Watchdog wrong in G20 CCTV claim

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 12:44

The police watchdog has said its chairman was wrong to say there was no CCTV footage of an alleged police assault at the G20 protests.

However, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has now said that although Mr Hardwick believed he was correct at the time, it now appeared there were cameras in the surrounding area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7997990.stm

Well this is for the many of you that argued last week about how right the police were.

Nathan · 14 Apr 2009 at 12:48

who cares? The Officer will resume work soon with no charges brought against him.

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 12:50

Nathan said:
who cares? The Officer will resume work soon with no charges brought against him.

Well you should care, cctv used against you by the government yes we have cctv, when you use it against them no we don't, does this sound right?

Von Smallhausen · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:14

While the IPCC can be criticised for a premature comment, they can't be criticised for not knowing exactly where every CCTV camera in London is.

People should stop making this into the conspiracy bull**** that it is.

Sankari · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:17

Z0MG CONSPIRACY! :eek:

AGD · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:23

mattheman said:
Well this is for the many of you that argued last week about how right the police were.

This story has got nothing to do with whether or not the police's actions were correct at the time. This is about someone from the ipcc making an incorrect statement about cctv cameras. The only issue it raises is that of Mr Hardwick's competency. There is no evidence to suggest that the investigation has been compromised or will not take into account all the video evidence of the case (which appears to be fairly damning).

Raumarik · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:28

mattheman said:
Well you should care, cctv used against you by the government yes we have cctv, when you use it against them no we don't, does this sound right?

The police are not the government mate, you seem to be getting slightly confused here.

NiCkNaMe · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:37

Kami said:
The police are not the government mate, you seem to be getting slightly confused here.

The police exist to enforce government laws... i'd say they were closely related to be honest.

KaHn · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:44

Von Smallhausen said:
While the IPCC can be criticised for a premature comment, they can't be criticised for not knowing exactly where every CCTV camera in London is.

People should stop making this into the conspiracy bull**** that it is.

To expand this, it was a comment made by one person, maybe none of the CCTV cameras showed the incident which were viewed at that time, if that was the case then the comment was correct in terms of none showing the incident but written in the wrong context that their were no CCTV in the area.

KaHn

Von Smallhausen · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:49

NiCkNaMe said:
The police exist to enforce government laws... i'd say they were closely related to be honest.

On behalf on Her Majesty's Government.

Police are Crown servants, not government ones.

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:52

Von Smallhausen said:
While the IPCC can be criticised for a premature comment, they can't be criticised for not knowing exactly where every CCTV camera in London is.

People should stop making this into the conspiracy bull**** that it is.

Well not knowing were the cameras are, no excuse really, how hard is it to look at a database and search up the street name and connecting street?
Your telling me that when they put up cameras they dont note down the address?
One thing in common with regulators no matter in what field, they arn't doing their job. Seem that they are there no to enforce laws etc.. but to reassure the public that things are working when infact they arn't.

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:55

Von Smallhausen said:
On behalf on Her Majesty's Government.

Police are Crown servants, not government ones.

Although the dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament at Westminster has a competency and ability to legislate directly for them, although by convention does not often do so without the consent of their insular legislatures

SpeedFreak · 14 Apr 2009 at 13:57

careful Mat, it's all a conspiracy against you, Obama is watching,...... waiting!

Jest3r · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:03

mattheman said:
Well not knowing were the cameras are, no excuse really, how hard is it to look at a database and search up the street name and connecting street?
Your telling me that when they put up cameras they dont note down the address?
One thing in common with regulators no matter in what field, they arn't doing their job. Seem that they are there no to enforce laws etc.. but to reassure the public that things are working when infact they arn't.

if you note the comment,

Investigators are currently viewing all CCTV images from the City of London and private premises nearby, the watchdog said.

The only record central record of where the cameras would be is with the Data Protection Commissioner, as that is the only requirement to register use of recording equipment, but that wouldn't give specific fields of view and vision....
This would be only able to be collected by walking the routes and noting all the firms on the route.... and then each head office would have to be referenced as say Boots wouldn't have indiividual licences but a blanket licence and registration, just adding stores onto the licence

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:07

Jest3r said:
if you note the comment,

The only record central record of where the cameras would be is with the Data Protection Commissioner, as that is the only requirement to register use of recording equipment, but that wouldn't give specific fields of view and vision....
This would be only able to be collected by walking the routes and noting all the firms on the route.... and then each head office would have to be referenced as say Boots wouldn't have indiividual licences but a blanket licence and registration, just adding stores onto the licence

What you fail to understand is they said it was just a heart attack then later on said there was no CCTV, if it wasnt for the fund managerr ecordings. they would'nt have carried out another investigation, and the whole thing would be closed.

