it is illegal to take pictures where children appear in them without parental consent and it is also illegal to take photographs of police and armed forces without their permission whether on public property or not.MegaAdz13
Tell me MegaAdz, Is 13 your age or your IQ
It is hard to spot anything in your post that is correct.
I would suggest that you checkup on the UK law before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.
In life there are many people like this. Too many trivial laws being dealt with trivially by persons unsuitable for the task. Criminalising the law abiding general public, creating a divide between lawmakers, enforcers and us... Let's stick to catching real criminals please...
Ok.... I'm a solicitor....It is not illegal to film anything or anyone, children or adults, in a public place. The police here have committed assault and wrongfully arrested a law abiding member of the public!
it is illegal to take pictures where children appear in them without parental concent and it is also illegal to take photographs of police and armed forces without their permission whether on public property or not.
Love the way the police went from reading the terrorist stuff , only to find that they couldn't use it in this case so they went for the usual offence of public order. Big difference between the 2. And you where quite right about photographing in a public space , there is NO law that makes it an offence. @ Breakit46 this is not a critisism on you answer but if everybody went around passifying them then they would get away with it more and more (Bang goes your rights).
You sound very young, I think you were very brave in standing your ground.
Please understand this one thing regards the police...
If you rub them up the wrong way you will eventually experience a Bad Cop hell bent on detaining you. Regardless of how innocent you are talking back at a police officer is certain to bring you grief.
I hate the status quo but it's a game that as always been played this way.
Don't antagonise and Don't be scared of complying if only to Pacify Them.
More and more police officers are siding with the public. Those that dont ,tend to be special police officers who will not be loosing there job very soon as a result of government cuts as a much more hands on approach will be used .
HEY ATTENTION SEEKER weather there is or is not a law against taking photos in a public place I think you bang out of order for not only trying to disrupt an armed forces parade but trying to be a smart arse with the police who were very polite and patient with you. The police dont want you taking there photos and putting them on youtube as some of them do covert work. The Terroism act was brought in for a good reason you little shit so do as your told. I would have chinned ya lad to be honest
@WIGANDRUMMER2010 I think your an idiot, the lad had a good point.. the anti-terrorism act is massively abused. We need more education on police powers.. the police are there to SERVE us and Protect us from crime... Abuse of police power is a CRIME.
@WIGANDRUMMER2010 you muppet they are cadets not armed forces your comments are about as reliable as your grasp of english spelling. probably an illiterate mindless robot.
@WIGANDRUMMER2010 You really are an idiot. It doesn't matter what the police wants it is not against the law to take pictures any where in a public space, that officer can stick his check out and have a tantrum all he likes because that what is was, pathetic really and all because someone stood up to him. Those officers and the police got owned hence he got his compensation because there was no secret covert work in the area as you say their could of been. Well done to the cameraman.
Wonderfull thank you so the police got owned then hey great stuff woopy blimmin doo. May I sugest you please own a life or at least go out and get one as this is well more than yesterdays news now for me and I couldnt really give a toss about it anymore. See ya m8 x
police are made off ppl who cant find work.....basically jobless pricks join the police,,,,
I mean who really wanted to be a copper!!!!! when all options in life fail, times are hard you need money , ppl join the police.....well that what i think anyway
Next time I'm bored I'll go and pick a pointless squabble with a policeman and post it on YT and wait for people to post comments telling me I'm a tit and then I'll feel chuffed because at least I'm being noticed.
Only thing I find lacking, is for the justice system to have charged the offending police officers with acts of terrorism.... what else can it be called when SERVANTS of the state (police) threaten and abuse the very people whom they are supposed to protect (the public). They should be held personally accountable. Charged, arrested and sentenced to jail for 20 years for abuse of power and terrorism against the public. No darn slap over the hand, but a kick to the groin!
@OfficialSweetWrapper taking photos isn't making a 'nuiscance' of yourself. Seems more like the cops trying to cause problems for people because _they_ have nothing better to do.
The rates are 400 for the first hour 300 for each subsequent hour, He may have arranged an amount different to the official rates, it would of course save a fortune in investigation and court costs if they just coughed up each time they released someone without charge on leaving.
Romford police are total c**ts - i called the police monday to report a sexual assualt (less than 100 yards from this parade) and i got a call back an hour later saying they were busy attending a stolen car call
Generally speaking, in a public place, no. If you're just taking photographs, and children happen to be in them, that's fine. That said, if you're intentionally photographing children continually, the police are likely to be able justify questioning you. There's a level of context to it, for example if you're taking pctures
good for you for sticking to your guns and not letting this officious git (who is a travesty of what a good police officer should be) bully you. well done!
its pretty sad that those children's parents were more concerned about them being in a photo than the parade itself. i get a lot of suspicious looks and a few comments made when doing street photography, no matter who or what the subject is, but luckily i've never had any police interference. honestly i wouldnt have handled that situation half as well as you did, well done!
The Police wearing clothes that could hide suicide vests, they are also wearing badges on there uniforms, this is against parliament (it says no badges on Police uniforms and has been the case since the 1830's. Given the Police are rebelling against parliament, then they are a threat to the Milliatary and should be removed for the armys protection.
Reasonable force is minium force neccessary,that could be an instruction.Touching someone is assault. In order to stop assualts then all assaults should be taken to court, support groups for the trauma of the attack should be in place,then if a court decides the Cnstables or subjects breach of the peace (which can be lawful) does not warrent a bind over they can be released with no bind over by the court.That way everytime a Policeman or subject (law dictates from 1361 Justice of the Peace Act).
Now i'm able to comment on the case, few clarifications: Firstly, i'm aware there are 2 small gaps/jumps in the audio, making it appear edited. This is the full and unedited (except tweaking levels) audio I recorded. It was done on an iphone and those gaps are where I made calls, so it was captured in parts.
2nd, some people seem to think there was some mysterious video of this I posted then replaced w.this, that's just untrue. 3rd, there was no cordon. 4th, I had no 'script' or video camera!
WHY SHOULD THEY APOLOGIZE THEY HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE, ANYONE ONE HEARD OF PRIVACY BECAUSE THE PARADE HAD NOT STARTED THEY SHOULD NOT OF BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED. NATIONAL SECURITY STRICTLY STATES UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE POLICE, MILITARY OR SECURITY PERSONNEL TO BE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF. NEXT TIME BEFORE USING THE LAW LOOK IT UP AND HE DOES NOT HAVE TO KNOW THE LAW OR RECITE IT YO YOU AS IN THE COURT OF LAW IGNORANCE OF THE ACCUSED IS NO OFFENCE.
@Confrontationify THERE'S NO EXEMPTION OF EDITORIALS IF THE CONSENT FORM IS NOT SIGNED THAT IS PROFESSIONALISM. THEY COULD OF ARRESTED HER OF BREACHING OF PEACE OR TERRORISM.
