genre of pornography."
You mean you haven't checked?
You *do* realize that every time some innocent civilian is harassed, beaten or murdered in the name of "protecting us from terrorism" or "won't somebody think of the children", public resentment increases just a little and those "difficult circumstances" faced by officers become just a bit more difficult?
What is the "poor fellow" supposed to do? Obeying the bloody laws he's supposed to uphold on our behalf would be a damn fine start.
Photography only causes problems if it's blatantly intrusive to someone who isn't already pimping themselves out in the name of celebrity anyway (sorry, but public figures are fair game within reason, after all their career depends on being in the public eye), or if you're some sort of paranoid whack-job who seems criminal activity in *everything*.
"Just thinking this one through the average copper encounters somebody taking photos for all he knows they could be a terrorist gathering intelligence for an atrocity, they may be a paedophile trying to get snaps, etc. what is the poor fellow supposed to do?"
Okay, let's think this one through.
According to http://menmedia.co.uk/news/special_reports/editors/s/1022830_rise_in_number_of_terrorists there were estimated to be about 4,000 terrorists in Great Britain in 2007. Let's say that's doubled again to 8,000.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia#Prevalence_and_child_molestation, there is no authoritative estimate on the prevalence of paedophiles. Let's assume they're as common as terrorists.
That would make 16,000 individuals in Great Britain. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_britain, the population of Great Britain is approximately 61.8 million (as of summer 2009)
Even if we assume that 95% of the population don't ever take pictures outside, that still leaves ~3.1 million photographers, about 16 thousand of which (0.5%) are doing so for serious criminal reasons.
Let's give the police the best benefit of the doubt and assume that criminal photographers are ten times as prevalent as the estimates seem to indicate. That would still mean that 95% of those people taking pictures are innocent. Even adding every possible criminal photographic offense is not likely to decrease the percentage of innocent snaps below 90%.
So what's the poor officer to do? Well, that's what laws and guidance are for. In this case, they tell the officer under what circumstance he or she can stop photography and/or confiscate equipment. I might agree with you if the incidents involved officers acting on their own initiative without reasonable guidance. But the whole point of this article is that the officers aren't following the guidance set up for them -- even going so far as providing the general public with false information regarding those guidelines.
Finally, what you saw watching "Katie Price..." had nothing to do with evils of photography. You saw the evils of our celebrity culture and the insane prices the tabloids will pay for pictures of people who are famous almost solely for being famous.
"They suggested that these incidents were a very small part of the whole story of London policing, that to expect zero incidents was unrealistic"
I really would expect 0 incidents of the british police doing anything other than enforcing the law.. i mean, that's their job isn't it?
I'd always thought that the cops were the good guys but you hear so many stories you start to wonder after a while.
...is entirely unsurprising from a police force who can get away with manslaughter, quite literally.
Until we see acting police officers being correctly prosecuted for crimes committed while in uniform, we have no reason to believe they are capable of understanding or enforcing the law.
/QUOTE
They suggest that a small minority of officers see the law as being "what they say it is", and these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between.
QUOTE/
While I agree that there are police willing to take their chances, I suspect that it isn't a small minority and they're not doing it because they don't think they will be caught. They don't care whether they are caught because they know that nothing, absolutely nothing, will happen to them if they are. After all, since the police can get away with murder...
There is no rule of law in Britain anymore. The law is whatever the police say it is. The law is whatever some bureaucrat says it is. The law is whatever some security guard says it is. The law is whatever HMRC says it is.
Leave, live with it, or revolt: those are the only three choices you have. I left because I'm not willing to fight for chavs and the spineless middle class. I predict that people will decide to put up with this outrage, as they have done so many times before.
Britain, in my opinion, is doomed.
I fully understand that it is impossible for PC Plod or indeed anybody else to be conversant with the whole of the law. Furthermore nobody could even be expected to memorise every single strict liability offence. Where police would normally be expected to make mistakes is not knowing something is an offence. I'm sure people often commit offences within site of police orifices when the orifice concerned is not even aware said action is an offence. It's bound to happen.
Where Stephenson is talking cock is in suggesting that if the plod on the street is not aware of the law it is perfectly acceptable for them to invent their own legislation.
I am left with two possible conclusions; firstly that plod have been ordered to hassle people for taking photos, this has developed momentum and is proving hard to stop (if Stephenson wants to stop it at all); or secondly that this is a good old case of plod closing ranks and denying any wrong doing. Takes me back to the eighties that does.
I've seen the Met applying the law in a biased way, ignoring laws broken by themselves and their helpers while giving the public incorrect advice. Surely it's the police's job to apply the law fairly and evenly?
