He wasn't in a Wange Wover

[londoncommuter0000]

geez who'd want to be a copper! "you've said something I don't like so i'm going to whip my phone out and waste your time"

No, try 'you're acting illegally so I'm going to video you, because you're going to lie about what happened'.

[londoncommuter0000]

There is s strong suggestion that he had been equally aggressive with School Staff

The problem here - and I have seen it first hand - is that refusing to comply with an unlawful 'request' from someone who has (or thinks he has) a small degree of authority, often results in that gesture they love .. the tipping of the chin down towards the radio on their shoulder, as they call for 'backup'.

Once the heavy mob arrives, the person with the radio will then state, 'he was abusive'. It is then up to the person who had the temerity to refuse to do something that he was in no way, shape or form obliged to do, to show that he was not being 'abusive'.

[Hudson1984]

geez who'd want to be a copper! "you've said something I don't like so i'm going to whip my phone out and waste your time"

No, try 'you're acting illegally so I'm going to video you, because you're going to lie about what happened'.

But why put yourself in the situation in the first place? it's provocation nothing more.

It's akin to walking into Baghdad and moaning that you got shot.

nothing more than entitlement - I can therefore I should.

I'd rather he get locked up so police can concentrate on important crimes than this moron with too much time on his hands

[londoncommuter0000]

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.

Sorry - but what relevance does the above have?

[londoncommuter0000]

geez who'd want to be a copper! "you've said something I don't like so i'm going to whip my phone out and waste your time"

No, try 'you're acting illegally so I'm going to video you, because you're going to lie about what happened'.

But why put yourself in the situation in the first place? it's provocation nothing more.

I see.

So wearing a cycling mask and refusing to do what people tell you is 'provocation'?

Remarkable.

[Hudson1984]

No, try 'you're acting illegally so I'm going to video you, because you're going to lie about what happened'.

But why put yourself in the situation in the first place? it's provocation nothing more.

I see.

So wearing a cycling mask and refusing to do what people tell you is 'provocation'?

Remarkable.

you haven't seen the other video I posted I assume. Perhaps worth reading other posts before jumping up on that high horse

[londoncommuter0000]

But why put yourself in the situation in the first place? it's provocation nothing more.

I see.

So wearing a cycling mask and refusing to do what people tell you is 'provocation'?

Remarkable.

you haven't seen the other video I posted I assume. Perhaps worth reading other posts before jumping up on that high horse

I do believe that I've gone through every post in this thread, but of course, I could be wrong.

Would you be willing to tell me what video you have posted, and in what way it is likely to change my view?

There are some legal facts which I have already outlined. Does your video detract from those facts?

[Hudson1984]

previous page.

it's my post - purely put "he's back it seems"

so the following posts are generally based on that video rather than the school one.

Now, perhaps it won't change your mind - but, to me, there is no reason to be in this other location other than to provocate. Ok, I agree he "can" doesn't mean he should.

If you can't find it i'll try to re-link. Have a watch, I think it paints a bad picture of the man.

[londoncommuter0000]

previous page.

it's my post - purely put "he's back it seems"

so the following posts are generally based on that video rather than the school one.

Now, perhaps it won't change your mind - but, to me, there is no reason to be in this other location other than to provocate. Ok, I agree he "can" doesn't mean he should.

If you can't find it i'll try to re-link. Have a watch, I think it paints a bad picture of the man.

OK, so I had to watch it with the sound down, but I'm guessing he was filming a police station, was challenged and refused to back down?

This is 'provocation'?

The problem is the right wing-driven 'lionisation' of both the police and armed forces - a propaganda campaign to which even those who might otherwise self-define as 'left wing' are alarmingly susceptible.

One of the inevitable consequences of this propaganda can be witnessed in this very thread - an apparently sincere belief that anything other than complete and utter deference towards the police in all situations, is 'provocation' - or, in the minds of some, actually a crime.

[Hudson1984]

he was asked rather simply why are you filming.

using his usual attitude as per previous video replied with something along the lines of "it's personal"

ok, no law against him filming.

BUT

WHY for the love of god would you take your child to a police station, purely to film them, purely to reply to their query with "personal" come on if someone was filming your front door would you take "personal" as a reason? no! would you accept because they can it's ok? NO!

