The behaviour of UK police officers.

[theprestige]

My first thought on watching the video was that I was surprised that the shop wouldn't have insisted on putting it in a carrier bag.

Why the ◊◊◊◊ would a shop insist?

"Do you want a bag?"

"No thanks."

"I insist. You cannot leave with your purchase unless you let me put it in a bag for you."

UKians are great for imagining they're only one customer service interaction away from a perfectly ordered and peaceful society.

Unless it's the police. The UKian police don't have to concern themselves with good customer service. If someone declines a bag, the resulting unjustifiable police harassment is their fault.

 

[smartcooky]

Why the ◊◊◊◊ would a shop insist?

"Do you want a bag?"

"No thanks."

"I insist. You cannot leave with your purchase unless you let me put it in a bag for you."

UKians are great for imagining they're only one customer service interaction away from a perfectly ordered and peaceful society.

Unless it's the police. The UKian police don't have to concern themselves with good customer service. If someone declines a bag, the resulting unjustifiable police harassment is their fault.

To sum it up, its clutching at straws, any straws, to excuse bad police behaviour.

 

[smartcooky]

Sorry, I thought it would be obvious, but clearly not. Because, if true, it's a discrepancy from the story being told by most of the people passing it on. The story, as presented on social media, was that the man had just walked out of the shop having bought the baseball bat. That would be a legitimate reason to be walking around town with it. If he had actually bought it a week before, then it is less obvious why he should have been walking around a shopping centre carrying it, whether it still has the original packing on or not.

And, as I said, I'd like more details of what led up to what we see on video. Did he do something to cause the policeman to believe he was a danger to passersby? Or was it, as presented, a complete error on behalf of the officer? I don't know, and reserve my judgement on the issue until we hear more.

Again, if there was anything untoward done by the victim that caused the cop to go postal on him, you can guarantee the coppers will have made sure everyone knew about it. what they actually did is drop the charges... a that tells you everything you need to know.

 

[smartcooky]

As usual, solicitor David Chen-Smith's analysis is right on the money - I don't expect our resident police apologists to watch...


Summary
1. A baseball bat is not a weapon (unless you USE IT as a weapon), its sports equipment.
2. You do not have to have a reason to carry any sports equipment.
3. The Policeman concerned failed in a number of statutory requirements.
4. He grabbed the victim from behind without warning.
5. Over 5 hours in police custody over nothing - the process IS the punishment.

After a pro-bono consultation with the victim, Mr Chen-Smith has referred this case to DPP Law Looks like the Police involved are going to be sued by this guy for wrongful arrest among other things... Seems like a slam dunk to me, the cops don't really have a counter argument unless they make somthing up (and I wouldn't put it past them)

Greater Manchester Police are going to be in the gun for this. Once again, the ratepayers/taxpayers will be paying out - the money will be coming out of their pockets instead of the poxkets of the out-control-cops involved. There needs to be accountability for this, and that accounability needs to fall on the cops involved. In this case, the use of PAVA spray was completely uncalled, for. The cop should be charged with assault.

 

[Darat]

Greater Manchester police are lucky that the media is based in the South East of England, if it wasn't you'd be reading as many stories (per capita) as you do about the Met. Perhaps having a Number 10 in Manchester will put the focus on their activities.

(Conflict of interest note. Greater Manchester police were the first force that I learned by personal experience how corrupt and self serving the police can be. Also the first time I was spat at was by a GMP officer. I know I am biased against them so I do try to correct that, but hey being in the cesspit means we all get covered in ◊◊◊◊.)

 

[bluesjnr]

As usual, solicitor David Chen-Smith's analysis is right on the money - I don't expect our resident police apologists to watch...


Summary
1. A baseball bat is not a weapon (unless you USE IT as a weapon), its sports equipment.
2. You do not have to have a reason to carry any sports equipment.
3. The Policeman concerned failed in a number of statutory requirements.
4. He grabbed the victim from behind without warning.
5. Over 5 hours in police custody over nothing - the process IS the punishment.

After a pro-bono consultation with the victim, Mr Chen-Smith has referred this case to DPP Law Looks like the Police involved are going to be sued by this guy for wrongful arrest among other things... Seems like a slam dunk to me, the cops don't really have a counter argument unless they make somthing up (and I wouldn't put it past them)

Greater Manchester Police are going to be in the gun for this. Once again, the ratepayers/taxpayers will be paying out - the money will be coming out of their pockets instead of the poxkets of the out-control-cops involved. There needs to be accountability for this, and that accounability needs to fall on the cops involved. In this case, the use of PAVA spray was completely uncalled, for. The cop should be charged with assault.