@Confrontationify "THEY COULD OF ARRESTED HER OF BREACHING OF PEACE OR TERRORISM."
TERRORISM. Fuck me you are one of those pathetic little twats. People like you are what terror warnings are for. Keep you quivering in your piss filled boots.
@Confrontationify You couldn't be more wrong. We have the right to film all police on normal, daylight operations. See the update at the top of the page.
@vubear Under section 44 of the the anti-terrorism act and child protection act if they think you pose a danger they can tell you to leave or stop taking photos. he clearly stated that you where in the way of the parade as he was concerned for the children's safety. and breach of the peace you where in the way of the military and he has a right to privacy as an officer of the law it's a criminal act to take his photo and post it all over the internet, And reasonable force comes to mind.
An officer has no expectation or right to privacy when in public. That's why it's called "public". Taking a photograph of frontline officers is not a criminal act at all in the UK.
@Confrontationify Reasonable, articulable suspicion. If the police can't provide proof of that in court then it's an illegal stop. Breach of the peace has to cause harm, distress or offense. Quietly taking photos in public does not fit this example. That's why the police had to apologise & pay damages in this case & that's why all your comments on this page are just plain wrong. Your personal agenda here is plain for all to see.
@vubear The problem is that you have to take a stop and search to court, this takes time and money. The idea of innocent until proven guilty should be that all stop and searches are taken to court and it should be for the Police to prove the stop and search was legal, not the other way around.
@Gopherliberty I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here but I will say this; as "consumers" of the law it's up to us to know the law. If we don't then it's easy for the police to carry on their corrupt little ways. Secondly, there are more & more legal firms who are specializing in this sort of case on a no win no fee basis. Rule 1 should always be to film your stop.
Not in a public place. where there is no expectation of privacy. The Law is against you on that one sonny. "as an officer of the law it's a criminal act to take his photo"
Bullshit. He is in a public place and I think you'll find that cameras have a tendency to improve an officers behaviour.
How's this for contrast: Case 1 - I overtook a vehicle doing about 15mph on double white lines - perfectly safely, no oncoming traffic 100s of metres of visibility. I was threatened with arrest, actually read my rights, then issued the standard 3 points and a fine. Case 2 - I intervened in an assault with a deaadly weapon. The officers who arrived shortly afterwards would not arrest the assailant until he had "calmed down", during which time he hospitalized another passer by. Useless plods.
Bloody plods. I'm sick of them. Every decent policeman I have ever met (3 and counting) has been let down by the infrastructure that is supposed to support them and the victims of crime. Every other policeman I have met (5 and counting) has been either lazy, ignorant, arrogant, cowardly, ineffective, callous, bullish, over officious, or a combination of the above.
Just seen this in the Daily Mail. awesome video kid. You don;t have to give your details to any pig at all. Carry on using your camera and never give up on filming CORRUPT BENT PIGS
For anyone to stand up to these bullies like that was very brave, for someone of this age, it was absolutely exceptional. In the past, they've got away with it by denying everything. No surprise they used either "Breach of the Peace" or S5 Public Order Act. Congratulations for standing up for freedom. People should always record any involvement with the police if possible.
Have just read about this in the mail. Good for you Jules. For a 15 year old you are very articulate and know the law better than the police and you stuck to your guns. I am sick and tired of reading how the police abuse their powers (which they in fact do not have) to try to stop people taking photographs. This has happened on a number of occasions here in the UK. This is a gross abuse of police power. Surely they have better things to do..
Congratulations Jules - you know your law well - I hope you do very well in the future, possibly a legal career?! Nice to see someone take on the police and win, so rare nowadays but so needed with our rotten, corrupt police.
05:56 "It's a public order offense to swear in this area..." lol they really WERE scraping the barrel... Well done for standing up to them and keeping your cool, I hope I'd have that much self control if it ever came to it although I doubt it somehow. Buy yourself some fancy equipment with your settlement and enjoy your victory, a victory for British freedoms and common sense over these misinformed idiots who act on the word of a passerby without even knowing the laws they're supposed to uphold.
@jimmiow What are you fucking retarded or something;,since when has being a photographer stopped anyone from using there cellphone or video,Before you try and be clever make sure you know your facts,a video of this was upped i know i watched it not so long ago along with other police vids but it's been replaced with this slideshow crap so once again i ask where 's the original and if you dont know then then fuck off and keep your dumbass comments to yourself.
@bom8er1 no there wasn't. There is no other recording of the incident. This is exactly the same as when I first uploaded it. I had no video camera, I just recorded audio on my phone and in this case quickly overlaid it over some of the pictures. Can you prove this ridiculous suggestion? Without proof, which there won't be because it's bs, it's just your delusion...
Because thats a mature thing to say, where would the country be without the police? oh thats right even further down the shitter than it already is :S
It takes courage to stand up to the police, and self-evidently, you were at all times polite, and at no time any form of threat.
Police have lost the effortless moral ascendency they once had, when a mere touch on the shoulder was enough to effect an arrest ( now thrown to the ground, with nerve-damaging handcuffs ), and run around like headless chickens, screaming.
If you would like to photograph people involved in exposing police corruption, easy to arrange. Zen
"a mere touch on the shoulder was enough to effect an arrest" this has never been true. your sense of reality is warped.
"nerve-damaging handcuffs" yet again a stupid statement. i'd like to see you try to subdue a struggling criminal without the aid of handcuffs or allot of teamwork.
i hate people who target the entire police structure because of a few dick heads. it's a tough job involving allot of stress and hatred from the people you try to protect. go fuck yourself 'zen'.
@pontiusbunny Before I reply to your reply - which ends with discourtesy - are you replying as a member of The Publis, or as a serving police officer ( or someone close to police )?
I might add, that I come from a family involved with government at various levels for the last 1200 years, and I value good government and good policing.
We have neither.
As negative as you so far have been, I take it you might agree that both existing government and police are capable of improvement?
@pontiusbunny Well you would think that with all the dickheads they have to deal with they would be less inclined to worry about something so punitive and irrelevant. Anti-terrorism was a stupid excuse.
@jimmiow They are wearing badges, on their uniforms, this is rebellion against the Crown as Parliament has not changed its mind on badges since the 1830's.
They are dirty traitors to the Queen and the Army should get them to protect the crown from the Police,
I've been told to stop taking photos on land which a jobsworth has claimed to be 'private property' despite it clearly being the public highway (I was standing by the side of the road). Well done sir regarding this case, I would've done exactly the same thing as you. Every day I trust the UK police less and less.
We survived thousands of years without the police 'protecting' us. This 19th century invention has run to its logical conclusion where we see an increasingly fascist paramilitary force - armed with tazers, machine guns, pepper spray, combat grade batons etc - more interested in harassing the public than anything else.
