He wasn't in a Wange Wover

[mjr]

No, just the ones in Portsmouth, Southsea, Gosport and area. I'm glad business is so good there that they can turn customers away in pursuit of dictating clothing choices.

[Cunobelin]

.. and Southampton, London, Brighton, Guildford, Winchester, Basingstoke, Exeter, Plymouth, Bridport, Weymouth.....

Lisbon, Rome, Bergen, Hammerfest, Tromsø, Trondheim, Reykjavík.....

I just hope you are not hungry next time you try going into a pub , Restaurant or Cafe without a shirt

[mjr]

Not talking about going in, but I seriously doubt it's only the North Sea coasts of England and Belgium which will serve everyone from their hatches without applying a dress code.

[Lance Dopestrong]

My local bank has a sign, "Robbers - please do not bring shotgun into the branch." Like any other such sign, its effect on reducing crime and bovver is zero.

[thirdcrank]

You simply cannot tell from somebody's appearance.

A few years ago, there was an armed robbery at a jeweller's in the middle of Leeds. The staff's caution was reduced by a wheelchair user pressing the button to be let in and once inside the robber produced an unlawfully shortened shotgun from under the blanket over his knees. I've been unable to find anything about it by googling, largely because they've had a more recent armed robbery. (With apologies for the Daily Mail link)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... round.html

Note how the baddies have their faces hidden. Note also that the goodies prevailed on this occasion.

[Hudson1984]

https://www.facebook.com/UKBrokenBritai ... 3B1tzpSMoK

he's back it seems...

[reohn2]

https://www.facebook.com/UKBrokenBritain/videos/226563578246883/?__tn__=%2Cd%2CP-R&eid=ARDPfJu6lJp1HFbDNr-krfbNXlIJv1JWxlOWFfyr6R1dKgWV53_UbyBV88OC-5oIIvcIJJ3B1tzpSMoK

he's back it seems...

The comments in the link say it all,the chap is an idiot,what his son thinks off him heaven knows

[Cunobelin]

The guy is a prize (insert expletive) and the Police within their rights, and he is not only engineering the situation, but showing a total ignorance of what he is entitled to do. Had he been reasonable (once again) there would have been no conflict.

Also consider that he was filming at an MOD base not a Police Station, information that was deliberately omitted. There have been threats against Service Personnel and attacks by terrorist groups on Service Personnel.

Only two years ago at this very base:

A serviceman who was threatened with a knife near an RAF station was the victim of an attempted abduction, police said.
Officers said he was approached by two men as he was out jogging near RAF Marham in Norfolk on Wednesday.
He was threatened with a knife and attempts were made to grab him but the victim, who was not in uniform, fought them off and escaped unharmed.
Norfolk Police said it was "unable to discount terrorism" as a motive.

They were reasonable and certainly correct question his actions and motives


As for bringing a chid along to deliberately use him as a pawn in his games, that says all you really need to know

Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police where the information is, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58A must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests because there would not normally be grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist. An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Guidelines for Met staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.

Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfill their duties without hindering each other.

[Cunobelin]

Actually this is even more disingenuous and contrived than originally appears.

It actually occurred in September 2016..... Just one month after the attempted kidnap of a Serviceman at this base. Investigations were still ongoing

That means that Security would have been heightened at the time and it is unbelievable that he did not know that.

Everything I read make s this guy more and more of an "entitled" Drama Queen desperate for attention and also hiding the real facts to achieve this

[peetee]

An attention seeking, selfish idiot using the police and, more worrying, his son as puppets in his game of fame.

[londoncommuter0000]

the cyclist is being an **** ....no excuse for his actions. He was requested to remove his mask by teaching staff AND the police officer as his actions were causing concern to staff and pupils.

There is no power to request removal on this occasion but his actions were causing a breach of the peace and so could have been arrested.

I would have suggested that on the next day a section 60 public order act be invoked which then gives powers to request removal of masks etc and failure to do so would result in arrest .


He claims to be at the schools to collect a member of his family and could have simply removed the mask, identified himself and reassured both staff,pupils and police that his actions were purely innocent.


