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.

http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/2012/05/former-occupier-alleges-police-interference-cost-him-his-job/

Regardless of your opinions on whether the Occupy movement is right or wrong, the police have no place pressurising private companies to sack their staff.

Sounds like a good idea. The bar had a good relationship with the police. The loser didn't. That would ipact the reputation of the bar with the police.

translation: feth you troublemaker!

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.

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.

That would be like a student getting arrested for disagreeing with his teacher about Obama!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

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..."

Clthomps wrote:Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The IPCC apparently, they don't seem very effective a lot of the time, almost wilfully negligent.

Frazzled wrote: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.

We have much stricter employment law (although this government is trying to bring it more in line with the states), but being able to be sacked for a "Thought-crime" is particularly Orwellian, I am not envious of a situation such as that.

Also, peacefully protesting against the more morally ambiguous aspects of capitalism is not quite in the same ballpark as murdering an officer of the law.

Maybe they view this guy not as a marcher but one of the ones who have injured police in their many "peaceful" protests?

Regardless, who cares? Get another job. Don't go crying to mamma about it. He's such a girly boy to whine to the media, its like a microcosm of the whole Occupymybasement movement. Life sucks then you die.

As far as I'm aware no police were injured at St Pauls, quite a considerable amount of protesters were however, by both bailiffs and police. Legal observers witnessed assaults by police during the eviction.

As an aside, we had the case a couple of years ago where an innocent bystander trying to get home from work during a protest was killed by the police.

I'm pretty sure that losing your job for attending a protest contravenes Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantee freedom of expression and assembly.

IMO he did the right thing raising this with the media, it is wrong and cannot be allowed to happen.

dæl wrote:As far as I'm aware no police were injured at St Pauls, quite a considerable amount of protesters were however, by both bailiffs and police. Legal observers witnessed assaults by police during the eviction.

As an aside, we had the case a couple of years ago where an innocent bystander trying to get home from work during a protest was killed by the police.

I'm pretty sure that losing your job for attending a protest contravenes Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantee freedom of expression and assembly.

***Except of course its a private job, not a government job. But then again I don't know what all bureaucratic nonsense your bureaucrats have dreamed up.

IMO he did the right thing raising this with the media, it is wrong and cannot be allowed to happen.

He's a whiny bum like everyone else in this suposed movement. If he had the courage of his conviction he would be a happy Bolshevik, blowing stuff up or doing whatever a Boshevik does. Instead he's just a whiner. Waa! Waa!

EDIT: Don't mind me, I just can't stand whiners.

Frazzled wrote:

IMO he did the right thing raising this with the media, it is wrong and cannot be allowed to happen.

He's a whiny bum like everyone else in this suposed movement. If he had the courage of his conviction he would be a happy Bolshevik, blowing stuff up or doing whatever a Boshevik does. Instead he's just a whiner. Waa! Waa!

EDIT: Don't mind me, I just can't stand whiners.

Can't tell if serious...

dæl wrote:As far as I'm aware no police were injured at St Pauls, quite a considerable amount of protesters were however, by both bailiffs and police. Legal observers witnessed assaults by police during the eviction.

As an aside, we had the case a couple of years ago where an innocent bystander trying to get home from work during a protest was killed by the police.

I'm pretty sure that losing your job for attending a protest contravenes Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which guarantee freedom of expression and assembly.

IMO he did the right thing raising this with the media, it is wrong and cannot be allowed to happen.

He didn't "lose his job for attending a protest".

I think you really didn't read the article all the way through before you posted it.

Bazinet said he believes the police officers pressured the bar to have him fired due to his interaction with several officers during Occupy London demonstrations in Victoria Park last year.

He considered himself a “liaison” to police during the demonstrations and said there were times when he was antagonistic with police members when he felt they were doing something inappropriate.

For example, if he saw an officer not displaying his or her nametag or badge number properly, Bazinet said he would point it out to the officer or take his or her picture.

Bazinet wants to work as a security guard at this particular establishment, which is a job that requires interaction with the police on a fairly intimate level when necessary.
This particular establishment has decided to let him go from this job.
Whether or not police pressure was actively employed is not actually known, as the individual in charge of security at the establishment is the one who first alleged police intervention as the reason behind the firing.