Police - "we're dropping all the charges"
BlackBeltBarristrer - "After a pro-bono consultation I've referred hmi to one of Britain's top, civil claims lawyers"
zooterkin - "I'll withold my judgement."

Watch you don't get a splinter zoot.

 

[Nessie]

Can you tell me what law was broken?

I'll admit that we haven't seen the initial approach but nonetheless, no law was broken. Once the officer was appraised of the situation he could have broken off and reassessed. He didn't, he did what cops always do...

1) Make the situation worse.
2) Attempt to put the person on the wrong side of the law.
3) Escalate, escalate, escalate!

I'm absolutely confident that when this man was stopped he gave the officer a mouthful and rightfully so. He was going about his business, breaking no laws whatsoever. I'm absolutely confident that the officers fragile ego got hurt. That's never going to go down well when you are dealing with a petty tyrant.

Looking at the video it might even be the case that the officer never even attempted to question the man but breenged right in. There is nothing at all correct or defensible in this cops entire interaction.

It doesn't get any better when his cronies show up.

Suspicion isn't a crime, being or looking suspicious is not a criminal offence. What probable cause was the officer working from when he went to disarm this man? You know the difference between suspicion and probable cause.

This'll end up a civil case and you and me, as tax payers, will foot the bill.

Once enquiry had been completed, it appears no law was broken. The law that was under investigation was possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, which in the case of a baseball bat, involves intent, rather than made or adapted. The investigation will consist of interviewing the male openly carrying a baseball bat in a busy public street and what his intent is.

That male refused to cooperate and tried to walk away, as if it is OK to ignore the police and carry a potential offensive weapon in a busy public place. Hence, he was arrested. Reasonable suspicion is good enough to arrest as part of an enquiry and a male openly carrying what is often used by people out to commit crimes such as robbery, assault, criminal damage or intimidation. That he refused to cooperate is part of the suspicion he is off to do something criminal.

It is very rare to see someone in a busy public place carrying something like a baseball bat, as it would be to see someone openly carrying a knife or axe. That is because most people have the common sense to carry such an item, which they may well have a lawful reason to possess, in a way that it is concealed.

Stupidly that male failed the common sense test and got himself arrested under suspicion, that once enquiry had been made to establish his intent, found no crime committed. If the police had ignored him and then shorty after, he had taken out a rival, or smashed a shop window, or robbed someone of their phone, you would switch to demanding why the police ignored him!

This is like the case where a lady who had a bus pass, when asked to show it, refused and got herself arrested. The incident went viral, with lots of people claiming she should have been allowed to walk away, the cop was sacked and then had to be reinstated, because he had been doing his job. But, there are people, like you, who think the police should ignore potential crimes and suspicious actions. Can you explain to me why that is? Do you want the police to just ignore potential crimes and wait till a male swings the baseball bat during a crime before they act?

 

[Nessie]

Why the ◊◊◊◊ would a shop insist?

"Do you want a bag?"

"No thanks."

"I insist. You cannot leave with your purchase unless you let me put it in a bag for you."

UKians are great for imagining they're only one customer service interaction away from a perfectly ordered and peaceful society.

Unless it's the police. The UKian police don't have to concern themselves with good customer service. If someone declines a bag, the resulting unjustifiable police harassment is their fault.

It appears he bought it the week before. Only dickheads, out to cause outrage, walk about in a public place carrying something that is strongly associated with criminal acts, such as assault and vandalism. Shops that sell items such as knifes do insist it is carried out of sight.

 

[Nessie]

As usual, solicitor David Chen-Smith's analysis is right on the money - I don't expect our resident police apologists to watch...


Summary
1. A baseball bat is not a weapon (unless you USE IT as a weapon), its sports equipment.
2. You do not have to have a reason to carry any sports equipment.
3. The Policeman concerned failed in a number of statutory requirements.
4. He grabbed the victim from behind without warning.
5. Over 5 hours in police custody over nothing - the process IS the punishment.

