Dungbeetle Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 well, a policepersons job is not an easy one, aWhile I agree with your post, I must ask what in the name of all that is sacred but not politically correct, is a 'policeperson'? Is our species mankind, or personkind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 While I agree with your post, I must ask what in the name of all that is sacred but not politically correct, is a 'policeperson'? Is our species mankind, or personkind? 'Policeperson' is a bit naff, I agree. I think the more widely-used term is 'police officer'. If you're talking about a man, then 'policeman', if a woman, then 'policewoman'. Our species is Homo sapiens. I think we're mostly referred to as 'humans'. The term 'Mankind' is a bit dated, though when it is used it's usually capitalized to make the distinction between its use as a gender term, and as an inclusive term for all humans. And no, I wouldn't refer to a manhole cover as a 'personhole cover'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungbeetle Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 And no, I wouldn't refer to a manhole cover as a 'personhole cover'...Thank goodness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ant Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 I'm simply saying that knowledge gaps in law enforcement may be dangerous, and you don't know which laws they do and don't know any more than I do, do you? You can safely say that there is at least one law they don't know so how can you say they will know all the major ones ? I am many things, but sadly not psychic. No, I don't know which laws any given police officer is aware of. But what I can do, is apply a bit of common sense. I would hazard a guess that since no police officer is taught all the laws of the land, they are taught the laws that apply to serious offences, and minor laws (such as traffic violations and breach of the peace) that they are most likely to come into contact with in their day-to-day policing. I never would say that a rookie will know all the major laws. What I did say, is that I expect a rookie to be aware of the major ones. I would also expect every rookie officer to have the concept of "false arrest" drilled into them. Of course gaps in wheir knowledge of law may be dangerous, but it all depends on how you go about policing, doesn't it? If I were a police officer and I had the threat of imprisonment for false arrest and collapse of career looming over my head if I put a foot wrong due to ignorance of law, I'd make damned sure that if I took action in a serious situation, I'd be in the right to do so. Telling someone they're not allowed to film me isn't a major error, and I'd probably say it just to get a camera out of my face. But that's just me. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neddio Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 I am many things, but sadly not psychic. No, I don't know which laws any given police officer is aware of. But what I can do, is apply a bit of common sense. I would hazard a guess that since no police officer is taught all the laws of the land, they are taught the laws that apply to serious offences, and minor laws (such as traffic violations and breach of the peace) that they are most likely to come into contact with in their day-to-day policing. I never would say that a rookie will know all the major laws. What I did say, is that I expect a rookie to be aware of the major ones. I would also expect every rookie officer to have the concept of "false arrest" drilled into them. Of course gaps in wheir knowledge of law may be dangerous, but it all depends on how you go about policing, doesn't it? If I were a police officer and I had the threat of imprisonment for false arrest and collapse of career looming over my head if I put a foot wrong due to ignorance of law, I'd make damned sure that if I took action in a serious situation, I'd be in the right to do so. Telling someone they're not allowed to film me isn't a major error, and I'd probably say it just to get a camera out of my face. But that's just me. ; ) Again I don't disagree with the way they dealt with but I haven't been contesting that anyway. I never said it wasn't a minor error in this case. I would agree it's everything to do with the manner in which they police, especially in the face of some of the antagonism and anti police opinions they encounter daily in simply doing their jobs. "Of course gaps in their knowledge of law may be dangerous" to quote your reply, is the only point i've been making all along. It would appear by your statement that you have reached the conclusion I put to you in the first place ? I'm not psychic either by they way, or I'd have answered this response before I received it just to show off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyn Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 I am <cut> . Telling someone they're not allowed to film me isn't a major error, and I'd probably say it just to get a camera out of my face. But that's just me. ; ) and thats the whole point though. They should never have said it is an offense, thats just making the law up as they go along, you can split hairs and excuse them knowledge but they simply lied to him, repeatedly and if you dont know the laws maybe they shouldn't be pretending to. yeah he was slightly baiting them , but the coppers weren't exactly acting as role models were they and they did try to bait him first which in my eyes makes them the ones in the wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ant Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 and thats the whole point though. They should never have said it is an offense, thats just making the law up as they go along, you can split hairs and excuse them knowledge but they simply lied to him, repeatedly and if you dont know the laws maybe they shouldn't be pretending to. * Sigh * I never said that the two officers were lying, you're confusing my post (the part you've quoted wasn't exactly serious) with the actions of two uniformed rozzers. They both seemed to be under the impression that it was illegal, not just "making the laws up as they go along". They obviously did not lie to him (repeatedly), they made an error and departed on further clarification. It's quite obvious when you watch it. Neither did they try to "bait him first". They were polite, and asked him to put the camera down. He responded snottily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyn Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 the impression they were under was wrong, and yes when they found out they left, but they still lied and repeatedly so they both stated quite a few times that it was an offence, and the police woman did try to bait him into an argument, when the guy heard what came through the mike he reaffirmed (in a somewhat belittling manner) that he was right and that his camera had picked it up she then was baiting him trying to cause a scene out of his comment. it's all fairly moot but its one of those things, the coppers wanted him to do as they said and made up an offense to try and get him to comply. they either have: never been told it wasn't an offense-therefore made the law up as they went (along untill corrected.) or have been told that it was an offense at some time in which case somebody else needs a talking to regarding making it up. but the little things lead to bigger things so the police should be held in check at all times, even if its by the power of you tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ant Posted August 12, 2007 Share Posted August 12, 2007 We're going around in circles. You saw one thing, I saw another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darren Polla Posted August 12, 2007 Author Share Posted August 12, 2007 Also, if they can film us when all UK CCTV systems currently breach Article 8 of the European Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.spy.org.uk/article8.htm They are breaking the law and I am breaking no law leaves only one conclusion. We are living in a fascist police state! Why does the controversial Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 not attempt to regulate CCTV Surveillance in any way? http://www.spy.org.uk/mi5.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.