Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

NOONE has the right in public to stop you taking their photograph. Covered under RIPA.

***Who cares? Its not relevant to the topic other than the BG is whiner.

Any police officer not displaying their badge number loses all their powers as a police officer, and is treated as a normal citizen.
***The nightstick and big ass gun (or in Britain's case big ass haggis launcher) say otherwise.

There are very strict guidelines on how and where badge numbers must be displayed.
***And I'm sure someone gives a gak. That person is not me.

Ian Tomlinson was pushed over by the police and died, he wasn't a protester, and he certainly wasn't a threat, as he was walking away with his hands in his pockets. I was probably a little too uppity in regards to claiming it offensive, my apologies.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
Any police officer not displaying their badge number loses all their powers as a police officer, and is treated as a normal citizen.
***The nightstick and big ass gun (or in Britain's case big ass haggis launcher) say otherwise.

The LAW says otherwise, they lose all powers, except that of citizens arrest.

"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
-Caesar.

Frazzled wrote:"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
-Caesar.

You're going to have to help me out on this one. What!!?

Just saying that what the law says is irrelevant without the mailed fist behind it.

The police don't get to make the law, Parliament and to a lesser extent judges do. The police are subject to law as much as anyone, some would argue more so.

Thats cute. If you say it enough times youm might even convince yourself of that.

Say what? That the police are subject to law? They were last time I checked. When in uniform they are less subject to some, but more so others. They aren't the Stasi, with carte blanche to act how they see fit.

dæl wrote:Say what? That the police are subject to law? They were last time I checked. When in uniform they are less subject to some, but more so others. They aren't the Stasi, with carte blanche to act how they see fit.

You're cute yes you aw!

Did anyone else click on this thread expecting to read a story about a protester getting kicked in the jewels by police officers?

dæl wrote:Say what? That the police are subject to law? They were last time I checked. When in uniform they are less subject to some, but more so others. They aren't the Stasi, with carte blanche to act how they see fit.

Ah.. you realize that most governments do whatever the hell they want? No matter how it's dressed up.

Anyone else expecting a thread on public tea bagging based on the title of the thread?

Piston Honda wrote:Anyone else expecting a thread on public tea bagging based on the title of the thread?

Yes. And while disappointed, Frazzled's new Picture made the thread worth clicking.

I take it getting the sack isn't a phrase over there? Other than teabagging ofc.

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:He hasn't broken any laws, and has lost his job because of his political views. That could happen to anyone of us depending on whose in power. I take it you Frazz aren't entirely behind your current incumbent, how would you appreciate being fired for not thinking how those in power want you to think?

How the police have acted is illegal and hopefully they will be brought to justice for their actions.

I can be fired for just about any reason, including that one. Big whup.

They are in a business where their relationship with the police is very important. Hiring him or your average cop killer would probably be deleterious to that.

Suck it long haired hippy freak.

"And the sign says long haired freaky people need not apply..."

If he'd attended a teaparty rally with a gun, tricorn hat and a badly spelled sign calling for violent uprising against the negro in the white house, he'd have gone back to his job without incident and been back on the golf course with the local sheriff the next weekend, instead he protested the super rich exploiting the nation and the police get him fired from his job.

This is no democracy. It's a glorified serfdom.

So someone does something that isn't illegal, outside of their workplace, and the police pressure his workplace to fire him?

How can anyone look at this as a good thing?

Hazardous Harry wrote:So someone does something that isn't illegal, outside of their workplace, and the police pressure his workplace to fire him?

Also he worked in London, but the protests happened in the City of London, the financial district and an entirely separate entity run by Corporation of London with its own police force which isn't allowed in Greater London.

Fraz is my favorite troll.

So he worked in a job that requires a good relationship with the police (security), antagonised the police, then got fired.

Big surprise.

Obviously has never heard the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"

As to being checked up on at his previous job, The police are required to check that private security are licensed. This was in all probability a regular check unrelated to any protest activity.

Frazzled wrote:"Keep my legions intact. They make the law, legal."
-Caesar.

Your skill at trolling this one is magnificent, Frazzled. But you need to tread lightly, as you're on a B-line to Godwin this thing.

marv335 wrote:So he worked in a job that requires a good relationship with the police (security), antagonised the police, then got fired.

Big surprise.

Obviously has never heard the saying "don't bite the hand that feeds you"

Which doesn't change the fact that the police have acted illegally and unethically. And it's already been pointed out that it's illegal for police officers to refrain from showing their badges, it's not like the guy has done anything illegal, and certainly doesn't give the police grounds to move to having him fired.

As to being checked up on at his previous job, The police are required to check that private security are licensed. This was in all probability a regular check unrelated to any protest activity.

Really? It's the reason why he was fired.

This thread has taught me that nobody likes whistleblowers.

Melissia wrote:This thread has taught me that nobody likes whistleblowers.

Well sometimes it's better to do the right thing than the thing that gets you liked.