After a pro-bono consultation with the victim, Mr Chen-Smith has referred this case to DPP Law Looks like the Police involved are going to be sued by this guy for wrongful arrest among other things... Seems like a slam dunk to me, the cops don't really have a counter argument unless they make somthing up (and I wouldn't put it past them)

Greater Manchester Police are going to be in the gun for this. Once again, the ratepayers/taxpayers will be paying out - the money will be coming out of their pockets instead of the poxkets of the out-control-cops involved. There needs to be accountability for this, and that accounability needs to fall on the cops involved. In this case, the use of PAVA spray was completely uncalled, for. The cop should be charged with assault.

1. A baseball bat is in the same group of items as knives and axes, items that have all sorts of innocent uses, but are the preferred weapons of criminals, in a country where getting a gun is very difficult. The internet is full of videos of males fighting in busy public places using various weapons, with people complaining of lawlessness and unsafe streets. Central Manchester is one of those places.
2. You do have to have a lawful reason to carry something in public that falls into one of the categories of offensive weapon, such as intent.
3 & 4. I have not seen a video that shows the whole contact and how the officer acted, when he first saw the male.
5. The arrest is justified, because the police have to establish intent, why is that male walking in a public place with a baseball bat? He had not just bought it, as is mistakenly claimed. He was not adopting the common sense approach of carrying something that is a preferred weapon of criminals in something that keeps it out of sight. He tried to prevent his arrest, rather than explain his lawful reason for possessing such an item.

Or, would you prefer that the police do nothing and young males are able to openly carry about baseball bats, knifes or axes in public?

 

[smartcooky]

Once enquiry had been completed, it appears no law was broken. The law that was under investigation was possession of an offensive weapon in a public place, which in the case of a baseball bat, involves intent, rather than made or adapted. The investigation will consist of interviewing the male openly carrying a baseball bat in a busy public street and what his intent is.

Th enquiry should have gone something like this...

Cop: Excuse me sir, why are you carrying a baseball bat?
Man: I'm walking to a friend's place and we are going to play some baseball
Cop: OK sir, carryy on

And it should have ended AT THAT POINT. There was no reason to continue this interaction, but instead, the cop did what most cops seem to be doing in the UK, went to immediate escalation and ramped the volume up to 12 on a sale of 0 to 10, just like they did with

Darren Brady, a retired veteran, arrested and detaind fr hours over a Tweet: Cost $3,000
Dr. Diana Sanger, wrongfully detained for five hours for sending emails to local council members criticizing policy. Cost £7,500
Hatun Tash, arrested for expressing religius beleifs at Speaker's Corner. Cost £10,000
Graham Linehan, arrested by five armed police over a tweet, charges dropped. Cost £25,000
Rosalind Levine and Maxie Allen, arrested by six police officers over a WhatsApp post. No charges laid. Cost £20,000
Alison Pearson, arrested by three Police officers over a Facebook post. No charges. Cost - a 5 figure sum rumoured to be over £30,000
Henry Nowak, arrested while he lay dying of stab wounds. Cost - his life!!

Then thre's

Cody Harper. Attacked by two foreign men, and the cops arrested HIM, not the attackers, whom they let get away.

As I keep saying, the cops never learn, and you seem to be quite happy exusing their behaviour

That male refused to cooperate and tried to walk away

He was attacked from behind, without warning. That was nothing less that common assault. That cop needs to be
1. Fired
2. Charged with assault.

, as if it is OK to ignore the police and carry a potential offensive weapon in a busy public place.

No, just no!!

Under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and Criminal Justice Act 1988 a "potential" or intended offensive weapon is any everyday object that a person carries or keeps with the specific intent to use it to cause physical injury.

Categories of Offensive Weapons
UK law divides offensive weapons into three clear groups to determine legality:

• • Made to cause injury: Items explicitly designed as weapons (such as flick knives, knuckledusters, or zombie knives), which are illegal to possess even in private.
  • Adapted to cause injury: Ordinary items modified to inflict harm (such as a bottle with a broken top or a sharpened key).
  • 
    
  • Intended to cause injury (Potential/Weapon of Opportunity): Harmless, everyday items—such as a baseball bat, hammer, screwdriver, or kitchen knife—that become illegal offensive weapons if you carry them with the intent to use them as a weapon.

THE POLICE OFFICER MUST OBSERVE INTENT TO USE IT AS A WEAPON. If he does not, he MUST presume it is not a potential offensive weapon.

