Police harass bloke filming a station/"planning an al Qaeda attack"

[detective-boy]

I 'must' must I?

Unless you are going to substitute prejudice for justice, yes.

I thought you were above the ACAB bollocks. Maybe I was wrong.

(e.g. their violence at G20, which regardless of quibbles in any individual case should, if the same standards were applied to police as ordinary citizens, have resulted in large numbers of them charged for assault and in some cases more serious crimes)

The same laws do apply. You (either because you have failed to realise the difference or deliberately because it doesn't support your proposition) fail to acknowledge that situations are very different dependant upon whether there is a lawful power to use force available to the suspected party or not. If there is, as is usually the case with the police, the general law does not approach the question of how much force is used as an exact science (see the threads on self-defence). If there is not, then the issue of how much force is reasonable is irrelevant (other than in deciding which particular offence to charge).

Lots of people with lawful power to use force do not face charges as a result of using it, even if it is maybe a bit over the top (e.g. licensees, door supervisors, sports ground stewards, security guards, store detective ...)

Equally, if they make a complaint, a law-abiding citizen may very well have the concern that they'll be singled out for harassment by their local force.

Another excuse for doing fuck all ...

 

[detective-boy]

That's the way many of us perceive the police and getting aggressive because you don't like it is unlikely to make any of us change our views.

I am not getting "aggressive" about your "perception". I quite understand that people have different perceptions and policing needs to be delivered in the light of them.

I am robustly challenging the shite you pedal as truth ... if it's bollocks I'll tell you it's bollocks.

(That's the way many of us perceive posts like that and getting aggressive because you don't like it is unlikely to make any of us change our views ... )

 

[Bernie Gunther]

You may choose to call it 'ACAB' and 'prejudice' I don't see it that way and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that.

You don't have to believe that all coppers are bastards to be open to the possibility that the particular coppers who have just come up and started hassling you about doing photography in public may be bastards who will seek to make you extremely sorry for it if they don't like your attitude toward them. For example if you inconvenience them by banging on about your 'rights'.

Nor do you have to be 'prejudiced' to believe that if they decide to exploit or even abuse their powers by way of vindictiveness at your lack of deference, that any attempt at redress will be at best difficult and very possibly futile.

 

[detective-boy]

You may choose to call it 'ACAB' and 'prejudice' I don't see it that way and I'm fairly sure I'm not alone in that.

Prejudice is funny like that.

And it causes you to try and justify it by using situations which were not the ones you were originally called on too ...

You surprise me.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think what I've been saying has been entirely consistent.

 

[dylans]

The public ... but they usually can't be arsed doing so in any formal way (e.g. complaint) and rather just whinge and froth on bulletin boards ... something which makes absolutely no fucking difference at all.

No senior officer or politician in the world can supervise every fucking police officer all the time. They rely on you complaining about anything you are not happy with. Every complaint is logged. Even if nothing much can be done in an individual case, the stats will eventually force changes to be made.

Complain formally. Every time. If you can't be arsed, don't be surprised when things continue as they are / get worse.

You miss the point. It's not good enough to simply shrug your shoulders and tell people to complain. Yes they should but it is apparent that there is a political drive to impede the ability to photograph and record the state even as the state utilises new technology to spy on us.

It is this balance, the ability to watch the watchmen that ensures our civil liberties. When that balance shifts and the state can watch us but we can no longer watch the state we are in danger of 1984. We are on that slippery slope.

 

[detective-boy]

I think what I've been saying has been entirely consistent.

Re-read it then.

I commented that you must accept that there may not have been a criminal offence committed in situations involving the police using force. You sarcastically commented "I must, must I?" and said though in individual cases there may be room for "doubt", in general "the facts support the case I am making".

As you do not suspend the rule of law, innocence till proven guilty, etc. in other cases, that is prejudice, pure and simple.

You then try to justify it, not by talking about the use of force by police officers but a situation in which they question people taking photographs, "hassle" them and, if challenged, misuse their power to make life difficult for them (a situation which, as you well know, I have said should not happen and should not be accepted).

That is what I mean when I say you use different situations to try and justify your prejudice. You do.

 

[detective-boy]

You miss the point. It's not good enough to simply shrug your shoulders and tell people to complain.

I didn't say that was going to resolve the whole of societies ills, did I? I merely suggested it was by far the best way of keeping the police and their use of their powers in check (or, at very least, an essential part of any system intended to do so).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Re-read it then.