Without exacting knowledge regarding the capabilities of police officers in the UK from working jobs as private security as well, there's a possibility that the firing was kind of related to "police intervention" as the security staff at the establishment includes sworn officers who are considered to be valuable employees whom might have issues about working with Bazinet and approached their employer with information related to such.
If that's the case, the establishment might have chose to keep those employees rather than the new guy whom would cause friction in an otherwise peaceful workplace.

“I just want to be a dad and I want to work.”

Maybe work more and protest less next time.

Good point Kan.

Frazzled wrote:He's a whiny bum like everyone else in this suposed movement. If he had the courage of his conviction he would be a happy Bolshevik, blowing stuff up or doing whatever a Boshevik does.

Wat.

I guess that for some (many?), living in an oppressive capitalist dictatorship where an individual's opinion and life aren't worth a lot would be preferrable to what they think is socialism.

As a European with relatives in the US, I'm constantly amazed at how much reality and popular opinions are at odds with what is publicly propagated as "American values" these days.

If you had a point, you didn't make it successfully. You lost me at "capitalist dictatorship" and Britain.

A police officer not displaying their badge number is illegal, telling them this isn't neither is filming them. The only reason an officer would cover up their number is if they did not want to be recognised, the only reason I can see for not wanting to be recognised is if they are doing something nefarious, such as assaulting a member of the public.

@Frazzled hating whiners, I take you will never complain about liberals ever again then?

And as for getting another job, he is SIA certified, so has spent quite a considerable amount of time and money becoming qualified to work in security, if this is police interference, as inferred. he probably won't find it that easy.

@Kanluwen if there had been an officer who moonlighted there, which is unlikely, do you not think he might have noticed?

I think some countries (like possibly Germany) have big numbers on each uniform, especially riot gear and stuff like that. Each department has a unique number and each officer has a unique number so if there is footage of anonymous cops using excessive force they can be easy to recognize.

dæl wrote:A police officer not displaying their badge number is illegal, telling them this isn't neither is filming them. The only reason an officer would cover up their number is if they did not want to be recognised, the only reason I can see for not wanting to be recognised is if they are doing something nefarious, such as assaulting a member of the public.

So?

Whinybutt wants job at bar. Cops interact with bar and may even work at bar. Cops don't like whinybutt. if whinybutt can't get along with the other employees then too bad he's out.

Whats the problem? McDonalds is hiring. Plus when he "slips and falls" they have deep pockets and he can get more money. Stupid marxist doesn't even know how to properly capitalize on a lawsuit opportunity.

dæl wrote:A police officer not displaying their badge number is illegal, telling them this isn't neither is filming them. The only reason an officer would cover up their number is if they did not want to be recognised, the only reason I can see for not wanting to be recognised is if they are doing something nefarious, such as assaulting a member of the public.

No. You're not reading your own article.

I'm going to break it down:

Bazinet said he believes the police officers pressured the bar to have him fired due to his interaction with several officers during Occupy London demonstrations in Victoria Park last year.

The key word there is "believes". That does not mean it is true. It means that this is the perception he has of the firing. We do not know the content of his conversation with the head of security at the establishment, Matt Morton. We do not know if Bazinet suggested that "Did the police tell you to fire me?" and Morton chose to just go with it and think nothing of it at the time.

It is worth noting that there is this piece of information which might have led Bazinet to make this statement:

Bazinet took the job at Jack’s to gain more shifts after his hours were cut back at Cobra Nightclub on Talbot Street, where he had also worked as a security guard.
He claimed a police officer also made inquiries about him when he worked at that club.
Cameron Hodgins, Cobra’s general manager, confirmed a police officer had come into the club earlier this year.
He alleges the officer asked if Bazinet was employed there and if he had a licence to work as a security guard for the bar.
He said, however, the officer did not ask him to fire Bazinet, who does hold a valid provincial licence to work as a security guard and was never arrested or charged during any of the Occupy events in the city.

A good question is why an officer was checking on what Bazinet's status was with a license to work as a security guard for a bar, which is an important question to ask. Especially considering that it does not seem that the officer came in to "encourage him to be fired".

He considered himself a “liaison” to police during the demonstrations and said there were times when he was antagonistic with police members when he felt they were doing something inappropriate.

So this leads to a bit more detailing on Bazinet's behavior during the protests.
Notice how the statement is not that "he was antagonistic with police members when he knew they were doing something inappropriate", but rather when "he felt they were doing something inappropriate". There is a big difference between those two, given that most of the public's perception of police behavior is based upon what they see in movies and television.