I expect that this has been going on for as long as we've had a police force, but only recently has image and sound recording technology become small and ubiquitous enough to catch them at it!
Why were the police at the G20 protests in 2009 shining torches at video cameras to stop them filming? Surely if they were going about their job in a legal manner they'd welcome it.
Quote = "Why were the police at the G20 protests in 2009 shining torches at video cameras to stop them filming?"
I think it's about power.
Slowly, over many years, more and more power has been taken from ordinary citizens, and more and more power given to the police. Now the police do not want ordinary people to defend themselves against criminals, and have even prosecuted people who have.
Likewise, as you say, only recently has image and sound recording technology become small and cheap enough that ordinary citizens can engage in sousveillance... it's a power for ordinary citizens and the police don't like it.
Sousveillance: = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sousveillance
The idea popped into my head thinking it might solve some of the problems of police officers doing bad things, ie when they screw up their pay packet gets docked, but just realised it would actively encourage them to hide any and all screwups so their pay packet remains nice 'n fat.
It's almost like we need a police force to police the police force we're stuck with because it's quite horrible & depressing how our civil liberties are constantly being eroded away by the people who should be protecting us not opressing us..
As others have mentioned, problems go way beyond photography. When the police do something wrong, there is little or no redress. They close ranks, mislead and lie about people they have harmed, and to an outsider, that certainly gives the impression that they can get away with whatever they want.
To an insider, I would have imagined it must do something similar; they know that they can say "this is the law" from a position of ignorance, because the chances of both the person they're harassing knowing they're talking rubbish, and then of the police actually being reprimanded as a result are close to zero.
Some years ago, a mini-cab I was in was pulled over; talking to me, one of the officers involved started "have you ever been in trouble with the police before" which is an odd opener, considering that being in a mini-cab isn't an offence. So I said "no, not unless you count the time my twin brother died in police custody" which elicited a request for an explanation.
I gave him one - chapter and verse; it's not a pretty tale. And the mere telling of it prompted one of the other officers to say to a friend who'd also been in the cab with me "If your mate carries on about stuff like that, we'll nick the lot of you"
Charming, eh? No, I didn't bother complaining. What would be the point?
Officers who make up the law, who cover the numbers, who hit passers by, who restrain people illegally, or who confiscate cameras should face serious consequences.
Organisations like ACPO and the Police Federation should speak out and say "this is not acceptable" instead of waffling, or avoiding the issues. If moderates in the police force will not unequivocally condemn the actions of a few extremists in their midst, they will all be tarred with the same brush.
I'll almost certainly be sacked. The public are the authority here as it is only by their consent thatthe police can operate. In this instance the police management seem to be condoning - even though they've tried the retraining approach - gross misconduct.
It seems like the police could cut both costs and manpower and raise moral and effectiveness by applying the rules and dismissing officers who mistreat the public. Sadly these folks would then probably migrate into the private Police and security forces. Also, it would take balls that Chief Constables and their poodle-like HR oafs don't have with their own workers.
I can't be sure the Met Police are involved with the whole country, do they govern the rest of the countries forces too? Either way, I'd like to know that the West Midlands Police chiefs are having the same issues shoved down their throats every Police Authority meeting too. The same for Police authorities all across the country.
.
Its interesting that the heavy handed tactics of the police in these hi profile incidents are seen as being out of hand, as you've got to remember that they have to deal with the lowest scum holes the country has to offer on a daily basis, I wouldn't want these shits treated softly, no sir. But at the same time, shouting down a 16yr old for taking shots at that public event is waaay too much.
you've got to remember that they have to deal with the lowest scum holes the country has to offer on a daily basis, at staff meetings.
Remember, when a police officer shelters a criminal colleague he is sheltering someone who has the power to show up at your doorstep at 3 AM and demand you hand your children over to him.
It's really rather simple, isn't it? If photography isn't expressly prohibited in a certain area, then it's within the law. If it's "acceptable" for coppers to sometimes "forget" this, how the hell can the public be expected to trust them with any of the other laws they're supposed to uphold and abide by?
And if they're making it up as they go along, based on whether or not they "like the look of someone", then why should we trust them, ever? As for terrorism, don't even bother going there, it's been a convenient excuse for abuses of power now for far too long, the real terrorists are masquerading as public servants these days.
Sure, this could all be attributed to a few bad apples, but the problem runs deeper. If the system worked and punished the abusers of power, the rest would quickly figure out how to remember laws a bit better, lest they themselves fall foul of them.
challenged except in London by some brain-dead Wanna-be-a-Plod (community) types. After I responded in Chinese they tried shouting louder and again I answered in Chinese.