They can even summarily execute you if they suspect that you are a suspected suspect.
the police are out of control, they dont do anything when citys are burning during riots and then they do this, get rid of the lot of them and start again !
Thanks very much to a lot of people for their support around this incident. We've settled with the met, and they've apologised & admitted wrongdoing as well as paying damages and my legal costs. I've put some links in the description.
@julesmattsson You are great, Do you know why they stopped you, we're they like doing something corrup so they were forced to make you stop? I read your article on Daily Mail, and am surprised and proud of you that you hold to your rights so strongly, respect!!
Could you tell us how much compensation you received? Also, did any of it come out of the salaries of those particular police officers, or was it all from taxpayers?
@MarkReadPickens Probably not much, the point of compensation and fines is to deter the offender (in this case the POLICE) from repeating it, in America fines of $60,000 are not uncommon for far less than this to punish the offender.In the UK it is often capped in the 100's.How is that going to be a financial warning to the Police.
It does benefit society if offenders are deterred, but that's not "the point of compensation." The purpose is to make the victim "whole," in other words, to make the situation equivalent to what it would have been if the tort had not happened.
Fines don't actually "punish" anyone but taxpayers, few of whom had anything to do with the bad behavior. Payments should come from salaries of offenders, not the rest of us.
@MarkReadPickens we've decided not to disclose the amount of damages, and it has come from the met police (directorate of professional standards). There's no legal route to claim damages from the officers.
Why did you not stop when police asked you to stop. Who do you work for that makes this "you job". And why are you obstructing justice. Also why did you walk away. We can only see this one sided (your side) because you did not include a video, i know we would side with the officer if you did. Plus it's children how do they know if your not a child pedo, hey need answers.
@Freepepsi42 Aren't you a clever boy? Did you type that all by yourself? You're spouting rubbish about UK law, which makes you ignorant, and you apparently believe in obeying anyone in a uniform, which makes you pathetically servile. Despite the fact that the police have admitted wrongdoing and paid compensation you're still trying to claim the photographer was in the wrong, which makes you stupid. Go back to making shit CoD videos you ignorant, servile, stupid little boy.
@robinbanks999 they had a right to ask for his information. And they could tell him to leave. But when he didn't it went downhill for both sides. I never said the police were not doing anything wrong. My question is why didn't he leave when he was asked too. He the women could of avoided all of this if he did. He deserved what he got, because he did not use common sense. He could of taken pictures when they started marching. And avoid trouble.
@Freepepsi42 Why do you keep coming back here and making up rubbish? The police had no legal basis for bothering him. None. Understand this: the photographer broke no laws; it was not against the law for him to photograph anyone there because there is no right to privacy in a public place. Am I getting through to you? Why should he leave? Why should anyone unquestioningly obey the spurious orders of some jumped-up little fascist in a uniform?
@msharonuk Police have a right to tell him to get lost, and the photographer was asked before to stop taking photos while they were getting formed up. They had no problem with taking photos of the cadets but they told him to stop while they were forming up. The photographer had no right to continue taking photos.
@FernandoMontelbon he was told to stop taking photo's of them while they were forming up for the parade. Why would would he or she continue to take photo's. He could of taken them when the parade started, why he continued and why he was obstructing justice is beyond me.
@TheMaccyB Sorry you are wrong - there is no law against photographing or filming anyone of any age in a public place - and it is a totally cynical and specious argument that it might be a pedo doing it - the children are engaged in a perfectly normal activity in public, they are not being abused. A pedo that gets off looking at children in cadet uniform is actually doing no harm to anyone. For it to be an offence requires the child to be harmed or at risk in some way.
Glad they have at least deemed themselves culpable for their actions. It's your own judgment as to whether the compensation was suitable, but I assume as you accepted you're fairly happy.
There are fucktards in every profession. As much as situations like this get into the public eye, and rightly so, there are many occasions where the police genuinely do know the law and don't force their authority unnecessarily and do help people when they need it.
All that being said, these are clearly some of the former rather than the latter. All credit to you Jules for how you conducted yourself.
And yet despite this the 'disgusted of tunbridge wells' daily mail lot still think police attitude and behaviour had nothing to do with the london riots.
Was this person in breach of section 76 of the counter terrorism act? I'm really confused at what wouldn't constitute a violation of said legislation.
John Fisher is hazard to the Public, why did he not remove himself. He storms upto people and agitates against the Media, he clearly slept through law training, is hopeless as a Police Inspector, does not realise he has in law to quote laws. He has infact committed an act of terrorism "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" that surely makes him a terrorist.
John Fisher has rebelled against the Queen by not following the law, and falsely detaining when no threat of violence was likely after HE breached the Peace, thus rebelled against the crown. A rebel against the queen in that sort of proximity to soldiers of the crown is a potential risk as he may take his rebellion out on the millitary personal who are loyal to the Queen and not rebelling.
well done Jules, as many have said you handled that situation extremely well, I don't think there are that many officers who really do know the law regarding photography in a public place, Hearing the way the police were talking to you i get the feeling the majority really do think they are a law unto themselves and it sickens me. there is no right and wrong anymore, it's more us and them. you have my total support. good luck.
Update: 16 months or so later and the case is still ongoing. We're in the process of making a civil claim, with the help of Bindmans & the NUJ and should know the initial outcomes soon. This does mean that action against the individual officer is unlikely as the IPCC route and court route are somewhat incompatible for a number of reasons and we decided to go down the civil action route as we have no faith in the IPCC. The support from a whole number of people and more widely means a lot, thanks
@julesmattsson Jules you handled that situation brilliantly. You were spot on on the law. I'm so proud there are people like you and I'm really happy to hear Bindmans' are representing you. Looking forward to hearing the results
Photography and Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000
The offence concerns information about persons who are or have been at the front line of counter-terrorism operations, namely the police, the armed forces and members of the security and intelligence agencies.
For a police officer to arrest using this section, they must have STRONG grounds to suspect that the information so obtained will / could be used in a terrorist related manner. Clearly this was not the case in this instance.
F bnch of bastards, they are there to harrass ^people. They are specialist at twisting everything for stopping people and get money of them. Disguise tax collector. They dont know the law but they intimidate
Cops are they worst cancer in our society. It will take something very big to get ride of those criminals in uniform. I say criminals in uniform but iwhat i realy thinck is PIECES OF SHIT IN UNIFORM. Under what law, he as no idea
quite simply these cops were being idiots, and yet again tryign to get away with not knowing the law they act on and being out smarted by the public which further pisses the cops off even more
"you are in the way" "you are an agitator" "you are not allowed to push passed me" "I dont have to have any law to take your details" "you were running around acting stupid" " "taking photographs of police officers is a criminal offense"!?! Liar.Liar, Liar. Typical police making the law up and lying as they see fit. What horrible horrible human beings that cop is.