I think most people who agree with this guys getting fired is more down to what he was protesting against rather than the fact he was protesting, they probably agreed that Scott Olsen got shot with tear gas and ended up with a fractured skull while protesting in Oakland. Also I doubt their knowledge of British police tactics during protests since around '05, which have been to antagonise and inflame until they have an excuse for violence. Or they just use Agent Provocaters to start violence for them.

Frazzled your constant trolling has almost convinced me to add you to my ignore list alongside Biccat. have you made a single post in this thread that wasn't deliberately inflammatory?

dæl wrote:Ian Tomlinson was pushed over by the police and died, he wasn't a protester, and he certainly wasn't a threat, as he was walking away with his hands in his pockets.

How many fights have you been in? How many have you had to break up? How many angry and violent crowds have you had to control? I'm all for regulation of police and minimisation of police use of force, but the only people qualified to comment on it are people experienced in the use of force and law enforcement in general. Nearly everyone else has no freaking idea of what is appropriate or not.

As a professional, Tomlinsons actions were setting off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

Kaldor wrote:

As a professional, Tomlinsons actions were setting off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

OMG dat man looks dodgy, PUSH THE LITTLE S**T OVER!

What a great idea..

Kaldor wrote:

dæl wrote:Ian Tomlinson was pushed over by the police and died, he wasn't a protester, and he certainly wasn't a threat, as he was walking away with his hands in his pockets.

How many fights have you been in? How many have you had to break up? How many angry and violent crowds have you had to control? I'm all for regulation of police and minimisation of police use of force, but the only people qualified to comment on it are people experienced in the use of force and law enforcement in general. Nearly everyone else has no freaking idea of what is appropriate or not.

As a professional, Tomlinsons actions were setting off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

Fair play this thread has had some trolling statements, but this I think we have a winner.

Care to describe exactly what threat he would pose to you as a "professional". (care to enlighten?)

To answer your questions, a few, mostly in competition, a few, mostly drunken and wholly ineffective, and none but been in the middle of a few.

TheRobotLol wrote:

Kaldor wrote:

As a professional, Tomlinsons actions were setting off all kinds of alarm bells for me.

OMG dat man looks dodgy, PUSH THE LITTLE S**T OVER!

No way, he might get back up again and continue minding his own business! We need truncheons, NOW!

dæl wrote:Care to describe exactly what threat he would pose to you as a "professional". (care to enlighten?)

Not threats, I said alarm bells.

Why is he walking through the middle of a riot? Alarm bell.

Why is he not with the rest of the crowd? Alarm bell.

Why is he so close to the police? Alarm bell.

Why does he have his hands in his pockets? Alarm bell.

Why does he dawdle when told to get out of there? Alarm bell.

Anyone who says something stupid like "He wasn't a threat, he had his hands in his pockets" is just identifying themselves as not being qualified to comment on the subject. Did you ever wonder why police ask you to keep your hands in sight? It's because if you've got a gun, knife or other weapon in your pocket, they don't want you to be able to access it. Someone with their hands in their pockets is much more dangerous than someone with their hands in plain sight.

I take it you didn't watch the video then.

He was walking through the middle of a protest trying to get home after being told he couldn't leave by those police he was walking alongside, he was dawdling because he had nowhere to go, that's how 'kettling' works. Just because people are near a protest (that was not a riot, we have riots over here, and that certainly doesn't qualify) does not make them protesters (you should know this), have you ever heard of legal observers, and journalists.

The piece of scum that assaulted him is finally, after much media and public pressure, being brought to justice and faces a man slaughter charge which goes to court in the next couple of months. The only people breaking the law that day were the policeman who assaulted him who had covered up his numbers, and the so called pathologists who claimed he died of a heart attack (It has since been confirmed as an abdominal haemorrage) Shall we have a look at the officers other actions that day

During the inquest into Tomlinson's death in May 2011, the court heard that Harwood had been in several confrontations that day. He had been on duty since 5 am, assigned as a driver, and had spent most of the day in his vehicle. During the evening, he saw a man write "all cops are " on the side of another police van, and left his own vehicle to try to arrest him. The suspect's head struck the van door, triggering a response from the crowd that made Harwood believe things were getting out of control, and he said he felt it was unsafe to return to his vehicle. He at first told the inquest that he had been hit on the head, had fallen over, lost his baton, and had been attacked by the crowd, but later acknowledged this had not happened. The Guardian wrote that, shortly after his attempted arrest of the graffiti man, Harwood became involved in several more incidents: he swung a coat at a protester, pulled a BBC cameraman to the ground, used a palm strike against a city worker, and at 7:19 pm pushed another man to the ground for allegedly threatening a police dog handler. It was seconds after this, in what Harwood told the inquest was a "split-second decision," that he struck Tomlinson on the thigh with his baton and pushed him to the ground. He said it was a "very poor push," and he had been shocked when Tomlinson fell.

He seems a violent, dishonest, vindictive piece of for all intents and purposes, and its people like that that have led to a complete lack of trust in the police in the British Isles. He didn't feel threatened, he felt angry, and took it out on a member of the public. That is unacceptable behaviour, and by someone in a position of power it's even more repugnent.

edit: apologies on language