I commented that you must accept that there may not have been a criminal offence committed in situations involving the police using force. You sarcastically commented "I must, must I?" and said though in individual cases there may be room for "doubt", in general "the facts support the case I am making".

As you do not suspend the rule of law, innocence till proven guilty, etc. in other cases, that is prejudice, pure and simple.

You then try to justify it, not by talking about the use of force by police officers but a situation in which they question people taking photographs, "hassle" them and, if challenged, misuse their power to make life difficult for them (a situation which, as you well know, I have said should not happen and should not be accepted).

That is what I mean when I say you use different situations to try and justify your prejudice. You do.

All that's required for my argument to hold water is that *some* police behave vindictively when they they dislike the attitude of citizens that they're interacting with, that *some* of those who abuse their powers in practice get away with it (and they have plenty of opportunities for vindictiveness without over-stepping the generous powers they've been given) and that citizens in general may have these things in mind as significant possibilities during interactions with the police, particularly in cases where they're stopped and hassled for doing photography in public.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Given that you've said, if I understand you correctly, that you also do not think it right that any police behave in such a way, I can only think that you're taking issue with the public's perception of the police as all too likely to behave that way, here represented by what I'm voicing of my own perceptions.

Those perceptions however are *indelibly* coloured by watching the police smacking the shit out of peaceful demonstrators, by the attempts to wriggle out of culpability for the death of Ian Tomlinson prior to a member of the public coming up with photographic evidence of a copper hitting him and by similar abuses of power that members of the public become aware of over the years.

The incident with the Italian student which started this particular branch of the conversation just seems to me to be a part of a general pattern of behaviour, one which any member of the public dealing with cops is likely to have in mind, for example, when they're stopped and questioned about public photography.

 

[detective-boy]

All that's required for my argument to hold water is that *some* police behave vindictively when they they dislike the attitude of citizens that they're interacting with, that *some* of those who abuse their powers in practice get away with it (and they have plenty of opportunities for vindictiveness without over-stepping the generous powers they've been given) and that citizens in general may have these things in mind as significant possibilities during interactions with the police, particularly in cases where they're stopped and hassled for doing photography in public.

So just because sometimes, some officers, in some situations, exceed their powers to some extent ... you are arguing that it is reasonable to assume that a criminal offence is committed in every case in which case any police officer ever uses any powers?

And you claim that is not ACAB prejudice?

You also make no distinction between two very distinct versions of "vindictiveness":

1. Unlawful vindictiveness - they approach you in a situation where they do not have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence / possession of a prohibited item; you piss them off; they unlawfully search you / arrest you or whatever, something they have no lawful power to do.

2. Lawful vindictiveness - they approach you in a situation where they do have reasonable grounds to suspect and offence / possession of a prohibited item; initially they are undecided whether to search you / arrest you or not but, as they don't want to waste their time unnecessarily, they decide to talk to you first; you piss them off; they lawfully search you / arrest you or whatever, something they have had lawful power to do from the outset.

The first is much worse than the second. The second, whilst it would be nice to think it didn't happen, is understandable. It happens in every walk of life - it's called human nature.

 

[detective-boy]

... by the attempts to wriggle out of culpability for the death of Ian Tomlinson ...

See, you're doing it again.

If it was the other way round and a demonstrator pushed a copper who fell over and later died, you'd be the first to be whinging and whining (quite rightly) if the media / police / CPS / Courts described the demonstrator's lawful taking up of his rights, and exercise of his defence, as "attempting to wriggle out of culpability.

Just admit it - you are assuming the copper is guilty because he is a copper, based on prejudice and nothing else. Any other position is patently indefensible.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

So just because sometimes, some officers, in some situations, exceed their powers to some extent ... you are arguing that it is reasonable to assume that a criminal offence is committed in every case in which case any police officer ever uses any powers?

And you claim that is not ACAB prejudice? <snip>

As I'm sure is quite clear from what I've been writing for the last few pages, I argue no such thing.

I argue not that we should

assume that a criminal offence is committed in every case

but that when interacting with cops, a member of the public may be wise to bear in mind a significant possibility that if provoked e.g. by talk of 'my rights' or other 'disrespect' those cops may exploit or in some cases abuse their powers vindictively.

 

[Pickman's model]

See, you're doing it again.

