"A journalist from the local paper was allegedly threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act and made to delete footage because he did not have permission to film at the station. "
To be fair, that is probably true. A railway station is not a 'public place' so you do need permission to film there. However, whether that is a criminal matter (which the police can deal with) or a civil one (which they can't) is not known to me.
Debatable.
They could possibly ask you to stop.
If you declined, they could probably ask you to leave.
If you declined again, they might threaten to arrest you for (possibly) a public order offence.
What they couldn't legally do is force you to delete what you had already filmed. They could ask but there would be no legal obligation to comply, it would probably require a court order.
John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, has today reminded all MPS officers and staff that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.
The message, which has been circulated to all Borough Commanders and published on the MPS intranet, reinforces guidance previously issued around powers relating to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Guidance on the issue will continue to be included in briefings to all operational officers and staff.
Mr Yates said: "People have complained that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. These stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of TACT. The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious."
"Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that:
- there is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
- there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff
- the act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop.
"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped." ...
They are public servants and we pay for them to do this. I hope these horrible cretins are disiplined for their behaviour, but I somehow doubt it.
Ever experienced police brutality ?
There are multiple versions of this tale.
Two pensioners were arrested when violent scuffles broke out at Sheffield railway station
A number of station staff were also said to have been hurt during the incident on Monday in which they claimed to have been physically and verbally abused by elderly and disabled demonstrators.
Accompanied by police, up to 60 travelled from Barnsley station to Sheffield on Monday, with some refusing to buy a ticket.
When they got off the train police formed a cordon blocking their exit from the platform.
Mr Arthur said: ‘We had a rally on the platform, sang and chanted.’ He said officers took action as he addressed the group using a megaphone. ‘Two officers grabbed me and said I was arrested,’ he added. ‘I was dragged down the platform with other protesters trying to get me free.’
Commenting on the police, he said: ‘There is widespread disgust at their behaviour.’ Mr Nuttall said he was ‘jumped from behind’ by police when he ‘tried to link arms’ with Mr Arthur as he was being arrested
British Transport Police pushed disabled passengers to the ground and arrested two pensioners in their heavy-handed bid to break up a peaceful Monday rally at Sheffield station
A ticket inspector called police over when Mr Arthur refused to reveal his name and address
“They warned me I was committing a criminal offence by not having a valid ticket. I argued and they grabbed me and said they were arresting me
“I tried to pull back towards the rest of the group but they held on ... three more came over and forced me down onto one of the seats on the platform.
“There was a struggle before they handcuffed me.”
Retired health administrator Mr Nuttall, 65, was jumped by police when he joined demonstrators objecting to Mr Arthur’s treatment.
“Four of five police or security guards jumped on me from behind,” he told the Star.
“They held my head down to my knees and marched me around the platform in that position.”
op not read all the posts but you title is wrong. It's not south Yorkshire Police it the British transport police( btp) And I didn't see what they did wrong
op not read all the posts but you title is wrong. It's not south Yorkshire Police it the British transport police( btp) And I didn't see what they did wrong
They had an elderly person in a position that would have been more suitable for a younger person. I'm not saying that the elderly fella's an angel or anything, just that they could have restrained him upright.
So he didn't pay his fare, refused to give his details, struggled when being arrested, so had to be restrained and handcuffed. He acted like a criminal and was treated like one.
i know i'm talking about you wanting go around tasering people
Oh right, so from my identifying their unofficial use for one specific and highly unique situation, suddenly I apparently want to go round tasering "people" as though it's a routine everyday occurrence that I want to indulge in lol :kitty:
Oh right, so from my identifying their unofficial use for one specific and highly unique situation, suddenly I apparently want to go round tasering "people" as though it's a routine everyday occurrence that I want to indulge in lol :kitty:
They had an elderly person in a position that would have been more suitable for a younger person. I'm not saying that the elderly fella's an angel or anything, just that they could have restrained him upright.