They then mumbled to each other and wandered away.
Why doesn't the chief plod just tell them 'leave photographers alone'?
1971 waiting for mate outside pub at closing time. Police 'move along now' .
"We're just waiting for our mate, he's gone to the bog"
"I said move along" a places shiney boot into arse of one of use who says "take his number lads" whereupon he is wrestled to ground, handcuffed, dragged off to cells, remanded in custody for assaulting a police officer. Thrown out at trial but he had to move.
Went to an away football match with 2 mates, one (the biggest of us) got jumped by 3 local plods, cut lip, black eye without him doing anything. In court charged wuth assaulting police officer, the other guy wuth us gave evidence on his behalf - he was a serving police officer with 35 years service. Prosecution withdrew charges.
It has been scientifically proven in lots of studies that if you place people in any sort of control over other people then the first lot will eventually go power mad and start to enforce their own set of cultural values over the second lot.
So no real surprise that police forces all over the world start getting ideas above their station when left unchecked.
We need a system where these people are regularly checked, tested in secret and psychoanalysed to ensure that they don't go power mad.
We have 'mystery shoppers' for shops, why not 'mystery offenders' testing the officers?
Or is that too obvious for the Government?
In North America we have extensive pre-hiring screening of candidates for police work for mental problems, precisely because psychopaths and some other mentally ill people seek out positions of power. Especially on the major forces it is truly extensive.
The problem is that some police become psychologically corrupted after hiring, they become sociopaths, people who display psychopathic behaviour due to their surroundings.
And the problem is a problem because they are not ejected from police forces once their co-workers discover their psychological corruption.
Once they start abusing power, police officers should be out-placed to non-police work. This should be done before it gets to the stage of criminal acts.
These people could live productive law abiding lives, in jobs that do NOT give them power over others.
"these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between"
Which is the typical thought process of non-police criminals as well.
Criminals should be treated as criminals, whether they are in or out of uniform.
If it means making arrests at the next staff meetings, so be it.
'these officers are quite prepared to take their chances, on the basis that the number of times they will be caught out by being recorded is likely to be few and far between'
And even if they are caught out, very probably nothing will done about it or they will only be given a smack on the wrist and told not to do it again by their bosses.
This is why I fully support the idea of Police being made to have cameras attached to their person whenever they are dealing with the public because they will know that *WE* are watching *THEM*!
They can't be relied upon to uphold the law in matters of not shooting innocent men on tube trains either. Then, what does "G20" bring to mind?
Confidence in the Met police to be anything other than a bunch of thugs: zero.
Hey, I grew up with Dixon of Dock Green, and something inside me is saying, surely it can't really be happening like this? But it is.
"...that when such incidents occurred, they tended to be blown up out of all proportion by the press."
I assume they know this is bull when they say it. The press have only recently caught on to a rather longstanding problem and even then have only a fitful interest dependent on the latest celebrity in crisis. Many of the worst incidents (assuming they are true) never make it further than as an anecdotal comment to another story or blog post. Some people just dont wish to make a fuss or are frankly too intimidated to make a report to the police complaints body or the press; hardly surprising as a very public search in a busy street is a humiliating experience for most people.
I have no doubt that photographers are merely the most vocal group being hassled; plenty of others will be getting their collars felt on the whim of some coppers inability to understand whatever they are doing. They should be made to provide a specific explanation for each and every search they do without a warrant, and if their justification is challenged and found wanting there should be an automatic disciplinary process.
Stephenson clearly understand that his force is haemorrhaging public support with it's "out of control" behaviour on numerous issues. His job should hang on whether he can reassert control over his uniformed thugs.
"Wanted: Busy police force seeks PR team. Willingness to lie about the recently deceased an advantage. Apply New Scotland Yard"
The police and their apologists - one such sent me a link on Twitter last night, suggesting that essentially Tomlinson had it coming, for walking so slowly - will claim the press build all this up.
And in doing so, they'll neatly forget how often the police are willing to use the press to spin and smear when they've done something wrong. Just as important as the inquiry into the physical attack on Tomlinson, in my view, is a full inquiry into the way the police encourage these incidents to be reported.
Who authorised the statements that Tomlinson had no contact with the police, and that medics had been pelted with missiles? Who conveniently leaked suggestions about a rape allegation, and immigration status in the de Menezes case? Who came up with the kiddie porn wheeze to smear the targets of the bundled Forest Gate raid?
