Monday, September 24, 2007

The Police - Your Friendly Guides

and, remember, no-one should have any problems with being filmed or put on a database if they've got nothing to hide



Anonymous said...

Absolutely brilliant.

I don't know about you but I'm perfectly happy to put my trust, privacy and safety in the hands of those two.

Stef said...

/ thrilled

Anonymous said...

I love the way they just sort of shuffle off at the end like a couple of embarrassed teenagers. Not even an apology.

Stef said...


what do you mean 'like'?

Alexander Fear said...

Very funny,

But what slightly ticks me off is that they realised their stupid error in the first 30 seconds and instead of admitting it to the bloke, a smile, a wave (which would have saved a little respect by being honest), they tried to check his background.

What's your name? Uh ok, what's the number of the property? Uh huh.. wait... what did you just say to that officer?


RetroPercoLawyer said...

Until the end, i thought it was MPB and his tribe.
Last time I reminded a 'Polis' about the Law, I got a swift knee to the knackers and a reminder that i was only a 'Barrack Room Lawyer'.
Made me study more for my qualification.

Philip said...

They should have busted him for not giving his name.
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Section 110 of this Act amends the Police and Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act to allow for police
officers to arrest without warrant anyone who:
• is about to commit an offence;
• is in the act of committing an offence;
• he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence;
• he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence;
• he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence he has reasonable
grounds for suspecting may have been committed;
• is guilty of an offence;
• he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence.
However, the power of summary arrest in this Act applies only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary for any of the following reasons:
• To enable the name of the person to be ascertained (where the officer does not know
and cannot readily ascertain the person’s name, or where he has reasonable grounds
for doubting whether a name given is the person’s real name).
• To enable the person’s address to be ascertained.
• To prevent the person:
– causing physical injury to himself or another person;
– suffering physical injury;
– causing loss or damage to property;
– committing an offence against public decency (where members of the public cannot
reasonably avoid the person); or
– causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
• To protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question.
• To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the person’s conduct.
• To prevent any prosecution for the offence being hindered by the disappearance of the

Anonymous said...

Do you spend much of your time just hanging over your fence filming people?

I thought it was a bit sad. Could you not yet out a bit more? It was like listening to a kid arguing.

Anonymous said...

The man clearly has a problem with the police, which I can't blame him for. Especially when they're as mediocre and rubbish as these two. Clearly, the 'I'm just an innocent victim of police bullying' persona is nonsense and he obviously goes out looking for confrontation. But good luck to him as far as I'm concerned. If only I had his guts.

Stef said...


Only recently I was on the receiving end of similar hassle from the police - delivered in such a way that I could very easily have been banged-up for obstruction/ assault. And I was most definitely *not* assuming an obstructive persona...

I understand perfectly what you're saying but there's been a hell of a lot of gradual and illegal intrusion by police and privately employed security personnel, particularly the younger and the gimpier ones, in the powers they pretend to have when dealing with the general public. And I'm claiming that from direct personal experience

Anonymous said...

Stef, I remember reading that. It's fucking shit. The problem is their attitude to us. It's the same attitude you'd hear from a school teacher to a slightly lippy pupil. Since these people are meant to be our servants, I think things are slightly the wrong way round. The younger ones especially, seem to have an attitude of absolute authority over us when really, they are sanctioned by the people to dispense the law as commonly agreed by society. Sadly the current police powers seem to go far beyond this.

I'm really not a fan of the police because of the scope inherent within the system for these kind of abuses. Only when they are incredibly strictly limited in their powers and heavily regulated can we trust them sadly. Which is of course the exact opposite of what Blair and Brown have done.