The way police hold criminals is so the criminal cannot struggle and cause injury to themselves or any one else
The way police hold criminals is so the criminal cannot struggle and cause injury to themselves or any one else
It's reassuring to see a poster who actually has some knowledge and lives in the real world, there is a few in this thread who seem to be lacking those particular traits.
Why was there a need to go in so hard on the old boy ? Why not just handcuff him whilst he was standing ?
If I'd had a taser, I'd have given one or more of them a dose. Sooner take a beating myself if it would have helped the old boy to be released.
BIB is revealing, no?
I mean, next time you insist that you are a reasonable person who doesn't hate the police but are just commenting reasonably about cases in which you believe criticism is reasonable and justified.
This is only an issue because it happened to a middle class white person. It is normal police practice and is designed to PREVENT injury to the criminal and the officers involved in the arrest.
BIB is revealing, no?
I mean, next time you insist that you are a reasonable person who doesn't hate the police but are just commenting reasonably about cases in which you believe criticism is reasonable and justified.
What's revealing is that you have posted twice on this thread, by singling out two of my posts, and have thus far made no attempt to make an independent comment on the thread topic itself.
Oh right, so from my identifying their unofficial use for one specific and highly unique situation, suddenly I apparently want to go round tasering "people" as though it's a routine everyday occurrence that I want to indulge in lol :kitty:
i'm talking about you saying you would be stupid enough to taser the police. you wouldnt even have the guts to purchase one in the first place
I'm surprised they were so rough with the old man. If he'd had a heart attack or suchlike, there would have been an almighty backlash. That sort of rough manhandling might be fine for a scrappy drunk on a train, but seems OTT for an old man.
This is far more worrying:
"A journalist from the local paper was allegedly threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act and made to delete footage because he did not have permission to film at the station."
The police seem to making a bit of a habit in abusing anti-terrorism legislation when it suits them, don't they? Who'd have thought?
No fan of SYP but i wouldn't go as far to call it police brutality. my idea of brutality is deliberately trying to hurt him. no problem with 5 officers arresting him either, only concern is why are they pushing his head down, if he has spat at them then fair enough but if they cant justify why they held is head down then they need disciplining, it may be assault but that's down to the police over reacting not brutality.
This is only an issue because it happened to a middle class white person. It is normal police practice and is designed to PREVENT injury to the criminal and the officers involved in the arrest.
Nothing to see here. Please move on.
Ou contraire.
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
There are certain, erm, demographics who'll turn out for a protest at the drop of a hat if they think there's a new pair of Nike's or an iPhone in it for them.
How often do you hear of middle-class types, and pensioners no less, getting mixed-up in protests involving illegal activities?
Might only be one small incident but I'd speculate that it's a manifestation of ill-feeling much larger than that which provoked many of the protests we roll our eyes at on the TV news.
No fan of SYP but i wouldn't go as far to call it police brutality. my idea of brutality is deliberately trying to hurt him. no problem with 5 officers arresting him either, only concern is why are they pushing his head down, if he has spat at them then fair enough but if they cant justify why they held is head down then they need disciplining, it may be assault but that's down to the police over reacting not brutality.
Once again it was not syp it was btp, they held him and maneuvered him like any other criminal, to avoid him struggling and hurting himself or others.
This is only an issue because it happened to a middle class white person. It is normal police practice and is designed to PREVENT injury to the criminal and the officers involved in the arrest.
Nothing to see here. Please move on.
I wouldn't say colour comes in to it( well I hope not), I'd say middle class and old, but the rest spot on.
They could possibly ask you to stop.
If you declined, they could probably ask you to leave.
If you declined again, they might threaten to arrest you for (possibly) a public order offence.
What they couldn't legally do is force you to delete what you had already filmed. They could ask but there would be no legal obligation to comply, it would probably require a court order.
John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, has today reminded all MPS officers and staff that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.
The message, which has been circulated to all Borough Commanders and published on the MPS intranet, reinforces guidance previously issued around powers relating to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Guidance on the issue will continue to be included in briefings to all operational officers and staff.
