Yeah id gotten loads of stuff on the acts themselves, i meant on the part about getting thrown out by EU court.
Im not a debater, but ill try and give you some sport
, though i may fail
I appreciate everyones point of view, these are just my opinons and my own points of view, hope they make sense.
I must ask though, as the police often say "If you are doing nothing wrong" why does anyone object to being filmed.
I understand what your saying and i agreeto an extent, i guess its the same authority issue as you mention where we dont have a choice if we are filmed or not by police as its deemed as necessary for police to carry out certain duties, evidence gathering etc whereas we dont have that same need when reversed except in circumstances such as genuine police brutality. I dislike being filmed as i am self conscious and i simply dont like it.
The entire Government has this mentality and this country is overloaded with CCTV cameras.
Yes it was something like 15 to every 1 person living in the uk, however to put it into a bit more context, these include those in shops that cover the cashier, those outside school buildings, nightclubs, pubs, holiday parks, not all government controlled and very vast majority are private and nothing to do with the government. The impact that authority(by that i mean police, council etc) controlled cctv have had on crime and disorder is impressive and i can vouch (for what its worth) that they are not used for any invasive or intrusive purposes but for detecting, reporting and monitoring crime and incidents (as well as evidence gathering for those incidents as would be expected). Nothing untoward is done with the information nor the way it is gathered, it is highly regulated and monitored. A great asset. they are a victim of their own success at the moment.
We all have the same rights no arguement there, it's just that it's getting to the stage where it would appear certain people in Gov have a lot more rights than me,
I do understand what your saying. With regards to the police and powers that are given to them, they are meant to be there to protect us and i believe they can only do that if they are given powers to do so and also the powers to look after themselves as well.
and if I'm honest I DO think the police are carrying an absolute arsenal of weaponry about their person these days,
Sadly alot of the people who they come across during their duties, although bound by laws same as you and i, often do not abide by them.
Speaking as someone who has nightly stood on a club/pub door and had to deal with people at their worst (drunk and/or drugged up, emotionally and often mentally unstable) i would happily have had PPE such as cuffs, spray and baton, it really would have made dealing with some of these people so much safer and easier both for me and for them.
The kit the police have is mostly a detterant and not meant for people like you and i and will never be used on us but for those that break the law and kick off with police/other members of public and intend to damage/cause harm or escape arrest it is a necessity.
It is not easy attempting to restrain someone who does not want to be restrained. A lone officer facing a 6'4 steroid freak who has beaten his missus, will need that equipment, a drastic example i agree however incidents such as this happen more than people realise.
Often officers are faced with being outnumbered (especially in the devon and cornwall area, more so than the met obviously but still will happen) or outmatched in size/strength/ability (No matter who you are there is always someone that is your match or better) and whilst i think that there should be stricter recuiting methods and better defense training, if this was to happen what would the public think then? they would probably say that this is a civilian police force why are they being trained like soldiers? they cant win but have to do something, is it not better that they have equipment and not use it?
I know i feel safer knowing that if i got jumped and a lone officer turned up that he/she would be able to help me get my attacker off me by spraying them if needed and threatening to use their baton and intimidating him to back off rather than 'excuse me sir do you mind awfully ceasing to grate that males cheek on the pavement, thank you'.
As for armed officers(guns and tasers), they have their place and are for the most part a deterrant. When they are used, it is necessary. Whilst they obviously do the same job as an unarmed officer, ie they see underage teens drinking in the street i believe they have to act on it, they are mainly used for high visilbilty deterrants and high risk situations. If you didnt have them, youd certainly be needing them more. Ive seen tasers used a few times and every time it was necessary. Once was a male wielding a knife who was not respoding to police requests to drop it and after a standoff and threats from the male the officer was authorised to use the taser. If that taser wasnt there, that couldve gotten very messy or indeed armed response officers been called with their MP5s?
On the whole, with very few exceptions if your fair, the response by police are proportionate, they are accountable not only to us (public) but to each other and to various disciplinary authorities.
They may be public servants but they are not in the same way you may percieve a waiter/maid as a servant. They are tasked to keep and ensure order and passively and proactively enforce laws and rules. For the most part they dont interfere with anyone/anything.
Police make mistakes, they are human and not perfect.
and are quite fond of removing identification numbers and names during protests and some house raids. Now call me old fashioned but that is a bit "Suss" to me. If there is good reason to do this I can't see it, sorry.
Cant comment, could be as simple as they dont want to be identified but i dont know. I agree that on accasion it is suss, especially when it happens that their actions are made public to be inappropriate. However, this again isnt all that common, it happens i agree.
And I would like to know your opinion on why the new community police helpers don't have to swear on oath.
Im going assume you mean PCSOs and im going to say that ,with all due respect to them, they are a
waste of space and i believe a very poor attempt to replace police officers on the beat for a saving of a few thousand a year on each salary.
I dont think they swear an oath as they are not upholding laws, that is the main reason officers are made to swear an oath. They are eyes and ears and reporting bodies dressed to look similair enough like an officer without actually being one. They are given the same stab vest obviously for protection, same radio for same reason as well as direct cntact for reporting, but lack any other PPE. I believe that the tickets etc they are allowed to give out are not backed by legislation (though i dont know for sure).
In this i wish that special constables were paid a small wage and have more of them, they do a cracking job.
Surely anyone dealing with the public on this sort of level should be beholding in some way regarding responsibility and duty, should there be a complaint about their behaviour
Indeed the police are directly responsible for the and their behaviour, they are also recruited and vetted in a similair fashion.