This is exactly what people were saying would happen with the damn terrorism acts, it would be abused. Welcome to a police state.
This is clearly a case of a Police State !!!
SuperSpartan3000 18 hours ago
You are legally allowed to film, photograph or record anything on any public property.
MCTheo3 2 days ago
consider her a threat under the terrorist act? they use that chestnut all the time for everything
C2daHokiie 6 days ago
Counter-terrorism act 2008...
NexFioVos 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it is illegal to take pictures where children appear in them without parental consent and it is also illegal to take photographs of police and armed forces without their permission whether on public property or not.MegaAdz13
Tell me MegaAdz, Is 13 your age or your IQ
It is hard to spot anything in your post that is correct.
I would suggest that you checkup on the UK law before you make an even bigger ass of yourself.
MrCyclist68 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In life there are many people like this. Too many trivial laws being dealt with trivially by persons unsuitable for the task. Criminalising the law abiding general public, creating a divide between lawmakers, enforcers and us... Let's stick to catching real criminals please...
carlhall65 1 week ago
Ok.... I'm a solicitor....It is not illegal to film anything or anyone, children or adults, in a public place. The police here have committed assault and wrongfully arrested a law abiding member of the public!
jamesthedude1977 1 week ago 2
it is illegal to take pictures where children appear in them without parental concent and it is also illegal to take photographs of police and armed forces without their permission whether on public property or not.
MegaAdz13 1 week ago
@MegaAdz13 you don't know what your talking about. everyone you've mentioned can be photographed without consent or permission.
MinistryofWeed 1 week ago
pity that lineup of coppers was not for a firing squad
TerryAshfields 2 weeks ago
Love the way the police went from reading the terrorist stuff , only to find that they couldn't use it in this case so they went for the usual offence of public order. Big difference between the 2. And you where quite right about photographing in a public space , there is NO law that makes it an offence. @ Breakit46 this is not a critisism on you answer but if everybody went around passifying them then they would get away with it more and more (Bang goes your rights).
SCORRRPION49 2 weeks ago
Very brave, and a very astute knowledge of the law displayed here. Well done.
joethebutcher747 2 weeks ago
I would have sued the fuckers. I hope all charges were dropped.
ClubEditing 3 weeks ago
You sound very young, I think you were very brave in standing your ground.
Please understand this one thing regards the police...
If you rub them up the wrong way you will eventually experience a Bad Cop hell bent on detaining you. Regardless of how innocent you are talking back at a police officer is certain to bring you grief.
I hate the status quo but it's a game that as always been played this way.
Don't antagonise and Don't be scared of complying if only to Pacify Them.
breakit46 3 weeks ago
there is no law preventing photography in a public place, wheather military, police or child.
donny1 4 weeks ago
Great video.. shows that some police need educating.. Not anti police..but certainly anti oppression.
Good job !!
leobluesy 4 weeks ago 2
More and more police officers are siding with the public. Those that dont ,tend to be special police officers who will not be loosing there job very soon as a result of government cuts as a much more hands on approach will be used .
rothwellss 1 month ago
go havering cadets! :)
tetrizkid 1 month ago
HEY ATTENTION SEEKER weather there is or is not a law against taking photos in a public place I think you bang out of order for not only trying to disrupt an armed forces parade but trying to be a smart arse with the police who were very polite and patient with you. The police dont want you taking there photos and putting them on youtube as some of them do covert work. The Terroism act was brought in for a good reason you little shit so do as your told. I would have chinned ya lad to be honest
WIGANDRUMMER2010 1 month ago
@WIGANDRUMMER2010 I think your an idiot, the lad had a good point.. the anti-terrorism act is massively abused. We need more education on police powers.. the police are there to SERVE us and Protect us from crime... Abuse of police power is a CRIME.
gammaguy117 1 month ago
@gammaguy117
Cool thanx for that I did wonder why I was loosing sleep!
WIGANDRUMMER2010 1 month ago
Comment removed
onelovincriminal 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WIGANDRUMMER2010 you muppet they are cadets not armed forces your comments are about as reliable as your grasp of english spelling. probably an illiterate mindless robot.
onelovincriminal 1 month ago
@WIGANDRUMMER2010 You really are an idiot. It doesn't matter what the police wants it is not against the law to take pictures any where in a public space, that officer can stick his check out and have a tantrum all he likes because that what is was, pathetic really and all because someone stood up to him. Those officers and the police got owned hence he got his compensation because there was no secret covert work in the area as you say their could of been. Well done to the cameraman.
SlayereddyTV 1 week ago
@SlayereddyTV
Wonderfull thank you so the police got owned then hey great stuff woopy blimmin doo. May I sugest you please own a life or at least go out and get one as this is well more than yesterdays news now for me and I couldnt really give a toss about it anymore. See ya m8 x
WIGANDRUMMER2010 1 week ago
Now they have admitted wrong doing can you sue them personally please?
Martin958 1 month ago
It is right the Commissioner has promptly apologised and paid a suitable level of damages.” Anyone know how much ?
samilliw1 1 month ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
well done......
police are made off ppl who cant find work.....basically jobless pricks join the police,,,,
I mean who really wanted to be a copper!!!!! when all options in life fail, times are hard you need money , ppl join the police.....well that what i think anyway
P14YCR 1 month ago
^This guy is my hero.
speakninja 1 month ago
When will the police learn? Well done for sticking to your guns.
royal618 1 month ago 2
Next time I'm bored I'll go and pick a pointless squabble with a policeman and post it on YT and wait for people to post comments telling me I'm a tit and then I'll feel chuffed because at least I'm being noticed.
barnbersonol 1 month ago
@barnbersonol It was the copper who picked the pointless squabble. Hence damages etc.
robinbanks999 1 month ago
@barnbersonol fuck you wanker
HeathenSaxon 1 month ago
@barnbersonol So you don't believe police abuse of power should be challenged?
mikelheron20 1 month ago
Good job man!
Philter12 1 month ago
good for you mate, police seem to be treating photographers as an easy way of fulfilling quotas.
Breesey 1 month ago
lol @ 4 min, police should take an IQ test before go out on the street. Congrats to the photographer on wining in court!
ScorpionEngenhus 1 month ago
Great feat!
Only thing I find lacking, is for the justice system to have charged the offending police officers with acts of terrorism.... what else can it be called when SERVANTS of the state (police) threaten and abuse the very people whom they are supposed to protect (the public). They should be held personally accountable. Charged, arrested and sentenced to jail for 20 years for abuse of power and terrorism against the public. No darn slap over the hand, but a kick to the groin!