For example, if he saw an officer not displaying his or her nametag or badge number properly, Bazinet said he would point it out to the officer or take his or her picture.

Back to the point you made that I'm replying to.

This is not "an officer refusing to display their nametag or badge number". It's "they were not displaying his or her nametag or badge number properly" based upon "Bazinet feeling they were doing something inappropriate".

Also:
If police ask you not to photograph them, they don't have to be "doing something nefarious". It can simply be because they don't want to be recognised or because they don't want to have their photograph taken.

And like any other individual who is refusing to be photographed or asking you not to, they can feasibly have those photographs yanked if published online.

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:A police officer not displaying their badge number is illegal, telling them this isn't neither is filming them. The only reason an officer would cover up their number is if they did not want to be recognised, the only reason I can see for not wanting to be recognised is if they are doing something nefarious, such as assaulting a member of the public.

So?

Whinybutt wants job at bar. Cops interact with bar and may even work at bar. Cops don't like whinybutt. if whinybutt can't get along with the other employees then too bad he's out.

Whats the problem? McDonalds is hiring. Plus when he "slips and falls" they have deep pockets and he can get more money. Stupid marxist doesn't even know how to properly capitalize on a lawsuit opportunity.

Frazzled, you are an inspiration to many

Frazzled wrote:
Whats the problem? McDonalds is hiring. Plus when he "slips and falls" they have deep pockets and he can get more money. Stupid marxist doesn't even know how to properly capitalize on a lawsuit opportunity.

Thats actually pretty offensive considering the case of Ian Tomlinson, which I mentioned earlier, who died after being pushed over by a police officer. Noone has received any cash for this death, nor the thousands of police assaults over the past few years, nor the hundreds of deaths in police custody.

And we thankfully don't have quite the same compensation culture over here, people don't get dollar signs in their eyes whenever they have an accident.

@Kan

Uh, if you finish reading the article, it goes on to describe a conversation with Morton that was recorded describing that exact conversation.

During that meeting, which Bazinet recorded without Morton’s knowledge, Morton reiterated the firing was due to alleged police pressure.

“Robert doesn’t have a very good relationship with the London police and we do,” Morton claimed in the recording. “They were not keen on having him working here.”

He added the police officers allegedly told management the good relationship between the bar and police could be jeopardized if he was kept on as an employee.

“I’m not supposed to be telling you all this,” Morton claimed. “It was just purely based on a request from the London police for us to re-evaluate whether we had made the right choice.”

“But they didn’t really give you a choice?” Bazinet asked.

“No,” Morton replied.

He claimed the bar’s management decided to fire Bazinet so as not to endanger the good relationship with police.

“My boss is worried about blowback.”

I'm not trying to say "he was fired because of the cops" or not, but just saying that your post is blatantly wrong on several factors.

I mean, you even quote the part about "not displaying their nametag or badge number properly" and then go on to say "This isn't 'not displaying...'" which it patently is. Now, we can't say for sure they are puroposefully not displaying it, but that's immaterial. Whether it's purposeful or not, they're not doing what they're supposed to, and should be (politely, for the most part) called on it.

So trying to pass it off like this is entirely someone "feeling" is disingenuous at best.

Kanluwen wrote:
Back to the point you made that I'm replying to.

This is not "an officer refusing to display their nametag or badge number". It's "they were not displaying his or her nametag or badge number properly" based upon "Bazinet feeling they were doing something inappropriate".

Also:
If police ask you not to photograph them, they don't have to be "doing something nefarious". It can simply be because they don't want to be recognised or because they don't want to have their photograph taken.

And like any other individual who is refusing to be photographed or asking you not to, they can feasibly have those photographs yanked if published online.

NOONE has the right in public to stop you taking their photograph. Covered under RIPA.
Any police officer not displaying their badge number loses all their powers as a police officer, and is treated as a normal citizen.
There are very strict guidelines on how and where badge numbers must be displayed.

And yes I have, regardless of how many times you wish to infer otherwise, read the article. I didn't however, go over it looking for ambiguous language to support my point of view while disregarding everything else.

I think instead of being mad the cops took away this man's job, we should thankful they're gracious enough to let all of us keep ours.

d-usa wrote:I think some countries (like possibly Germany) have big numbers on each uniform, especially riot gear and stuff like that. Each department has a unique number and each officer has a unique number so if there is footage of anonymous cops using excessive force they can be easy to recognize.

