London SE1 community website

Anti-capitalism demo

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Current: 11 of 15
Thursday 16 April 2009 12.34pm
graham wrote:
Banning the publication of pictures/film of police at work would stop all this media frenzy.

How do you intend doing that? Especially as the piece of legislation that you're having a poke at does no such thing.. I agree it's poorly worded and open to a 'degree' of interpretation, but it does not ban the taking of pictures or filming of police officers.
Thursday 16 April 2009 1.27pm
boroughpaul wrote:
The "majority stupid and scared"... the stupidity lies in the statement. faced with a rent a mob of mainly foreign anarchists what should the police do? let them go on the rampage smashing and vandalising?? unbelievable!

I wasn't talking about scared during the protests. I meant scared to speak out against the bad police. I realise I wasn't clear.
Thursday 16 April 2009 2.36pm
I don't intend at all. It's just one method that our government could use to stop the problem of Guardian readers et al getting upset. What legislation are you referring to?
Thursday 16 April 2009 3.36pm
graham wrote:
I don't intend at all. It's just one method that our government could use to stop the problem of Guardian readers et al getting upset. What legislation are you referring to?

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act which makes it an offence to "elicit, publish or communicate information" relating to members of the Armed Forces, intelligence services and police, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Thursday 16 April 2009 4.25pm
Jan the old one wrote:
I think people often forget human nature, if I was a police officer/housewife/stall holder and someone whacked me/kneed me it's an instinctive response to clout them back...

I do see what you mean, Jan, and if people hit the police first, then they should expect the police to be rough with them if it's necessary in order to arrest them and charge them with hitting a policeman.

This doesn't mean that it gives the police free rein to use violence. It certainly doesn't mean that it gives the police the right to initiate violence. Nor does it give the police the right to hit people who are calling them names or shouting in their face, however loudly.

I think you're right in that it is an instictive response to hit back when you've been hit. But the thing we have to demand from our police is that they are above those instincts.

This means that they need sufficient protection themselves (e.g. in the form of strong legal penalties for people who do hit policemen), but it also means that the police need to rise above their instincts and only use force when it's necessary and then only use force which is proportionate.

...if you press it, they will come.
Thursday 16 April 2009 4.26pm
The article is only one side of the story. If a policeman politely asked me about my photography in London, I'm happy to co-operate and be friendly. If then he told me to delete a picture of Tower Bridge, say, I'd want chapter, verse and id. This guy seems a bit full of himself and has his injured attitudes down pat. I can well imagine a cop saying 'Well if you want to make a big deal about being asked why you're shooting railway stations, then delete your shots.' I don't know and the Guardianistas don't know, but they do know what they want to believe and instantly treat it as established anti-police fact in the comments. The same phenomenon is on show in this thread.

In my experience security guards are much more likely to interfere in photography, but they are ignorant of the law and lack judgement or discretion.
Friday 17 April 2009 7.07am
I know your right Ivanhoe..sigh...and the law should protect the police officers and any one else for that matter.

I often wonder if the soft sentences given by judges depend on the amount of available space in prisons.

i.e. the chinese foursome who devised the card scam which netted them millions in 11 days or so..and got 18 years between them..compared to a murderer or rapist who would have possibly got only a year or two more.

I suppose the officer should be like caesars wife...
Friday 17 April 2009 8.25am
Ivanhoe wrote:
I think you're right in that it is an instictive response to hit back when you've been hit. But the thing we have to demand from our police is that they are above those instincts.

That's tough but I agree it's something that they should do. But imagine how much tougher it is when you're massively outnumbered in a highly volatile situation.
Friday 17 April 2009 8.40am
JayBee wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos
The tourist mentioned in this article makes an interesting point about Google view - I've only heard of individuals objecting to it, not the police or any other authority.
Current: 11 of 15

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions