The behaviour of UK police officers.

[Darat]

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.

After the last debacle (cost £25000 to taxpayers) we will have to see if the Met does what it says it will. Given the Met's past history we can be sure that lessons have been learnt, and anyway it was just 6 singular bad apples somehow all involved in an arrest.

 

[Nessie]

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.

I will stick to Scots Law as it was when I was in the job. Section 47 Criminal Law Consolidation Scotland Act makes carrying an offensive weapon in public an offence and gives the police the power to stop and search for such.

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995

An Act to consolidate for Scotland certain enactments creating offences and relating to criminal law there.

www.legislation.gov.uk

It also creates the defence of reasonable excuse or lawful authority to have the item. You say a person does not need to speak to the police, but failure to provide their defence means they cannot rely on it. That no charges were brought, is likely because he had that defence, as he said on the video he was off to play baseball.

You also suggest "Call to the man in a non confrontational way and ask for a minute of his time." How do you know that had not been tried? You assume the cop just jumped him "from behind". What happens when the police "Call to the man in a non confrontational way and ask for a minute of his time" and he fails to stop or speak or account for his possession? According to you, the police should back down and follow him, but you are not worried about the lawful authority of that. Why?

If it was me, I would have spoken to the male in a "non confrontational way" and if he if ignored me and walked off, I would have detained him under the old Sec 14 detention, as he was suspect of committing a crime in public that is punishable by imprisonment. I would have explained to him about the issues over violence in public, particularly in city centres with youths and advised him that openly carrying a baseball bat can attract unwelcome attention. It could be taken off him and even used against him. I would do a warrants and pre cons check. I would have asked him to phone his mate, who, if he confirms the story, then the detention would end.

 

[Nessie]

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"!

It seems that there is a conspiracy theory developing, whereby people think the police are intentionally using the process of being arrested as punishment to control what people say.

That theory fails because;

1 - the police are not clever or interested enough in controlling what people say in such a way. A former head of the Scottish Police Federation took action against Police Scotland over freedom of speech and cops are also concerned about the issue, such as the controversy over a DC Fletcher, sacked, in part, for commenting all men are rapists.
2 - the process of arrest has been set by the law and courts and the conspiracy theorists like to compare it to the likes of the Stasi, when in fact issues such as delays are caused by cut backs, meaning fewer custody suits and it takes longer to every enquiry.
3 - it ignores the complaints made by the public, about what people have posted online, that do not result in any arrest.
4 - it ignores that there is an issue with consistency, whereby a complaint to one cop will not result in an arrest, but try it with another cop and they may act. An example of that is Wings Over Scotland where a blogger was arrested for his comments about a certain trans person, who keeps on complaining until he finds a cop who will act.

It is the public, MPs and social media commentators who make the complaints and demand action and until they reach an agreement as to what is acceptable and should be tolerated, it is unclear how the police can draw a line in the sand keeping everyone happy.

 

[Nessie]

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.

It is the general public who do all the complaining!!!!!!!!! Then they don't like it!!!!!!!!!!

 

[zooterkin]

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"!

Broadcasting factually incorrect information, naming the wrong person as being responsible for killing three young girls and injuring others, is not a trivial thing, and, in my opinion, is absolutely to be discouraged.

The characterisation of "dragged from her home" looks like colour added by GBNews, who I would not trust to report the weather.

She claims to be an ordinary person, but she has 50,000 followers, and therefore should be taking more care about what she chooses to share.

No charge over spreading of Southport misinformation

Bernadette Spofforth apologises for sharing a tweet which included a fake name of the Southport attacker.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Broadcasting factually incorrect information, naming the wrong person as being responsible for killing three young girls and injuring others, is not a trivial thing, and, in my opinion, is absolutely to be discouraged.

The characterisation of "dragged from her home" looks like colour added by GBNews, who I would not trust to report the weather.

She claims to be an ordinary person, but she has 50,000 followers, and therefore should be taking more care about what she chooses to share.

No charge over spreading of Southport misinformation

Bernadette Spofforth apologises for sharing a tweet which included a fake name of the Southport attacker.

www.bbc.co.uk

And of course she's become a cause celebre amongst the neo nazis now. I wonder why Cheshire police didn't further pursue her obviously criminal act.

 

[smartcooky]

Broadcasting factually incorrect information, naming the wrong person as being responsible for killing three young girls and injuring others, is not a trivial thing, and, in my opinion, is absolutely to be discouraged.