That sort behaviour is, frankly, pretty much par for the course, and probably goes some way to explaining why people don't complain about the police more often, not to mention the sheer stress and expense of it.
When the police are so happy to use the press to put their side, and to make sure they get their version of events out there first, they really shouldn't be surprised when the fact that it's a crock of shit is highlighted.
With the increasing number of high profile police blunders in recent years, like the ones I've mentioned, they surely can't be surprised when the less prominent mistakes are highlighted as well. The solution is to get their house in order, not to claim the press is making a mountain out of a molehill.
There should be zero tolerance for officers who harass members of the public, making up (and breaking) laws in the process. But there won't be.
Soldiers untrained as policemen give jankers to law breakers in a failed state without justice system, and are court-martialled with full hue and cry. Flat hat City of Lindon policemen watch while thugs in police uniform, defaced by bandit mask, covered numbers beats apparently innocent passer by. Time the Police had a distinct Commissioned Officer Cadre.
And, is a tourist photo more useful to a "terrorist" than Google Earth satellite photos showing say Portsmouth Naval Base and magazines in full detail?
So, it's a valid excuse for the police to 'forget' the law from time to time and start harassing and arresting innocent civilians with no comeback.
In that case Mr Commisioner, if a someone were to commit a crime and claim they had 'forgotten' the crime was illegal, would they be let off?
Didn't think so.
Get back to doing some real policing instead of picking on easy targets to make your quota.
Many years ago -- and I do mean, many -- our then local PD came in for criticism for the way a handful of officers were displaying bumper stickers on their personal cars: "When in trouble, call a Hippie." (It was reported that San Francisco's finest were actually running patrol cars with the sticker, but I never saw any.)
The point was, law enforcement folks were pissed off with constant references to the-pigs-do-this and the-pigs-do-that. The breakdown in relations between the police and the policed was never more graphic.
Candidly, I've often been surprised that a variation on this sticker hasn't appeared in the UK: not on police officers' official or personal cars though, but on those belonging to the citizenry.
Fact is, whether you're thinking Birmingham, Guildford, Mendez, Lawrence, Tomlinson and many another high profile case, or simple straightforward police/civilian encounters, the record of police conduct -- doesn't matter whether it's the Met or anywhere else -- is so tarnished that the time-worn cliche about the barrel of good apples with but a single bad 'un at the bottom is downright laughable.
But perhaps the problem is insoluble: put someone -- anyone -- in a position of authority, and they become authoritarian. Recruit someone -- anyone -- without regular assessment and profiling, and it's inevitable that their perception of themselves and their role becomes so skewed over time that they cease to think of themselves as enforcers of the Law but as embodiments of the Law.
I wish it weren't so. To judge from this latest episode, however, it all too plainly is. Stephenson's repugnant defensiveness says it all. Turfing him out of the Commissioner's comfy apartment atop New Scotland Yard would be a great way of sending a message to those a lot lower down the Met's food chain that they get paid to protect and serve, not persecute and ego-trip.
Trust the Met. Police? NEVER. They look after their own. That's been shown time and time again.
Being a Met Police Officer means you can count on your superiors to help you quite literally get away with murder.
They should be able to investigate crime committed by their own just as independently and fairly in the same manner as they do with members of the public.
Look at how many serious incidents there have been and not a single officer is ever punished in anyway, let alone try and proseute them for an offence.
You only have to watch some of the videos on YouTube at the PCSOs in London to see the arrogant attitudes and quite literally bullying behaviour towards completely innocent members of the public going about their very lawful business. Do the Police investigate those incidents? No, of course not.
If they don't investigate properly when a member of the public is killed by a police officer then how on earth do we expect them to investigate properly when a Police officer deliberately sets about abusing his position of authority and try to lay down and enforce a law which doesn't even exist?
Stephenson admits that his plods are hassling people for taking photographs. He further admits that he thinks this is acceptable. So.....
Everybody who has ever been hassled by met officers for taking a photograph should sue. The question is who should they sue?
Do they sue Stephenson personally because he doesn't see the problem? Probably wouldn't work retrospectively, but anybody being hassled after today might have a case since Stephenson seems to be sending out the message to his officers that it's OK to carry on.
Sue the met? Not sure I like that idea because suing the force might take money away from policing.
Sue the officer concerned? That would be my choice. The officers in many cases were it seems acting outside their orders in many cases (using their initiative? Shome mishtake, shirley) as such they were acting as independently of the force. Surely if they were acting independently they can be sued individually. If we do see action taken against individual orifices then maybe they will start to realise they are accountable for their actions rather than hiding behind the uniform.