TraustiHraunfjord 1 month ago
Just making a nuiscance of himself, People delibrately trying too cause problems for the police because they have nothing better too do. MUG
OfficialSweetWrapper 1 month ago
@OfficialSweetWrapper taking photos isn't making a 'nuiscance' of yourself. Seems more like the cops trying to cause problems for people because _they_ have nothing better to do.
mspubquiz83 1 month ago
ACAB
Glad the tossers have paid out.
spungletrumpet 1 month ago
and FYI, the payout would be around £10,000 - depending on how long he was detained for
joecooper18 1 month ago
@joecooper18 No
The rates are 400 for the first hour 300 for each subsequent hour, He may have arranged an amount different to the official rates, it would of course save a fortune in investigation and court costs if they just coughed up each time they released someone without charge on leaving.
Gopherliberty 1 month ago
@Gopherliberty i dont know how long he was detained for. it was a rough guess, just people are thinking it could of been £100,000+
joecooper18 1 month ago
@Gopherliberty i did over hear it was around £900-£1000 when i spend the day in romford police station.
joecooper18 1 month ago
Romford police are total c**ts - i called the police monday to report a sexual assualt (less than 100 yards from this parade) and i got a call back an hour later saying they were busy attending a stolen car call
joecooper18 1 month ago 8
Shaking with rage right now.
Nameless164 1 month ago
The police man was saying it is against the law to photograph children without the consent of their parents, is this true?
doritos180 1 month ago
@doritos180
Generally speaking, in a public place, no. If you're just taking photographs, and children happen to be in them, that's fine. That said, if you're intentionally photographing children continually, the police are likely to be able justify questioning you. There's a level of context to it, for example if you're taking pctures
DafyddCymraeg 1 month ago
@DafyddCymraeg Ah thank you
doritos180 1 month ago
That officer really is a stupid bastard. Congratulations on your legal victory!
xmtsystems 1 month ago
Good to hear that they admid their wrong doing. It gives us some hope that you know your rights and laws that govern them and stand up to them.
PsykoOps 1 month ago
good for you for sticking to your guns and not letting this officious git (who is a travesty of what a good police officer should be) bully you. well done!
richnfamous59 1 month ago
its pretty sad that those children's parents were more concerned about them being in a photo than the parade itself. i get a lot of suspicious looks and a few comments made when doing street photography, no matter who or what the subject is, but luckily i've never had any police interference. honestly i wouldnt have handled that situation half as well as you did, well done!
suicidepactyeh 1 month ago
The Police wearing clothes that could hide suicide vests, they are also wearing badges on there uniforms, this is against parliament (it says no badges on Police uniforms and has been the case since the 1830's. Given the Police are rebelling against parliament, then they are a threat to the Milliatary and should be removed for the armys protection.
Gopherliberty 1 month ago
Reasonable force is minium force neccessary,that could be an instruction.Touching someone is assault. In order to stop assualts then all assaults should be taken to court, support groups for the trauma of the attack should be in place,then if a court decides the Cnstables or subjects breach of the peace (which can be lawful) does not warrent a bind over they can be released with no bind over by the court.That way everytime a Policeman or subject (law dictates from 1361 Justice of the Peace Act).
Gopherliberty 1 month ago
Stupid police i wanna take photos of them just to point out their own inability to read the law
Milky1944 1 month ago
Now i'm able to comment on the case, few clarifications: Firstly, i'm aware there are 2 small gaps/jumps in the audio, making it appear edited. This is the full and unedited (except tweaking levels) audio I recorded. It was done on an iphone and those gaps are where I made calls, so it was captured in parts.
2nd, some people seem to think there was some mysterious video of this I posted then replaced w.this, that's just untrue. 3rd, there was no cordon. 4th, I had no 'script' or video camera!
julesmattsson 1 month ago 15
@julesmattsson You are a Champion, a Hero, a Paragon. You should be Knighted by her Majesty the Queen.
biorgymd 1 month ago
@julesmattsson Contact ipcc its the only way forwards, they might listern prob not though.
skiddy250 4 weeks ago
Confrontationify, Read up the uk law before you dig a bigger hole for yourself.
MrCyclist68 1 month ago
Well done, don't think I would've been able to remain as calm in that situation
Asiangeez 1 month ago
WHY SHOULD THEY APOLOGIZE THEY HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION SAME AS EVERYONE ELSE, ANYONE ONE HEARD OF PRIVACY BECAUSE THE PARADE HAD NOT STARTED THEY SHOULD NOT OF BEEN PHOTOGRAPHED. NATIONAL SECURITY STRICTLY STATES UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES ARE POLICE, MILITARY OR SECURITY PERSONNEL TO BE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHS OF. NEXT TIME BEFORE USING THE LAW LOOK IT UP AND HE DOES NOT HAVE TO KNOW THE LAW OR RECITE IT YO YOU AS IN THE COURT OF LAW IGNORANCE OF THE ACCUSED IS NO OFFENCE.
Confrontationify 1 month ago
@Confrontationify THERE'S NO EXEMPTION OF EDITORIALS IF THE CONSENT FORM IS NOT SIGNED THAT IS PROFESSIONALISM. THEY COULD OF ARRESTED HER OF BREACHING OF PEACE OR TERRORISM.
Confrontationify 1 month ago
@Confrontationify So terrorists always get a consent form before blowing up a building? I didn't know that.
Please bestow some more of your divine wisdom on us, oh great one.
surfdigby 1 month ago
@Confrontationify "THEY COULD OF ARRESTED HER OF BREACHING OF PEACE OR TERRORISM."
TERRORISM. Fuck me you are one of those pathetic little twats. People like you are what terror warnings are for. Keep you quivering in your piss filled boots.
FernandoMontelbon 1 month ago 2
@Confrontationify You couldn't be more wrong. We have the right to film all police on normal, daylight operations. See the update at the top of the page.
vubear 1 month ago 2
@vubear Under section 44 of the the anti-terrorism act and child protection act if they think you pose a danger they can tell you to leave or stop taking photos. he clearly stated that you where in the way of the parade as he was concerned for the children's safety. and breach of the peace you where in the way of the military and he has a right to privacy as an officer of the law it's a criminal act to take his photo and post it all over the internet, And reasonable force comes to mind.
Confrontationify 1 month ago
An officer has no expectation or right to privacy when in public. That's why it's called "public". Taking a photograph of frontline officers is not a criminal act at all in the UK.
surfdigby 1 month ago
@Confrontationify Reasonable, articulable suspicion. If the police can't provide proof of that in court then it's an illegal stop. Breach of the peace has to cause harm, distress or offense. Quietly taking photos in public does not fit this example. That's why the police had to apologise & pay damages in this case & that's why all your comments on this page are just plain wrong. Your personal agenda here is plain for all to see.
vubear 1 month ago
@vubear The problem is that you have to take a stop and search to court, this takes time and money. The idea of innocent until proven guilty should be that all stop and searches are taken to court and it should be for the Police to prove the stop and search was legal, not the other way around.