Id like to point out that this is currently not the case in Germany, especially not on riot gear, which is the reason for an on-going discussion.
They have symbols signaling the squad they belong to (and as far as I know the role that they play in that squad) but nothing more.

I believe theres currently a trial in some states though ... not sure on the current status of that particular project though ...

dæl wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Back to the point you made that I'm replying to.

This is not "an officer refusing to display their nametag or badge number". It's "they were not displaying his or her nametag or badge number properly" based upon "Bazinet feeling they were doing something inappropriate".

Also:
If police ask you not to photograph them, they don't have to be "doing something nefarious". It can simply be because they don't want to be recognised or because they don't want to have their photograph taken.

And like any other individual who is refusing to be photographed or asking you not to, they can feasibly have those photographs yanked if published online.

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

I think you really, really need to think about what you're saying.
"RIPA" is the "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act".

It has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of individuals to their likenesses, but is dealing with the ability of "public bodies"(read: the police and other agencies most likely) to gain access to information which they normally would require warrants to obtain by allowing them to obtain the information in secret as it would otherwise affect the integrity of their investigation.

Any police officer not displaying their badge number loses all their powers as a police officer, and is treated as a normal citizen.
There are very strict guidelines on how and where badge numbers must be displayed.

Which is irrelevant, as even if a police officer is not displaying their badge number and is treated as a normal citizen they still can request you not take their photograph. There are certainly times and situations where it's unreasonable to expect a measure of privacy in regards to your photograph being taken, but when someone breaks out a camera phone or camera and frames you up for a shot on your face--that isn't one of those situations.

And yes I have, regardless of how many times you wish to infer otherwise, read the article. I didn't however, go over it looking for ambiguous language to support my point of view while disregarding everything else.

I don't have to go over it looking for ambiguous language to support my point of view while disregarding everything else.

It's a poorly written puff piece, disguised as "hard hitting journalism". It already has done most of the work for me, by leaving out key details.

Flachzange wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think some countries (like possibly Germany) have big numbers on each uniform, especially riot gear and stuff like that. Each department has a unique number and each officer has a unique number so if there is footage of anonymous cops using excessive force they can be easy to recognize.

Id like to point out that this is currently not the case in Germany, especially not on riot gear, which is the reason for an on-going discussion.
They have symbols signaling the squad they belong to (and as far as I know the role that they play in that squad) but nothing more.

I believe theres currently a trial in some states though ... not sure on the current status of that particular project though ...

That might be what I was thinking off then.

d-usa wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

dæl wrote:A police officer not displaying their badge number is illegal, telling them this isn't neither is filming them. The only reason an officer would cover up their number is if they did not want to be recognised, the only reason I can see for not wanting to be recognised is if they are doing something nefarious, such as assaulting a member of the public.

So?

Whinybutt wants job at bar. Cops interact with bar and may even work at bar. Cops don't like whinybutt. if whinybutt can't get along with the other employees then too bad he's out.

Whats the problem? McDonalds is hiring. Plus when he "slips and falls" they have deep pockets and he can get more money. Stupid marxist doesn't even know how to properly capitalize on a lawsuit opportunity.

Frazzled, you are an inspiration to many

I'm so stealing that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Whats the problem? McDonalds is hiring. Plus when he "slips and falls" they have deep pockets and he can get more money. Stupid marxist doesn't even know how to properly capitalize on a lawsuit opportunity.

Thats actually pretty offensive considering the case of Ian Tomlinson, which I mentioned earlier, who died after being pushed over by a police officer. Noone has received any cash for this death, nor the thousands of police assaults over the past few years, nor the hundreds of deaths in police custody.

And we thankfully don't have quite the same compensation culture over here, people don't get dollar signs in their eyes whenever they have an accident.

I don't have a clue what you're on about with this Iam Tomlinson comment. I'd look him up but can't be arsed to, and would rather play with my new wiener dog pic tee hee!

Hmmm.. The GM of the place said it was an internal issue, plus his hours at his other job were reduced... Maybe he isn't very good at the whole club security thing.
It may very well be that the police DID have something to do with his firing.
Since he is working club security, there may have been complaints lodged with the police by patrons of the club. The visit to his other work place may have been part of an investigation into those complaints. Such an investigation may have caused the management at "Jacks" to reconsider his working there, especially if there was evidence of Bazinet's misconduct (likely questionable interaction with the clientele and/or drinking) while working there.
Thus the GM's comment ‘It doesn’t work with you working here’.