Repeating false information you read online and believe to be true IS NOT THE SAME AS MAKING UP FALSE INFORMATION YOURSELF

The characterisation of "dragged from her home" looks like colour added by GBNews

What happened to her was that she was taken away in handcuffs in the middle of the night for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ social media post. THAT is what it boils down to. THAT is reminiscent the East German police of the 1970s - the Stasi

who I would not trust to report the weather.

They are more trustworthy to me than the BBC, i.e. the propaganda arm of the UK Labour Party.

She claims to be an ordinary person, but she has 50,000 followers, and therefore should be taking more care about what she chooses to share.

No charge over spreading of Southport misinformation

Bernadette Spofforth apologises for sharing a tweet which included a fake name of the Southport attacker.

www.bbc.co.uk

True, but I'm afraid sharing SOMEONE ELSE'S false information shuld not be a reason for being taken away in handciff and held for 36 hours in cells.

 

[smartcooky]

And of course she's become a cause celebre amongst the neo nazis now. I wonder why Cheshire police didn't further pursue her obviously criminal act.

Your bull-◊◊◊◊ is growing stale and losing its effect. Anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest is a Nazi...

 

[Wudang]

They are more trustworthy to me than the BBC, i.e. the propaganda arm of the UK Labour Party.

The very same BBC that constantly invites Farage on at the slightest excuse? Even when he wasn't an MP?
Yeah, drink some water with that mate.

 

[zooterkin]

Yup, I would prefer the Police do their job, part of which is to mind their own business UNLESS someone commits an actual crime.

It may be different where you live, but in the UK the police operate (or at least, are meant to) according to the Peelian priciples. The first of which is to prevent crime.

(As anyone who has been in computer support knows, sadly you get more recognition for dealing with a situation that has got out of hand than for preventing a dozen such instances from happening. From what I've heard, e.g. from Stevyn Colgan, among others, preventative work inside the police force is often similarly undervalued, as it's easier to measure arrests than prevented crime.)

 

[bluesjnr]

It is the general public who do all the complaining!!!!!!!!! Then they don't like it!!!!!!!!!!

That's exactly what I wrote.

 

[Wudang]

Oh look Spofforth is such a reliable witness

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bernie_Spofforth

 

[smartcooky]

It seems that there is a conspiracy theory developing, whereby people think the police are intentionally using the process of being arrested as punishment to control what people say.

That theory fails because;

1 - the police are not clever or interested enough in controlling what people say in such a way. A former head of the Scottish Police Federation took action against Police Scotland over freedom of speech and cops are also concerned about the issue, such as the controversy over a DC Fletcher, sacked, in part, for commenting all men are rapists.
2 - the process of arrest has been set by the law and courts and the conspiracy theorists like to compare it to the likes of the Stasi, when in fact issues such as delays are caused by cut backs, meaning fewer custody suits and it takes longer to every enquiry.
3 - it ignores the complaints made by the public, about what people have posted online, that do not result in any arrest.
4 - it ignores that there is an issue with consistency, whereby a complaint to one cop will not result in an arrest, but try it with another cop and they may act. An example of that is Wings Over Scotland where a blogger was arrested for his comments about a certain trans person, who keeps on complaining until he finds a cop who will act.

It is the public, MPs and social media commentators who make the complaints and demand action and until they reach an agreement as to what is acceptable and should be tolerated, it is unclear how the police can draw a line in the sand keeping everyone happy.

Its not a conspracy theory, its an observation of multiple incidences over multiple years.

Its the result of progressive, left wing ideology infecting the Polcie command strucutre and the College of Policing

Its also the result of falling standards in police training and recruitment. I see some of the behaviour of polcie online and cannot understand how they seriously beleive what they are saying. The police should know the law... they should know it as well as a proper London cab driver knows the city. There should NEVER be an occasion when a memebr of the public (unless they are a lawyer/solitictor) should be able to publicly school a police officer on the law... like this...


SUMMARY: In this video, two Met officers approach a drone pilot filming outside Croydon police station — and what starts as a routine "do you mind identifying yourself?" quickly unravels into one of the clearest lessons in UK drone law you'll see on camera. Watch as the first officer claims there's a height restriction over public land (there isn't), demands the operator's name with no power to compel it, and insists flying in a public place "can be" an offence — without ever naming one. The auditor pushes back with the Air Navigation Order, the CAA's 250-gram weight threshold, and the simple fact that police stations aren't flight restriction zones the way prisons are. But this one doesn't end how you expect. No arrest. No seizure. Instead, a member of the public ends up explaining operator ID registration and separation distances to two officers who came over to enforce rules they'd never read — and by the end, they concede he was right all along. We break down every legal claim, section by section, including the one moment the auditor gets it badly wrong (the GDPR line does not hold up). If you fly a drone, film in public, or just want to know exactly where "asking" ends and "requiring" begins, this is the breakdown you need.

 

[zooterkin]

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.

This keeps coming up as if it somehow decides the matter against the police. Who actually decides to drop the charges? Is it the police or the CPS? In either case, does that necessarily mean that the charges were brought entirely in error, or is it possible that there is a grey area? The charges may have been justified, but the evidence was not sufficient to proceed, or it was not judged in the public interest to do so. The person involved may have expressed sufficient contrition that proceeding further was not necessary.

 

[Nessie]

....What happened to her was that she was taken away in handcuffs in the middle of the night for a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ social media post. THAT is what it boils down to. THAT is reminiscent the East German police of the 1970s - the Stasi....

It is reminiscent of every police force that has ever existed, in the world. Name me a police force that never arrests anyone at night and never handcuffs people who are arrested!

As for arrests for social media posts, it really depends on what you put online and where you live. Death to Putin.

 

[Nessie]

Its not a conspracy theory, its an observation of multiple incidences over multiple years.

Its the result of progressive, left wing ideology infecting the Polcie command strucutre and the College of Policing

Its also the result of falling standards in police training and recruitment. I see some of the behaviour of polcie online and cannot understand how they seriously beleive what they are saying. The police should know the law... they should know it as well as a proper London cab driver knows the city. There should NEVER be an occasion when a memebr of the public (unless they are a lawyer/solitictor) should be able to publicly school a police officer on the law... like this...


SUMMARY: In this video, two Met officers approach a drone pilot filming outside Croydon police station — and what starts as a routine "do you mind identifying yourself?" quickly unravels into one of the clearest lessons in UK drone law you'll see on camera. Watch as the first officer claims there's a height restriction over public land (there isn't), demands the operator's name with no power to compel it, and insists flying in a public place "can be" an offence — without ever naming one. The auditor pushes back with the Air Navigation Order, the CAA's 250-gram weight threshold, and the simple fact that police stations aren't flight restriction zones the way prisons are. But this one doesn't end how you expect. No arrest. No seizure. Instead, a member of the public ends up explaining operator ID registration and separation distances to two officers who came over to enforce rules they'd never read — and by the end, they concede he was right all along. We break down every legal claim, section by section, including the one moment the auditor gets it badly wrong (the GDPR line does not hold up). If you fly a drone, film in public, or just want to know exactly where "asking" ends and "requiring" begins, this is the breakdown you need.

You claim it is not a conspiracy theory, and then you spout conspiracist nonsense about left wing ideology. You at least show some understanding of the reality, when you recognise the fall in training and recruitment standards. Hanlon's Razor applies.

An example of how stupid the police can be, was two years ago when the Scottish schools exam results came out and Police Scotland ran a recruitment advert aimed at the kids who had FAILED their exams!

 

[smartcooky]

It is reminiscent of every police force that has ever existed, in the world. Name me a police force that never arrests anyone at night and never handcuffs people who are arrested!

For a social media post?

 

[Nessie]

For a social media post?

Criticise Putin in Russia or express your support for LGBTQ rights in Uganda, in social media posts. Go on, I dare you.

 

[zooterkin]

Its not a conspracy theory, its an observation of multiple incidences over multiple years.

Its the result of progressive, left wing ideology infecting the Polcie command strucutre and the College of Policing

Its also the result of falling standards in police training and recruitment. I see some of the behaviour of polcie online and cannot understand how they seriously beleive what they are saying. The police should know the law... they should know it as well as a proper London cab driver knows the city. There should NEVER be an occasion when a memebr of the public (unless they are a lawyer/solitictor) should be able to publicly school a police officer on the law... like this...


SUMMARY: In this video, two Met officers approach a drone pilot filming outside Croydon police station — and what starts as a routine "do you mind identifying yourself?" quickly unravels into one of the clearest lessons in UK drone law you'll see on camera. Watch as the first officer claims there's a height restriction over public land (there isn't), demands the operator's name with no power to compel it, and insists flying in a public place "can be" an offence — without ever naming one. The auditor pushes back with the Air Navigation Order, the CAA's 250-gram weight threshold, and the simple fact that police stations aren't flight restriction zones the way prisons are. But this one doesn't end how you expect. No arrest. No seizure. Instead, a member of the public ends up explaining operator ID registration and separation distances to two officers who came over to enforce rules they'd never read — and by the end, they concede he was right all along. We break down every legal claim, section by section, including the one moment the auditor gets it badly wrong (the GDPR line does not hold up). If you fly a drone, film in public, or just want to know exactly where "asking" ends and "requiring" begins, this is the breakdown you need.

'Auditor'. That's the point at which I lose all sympathy. He appears to be there simply to provoke the police, wasting their time.

 

[bluesjnr]

I will stick to Scots Law as it was when I was in the job. Section 47 Criminal Law Consolidation Scotland Act makes carrying an offensive weapon in public an offence and gives the police the power to stop and search for such.

I note that the copper in you is rearing it's head. It's that bit of every copper who, as I have constantly repeated, insists on putting an individual they are or might be interacting with on the wrong side of the law.

Why do I say this?

Because you insist the it's an offensive weapon. It's not. It's not because under Sec. 47 an offensive weapon is

Definition of an Offensive Weapon

• Made or adapted: Any item specifically built or changed to cause physical harm to a person.
• Intended use: Any item that the person carrying it (or someone else) plans to use to cause injury.

At this point in time there is no evidence other than a weak assumption that it's about to become an offensive weapon

It also creates the defence of reasonable excuse or lawful authority to have the item.

Fair enough.

You say a person does not need to speak to the police

No, I don't. The law does.

but failure to provide their defence means they cannot rely on it.

Only under caution. Slow down officer.

That no charges were brought, is likely because he had that defence, as he said on the video he was off to play baseball.

Then why was he attacked without being told he was detained? Why wasn't he cautioned?

Manchester police wear BWC, It'll be interesting to see if they release any footage. I'm damn sure that if I was able to prove that one of my officers acted entirely reasonably up till the scuffle then it would right out there in the public domain alongside all the camera phone footage.

You also suggest "Call to the man in a non confrontational way and ask for a minute of his time." How do you know that had not been tried?

I don't but the officers subsequent observed behaviour and ignoring of the "reasonable excuse" proffered suggests that he might have called the man then didn't like the fact that he was legally ignored.

You assume the cop just jumped him "from behind". What happens when the police "Call to the man in a non confrontational way and ask for a minute of his time" and he fails to stop or speak or account for his possession? According to you, the police should back down and follow him, but you are not worried about the lawful authority of that. Why?

I've already described one way of getting a better outcome. I could describe many more but that's unfair on the copper and individual involved (armchair quarter backing and all that).

Let's have a look at yours.

"If it was me, I would have spoken to the male in a "non confrontational way" and if he if ignored me and walked off, I would have detained him under the old Sec 14 detention, as he was suspect of committing a crime in public that is punishable by imprisonment."

"Officer, just to confirm, you've detained me, can you be specific about what crime you suspect me of and what gives rise to this suspicion?"

I would have explained to him about the issues over violence in public, particularly in city centres with youths and advised him that openly carrying a baseball bat can attract unwelcome attention. It could be taken off him and even used against him.

"Thanks for that advice officer but did you have to detain me to tell me this? It seems like you are escalating a completely harmless situation."

I would do a warrants and pre cons check.

"Officer, I haven't committed any crime, none whatsoever. Why do you think I need to give you my details at this point in time. If you plan to threaten arrest to gain them, that will be unlawful."

I would have asked him to phone his mate, who, if he confirms the story,

"I'm sorry officer. Are you OK? The burden of proof lies with you you cannot legally force or instruct or coerce me to phone a friend to prove my innocence or verify my story. Are you new to this job? Right now, you are staring a civil case right in the face."

Tell me, what it was that triggered your "presumption" that I'm intending to use this as an offensive weapon?

I tell you what, I'll defer to your reasonable suspicion but will say no more than I'm meeting my friend to play baseball and the item is in the wrapper it was purchased in, I bought it from there."

[if you watch the video you'll hear the individual say the above virtually word for word within the first 6 seconds of the officer grabbing him. The officer continues to escalate the situation.]

Now you have two options, let me go or arrest me. Neither will work out well for you.

then the detention would end.

Can I have your badge number and home station please? It's a pity, for you, that you decided to specifically instruct me to, "phone a friend", to prove my innocence. That was entirely unlawful. The poor beleaguered, lawful, taxpaying people of Scotland are going to pay for your tardiness, your lawlessness as well as your incompetence.