Gopherliberty 1 month ago
@Gopherliberty I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here but I will say this; as "consumers" of the law it's up to us to know the law. If we don't then it's easy for the police to carry on their corrupt little ways. Secondly, there are more & more legal firms who are specializing in this sort of case on a no win no fee basis. Rule 1 should always be to film your stop.
vubear 1 month ago
@Confrontationify " he has a right to privacy"
Not in a public place. where there is no expectation of privacy. The Law is against you on that one sonny. "as an officer of the law it's a criminal act to take his photo"
Bullshit. He is in a public place and I think you'll find that cameras have a tendency to improve an officers behaviour.
FernandoMontelbon 1 month ago
@Confrontationify Capital letters don't make anything you write any more legitimate, you dribbling buffoon.
This photographer knew the law, which is why the police are now paying him damages. It's not even open to speculation.
surfdigby 1 month ago
Comment removed
T4cticalTo4ster 1 month ago
How's this for contrast: Case 1 - I overtook a vehicle doing about 15mph on double white lines - perfectly safely, no oncoming traffic 100s of metres of visibility. I was threatened with arrest, actually read my rights, then issued the standard 3 points and a fine. Case 2 - I intervened in an assault with a deaadly weapon. The officers who arrived shortly afterwards would not arrest the assailant until he had "calmed down", during which time he hospitalized another passer by. Useless plods.
labrat1807 1 month ago
Bloody plods. I'm sick of them. Every decent policeman I have ever met (3 and counting) has been let down by the infrastructure that is supposed to support them and the victims of crime. Every other policeman I have met (5 and counting) has been either lazy, ignorant, arrogant, cowardly, ineffective, callous, bullish, over officious, or a combination of the above.
labrat1807 1 month ago
Love how the pigs got pwned on this and in the daily mail.
paul1967uk 1 month ago
Just seen this in the Daily Mail. awesome video kid. You don;t have to give your details to any pig at all. Carry on using your camera and never give up on filming CORRUPT BENT PIGS
paul1967uk 1 month ago 3
Pray that there are many more youngsters like you to stand up against the bully state. A brave act of righteous defiance. Well done!
georgespeller 1 month ago 2
For anyone to stand up to these bullies like that was very brave, for someone of this age, it was absolutely exceptional. In the past, they've got away with it by denying everything. No surprise they used either "Breach of the Peace" or S5 Public Order Act. Congratulations for standing up for freedom. People should always record any involvement with the police if possible.
Moonferret1 1 month ago 2
You ROCK !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. You also have extremely big balls to have done that. Complete respect and congrats on the outcome.
dirkbogarde44 1 month ago
Congratulations for your victory against Met. Police ...
They may think twice before doing something like that again...
There were no police force during Rioters attacking shops near Romford but when it comes to useless stuff they are everywhere!!!
Anyways take care yourself...
manyaksi 1 month ago 3
Epic win, Jules!
quentinkrisp 1 month ago 2
Have just read about this in the mail. Good for you Jules. For a 15 year old you are very articulate and know the law better than the police and you stuck to your guns. I am sick and tired of reading how the police abuse their powers (which they in fact do not have) to try to stop people taking photographs. This has happened on a number of occasions here in the UK. This is a gross abuse of police power. Surely they have better things to do..
paulstyper 1 month ago 28
Congratulations Jules - you know your law well - I hope you do very well in the future, possibly a legal career?! Nice to see someone take on the police and win, so rare nowadays but so needed with our rotten, corrupt police.
ladyofhovepark 1 month ago
05:56 "It's a public order offense to swear in this area..." lol they really WERE scraping the barrel... Well done for standing up to them and keeping your cool, I hope I'd have that much self control if it ever came to it although I doubt it somehow. Buy yourself some fancy equipment with your settlement and enjoy your victory, a victory for British freedoms and common sense over these misinformed idiots who act on the word of a passerby without even knowing the laws they're supposed to uphold.
passengerplanetearth 1 month ago 2
Where's the original video that was posted because the whole conversation was filmed.
bom8er1 1 month ago
Where's the original video
bom8er1 1 month ago
@bom8er1 .....ummm he's a photographer, not a cameraman.
jimmiow 1 month ago
@jimmiow What are you fucking retarded or something;,since when has being a photographer stopped anyone from using there cellphone or video,Before you try and be clever make sure you know your facts,a video of this was upped i know i watched it not so long ago along with other police vids but it's been replaced with this slideshow crap so once again i ask where 's the original and if you dont know then then fuck off and keep your dumbass comments to yourself.
bom8er1 1 month ago
@bom8er1 If you saw it what did he do wrong? I would love to know.
jimmiow 1 month ago
@bom8er1 no there wasn't. There is no other recording of the incident. This is exactly the same as when I first uploaded it. I had no video camera, I just recorded audio on my phone and in this case quickly overlaid it over some of the pictures. Can you prove this ridiculous suggestion? Without proof, which there won't be because it's bs, it's just your delusion...
julesmattsson 1 month ago
Because thats a mature thing to say, where would the country be without the police? oh thats right even further down the shitter than it already is :S
Ben91ftw 1 month ago
fuck the police
Killerbabyseal 1 month ago
The kid annoys me to hell. Gobby, arrogant 15 year old - deserves what he got.
stueydessler 1 month ago
@stueydessler Well, today he got what he deserved. Compensation and an apology issued.
WillSaintLeger 1 month ago 3
"Congratulations!"
It takes courage to stand up to the police, and self-evidently, you were at all times polite, and at no time any form of threat.
Police have lost the effortless moral ascendency they once had, when a mere touch on the shoulder was enough to effect an arrest ( now thrown to the ground, with nerve-damaging handcuffs ), and run around like headless chickens, screaming.
If you would like to photograph people involved in exposing police corruption, easy to arrange. Zen
zen4men 1 month ago 2
@zen4men
"a mere touch on the shoulder was enough to effect an arrest" this has never been true. your sense of reality is warped.
"nerve-damaging handcuffs" yet again a stupid statement. i'd like to see you try to subdue a struggling criminal without the aid of handcuffs or allot of teamwork.
i hate people who target the entire police structure because of a few dick heads. it's a tough job involving allot of stress and hatred from the people you try to protect. go fuck yourself 'zen'.
pontiusbunny 1 month ago
@pontiusbunny Before I reply to your reply - which ends with discourtesy - are you replying as a member of The Publis, or as a serving police officer ( or someone close to police )?
I might add, that I come from a family involved with government at various levels for the last 1200 years, and I value good government and good policing.
We have neither.