I haven't watched the entire video as it is just purely sensationalism journalism again.

First things first: his actions were not 'causing a breach of the peace'. A breach of the peace is defined thus:

'There is a breach of the peace whenever a person who is lawfully carrying out his work is unlawfully and physically prevented by another from doing it...'
(R v Chief Constable of the Devon and Cornwall Constabulary ex p Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) (1981))

There is evidently no 'breach of the peace' here.

There is no obligation in law to 'obey' a policeman who thinks that he can give orders just because he's wearing a uniform.

As the cyclist was not actually on his bike, he was by definition a pedestrian (or 'a foot passenger', if you prefer) - Crank v Brooks [1980] RTR 441. The only power to stop and question and/or search a pedestrian is if there is reasonable suspicion that you are carrying illegal drugs, a weapon, stolen property or an object which can be used in the commission of an offence, and which you intend to so use. It is obvious that the gentleman who was picking up his stepchild was not suspected of any of the above.

As such, the stop was unlawful, and the victim would have been entirely within his rights to walk away. Once the cop had tried to compel him to stay (which I don't doubt that he would have), the offence of common assault would have been complete, and the innocent cyclist/pedestrian would have entitled to use force to defend himself.

Needless to say, this would have resulted in a massive escalation of the violence used by the officer. The cyclist/pedestrian would have been arrested, charged and no doubt convicted at first instance. I feel sure that his conviction would have been quashed on appeal.

I sense a definite eagerness on the part of the cyclists responding here, to demonstrate how 'nice' they are by siding with the police on this issue. 'See? We're not all like that!'

Attitudes like that do no favours to anyone. The headmistress was acting completely out of line - as well as lying through her teeth - and the officer was acting entirely unlawfully.

[londoncommuter0000]

Actually this is even more disingenuous and contrived than originally appears.

It actually occurred in September 2016..... Just one month after the attempted kidnap of a Serviceman at this base. Investigations were still ongoing

That means that Security would have been heightened at the time and it is unbelievable that he did not know that.

Everything I read make s this guy more and more of an "entitled" Drama Queen desperate for attention and also hiding the real facts to achieve this

The 'attempted kidnap of a Serviceman at this base' does not alter the law, nor does it grant increased powers to a constable to conduct unlawful stops.

[londoncommuter0000]

Personally a nice little chat with other parents whilst waiting would be my choice.
I think a mask in place somewhat compromises that.
A buff is simply dropped to facilitate speaking, though I prefer mine covering where my brains are, it has a far more beneficial effect!

It's not that cold,yet anyway, maybe he's an East of England softie! (joke)

My impression is that he was just looking for a confrontation.
It does happen you know and when it does it leaves a bad taste all round.
Sad and unnecessary.
Same category of a selfish driver.
A boorish fool.

Boorish fool indeed ! Whan I was a Chair of Governors at a primary school I meet several fella's like this idiot. But the beauty of me is that I am who I am and I only ever became CoG because no one else would do it rather than someone who seeks power or authority so when I had to deal with such people a term I used several times was " Don't get lairy with me mate " . Ok not the most articulate thing to have said but it did its job and I could see the doubt in the persons eyes and they suddenly seem to calm down very quickly.

I do agree, as someone else has written this is only " click bait " but I do hope that if this happens again then a parent will step forward to support any police officer having to deal with another incident of this.

My hope is that a parent will step forward and ask the police officer why he is unlawfully harassing a member of the public.

Or does no one do that anymore, thanks to the terrorist 'hysteria' in which we currently live?

[londoncommuter0000]

Hang on - where did someone ask him to identify himself?
.

The officer wouldn't have take his word for it. He would have asked someone to identify him which would have required him to remove the mask.

We can argue about the details but it won't change the fact that it changed from a conversation to a confrontation due to a lack of respect and indifference to others feelings.

Yes. On the part of the cyclist-hating headmistress and the power-drunk policeman.

[londoncommuter0000]

Setting a reasonable example.

Forgive me, but not all of us think that genuflecting before the police, is 'setting a reasonable example'.