Arrested for asking a policeman his badge number

based on what i am reading and watching in the web , you have managed to get a police state probably never seen in Europe . That is a very shocking video and comments here make me sick. Oh well the keyboard warriors thrive i guess
 
v0n said:
And you have some dumbo going around asking police forces for ID (which, just for the record, again, just about anywhere outside Britain would be either armed, or in full anti-riot uniforms and equipment).
Click to expand...

As they would have been in Britain if they were dealing with rioters. They weren't though.

So let's get this straight. Rather than give the number, which should have been displayed anyway, it was quicker to assault, restrain, arrest, collude a story with the other officers, fill in all the paperwork the police complain so much about, spend hundreds of pounds, if not thousands of taxpayers money on a court appearance and remanding her for 3 days, damage the reputation of the police force.

All of which is OK because some countries are worse.
 
DrDee said:
I did not say that, please stop lying about what I have said.
Click to expand...

Where are my lies? Show them to me because I'm clearly not following your thread on this but don't like being called names.

If you think sueing the police makes the police better then great, that's your opinion and you can argue that all you like.

If you try to point to the police in the US as a positive reinforcement of your idea you've just shot yourself in the foot.

That is all.
 
Missing.String said:
They shouldn't have to be lighthearted/bemused to carry out what I understand to be a legal part of their job.
Click to expand...

It's part of the waiters job to explain specials of the day to you, but keep asking long enough, persistently enough and they WILL kick you out of the restaurant. Usually to applause of the rest of the customers.

I don't understand where people draw the idea that Police units in special situations are something every civilian with a notepad or agenda gets to probe and test and evaluate against psychological strenghts. You wouldn't ask surgeon questions about side effects of paracetamol in the middle of open heart surgery. You wouldn't ask guards to compare their 0-60 times with you at the nearest lights in the middle of convoy. Why do people feel prevention forces in the middle of mass protests, regardless of whether they actively remove protesters from fences or serve as backup, are something to screw around with? Where does it come from?
 
Last edited:
v0n said:
If they were just taking pictures and asking for badges, of course not. But I don't see how we can possibly remove it out of the context though.
Click to expand...

With the greatest of respect everything I removed from the quote above was just...... irrelevant at best.

Taking that into account lets look at what I quoted.


The context was two women taking pictures and asking for badge numbers.

That was the context.

You honestly think that whatever went on around them at the time means that two people simply doing that means the police have a right to treat them as criminals?

To use your method of thinking an armed cop would shoot a hostage in a bank as they shouted for help simply because they were in the middle of a bank robbery/ hostage situation.

They were in the bank, criminals were in the bank...... shoot them all, right??

Aren't the police trained to seek out criminals amongst the guilt free and such?

I kind of thought such training would...... help?



Anyway, they were released without charge, clearly the "context" wasn't enough to convict them?

Doesn't that mean that they certainly could be removed from the context by those with a little more........ ah, I wont go on.
 
Last edited:
UOcUK Poopscoop said:
The context was two women taking pictures and asking for badge numbers.

That was the context.
Click to expand...

No. The context was 1400 policemen recalled from home to prevent 600 people from breaking into power facility and turning my lights, few miles down the road, off.
You honestly think that whatever went on around them at the time means that two people simply doing that means the police have a right to treat them as criminals?
Click to expand...
I don't know how to explain it any better than I already did. Have you ever heard of similar historical precedence, anywhere involving any type prevention forces that ended with the said forces cooperating with some random, single vigilante? How would that work? Is there some sort of "Pensioner Stanley Kirk Burrell, best known for requesting stop "for hammertime" from 2500 policemen during Brixton riots followed by obligatory dance and exchange of shirts between units under well known "double dare you" rule" item I missed? It's not funny. You don't screw around with forces. Not with army, not with police, not with your special units. Not with anyone that have permission to carry weapons. Or is Police in this country just funny looking mailmen with long phallic items bolted to their belts to most of you?

To use your method of thinking an armed cop would shoot a hostage in a bank as they shouted for help simply because they were in the middle of a bank robbery/ hostage situation.
They were in the bank, criminals were in the bank...... shoot them all, right??
Click to expand...

Where did that come from? Using your analogy we have bank robbery. Police attends. Cornish lady emerges from the crowd, crosses the barrier and starts asking everyone for badge numbers and names. At what point, in what scenario do you presume anyone will entertain her ?
 
v0n said:
Where did that come from? Using your analogy we have bank robbery. Police attends. Cornish lady emerges from the crowd, crosses the barrier and starts asking everyone for badge numbers and names. At what point, in what scenario do you presume anyone will entertain her ?
Click to expand...