Mr Yates said: "People have complained that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. These stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of TACT. The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious."
"Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that:
- there is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
- there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff
- the act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop.
"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped." ...
Thing is though, what do they mean by a "valid" or "very good" reason ?
I'm surprised they were so rough with the old man. If he'd had a heart attack or suchlike, there would have been an almighty backlash. That sort of rough manhandling might be fine for a scrappy drunk on a train, but seems OTT for an old man.
<snipped>
Well people have died in police custody. He could be classed as vulnerable because of his age - as you say, the shock could have led to heart attack, or stroke.
In actuality, he's probably perfectly fit, but I don't think the police should take the risk with someone in an obviously older age group.
Comments
Debatable.
They could possibly ask you to stop.
If you declined, they could probably ask you to leave.
If you declined again, they might threaten to arrest you for (possibly) a public order offence.
What they couldn't legally do is force you to delete what you had already filmed. They could ask but there would be no legal obligation to comply, it would probably require a court order.
Guidance issued to MPS officers and staff re stop and search photo policy
I don't think this was an armed response unit.
Guns would have been a bit of overkill for a group of fare dodging pensioners.
They had an elderly person in a position that would have been more suitable for a younger person. I'm not saying that the elderly fella's an angel or anything, just that they could have restrained him upright.
i know i'm talking about you wanting go around tasering people
Oh right, so from my identifying their unofficial use for one specific and highly unique situation, suddenly I apparently want to go round tasering "people" as though it's a routine everyday occurrence that I want to indulge in lol :kitty:
What does that smiley actually mean?
The way police hold criminals is so the criminal cannot struggle and cause injury to themselves or any one else
Not just me then.
Has the video been cut down in some way? All I see is a guy getting arrested in the same way you can see on any reality cop show.
All I can think of as the difference is instead of being an obnoxious drunk he was fair dodging
It's reassuring to see a poster who actually has some knowledge and lives in the real world, there is a few in this thread who seem to be lacking those particular traits.
BIB is revealing, no?
I mean, next time you insist that you are a reasonable person who doesn't hate the police but are just commenting reasonably about cases in which you believe criticism is reasonable and justified.
Nothing to see here. Please move on.
What's revealing is that you have posted twice on this thread, by singling out two of my posts, and have thus far made no attempt to make an independent comment on the thread topic itself.
i'm talking about you saying you would be stupid enough to taser the police. you wouldnt even have the guts to purchase one in the first place
You actually seem to be rambling. Having been corrected twice, you are now spouting presumptuous crap for the sake of it lol :kitty:
lol ok looks like mr keyboard warrior here cant back up what he originally said
Actually looks like Dr Failed Baiter has made himself look rather amateurish and silly.
Might be past your bedtime young man
This is far more worrying:
"A journalist from the local paper was allegedly threatened with arrest under the Terrorism Act and made to delete footage because he did not have permission to film at the station."
The police seem to making a bit of a habit in abusing anti-terrorism legislation when it suits them, don't they? Who'd have thought?
Ou contraire.
Quite the opposite, I'd say.
There are certain, erm, demographics who'll turn out for a protest at the drop of a hat if they think there's a new pair of Nike's or an iPhone in it for them.
How often do you hear of middle-class types, and pensioners no less, getting mixed-up in protests involving illegal activities?
Might only be one small incident but I'd speculate that it's a manifestation of ill-feeling much larger than that which provoked many of the protests we roll our eyes at on the TV news.
Once again it was not syp it was btp, they held him and maneuvered him like any other criminal, to avoid him struggling and hurting himself or others.
I wouldn't say colour comes in to it( well I hope not), I'd say middle class and old, but the rest spot on.
Thing is though, what do they mean by a "valid" or "very good" reason ?
<snipped>
Well people have died in police custody. He could be classed as vulnerable because of his age - as you say, the shock could have led to heart attack, or stroke.
In actuality, he's probably perfectly fit, but I don't think the police should take the risk with someone in an obviously older age group.