 

[smartcooky]

1. A baseball bat is in the same group of items as knives and axes, items that have all sorts of innocent uses, but are the preferred weapons of criminals, in a country where getting a gun is very difficult. The internet is full of videos of males fighting in busy public places using various weapons, with people complaining of lawlessness and unsafe streets. Central Manchester is one of those places.
2. You do have to have a lawful reason to carry something in public that falls into one of the categories of offensive weapon, such as intent.
3 & 4. I have not seen a video that shows the whole contact and how the officer acted, when he first saw the male.
5. The arrest is justified, because the police have to establish intent, why is that male walking in a public place with a baseball bat? He had not just bought it, as is mistakenly claimed. He was not adopting the common sense approach of carrying something that is a preferred weapon of criminals in something that keeps it out of sight. He tried to prevent his arrest, rather than explain his lawful reason for possessing such an item.

Its is not anyone's responsibility to take precautions against being accosted by a dumb-arsed, arrogant cop

In this country, I can (and have at various times) walked down the street carrying a cricket bat, a camera tripod, a tennis racket, a length of 4x2, and a claw hammer - all of which have the potential to be used as a weapon, and I have never, ever been approched by a cop or been questioned as to what I was doing

Or, would you prefer that the police do nothing and young males are able to openly carry about baseball bats, knifes or axes in public?

Yup, I would prefer the Police do their job, part of which is to mind their own business UNLESS someone commits an actual crime. Carrying sports equipment is not a crime, and sans intent, its not even a potential crime.

 

[bluesjnr]

Even ex police officers abuse, 'suspicious', it seems.

Apparently, walking down the street with a piece of sporting equipment, showing no intent other than a desire to get somewhere makes you a, 'dickhead'. What a piss poor attitude. What a poor view of the general public even ex officers have.

Of course Nessie comes from the, 'trust no one, suspect everyone' school of training.

I saw one of those 'dickheads' in Forfar, just yesterday. He was carrying a bag full of clubs and walking purposefully. Luckily no police officer caught him.

 

[Nessie]

Th enquiry should have gone something like this...

Cop: Excuse me sir, why are you carrying a baseball bat?
Man: I'm walking to a friend's place and we are going to play some baseball
Cop: OK sir, carryy on

And it should have ended AT THAT POINT. There was no reason to continue this interaction, but instead, the cop did what most cops seem to be doing in the UK, went to immediate escalation and ramped the volume up to 12 on a sale of 0 to 10, just like they did with

....
He was attacked from behind, without warning. That was nothing less that common assault. That cop needs to be
1. Fired
2. Charged with assault.


No, just no!!

Under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 and Criminal Justice Act 1988 a "potential" or intended offensive weapon is any everyday object that a person carries or keeps with the specific intent to use it to cause physical injury.

Categories of Offensive Weapons
UK law divides offensive weapons into three clear groups to determine legality:

• • Made to cause injury: Items explicitly designed as weapons (such as flick knives, knuckledusters, or zombie knives), which are illegal to possess even in private.
  • Adapted to cause injury: Ordinary items modified to inflict harm (such as a bottle with a broken top or a sharpened key).
  • 
    
  • Intended to cause injury (Potential/Weapon of Opportunity): Harmless, everyday items—such as a baseball bat, hammer, screwdriver, or kitchen knife—that become illegal offensive weapons if you carry them with the intent to use them as a weapon.

THE POLICE OFFICER MUST OBSERVE INTENT TO USE IT AS A WEAPON. If he does not, he MUST presume it is not a potential offensive weapon.

We do not know what happened prior to the start of the video. Had the cop already tried to speak to the male, who then ignored him? Or, had the cop received a complaint about the male doing something that was causing fear or alarm? Or had the male been swinging the bat around him as he walked along the street? If the answer to any, is yes, then everything that follows is justified as the male was openly carrying something that can easily used with the intention of causing injury and is often associated with street violence.

If the cop did just literally run up behind the male and grab him, without any reason other than he saw the male carrying the bat, then the cop is wrong. He is clearly unsuited to the role of a response officer, as he was physically unable to cope with what should have been a simple arrest. That is a big problem with the police, who insist on no direct to role recruitment and stick everyone in response, before they get to specialise.

Where do you get this claim from "THE POLICE OFFICER MUST OBSERVE INTENT TO USE IT AS A WEAPON. If he does not, he MUST presume it is not a potential offensive weapon." That was not the case when I was a cop in Scotland. If someone was found in possession of something like a knife or baseball bat and they could not provide a proven, lawful reason for that possession, they were charged.

 

[Nessie]

Its is not anyone's responsibility to take precautions against being accosted by a dumb-arsed, arrogant cop

In this country, I can (and have at various times) walked down the street carrying a cricket bat, a camera tripod, a tennis racket, a length of 4x2, and a claw hammer - all of which have the potential to be used as a weapon, and I have never, ever been approched by a cop or been questioned as to what I was doing


Yup, I would prefer the Police do their job, part of which is to mind their own business UNLESS someone commits an actual crime. Carrying sports equipment is not a crime, and sans intent, its not even a potential crime.

I like the way you equate sports equipment or work tools with the types of weapon commonly used by gangs to attack each other or commit crimes.

Did you ever walk down a busy shopping street carrying a hammer, where there was no obvious reason why you had a hammer on you, such as you were in work clothes and the hammer was in a tool belt?

The police do not just deal with crimes after they have been committed, they have a duty and prevent them.

 

[Nessie]

Even ex police officers abuse, 'suspicious', it seems.

Apparently, walking down the street with a piece of sporting equipment, showing no intent other than a desire to get somewhere makes you a, 'dickhead'. What a piss poor attitude. What a poor view of the general public even ex officers have.

Of course Nessie comes from the, 'trust no one, suspect everyone' school of training.

I saw one of those 'dickheads' in Forfar, just yesterday. He was carrying a bag full of clubs and walking purposefully. Luckily no police officer caught him.

The assumption is being made that the male was just walking along carrying the bat. We do not know that is all he did. We do not know what caused the officer to arrest the male. Had he just taken a complaint about a suspicious male swinging the bat about?

I note the way you happily make the same types of assumption and accusation against the police officer, without sufficient evidence, that you are accusing him of making!

Someone walking with a bag full of baseball bats, looks far less suspicious than one male carrying a bat in his hand.

 

[bluesjnr]

The assumption is being made that the male was just walking along carrying the bat. We do not know that is all he did.
We do not know what caused the officer to arrest the male. Had he just taken a complaint about a suspicious male swinging the bat about?

I note the way you happily make the same types of assumption and accusation against the police officer, without sufficient evidence, that you are accusing him of making!

Someone walking with a bag full of baseball bats, looks far less suspicious than one male carrying a bat in his hand.

I do. You bet your arse I do. I'd be absolutely delighted to be proved comprehensively wrong but I won't hold my breath.

 

[bluesjnr]

We do not know what happened prior to the start of the video.

We can ascertain much from the fact that absolutely no charges were brought.

Had the cop already tried to speak to the male, who then ignored him?

There is no legal obligation to speak to an officer or stop and account, you know this. The only thing that would exacerbate the non compliance would be the ego of the officer or evidence of intent.

Or, had the cop received a complaint about the male doing something that was causing fear or alarm?

No charges were brought, not even the much loved public order offences - Sec. 5, Sec 4a or the even juicier Sec 4.

Or had the male been swinging the bat around him as he walked along the street? If the answer to any, is yes, then everything that follows is justified as the male was openly carrying something that can easily used with the intention of causing injury and is often associated with street violence.

See above.

If the cop did just literally run up behind the male and grab him, without any reason other than he saw the male carrying the bat, then the cop is wrong.

The civil claim will uncover blame to some extent. We can predict the outcome of any IOPC with confidence.

He is clearly unsuited to the role of a response officer, as he was physically unable to cope with what should have been a simple arrest.

He joins the ranks of the many.

That is a big problem with the police, who insist on no direct to role recruitment and stick everyone in response, before they get to specialise.

It's one of the many MASSIVE problems with the police. See this thread for further detail

Where do you get this claim from "THE POLICE OFFICER MUST OBSERVE INTENT TO USE IT AS A WEAPON. If he does not, he MUST presume it is not a potential offensive weapon."

Ok. From that then Nessie, let's go back to your days on the force. You've always come across as a level headed and sensible copper when you talk of back in the day (not so much over this non-incident).

You are walking down the street and before you is a male carrying a baseball bat in a busy shopping area. He passes many people of all ages, genders (real and imagined), religions and creeds and makes no gestures or movement towards them. He is making his way somewhere... clearly.

You used the word "presume". To presume, one must be making an educated guess based on the evidence before him and the clues he has observed.

I'll make my case that the video seems to show the officer did not ascertain that his "presumption" was correct but went in aggressively. I insist (presume) on the balance of evidence I've seen in the video that he ASSUMED the facts and acted accordingly. He went on to escalate things due to him being, legally, ignored upon requesting the baseball bat bearer to stop and account.