If you think the only way of dealing with imagined Cornish lady is in a way similar to that shown in the OP video, you're slightly deluded.

People usually have a choice in the way they handle certain situations, especially if the situation is non-violent. The introduction of violence into such a situation is fundamentally representative of a bad choice being made. Would you suggest that in the OP incident, the police had no other choice as to how to handle the situation?
 
VOn,

Just want to ask your opinion on a couple of points.

Based on that video and the context, did the police act within the law and arrest those women in a manner you would have done? You personally would have done as those police did? (Sorry, I am assuming you are a cop from what others have posted?)

Whether you would have done or not...... the fact is they were not charged am I correct?

Now, I am not an officer of the law..... but if they were arrested and later not charged..... surely they should not have been arrested in the first place?

Layman talking there obviously.

By the way, I wouldn't have liked my lights to have gone off either, however I didn't see either lady trying to break into the power plant.... so I think we would have been safe if they were just left alone to ask for badge numbers and take a few pics personally. They may have been even less of an issue had the officer just given his number perhaps? Then their camera battery would have eventually died and these two hardened criminals would have either just gone home or strengthened the local economy by buying up loads of AA batteries from the local Co-oP.

Layman again though......
 
Last edited:
It was clearly wrong what they did.
Annoying people can't be arrested because they are annoying. They have to be doing/being suspected of doing something that breaks the law for them to be arrested, which they clearly[in my opinion] weren't doing.
 
growse said:
If you think the only way of dealing with imagined Cornish lady is in a way similar to that shown in the OP video, you're slightly deluded.

People usually have a choice in the way they handle certain situations, especially if the situation is non-violent. The introduction of violence into such a situation is fundamentally representative of a bad choice being made. Would you suggest that in the OP incident, the police had no other choice as to how to handle the situation?
Click to expand...

Once again. I know it's your right to know coppers badge. But dude. Time and place. They didn't meet with the Cornish lady in the middle of may day parade. Police forces were called to attend to illegal siege of the power plant by aggressive "protesters". They weren't there to provide children with directions to toilet. They weren't there to pose to pictures with Japanese tourists. They weren't there to entertain Cornish lady with notepad with a number game. It's that simple.

It might be her right, but look - it's just like any other right - you have a right to express your religious affiliations, yet try to preach bible in the middle of NATO manouvers and I guarantee - they will be too occupied to join your paternoster and won't appreciate your blessing a bit. And this is very simple lesson too - look guys - just a reminder - ask coppers stupid questions in wrong time and place and you might be pressure pointed to ground. If anything, such lesson is applause worthy.

And the Cornish lady knows it. The reason why she can finally share her tape, to the future you tube amusement, almost year AFTER the fact, is that she is now sure she won't get prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Fact remains - they were there to do a job. And she was screwing around and distracting them.
 
Last edited:
Telescopi said:
Where are my lies? Show them to me because I'm clearly not following your thread on this but don't like being called names.
Click to expand...

Telescopi said:
You say a sue culture makes for better policing, but you offer an example where it clearly does not.
Click to expand...

I did not say that a sue culture makes better policing, nor did I offer up an example of better policing.

Telescopi said:
If you think sueing the police makes the police better then great, that's your opinion and you can argue that all you like.

If you try to point to the police in the US as a positive reinforcement of your idea you've just shot yourself in the foot.

That is all.
Click to expand...

I have done neither of those things, you are taking what im saying it and not understanding it or purposefully twisting it.

To clarify please read my post

DrDee said:
I did not say that, please stop lying about what I have said. In any police force there will be mistakes, both in the USA and the UK. The problem with the UK is the lack of accountability, we have seen it with our MP's, within the child protection agency (look how long it took for the people who should have been looking out for baby P to get the sack) and we also have it with the police.

The sueing culture will not make bad policing go away, there will always be mistakes whenever humans are involved, if we had some accountability the perpetrators of these gross negligences would be adequately punished, named and shamed and the victims would get adequate compensation.

Half the people who work for government run organisations would barely get a job as a supervisor in a McDonalds in the private sector, this needs to be addressed, being able to sue someone and the employer of that person into oblivion when something like this happens would be a step in the right direction of being able to hold people accountable for there mistakes.
Click to expand...
 
v0n said:
And she was screwing around and distracting them.
Click to expand...

Again, apologies, I cut out all the background "chatter".

So, she was arrested, for basically asking something she had a right to under law.................. man handled to the ground....................... spent a few days in prison................... to not be charged.

All for "screwing around" and being "distracting".



Wow, imagine if she had illegally parked, she might still be locked up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom