Stroppy cop

[Skyryder]

Interesting this

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=72yj6o58s5


Skyryder

[Manxman]

Interesting this

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=72yj6o58s5


Skyryder

This is a troll, right?

Interesting because...?

[Manxman]

...ok, I'll bite...I can't be bothered waiting for a reply, and I'm going to get my beauty sleep :yawn: (God knows, I need it:yeah:)

I didn't find it interesting at all (certainly not a paranoid 'interesting' kinda way, at least). Bit boring really. Fuss over nothing. That camera bloke needs to go and find something more 'interesting' to do with his time, instead of being a professional shit stirrer and starting online petitions about the government going to prevent people from filming in public:baby: - which was (he admitted) misleading in itself, but was shrugged off with a bit of a laugh.

So, a cop (not even sure he is a cop - certainly ain't from Leeds with that accent...oh, hang on maybe he is...) gets a bit upset about a camera and ends up on the receiving end of a 6 minute article because he is technically wrong on the legal aspect of filming in public.

In other words, it's ok for the cameraman to slightly mislead people and try to generate a mild state of paranoia/histeria, but not ok for a 'cop' to slightly misunderstand the law.

The title of the movie, instead of being: "Authority paranoia over photography in London", should read: "Photographer's paranoia over authority in London"...'cos he's a wimpy f*ck.

Just about sums it up, when the cameraman says that the 'cop' assaulted him. I mean...HTFU man.:rofl:

[Skyryder]

For sure the journo got it wrong too when he claimed that the Brit Govt was planning to make filming illegal but you both missed the interesting bit and that was at the end where the clip stated that it was illegal to film on private property (railway stations etc) without the owners consent but the police appealed to the public for film clips from said areas in a terrorist case. Now I'm no lawyer but I am under the impression that illegal activity (in this case filming on private property)can be supressed as evidence in a court of law. I'm sure that I do not need to state the possible repercussions............That's the bit that I find interesting.

Perhaps I see things that others don't.





Skyryder

[Patrick]

I bet the owner gave implied consent... they blew up that same owners trains and stations... I'm sure they were suddenly OK with others taking plenty of holiday snaps.

[Skyryder]

The interesting point was that train stations, malls etc are privatley owned and filming can be prohibited if the owners so wish.
The police would need to act with the owners consent to prohibit filming. This was an 'aside' to the video clip and was the point that I found interesting.

The cop was in the wrong. When asked what law he was using to prevent filming he could not give one. This was and is a clear case of intimidation if not harrassment.


The pertinent point is that the police rely on information from the public and that includes video's records that members of the public have shot that may have information that can assist the police in apprehending the offender. Any means to reduce this and this is what the cop was attempting to do has the potential to reduce evidence of crime.

This guy was lawfully recording in the street and the cop took 'personal' exception to it. Perhaps interesting was the wrong word. 'Dumb' might have been better.


Skyryder

[Patrick]

The cop was in the wrong. When asked what law he was using to prevent filming he could not give one. This was and is a clear case of intimidation if not harrassment.

Cop was wrong. Dunno who was harrassing whom though.....

[peasea]

Cop was wrong. Dunno who was harrassing whom though.....

Cop was wrong? Hmm, is that a first? Seriously, I wonder where the cop got his instincts from? He didn't appear to be Irish, so it can't be a wicked sense of humour.

Is this a cop-bashing thread? If not, can we make it one?

[young1]

I really do wonder if they were policemen. Strange badges on the caps?

[Mikkel]

Must have been cyclists with those hi-vis vests...

[Patrick]

I really do wonder if they were policemen. Strange badges on the caps?

Strange badges all over... wonder if they were those "part time" coppers who aren't coppers ar all... like Nigel MANSELL of the Formula One racing ilk was... can't remember what they call them...

[Manxman]

Strange badges all over... wonder if they were those "part time" coppers who aren't coppers ar all... like Nigel MANSELL of the Formula One racing ilk was... can't remember what they call them...

..."Special"...

[Coyote]

Must have been cyclists with those hi-vis vests...
Probably not, the didn't have helmets for a start. I bet it's more of a safty nazi thing, make sure no one runs them over.

I think it was in the cop's right to enquire about someone's business if they felt it was suspicious. He took it too far though, but I can understand why since the guy with the camera was being a prick.

The reality is they don't live in a free country, everyone just says that because they're blissfully unaware of the reality or have a very skewed idea of what freedom is.

[peasea]

Strange badges all over... wonder if they were those "part time" coppers who aren't coppers ar all... like Nigel MANSELL of the Formula One racing ilk was... can't remember what they call them...

I'm not sure either, but it wasn't 'race car drivers'.

[Patrick]

I'm not sure either, but it wasn't 'race car drivers'.

Pommy........ he a snake?