Soldato
More like if they don't know the law they can arrest you wrongly.indeed, if they dont know the law then how can they arrest you?
FAO: Police officers, or those with knowledge of the law
- Thread starter OSB
- Start date
Permabanned
Have you any idea how many laws there are!?
Soldato
And? These people have power over our godamn freedom. No other job in the world should be more strictly controlled in my opinion.
No they don't have power over your freedom. Judges do.
Soldato
Err yes they do. They can hold you up to 24 hours? And they can kick your door in, wreck your propety etc. I'd like to know they are doing these things lawfully, otherwise they are just vigilantes.
Not true, I almost guarantee you that the Terrorism Act would be invoked.
Man of Honour
How so ?
Man of Honour
At the OP, police officers can be photographed legally but any photpgraph taken that is considered evidence in a criminal investigation can be seized under Section 19 of PACE and retained under, I think, Section 22 of the same. I will stand corrected on that one though as I can't be arsed to google it.
Because that is what they invoke when they want to search, confiscate, remove and question without warrant. It is just another misused(abused) act.
Soldato
Lots of stuff surrounding police not knowing laws regarding photography etc. People above have already said what's right - you can pretty much take photos of anything/anyone you want and a PO can't force you to delete the photo or otherwise confiscate the camera/card.
Man of Honour
They're not all the bad:
Sorry - couldn't resist. But I suspect it's just down to police peeps not liking being filmed and confusing this with it being illegal to be filmed, which it is not.
M
Man of Honour
Do they ?
That's news to me I have to say.
In 9 years, I have not, misused or abused as you say, terror legislation and neither have any or my colleagues.
Do you think that Section 44, for example, is just invoked for the hell of it so that innocent people can be searched and items seized ?
I'm so sick of dodgy police asking you to delete photos or turn the camera off because they are doing something they shouldn't be.
Yes, done loads of times, they arrested 2 old grannys who were walking (legally) near a military base under terror legislation. Then there are the houses of parliment protests as well.
Yes, done loads of times, they arrested 2 old grannys who were walking (legally) near a military base under terror legislation. Then there are the houses of parliment protests as well.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I must change my name to Serpico as I must be the only non-corrupt, non-misusing of legislation rozzer out there.
I made page 7 of the Sun at G8 on 2005 and frankly couldn't have given less of a monkeys.
Who arrested them ? Was it military police ? MoD police or your standard rozzers ?
Standard police as far as I'm aware, I'll try and find the stories.
This video series shows you the kind of traitor scum that are working in law enforcement these days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j21rcnJ3EO8
Part 2 shows you how someone was detained under the terrorism act for shouting "nonsense" at a labour press conference, and part 3 shows how s44 of the terrorism act was used to search the grannys.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Not good viewing but also not standard practice for your day to day police as well.
The Nonsense incident was an embarassment to watch, I remember that well.
Section 44 is invoked by a senior officer, covering a specific area and revised at frequent intervals to gauge it's neccessity and proportionality. If the grannies are withing that area then they can be searched as the legislation dictates but common sense should prevail.
I say this because when the Glasgow airport incident occurred, a Section 44 boundary was invoked covering an international airport in the fore area and I was drafted in for extra patrols. What I didn't do and was not asked or expected to do was search everyone I saw carte blanche.
I searched two people that day for reasons I can't give but their behaviour fully warranted the seraches.
And no, they were not Muslims before anyone asks.
The Nonsense incident was an embarassment to watch, I remember that well.
Section 44 is invoked by a senior officer, covering a specific area and revised at frequent intervals to gauge it's neccessity and proportionality. If the grannies are withing that area then they can be searched as the legislation dictates but common sense should prevail.
I say this because when the Glasgow airport incident occurred, a Section 44 boundary was invoked covering an international airport in the fore area and I was drafted in for extra patrols. What I didn't do and was not asked or expected to do was search everyone I saw carte blanche.
I searched two people that day for reasons I can't give but their behaviour fully warranted the seraches.
And no, they were not Muslims before anyone asks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 May 2004
- Posts
- 3,270
I found the article
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u..._pictures_at_tourist_hotspot_news_180714.html
Take a look at the picture near the bottom, you can just make out the PCSO outside Vodafone
Let me get this straight.
If they dont like you taking a photo, they can potentially "arrest you" for some trumped up charge (breach of the peace etc), bang u up in a cell for 12h, take your fingerprints and DNA. You are eventually let out because there was nothing to charge you with anyway, but your fingerprints AND DNA will be forever on record.
So you win, but lose in a big way eventually. Yes, sounds entirely fair to me.
If they dont like you taking a photo, they can potentially "arrest you" for some trumped up charge (breach of the peace etc), bang u up in a cell for 12h, take your fingerprints and DNA. You are eventually let out because there was nothing to charge you with anyway, but your fingerprints AND DNA will be forever on record.
So you win, but lose in a big way eventually. Yes, sounds entirely fair to me.