Or maybe they should sue the ex-home secretary? After all section 44 turns out to have been illegal, and the home secretary should surely be held accountable for enacting this legislation. Like the police, politicians believe that they are not personally accountable for their actions and can hide behind the monolith of government. Oh and of course that their advisors told them they were doing the right thing (blame the advisors) or that they were acting on reliable information received (blame the sources) or that they were acting in good faith in the public interet (blame the population because you were doing it for them).
Politicians always tell us they are interested in transparency and accountability. That claim really needs to be tested.
"The Metropolitan Police Force cannot be guaranteed to abide by the law when it comes to allowing the public their right to take photographs."
Actually, a much more abbreviated statement is also true: "The Police cannot be guaranteed to abide by the law ".
A refreshingly honest statement, as our brave boys in blue are human we can abbreviate it further:
"No one can be guaranteed to abide by the law".
We may expect otherwise, but several thousand years of recorded history beg to differ. And you know what, I'm comfortable with that, so long as I have the right to criticise and demand recompense for wrong doing.
If the cops were to do something (and who knows? the next person along might need tapping on the head etc) they'd not be able to tell their "true version" if there are photographs to the contrary.
As recorders of WHAT IS, photographers are clearly subversive and dangerous, by definition.
Thank heavens for camera phones with video recording facilities.
A while ago I was in a public street taking some architectural photographs when a security guard emerged from one building and crossed the road to ask me what I was doing. So I told him. He asked me to stop, quite politely and I politely refused. He then got quite stroppy telling me that I couldn't take photographs of private property without permission. I explained to him that since I was on a public street I would take photographs with impunity. This went back and forth for a while. He then told me he was going to phone the police and report me under the anti-terrorism act. I invited him to fill his boots.
Anyway when I was ready to leave I popped into the building to ask him, politely, where the anti-terrorist squad were. He gave me a dirty look and kept quiet. The receptionist explained that he had called the police who had told him, impolitely to stop wasting their time.
So not all forces are bad. In this case it was West Yorkshire.
Cos down here in New Zealand, I don't know of any cases of policemen bashing innocent passers bye , running down anyone with their vehicle and failing to stop, etc.
They seem to be quite law abiding boys (and some girls).
They occasionally ask me you provide a breath test for alcohol when doing a drink drive campaign , but that is helping to make me safer out there.
Some of them are even imports from Britain!
I frequently deal with cases where police officers have assumed that because they personally do not like something then it must be illegal. The CPS is better but still sometimes suffers from the same problem. In one case the victim ended up having to mortgage his house in orde to pay the legal bills and there was no redress. You have to prove that it was malicious to get compensation and that of course is near impossible. It makes a complete mockery of justice.
Until the Tomlinson case, whilst I was shocked by the police shootings of innocent unarmed people, I could sort of understand the CPS' justifications for not prosecuting.
The problem is the law on self-defence doesn't seem to allow for the defendant's claim of how they honestly viewed the threat to be questioned and all the jury is allowed to do is decide whether the force used was reasonable in response to the threat that the defendant claims they believed they faced.
So in the Harry Stanley case, the armed police officers had been told that someone had been seen with a shotgun in a bag, so when that person pointed the bag at them they can easily claim they honestly believed that there was a threat of lethal force and it would be hard to imagine a jury ruling that it was unreasonable to respond to this threat by shooting the suspect.
There was the case of the unarmed naked man shot in his bedroom, which did actually get to court but the judge directed the jury to acquit based, I presume, on this principle, as the officer claimed to believe that the man had a gun and was going to shoot him, in which case it would be unreasonable for the jury to rule that it was unreasonable force to shoot first (I'm not sure if the jury would have had to shoot themselves if they had so ruled!)
The Jean Charles de Menezes case gives me more cause for concern, as I've heard no evidence that the armed officers were ever told that he actually had a bomb on him, only that he had been identified as a terrorist. If the armed officers had believed that they saw evidence of a bomb they may well have been legally justified in shooting, but I believe it's unlawful to shoot someone just because someone else tells you to. In that case though, it seems the firearms officers blackmailed the government by threatening to go on strike, hence no prosecution.
But the lack of action in the Tomlinson case can't be excused in the same way, as the assault on him was unlawful (as the CPS freely admit), so it seems they've decided to stop pretending to be impartial and just stuck two fingers up and said "yeah, what about it".
You can read the CPS' own explanation of the self-defence law for yourself and end up just as baffled as I am http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/
Esc, 'cos I wish I could.