If it was the other way round and a demonstrator pushed a copper who fell over and later died, you'd be the first to be whinging and whining (quite rightly) if the media / police / CPS / Courts described the demonstrator's lawful taking up of his rights, and exercise of his defence, as "attempting to wriggle out of culpability.

Just admit it - you are assuming the copper is guilty because he is a copper, based on prejudice and nothing else. Any other position is patently indefensible.

you don't understand a fucking thing. "if it was the other way round and a demonstrator pushed a cop..." so you believe ian tomlinson was a demonstrator against all the evidence?

the police attacked and killed a man they thought was a demonstrator, and if you can't see what's wrong with that you should rejoin the force.

fuckwit.

 

[dylans]

]

I didn't say that was going to resolve the whole of societies ills, did I? I merely suggested it was by far the best way of keeping the police and their use of their powers in check (or, at very least, an essential part of any system intended to do so).

No. The best way would be for the police to be accountable to the public and seen to be accountable to the public. A good place to start would be the ending of the culture of impunity that time and time again allows cops to get away with murder. Maybe then people wouldn't feel so powerless, would trust the complaints procedure to deliver justice and might be motivated to complain.

While we are at it scrapping section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act which criminalises the photographing of police officers wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

See, you're doing it again.

If it was the other way round and a demonstrator pushed a copper who fell over and later died, you'd be the first to be whinging and whining (quite rightly) if the media / police / CPS / Courts described the demonstrator's lawful taking up of his rights, and exercise of his defence, as "attempting to wriggle out of culpability.

Just admit it - you are assuming the copper is guilty because he is a copper, based on prejudice and nothing else. Any other position is patently indefensible.

So hang on, are you saying (bit I've bolded) that the cop who we've all seen on video attacking Tomlinson just before he died was acting in *self-defence*?

That's a new one ...

 

[dylans]

There are two issues here and they are being confused.

The first concerns the behaviour of individual police officers who approach photographers
The second concerns the legislative justification and cause of such approaches

Of the two the first is obviously becoming more and more of an issue as a direct result of the second, namely section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act, just as some of us predicted it would.

Now we have a situation where the British public are under unprecidented surveillance as they go about their public lives and at the same time the ability of the public to record the activities of state forces are being undermined.

If you can't see the terrifying possibilties of this trajectory then you are a fool.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

<snip> You also make no distinction between two very distinct versions of "vindictiveness":

1. Unlawful vindictiveness - they approach you in a situation where they do not have reasonable grounds to suspect an offence / possession of a prohibited item; you piss them off; they unlawfully search you / arrest you or whatever, something they have no lawful power to do.

2. Lawful vindictiveness - they approach you in a situation where they do have reasonable grounds to suspect and offence / possession of a prohibited item; initially they are undecided whether to search you / arrest you or not but, as they don't want to waste their time unnecessarily, they decide to talk to you first; you piss them off; they lawfully search you / arrest you or whatever, something they have had lawful power to do from the outset.

The first is much worse than the second. The second, whilst it would be nice to think it didn't happen, is understandable. It happens in every walk of life - it's called human nature.

Um, excuse me. I am making such a distinction and in the very paragraph you're quoting. Having said that, when we consider the behaviour of officers in practice, it's not a such a clear cut distinction is it?

In many cases it's clear (I believe to you also) that the cops and/or PCSO's in question are hazy about what the law actually is, so they don't in many cases really know if they're behaving legally or not when they get vindictive.

Furthermore, if I correctly understand Sec 44, 'reasonable suspicion' is not a requirement as your description of 'Unlawful Vindictiveness"' seems to imply. It's a blanket authorisation to stop and search any person or their belongings in a specific area, given if the person authorising the use of sec 44 considers it 'expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism' and there is no mention I can find of 'reasonable suspicion' in sec 44 at all. 'Reasonable suspicion' only comes into it after a search has taken place, when determining if articles found in that search would be useful for terrorism. This seems to be confirmed by the following submission to the Lords as part of a judicial review.

"Expedient" has a meaning quite distinct from "necessary". Parliament chose the first word, also used in section 13A of the 1989 Act, not the second. There is no warrant for treating Parliament as having meant something which it did not say. But there are other reasons also for rejecting the argument. It is true, as already recognised, that section 45(1)(b), in dispensing with the condition of reasonable suspicion, departs from the normal rule applicable where a constable exercises a power to stop and search.

source (para 14)

Now if we're going to talk about 'human nature' here, let's take into account the reaction of the average punter to being un-reasonably stopped and searched by the cops, in conjunction with their justified belief in the possibility that the officers will behave vindictively if 'you piss them off'. A possibility you yourself are quite clearly acknowledging above in your description of 'Lawful Vindictiveness'

 

[detective-boy]

As I'm sure is quite clear from what I've been writing for the last few pages, I argue no such thing.