It's definitely provocation - he's there for no other reason than to escalate things purely for 5 minutes of facebook fame to bulster his sad little life.
then moan that they've upset his son by detaining him under whatever rule they detained him under.

Simply put, if he had taken his lad to the damned park and got on with his life no one would be unhappy, but because he's entitiled to spend his day micturating people off he feels he should, and people are happy to defend that right or label it as "left wing this, right wing that" how about just integrity? how about simply "don't be a dick" it's crazy.

Such an entitled country we live in.

[londoncommuter0000]

he was asked rather simply why are you filming.

using his usual attitude as per previous video replied with something along the lines of "it's personal"

ok, no law against him filming.

BUT

WHY for the love of god would you take your child to a police station, purely to film them, purely to reply to their query with "personal" come on if someone was filming your front door would you take "personal" as a reason? no! would you accept because they can it's ok? NO!

It's definitely provocation - he's there for no other reason than to escalate things purely for 5 minutes of facebook fame to bulster his sad little life.
then moan that they've upset his son by detaining him under whatever rule they detained him under.

Simply put, if he had taken his lad to the damned park and got on with his life no one would be unhappy, but because he's entitiled to spend his day micturating people off he feels he should, and people are happy to defend that right or label it as "left wing this, right wing that" how about just integrity? how about simply "don't be a dick" it's crazy.

Such an entitled country we live in.

No, such a right-wing, borderline fascist country we live in.

He was allowed to film. He did not have to justify this.

There is nothing else that needs to be said. There is no 'BUT' to be added.

[londoncommuter0000]

Answering myself now I've found the video on youtube. If it's like the young rider pictured (I guess his son - I've not watched it all yet) then it's a simple black fleece buff-like neck tube. The videoer is a bit aggressive and edgey but this looks like it's already escalated enough for him to turn his camera on when seeing a police officer approach... not Norfolk Constabulary's finest moments IMO

I think the PC acts professionally. Patiently even.
He is there at the request of the Headmistress(as I understand it).
I think the cyclist is a boorish fool.

The policeman acts like a bully. Note his body language. He's right up in the cyclist's face. What's the instinctive reaction when someone gets that close? It's either raise an arm to ward off the intrusion, or else a reflexive push of the person back. Once that happens, he's getting nicked for 'assault'.

It is a classic police tactic everywhere. I saw it used to great effect in Northern Ireland during 'the Troubles' and I have seen it used on the mainland.

[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.

Sorry - but what relevance does the above have?

The relevance is that this (insert expletive here) that the video referred to is the one about the "Police Station"and it is hiding a lot of information in order to promote his entitled snowflake ranting

He is NOT filming outside a Police Station as the video claims, but outside a Frontline Raf Base... RAF Marham
He forgets to mention that the was recorded in 2016 when the UK was already in an increased state of alert
He also forgets that this video was recorded closely following the attempted abduction of a Service person at the very site he chose, and the investigation was still continuing at this point

What I linked where the reasons why this (insert expletive) was appropriately stopped by the Police and asked what he was doing

He was was totally insensitive to the situation and deliberately provoking Police carrying out their role appropriately ... something he appears to have specifically chosen to do in a heightened and sensitive security situation

All of this is also relevant as if someone is willing plumb their he the depths that this (insert expletive) has gone to in order to be a self promoting dishonest Drama Queen on Facebook, then it must question the validity of the situation outside the School. One of the allegations being that he was asked by School Staff on the premises to identify himself

Are YOU happy for unidentified masked people on school grounds refusing to state heir identity or reason for being there?

[Hudson1984]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pets+ ... 4d1.718228

not that i'm keen to disagree with you as I think the guys a knob.

but he's not outside Marham. He's as per the link above. Great Yarmouth, outside the police investigation centre.

There is no Pets at home outside Marham for that matter.

[Airsporter1st]

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Pets+at+Home/@52.5976353,1.7159057,430m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x83f893570fd92f3d!8m2!3d52.598785!4d1.718228

not that i'm keen to disagree with you as I think the guys a knob.

but he's not outside Marham. He's as per the link above. Great Yarmouth, outside the police investigation centre.

There is no Pets at home outside Marham for that matter.

Don't let mere facts get in the way of a good argument.