Copper charged

[cross owl]

59 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

You don't have that right you never have.

 

 

  And that's the problem . In a decent country you have the right to be allowed to go about your lawful business without others having the right to film you and put it onto wherever they like and potentially use it against you . There are things that law abiding people do every day that they wouldn't want plastering all over media . 

[Road Runner]

Has he been Charged with section 18 or 20? 

[lanzaroteowl]

Just now, Road Runner said:

Has he been Charged with section 18 or 20? 

 

Unlawful and malicious wounding.

[soldierboyblue]

15 minutes ago, lanzaroteowl said:

 

Unlawful and malicious wounding.

If he gets convicted he's looking at a 2 stretch minimum

[S36 OWL]

7 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

If he gets convicted he's looking at a 2 stretch minimum

 

So he should because any of us would if we did what he did. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 hour ago, cross owl said:

 

 

  And that's the problem . In a decent country you have the right to be allowed to go about your lawful business without others having the right to film you and put it onto wherever they like and potentially use it against you . There are things that law abiding people do every day that they wouldn't want plastering all over media . 

 

They can only use it against you if you have broken the law . 

 

Are you seriously suggesting you would like to stop the freedoms of people taken photos?

 

There is no country where you have the right not to be photoed.

 

The media have the right to do whatever they wish with photos.

 

If you want privacy close the door and shut the curtains.

 

 

 

[Guest The Claw]

4 hours ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Exactly, would he have been charged if there was no film of his actions?

no

[Utah Owl]

9 hours ago, marconi said:

The Faraday sh*tstorm.

 

9 hours ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

That's a bit negative.

 

9 hours ago, Joe Sunburn said:

So much potential. But ultimately charged. 

Loving this current trend!

[sage owl]

6 hours ago, soldierboyblue said:

If he gets convicted he's looking at a 2 stretch minimum

Yeah but that can always be suspended for 2 years. 

[OWLISH]

8 hours ago, Road Runner said:

Has he been Charged with section 18 or 20? 

 

My understanding is he was charged with a baton

[Morepork]

Just rewatched the clip. Poor training and ultimately poor recruitment. 
 

He deserves the punishment but not to have the rest of his life ruined.

 

In the UK and here in NZ we are fortunate to have a majority of police that can do the job without having to resort to such measures. I look at policing in the US and quite frankly I’d be terrified to let my kids leave the house and if they weren’t white they’d be staying in full stop.

[MrsHall]

This is good reading....I hope they hit him hard. UTO.

[Andrew6666]

Thugs in uniform - finally been seen for what they are.

 

If these cretins wanted to stop real criminals, maybe they should look in their own canteen.

[soldierboyblue]

6 hours ago, sage owl said:

Yeah but that can always be suspended for 2 years. 

It won’t get suspended if convicted of malicious wounding not a chance. It’s a bit like violent disorder if you get convicted you’re going to do some time 

[dumboldowl]

Has he been on sick leave since the incident?

[cross owl]

12 hours ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

They can only use it against you if you have broken the law . 

 

Are you seriously suggesting you would like to stop the freedoms of people taken photos?

 

There is no country where you have the right not to be photoed.

 

The media have the right to do whatever they wish with photos.

 

If you want privacy close the door and shut the curtains.

 

 

 

 

 

  Anyone can use what they have videoed against you , there are things perfectly legal that you may not want to have put out there . 

 

  Why is it a right to film people you don't know but you have no right to just go about your life . 

 

  The media don't have any such right and many have been prosecuted for doing whatever they wish . 

 

[slinger208b]

17 hours ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

That's a bit negative.

Too many neutrons...

[S36 OWL]

16 hours ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Exactly, would he have been charged if there was no film of his actions?

 

Not a chance. The plod would have closed ranks and swept it under the carpet. 

[prowl]

Copper charged

 

New iFollow price announced.

 

Seems fair to me.

[Manwë]

14 hours ago, cross owl said:

In a decent country you have the right to be allowed to go about your lawful business without others having the right to film you and put it onto wherever they like and potentially use it against you

 

I had to have a google about this claim;

 

France : I"t's fine to photograph people in the street as long as it doesn't harm them (as in ridiculing them, giving away trade secrets, etc.)"

Germany: "You can take photos of people in the street, however for personal things such as funerals or at the beach, you must ask permission first"

New Zealand: "It is generally lawful to take photographs of people in public places without their consent. However, you must not film or take photos of people if they are in a place where they can expect privacy (such as a public changing area or toilet)"

Ireland: "Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed – however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy"

 

There are differences in all these countries, and the UK, about taking photos of specific individuals and the UK pretty much mirrors the countries above.  If you want to photograph an individual, then it's not allowed without permission.  If you are photographing a street and there are people in that street, it's entirely legal in the UK and those countries above.