So why not simply withdraw your original "I must, must I?" which is the source of the issue?

Simple.

... but that when interacting with cops, a member of the public may be wise to bear in mind a significant possibility that if provoked e.g. by talk of 'my rights' or other 'disrespect' those cops may exploit or in some cases abuse their powers vindictively.

Why do you keep repeating this as I have not taken issue with it (other than suggesting it would not be as widespread as you claim)?

 

[detective-boy]

you don't understand a fucking thing. "if it was the other way round and a demonstrator pushed a cop..." so you believe ian tomlinson was a demonstrator against all the evidence?

Where did I say I believed Ian Tomlinson was a demonstrator?

Fuckwit cunt.

 

[Pickman's model]

Where did I say I believed Ian Tomlinson was a demonstrator?

Fuckwit cunt.

if you can't comprehend what you've written, that's no great surprise.

you wrote about a scenario in which "things had been the other way around" and a demonstrator had killed a copper at the g20.

which suggests that you believe the way things happened - the way around it was - was the police killing a demonstator.

if you have a pint on the left and a short on the right and you put things the other way round you don't suddenly get a half in the equation: in your post there's no suggestion that tomlinson was - as everyone but you seems to know - an unfortunate passerby.

so don't deny what you wrote, when what you wrote hardly shows you to the best advantage.

 

[editor]

]

While we are at it scrapping section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act which criminalises the photographing of police officers wouldn't hurt either.

It doesn't actually do that, although a few over zealous cops tried to stretch its definition to fit.

UPDATE: 1st APRIL 2009. Parliamentary discussion
When questioned about the ramifications of section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said

"I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued."

Read the full transcript on the Hansard site

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-photographing-police.html

 

[detective-boy]

No. The best way would be for the police to be accountable to the public and seen to be accountable to the public.

How is my suggestion that the ... er ... public complain about inappropriate police behaviour anything but ... er ... being accountable to the ... er ... public ...

A good place to start would be the ending of the culture of impunity that time and time again allows cops to get away with murder.

There is no culture of impunity - there are extensive investigations and the CPS give the results their usual level of consideration of prosecution. But, as I have pointed out several times, the circumstances are usually such that it is not at all clear that any criminal offence has been committed. Even the few cases which do go to trial frequently end in acquittal because, after hearing all the evidence, the jury decide that the officers are not guilty of any offence.

There is, however, a perception of impunity and that does need to be addressed. Which is why I have several times suggested that either (a) we reduce the evidence required to charge and prosecute to the old (and still legal) minimum of prima facie case in cases where the police (or other state agents) have used fatal / near fatal force or (b) we introduce a new, Grand Jury-like judicial hearing at which the evidence is given orally and subject to cross-examination and at which the decision of the CPS not to prosecute can be overturned and the matter committed directly for trial.

But, even if these changes were made, don't expect much to change - there simply are not huge numbers of cases in which police officers commit criminal offences in their use of fatal or near fatal force.

While we are at it scrapping section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act which criminalises the photographing of police officers wouldn't hurt either.

Whilst that is an inaccurate portrayal of the law (why do you seek to muddy the waters even further?) I agree that I can see no particular need for specific legislation that is capable of being misunderstood / misinterpreted / misused in this way.

 

[detective-boy]

So hang on, are you saying (bit I've bolded) that the cop who we've all seen on video attacking Tomlinson just before he died was acting in *self-defence*?

No.

I don't know what the officer has said.

However, it doesn't take brain of Britain to work out that he may be claiming some lawful authority to use force (probably not self-defence though, but (as I have repeatedly stated since the very start) no-one (except the prejudiced) will be able to ascertain whether or not the use of force was arguably reasonable and necessary without knowing what happened in the 30 seconds and 25 yards before the video clip we are all so familiar with commences.

If he wasn't claiming some lawful authority he'd be charged by now ...

 

[detective-boy]

In many cases it's clear (I believe to you also) that the cops and/or PCSO's in question are hazy about what the law actually is, so they don't in many cases really know if they're behaving legally or not when they get vindictive.