As negative as you so far have been, I take it you might agree that both existing government and police are capable of improvement?
zen4men 1 month ago
@pontiusbunny Well you would think that with all the dickheads they have to deal with they would be less inclined to worry about something so punitive and irrelevant. Anti-terrorism was a stupid excuse.
jimmiow 1 month ago
@jimmiow They are wearing badges, on their uniforms, this is rebellion against the Crown as Parliament has not changed its mind on badges since the 1830's.
They are dirty traitors to the Queen and the Army should get them to protect the crown from the Police,
Gopherliberty 1 month ago
Well done on your eventual Victory. First time i've heard or seen this but you owned the pigs so many times in the space of 8 minutes hahaha!!
searchin4myrizla 1 month ago
This is very worrying that a POLICE INSPECTOR does not know the law on photographing in public.
MrMuhamar 1 month ago
I've been told to stop taking photos on land which a jobsworth has claimed to be 'private property' despite it clearly being the public highway (I was standing by the side of the road). Well done sir regarding this case, I would've done exactly the same thing as you. Every day I trust the UK police less and less.
robk23oxf 1 month ago 2
In the Romford Recorder Today, He has now won compensation due to this video ;) Well done Jules
Hornchurchlad 1 month ago
We survived thousands of years without the police 'protecting' us. This 19th century invention has run to its logical conclusion where we see an increasingly fascist paramilitary force - armed with tazers, machine guns, pepper spray, combat grade batons etc - more interested in harassing the public than anything else.
They can even summarily execute you if they suspect that you are a suspected suspect.
0muffins0 1 month ago
@Premium101 Would you care to apologise now , as you have been shown to be clearly an idiot in front of over 130,000 people?
Pitcairn2 1 month ago
the police are out of control, they dont do anything when citys are burning during riots and then they do this, get rid of the lot of them and start again !
postmanmark25 1 month ago 3
I hate the filth so much
biochem69 1 month ago 2
Essex that word gives me the shudders
thisisyourwakeup 1 month ago
Thanks very much to a lot of people for their support around this incident. We've settled with the met, and they've apologised & admitted wrongdoing as well as paying damages and my legal costs. I've put some links in the description.
julesmattsson 1 month ago 15
@julesmattsson You are great, Do you know why they stopped you, we're they like doing something corrup so they were forced to make you stop? I read your article on Daily Mail, and am surprised and proud of you that you hold to your rights so strongly, respect!!
JohnnyX1239 1 month ago
@julesmattsson
Could you tell us how much compensation you received? Also, did any of it come out of the salaries of those particular police officers, or was it all from taxpayers?
MarkReadPickens 1 month ago
@MarkReadPickens Probably not much, the point of compensation and fines is to deter the offender (in this case the POLICE) from repeating it, in America fines of $60,000 are not uncommon for far less than this to punish the offender.In the UK it is often capped in the 100's.How is that going to be a financial warning to the Police.
Gopherliberty 1 month ago
@Gopherliberty
It does benefit society if offenders are deterred, but that's not "the point of compensation." The purpose is to make the victim "whole," in other words, to make the situation equivalent to what it would have been if the tort had not happened.
Fines don't actually "punish" anyone but taxpayers, few of whom had anything to do with the bad behavior. Payments should come from salaries of offenders, not the rest of us.
MarkReadPickens 1 month ago
@MarkReadPickens we've decided not to disclose the amount of damages, and it has come from the met police (directorate of professional standards). There's no legal route to claim damages from the officers.
julesmattsson 1 month ago 3
Why did you not stop when police asked you to stop. Who do you work for that makes this "you job". And why are you obstructing justice. Also why did you walk away. We can only see this one sided (your side) because you did not include a video, i know we would side with the officer if you did. Plus it's children how do they know if your not a child pedo, hey need answers.
Freepepsi42 1 month ago
@Freepepsi42 You are a half-wit.
robinbanks999 1 month ago
@robinbanks999
I second that.
Phil
pro Photographer
Pitcairn2 1 month ago
@robinbanks999 piss off cunt nugget.
Freepepsi42 1 month ago
@Freepepsi42 Aren't you a clever boy? Did you type that all by yourself? You're spouting rubbish about UK law, which makes you ignorant, and you apparently believe in obeying anyone in a uniform, which makes you pathetically servile. Despite the fact that the police have admitted wrongdoing and paid compensation you're still trying to claim the photographer was in the wrong, which makes you stupid. Go back to making shit CoD videos you ignorant, servile, stupid little boy.
robinbanks999 1 month ago
@robinbanks999 they had a right to ask for his information. And they could tell him to leave. But when he didn't it went downhill for both sides. I never said the police were not doing anything wrong. My question is why didn't he leave when he was asked too. He the women could of avoided all of this if he did. He deserved what he got, because he did not use common sense. He could of taken pictures when they started marching. And avoid trouble.
Freepepsi42 1 month ago
@Freepepsi42 Why do you keep coming back here and making up rubbish? The police had no legal basis for bothering him. None. Understand this: the photographer broke no laws; it was not against the law for him to photograph anyone there because there is no right to privacy in a public place. Am I getting through to you? Why should he leave? Why should anyone unquestioningly obey the spurious orders of some jumped-up little fascist in a uniform?
robinbanks999 1 month ago
@Freepepsi42 Because the police had no right to - its not hard to understand.
msharonuk 1 month ago
@msharonuk Police have a right to tell him to get lost, and the photographer was asked before to stop taking photos while they were getting formed up. They had no problem with taking photos of the cadets but they told him to stop while they were forming up. The photographer had no right to continue taking photos.
Freepepsi42 1 month ago
@Freepepsi42 "The photographer had no right to continue taking photos."
In a public place? Bollocks. he can take photo's till his camera dies if he wants.
FernandoMontelbon 1 month ago
@FernandoMontelbon he was told to stop taking photo's of them while they were forming up for the parade. Why would would he or she continue to take photo's. He could of taken them when the parade started, why he continued and why he was obstructing justice is beyond me.
Freepepsi42 1 month ago
@Freepepsi42 How was he obstructing justice? You are a moron.
GodIsAWasteMan 1 month ago
ok, this guy is in the wrong a lot of thse children are under 18 so no you cant take film or photos of under 18 year olds without parents permisson
TheMaccyB 1 month ago
@TheMaccyB Yes you can.
robinbanks999 1 month ago
@TheMaccyB Sorry you are wrong - there is no law against photographing or filming anyone of any age in a public place - and it is a totally cynical and specious argument that it might be a pedo doing it - the children are engaged in a perfectly normal activity in public, they are not being abused. A pedo that gets off looking at children in cadet uniform is actually doing no harm to anyone. For it to be an offence requires the child to be harmed or at risk in some way.
msharonuk 1 month ago 3
@TheMaccyB Did you get you knowledge of Photographers rights from a Cornflake packet?
Phil Pro Photog.