That was not the case when I was a cop in Scotland. If someone was found in possession of something like a knife or baseball bat and they could not provide a proven, lawful reason for that possession, they were charged.

I agree but lets stick to the baseball bat. I wonder how we could ascertain any level of intent?

1) Follow, observe and be prepared to act/intervene until you can stop assuming and move to reasonably presuming or even go as far as to be able to prove your suspicions beyond doubt.
2) Call to the man in a non confrontational way and ask for a minute of his time.
3) Based on what happens next, take it from there.

or...............

1) Jump him from behind?
2) Stick him with some charge or other and lock him up. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ public going about their business and not kowtowing to the police. Let's show 'em who's boss.

 

[smartcooky]

We can ascertain much from the fact that absolutely no charges were brought.

There is no legal obligation to speak to an officer or stop and account, you know this. The only thing that would exacerbate the non compliance would be the ego of the officer or evidence of intent.

No charges were brought, not even the much loved public order offences - Sec. 5, Sec 4a or the even juicier Sec 4.

See above.

The civil claim will uncover blame to some extent. We can predict the outcome of any IOPC with confidence.

He joins the ranks of the many.

It's one of the many MASSIVE problems with the police. See this thread for further detail

Ok. From that then Nessie, let's go back to your days on the force. You've always come across as a level headed and sensible copper when you talk of back in the day (not so much over this non-incident).

You are walking down the street and before you is a male carrying a baseball bat in a busy shopping area. He passes many people of all ages, genders (real and imagined), religions and creeds and makes no gestures or movement towards them. He is making his way somewhere... clearly.

You used the word "presume". To presume, one must be making an educated guess based on the evidence before him and the clues he has observed.

I'll make my case that the video seems to show the officer did not ascertain that his "presumption" was correct but went in aggressively. I insist (presume) on the balance of evidence I've seen in the video that he ASSUMED the facts and acted accordingly. He went on to escalate things due to him being, legally, ignored upon requesting the baseball bat bearer to stop and account.

I agree but lets stick to the baseball bat. I wonder how we could ascertain any level of intent?

1) Follow, observe and be prepared to act/intervene until you can stop assuming and move to reasonably presuming or even go as far as to be able to prove your suspicions beyond doubt.
2) Call to the man in a non confrontational way and ask for a minute of his time.
3) Based on what happens next, take it from there.

or...............

1) Jump him from behind?
2) Stick him with some charge or other and lock him up. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ public going about their business and not kowtowing to the police. Let's show 'em who's boss.

How about this one

https://www.gbnews.com/news/free-speech-row-bernadette-spofforth-social-media-post

Ms Spofforth was dragged from her home by police and held in a cell for 36 hours for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Facebook post.​

The Stasi would have been proud

Asked whether she believes that "instilling that fear in people is a very deliberate and conscious strategy" by police, Ms Spofforth agreed.​

​

She concluded: "Yes it is, absolutely. The strategy is if you can terrify people into not speculating or doing as they're told, by holding some people as examples, like me, for instance, then you do dampen down things like protest, dissent, questioning. You do dampen that down, and I think that was a very deliberate aim, yes."​

The process is the punishment, the intimidation and the deterrence - the chilling of dissent from "Goodthink"!

 

[bluesjnr]

How about this one

https://www.gbnews.com/news/free-speech-row-bernadette-spofforth-social-media-post

Ms Spofforth was dragged from her home by police and held in a cell for 36 hours for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ Facebook post.​

The Stasi would have been proud

Asked whether she believes that "instilling that fear in people is a very deliberate and conscious strategy" by police, Ms Spofforth agreed.​

​

She concluded: "Yes it is, absolutely. The strategy is if you can terrify people into not speculating or doing as they're told, by holding some people as examples, like me, for instance, then you do dampen down things like protest, dissent, questioning. You do dampen that down, and I think that was a very deliberate aim, yes."​

The process is the punishment, the intimidation and the deterrence - the chilling of dissent from "Goodthink"!

Far too much time is given to social media policing and the harrassment of people photographing in public amongst many other petty things. They are policing feelings.

That's the impression that is being given to the general public and they don't like it.

 

[theprestige]

He is clearly unsuited to the role of a response officer, as he was physically unable to cope with what should have been a simple arrest.

You're too generous. He is clearly unsuited to the role of a response officer, as he was intellectually and emotionally unable to cope with what should have been a simple non-arrest.