I have repeatedly acknowledged that lack of detailed of knowledge of their powers and force policy is an issue and it contributes (greatly) to the situations we observe. (Lack of detailed knowledge of their "rights", or only partial knowledge in taking individual powers as if they exist in a vacuum, unconnected to any other, on the part of those being questioned also contributes (even more greatly) to the situations).

Furthermore, if I correctly understand Sec 44, 'reasonable suspicion' is not a requirement ...

It isn't ... so use of a s.44 power to search someone who was uncooperative where there was no initial intention to do that would be another example of "lawful vindictiveness".

 

[Bernie Gunther]

No.

I don't know what the officer has said.

However, it doesn't take brain of Britain to work out that he may be claiming some lawful authority to use force (probably not self-defence though, but (as I have repeatedly stated since the very start) no-one (except the prejudiced) will be able to ascertain whether or not the use of force was arguably reasonable and necessary without knowing what happened in the 30 seconds and 25 yards before the video clip we are all so familiar with commences.

If he wasn't claiming some lawful authority he'd be charged by now ...

If he was claiming lawful authority to attack the poor guy from behind while he was moving away from the officers, striking the back of the legs in a way very likely to fell his target, what might that have been?

I presume that 'he'd been giving cheek' wouldn't be quite enough legal justification in this case?

 

[detective-boy]

It doesn't actually do that, although a few over zealous cops tried to stretch its definition to fit.

I'm not sure that it has ever been a deliberate attempt to extend it as opposed to simple ignorance of what it actually says.

Training in new legislation is a massive issue for the police. This is exacerbated when new legsilation keeps coming in more and more volume, as it becomes more and more complex, as new legislation amends previous legislation (often passed only months or years previously) and as legislation is passed with no significant lead time.

This applies in training as to the actual content of the law. Training in the application of the law, especially in sensitive and complex areas, is even more of an issue (not least because it cannot be delivered via NCALT (IT-based training) which is now the default means of training on the content of new legislation.

Even more problems are caused by changes in the policy about how legislation should be applied. This changes even more regularly and is particularly important because failures to implement legislation in a way which is consistent with what senior police officers have been on TV actually saying themselves is the most damaging incongruity. Over ten years ago my MBA dissertation was on the subject of the Communication of Policy in the Met ... it identified major issues and sadly I do not see that anything much has improved.

 

[editor]

I'm not sure that it has ever been a deliberate attempt to extend it as opposed to simple ignorance of what it actually says.

Come on: cops regularly stretch legislation to suit their needs. Some may be too thick to understand the essence of the law, while others knowingly twist it to suit their agenda.

Example: police forcing fans to be photographed outside a Cardiff away game. I went up and told them they had no right to do that and once they realised I actually knew the law, they quickly gave up - but then got 'revenge' on me by harassing me throughout the game.

 

[detective-boy]

If he was claiming lawful authority to attack the poor guy from behind while he was moving away from the officers, striking the back of the legs in a way very likely to fell his target, what might that have been?

I will not repeat the various possible explanations for the push which I gave at the time (because they would undoubtedly be again misrepresented as me "defending" what happened as opposed to simply providing an alternative sequence of events that we are unable to rule out), but there are some.

As for the use of the baton, I think there is sufficient in the video clip to suggest that a defence for that use of force is less likely ... but, again, until we know exactly what happened in the lead up to the use of force we cannot know whether there is an arguable case or not.

I presume that 'he'd been giving cheek' wouldn't be quite enough legal justification in this case?

You know perfectly well that no use of physical force can ever be justified in law, by any person, just because of verbal abuse.

 

[detective-boy]

Come on: cops regularly stretch legislation to suit their needs. Some may be too thick to understand the essence of the law, while others knowingly twist it to suit their agenda.

organisationally the police push the boundaries, particularly when they believe the law may provide a new way of addressing an issue they have had difficulties with for some time ... but it can be argued that that is a proper approach to the development of the law - it works exactly the same in the other way too with defence solicitors pushing the boundaries on the other side where everyone thinks the law clearly does include something.

As for individual officers deliberately trying to extend what the law covers ... I think you grossly overestimate the situation - I hardly ever encountered any officer who did that in twenty odd years. Wrongly thinking it covered the situation, yes. Not really bothering drawing distinctions between situations when they can and can't, yes. Simply misusing it, knowing that they should not be, yes. (The situation you describe would, I suspect, fall into one of those, probably the third).

But trying to actually extend the lawful reach of the law into areas it isn't believed to cover presently ... no.