IPCC tries to muzzle bad news.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

... and Labour are bringing in a law that will make it illegal to photograph policemen. That says it all about Labour !!

What law's that?

Mrs Thatcher keenly presided over the cops kicking the miners in whilst having conveniently removed their pc numbers so the Tories have no great moral high ground. Nor did that great defender of Civil Liberties the Tory Party have any objection to their leader (Michael Howard)'s ID card policy until Tony Tosser and his cronies stole it. Only a cretinous Tory automaton could argue that one party is a defender of rights and one a destroyer ......oh hang on.....

[Doggy Styles]

When you investigate something that is likely to lead to criminal charges you don't want evidence to be published willy nilly until proper time - in court. (1)

Video evidence is the worst - it would make jury selection harder, you don't want such things to be published as it would give defence lawyers extra ammunition. (2)

Isn't that obvious?

No it's not.

(1) The video is the only evidence against the police. In order to pursue a case it must be presented as evidence to... the police. The only thng that stopped the police suppressing it (which they tried to do) was that it was already in the public domain.

(2) The accused have the right to see evidence against them before preparing their defence. It is basic right in this country.

[AtW]

No it's not.

(1) The video is the only evidence against the police. In order to pursue a case it must be presented as evidence to... the police. The only thng that stopped the police suppressing it (which they tried to do) was that it was already in the public domain.

(2) The accused have the right to see evidence against them before preparing their defence. It is basic right in this country.

Yes the accused will get to see video before trial, however making public evidence in criminal case thats shows alleged killer will make selection of jury harder - any mistake in this and defence lawyers will argue successfully that the client did not get fair trial because he was already judged by the public via those videos.

In criminal cases the only 2 reasons videos should be released:
1) by the police if it is deemed to help catch alleged criminals
2) by newspapers IF it is clearly in public interest to do so

Since in this case investigation was already underway and this video evidence I do not see any reason (apart from increasing sales of newspaper) to publish these videos which will make prosecution harder.

In any case the issue I take with expat is that he picks on a a handful of cases and derives conclusion that UK police is somehow bad, corrupt, bent - he is totally wrong about it.

[Doggy Styles]

What law's that?

Mrs Thatcher keenly presided over the cops kicking the miners in whilst having conveniently removed their pc numbers so the Tories have no great moral high ground. Nor did that great defender of Civil Liberties the Tory Party have any objection to their leader (Michael Howard)'s ID card policy until Tony Tosser and his cronies stole it. Only a cretinous Tory automaton could argue that one party is a defender of rights and one a destroyer ......oh hang on.....

I see you are as ignorant as ever. This law:

From today, it is illegal to photograph the police, despite the fact that they use increasingly aggressive techniques to record us

Now sod off and look things up yourself, especially about your precious labour party. The rest of your post is a puerile irrelevance to the debate.

[AtW]

I see you are as ignorant as ever. This law:

From today, it is illegal to photograph the police, despite the fact that they use increasingly aggressive techniques to record us

Now sod off and look things up yourself, especially about your precious labour party. The rest of your post is a puerile irrelevance to the debate.

I am not ignorant, I disagree with this law and I think it will be unenforceable or repealed soon, it has nothing to do with current debate anyway.

I don't like labour party either - what the **** this has got to do with police? I don't think labour party likes police (or the army) and vice versa.

--

The ****ing irony is in that expat (from what I have seen) supports Labour Party, not me

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I see you are as ignorant as ever. This law:

From today, it is illegal to photograph the police, despite the fact that they use increasingly aggressive techniques to record us

Now sod off and look things up yourself, especially about your precious labour party. The rest of your post is a puerile irrelevance to the debate.

Thank you so much for the benefit of your giant intellect, and in particular your vital and incisive ruling on the relevance of my contribution. I will indeed try to be more careful to meet your rigourous standards in future, your highness.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I am not ignorant, I disagree with this law and I think it will be unenforceable or repealed soon, it has nothing to do with current debate anyway.

I don't like labour party either - what the **** this has got to do with police? I don't think labour party likes police (or the army) and vice versa.

--

The ****ing irony is in that expat (from what I have seen) supports Labour Party, not me

Doggy was having a go at me, not you, I think.

[AtW]

Doggy was having a go at me, not you, I think.

Oh sorry my bad - I was wrong

My excuse - I was just back from pub... it's that Guiness thing

[expat]

The ****ing irony is in that expat (from what I have seen) supports Labour Party, not me

Is that what you think you have seen? Should have gone to Specsavers

[AtW]

Is that what you think you have seen? Should have gone to Specsavers

If you say you don't support Labour then fine, I'll take your word for it.

It does not change my basic premise however that you are an idiot on the grounds of you having no clue how policing is done in countries where police (and the state) does abuse its powers in a very real way.