Pitcairn2 1 month ago
ACAB - Good on you lad.
notdoc 1 month ago
bindmans. com/index. php?id=1107
Glad they have at least deemed themselves culpable for their actions. It's your own judgment as to whether the compensation was suitable, but I assume as you accepted you're fairly happy.
jarkle 1 month ago
There are fucktards in every profession. As much as situations like this get into the public eye, and rightly so, there are many occasions where the police genuinely do know the law and don't force their authority unnecessarily and do help people when they need it.
All that being said, these are clearly some of the former rather than the latter. All credit to you Jules for how you conducted yourself.
jarkle 1 month ago
Well done - Plod bought to account
shitoffourstreets 1 month ago
lol at the police
RichieBees 1 month ago
And yet despite this the 'disgusted of tunbridge wells' daily mail lot still think police attitude and behaviour had nothing to do with the london riots.
midnightmilo 1 month ago
check my video out!
halogenLitd 1 month ago
Was this person in breach of section 76 of the counter terrorism act? I'm really confused at what wouldn't constitute a violation of said legislation.
captainfantastardo 1 month ago
a great example of cops not knowing the laws they're trying to enforce.. which is gross negligence.. or in common law .. FRAUD
you cant take pics of kids in public .. oh yeh under what law
err i ment you cant take pics of cops... oh yeh.. under what law
i ment you cant take pic of the army, because of terrorism ... under what law
shit.. i ment your causing a breach of the peace ... am i?
you cant take photos of me the inspector.... yes i can you have no right to tell me that
arrested!
GuyKnifeAndFawkes 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The police in this video are disgusting and they can't expect to not be held accountable for what they do
RobBrooksMusic 2 months ago
John Fisher is hazard to the Public, why did he not remove himself. He storms upto people and agitates against the Media, he clearly slept through law training, is hopeless as a Police Inspector, does not realise he has in law to quote laws. He has infact committed an act of terrorism "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes" that surely makes him a terrorist.
Gopherliberty 2 months ago
Why did he not check with control for the laws he was using, thats why he has a radio.
Gopherliberty 2 months ago
John Fisher has rebelled against the Queen by not following the law, and falsely detaining when no threat of violence was likely after HE breached the Peace, thus rebelled against the crown. A rebel against the queen in that sort of proximity to soldiers of the crown is a potential risk as he may take his rebellion out on the millitary personal who are loyal to the Queen and not rebelling.
Gopherliberty 2 months ago
i used to respect the police, I think there Fucktards now
geofferzh79 2 months ago
'You can't photograph children in a public place without parental consent' what a load of bollocks! Their making it up as they go along!
RuudVanDrijver 2 months ago 3
well done Jules, as many have said you handled that situation extremely well, I don't think there are that many officers who really do know the law regarding photography in a public place, Hearing the way the police were talking to you i get the feeling the majority really do think they are a law unto themselves and it sickens me. there is no right and wrong anymore, it's more us and them. you have my total support. good luck.
awiserbud 2 months ago
WOW!!!!!
LukeAndJema 2 months ago
Update: 16 months or so later and the case is still ongoing. We're in the process of making a civil claim, with the help of Bindmans & the NUJ and should know the initial outcomes soon. This does mean that action against the individual officer is unlikely as the IPCC route and court route are somewhat incompatible for a number of reasons and we decided to go down the civil action route as we have no faith in the IPCC. The support from a whole number of people and more widely means a lot, thanks
julesmattsson 2 months ago 18
@julesmattsson Jules you handled that situation brilliantly. You were spot on on the law. I'm so proud there are people like you and I'm really happy to hear Bindmans' are representing you. Looking forward to hearing the results
MegaLotusEater 2 months ago 4
Photography and Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000
The offence concerns information about persons who are or have been at the front line of counter-terrorism operations, namely the police, the armed forces and members of the security and intelligence agencies.
For a police officer to arrest using this section, they must have STRONG grounds to suspect that the information so obtained will / could be used in a terrorist related manner. Clearly this was not the case in this instance.
StephenWilliams 2 months ago 11
lol, she is right, they do not have the right to take your details in a stop and search or a stop and account.
elviraKEB 3 months ago 3
That cop was giving his own oppinions,,,, its about time cops went through a law exam , 3 years at least to see if they are capable of being coppers
TheBoHoBoy 3 months ago 5
Officer KISS as in KISS my ...
F bnch of bastards, they are there to harrass ^people. They are specialist at twisting everything for stopping people and get money of them. Disguise tax collector. They dont know the law but they intimidate
Cops are they worst cancer in our society. It will take something very big to get ride of those criminals in uniform. I say criminals in uniform but iwhat i realy thinck is PIECES OF SHIT IN UNIFORM. Under what law, he as no idea
ml1157 3 months ago 3
"Yuuur riiight?"
Some of these cops just scream low IQ levels.
The505Guys 3 months ago 3
I did hear that the student received compensation for damages, and the police officer had his warrant suspended indefinitely
bowerrulesU 3 months ago 2
Between surrendering to Islam and letting the police run roughshod over everyone, England has become a complete disgrace.
BunkerGearGal 3 months ago
police tosser? 4.30. good lord what's wrong with this country. The military? They are cadets!!
CLAPPY2120 3 months ago 2
quite simply these cops were being idiots, and yet again tryign to get away with not knowing the law they act on and being out smarted by the public which further pisses the cops off even more
Mathewmartialart 3 months ago
"you are in the way" "you are an agitator" "you are not allowed to push passed me" "I dont have to have any law to take your details" "you were running around acting stupid" " "taking photographs of police officers is a criminal offense"!?! Liar.Liar, Liar. Typical police making the law up and lying as they see fit. What horrible horrible human beings that cop is.
This is exactly what people were saying would happen with the damn terrorism acts, it would be abused. Welcome to a police state.
criticalmushroom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is Police Brutality.
jossgower 3 months ago
Just the usual case of the police not knowing the laws that they are supposed to be protecting us with. Wankers.
ACCSESS247 3 months ago
@Premium101 seems the 15 year old knows more than the dickless wonder attempting to discredit him
whackitov 3 months ago
@Premium101 i took my opinion from blacks law dictionary and magna carta, you plucked your opinion from your ass like a dingleberry
whackitov 3 months ago
@Premium101 i suppose you are entitled to your own opinion, worthless as it is.
whackitov 3 months ago
what the cop should have done is belt the little twat behind the ear and smash his fucking camera then say now take photographs you little prick
abarker55 3 months ago
@abarker55 Why because the police was in the wrong??
thorpy007 3 months ago
Should sue.
joeypesci 3 months ago
Funny that the cock couldn't explain the law he kept attempting to quote. Coppers are cunts.
joeypesci 3 months ago
A copper who don't know the law. A person can refuse to give details.
joeypesci 3 months ago
Typical case of police abusing power...
UK7BRITISH 3 months ago