Von Smallhausen · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:09

mattheman said:
Well not knowing were the cameras are, no excuse really, how hard is it to look at a database and search up the street name and connecting street?

Not to difficult I would imagine, hence why I said the IPCC can be criticised for a premature comment

Your telling me that when they put up cameras they dont note down the address?
One thing in common with regulators no matter in what field, they arn't doing their job. Seem that they are there no to enforce laws etc.. but to reassure the public that things are working when infact they arn't.

Can you rephrase that please. It makes little sense.

Although the dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom, the Parliament at Westminster has a competency and ability to legislate directly for them, although by convention does not often do so without the consent of their insular legislatures

The police who enforce those laws are Crown servants, ie their oath of allegiance is to the monarch and not the government.

The only service that differs to my knowledge is Soca. Any officers that worked for the old National Crime Squad who went on to work for Soca had to resign their commission as a constable and become a .government agent.

As for the likes of MI5 and 6, I would guess they are Crown servants although I will stand corrected on that one if wrong

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:16

Von Smallhausen said:
Not to difficult I would imagine, hence why I said the IPCC can be criticised for a premature comment

Can you rephrase that please. It makes little sense.

The police who enforce those laws are Crown servants, ie their oath of allegiance is to the monarch and not the government.

The only service that differs to my knowledge is Soca. Any officers that worked for the old National Crime Squad who went on to work for Soca had to resign their commission as a constable and become a .government agent.

As for the likes of MI5 and 6, I would guess they are Crown servants although I will stand corrected on that one if wrong

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#PPA23,M1

and its called indirect control.

Von Smallhausen · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:26

Do you grasp the fact that police have to be hands on quite regularly ?

I am not just talking about G20 here. Some people just can't get their heads around the fact that police can use force to control a person or situation and that range from a push to taking their life.

Try having anti-capitalist demonstrations over here without police or specialist PSU officers and see how much advantage would be taken from that.

As for your obvious disdain for the police tactics used in G20, why not pen a letter to your MP ? The Metropolitan Police or even the IPCC ?

mattheman · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:32

Von Smallhausen said:
Do you grasp the fact that police have to be hands on quite regularly ?

I am not just talking about G20 here. Some people just can't get their heads around the fact that police can use force to control a person or situation and that range from a push to taking their life.

Try having anti-capitalist demonstrations over here without police or specialist PSU officers and see how much advantage would be taken from that.

As for your obvious disdain for the police tactics used in G20, why not pen a letter to your MP ? The Metropolitan Police or even the IPCC ?

Did you see the officers using the sheilds on people that weren't agressive?
Writing a letter these days is pointless, you just get back a scripted responce.

btw

Investigators are looking at CCTV footage for evidence of the moment G20 victim Ian Tomlinson was hit and shoved to the ground by a police officer after admitting they were wrong to say there were no cameras in the area

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ng-over-CCTV-of-G20-victim-Ian-Tomlinson.html

Von Smallhausen · 14 Apr 2009 at 14:56

mattheman said:
Did you see the officers using the sheilds on people that weren't agressive?
Writing a letter these days is pointless, you just get back a scripted responce.

Shields can be used to move people back when an area needs to be cleared. The Home Office says so and it is a tactic approved by them. The day they say it isn't, the police will act accordingly

btw

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ng-over-CCTV-of-G20-victim-Ian-Tomlinson.html

btw what ?

Investigators made a mistake over CCTV. So what ? Either it is ocaught on CCTV or it isn't and even if not, it is captured on camera as we have all seen.

Who exactly do you want to have jurisdiction over this investigation ?

Thus far you have slagged off the police in general, the IPCC and no doubt anyone else who investigates. Perhaps one of the protest groups could instigate a clear and unbiased investigation.

Who exactly do you want to investigate this matt ? Will the IPCCs conclusion be enough for you, even if it goes against the result you personally want ?