Wednesday, 23 September 2009

What is it with the police and photos?

This is something I've written about before, but after the Met issued some "clarification", I thought it had gone away.

It seems that it hasn't:

The response we received to our original questions came from a Superintendent Shaw, who wrote: "The officer had valid operational concerns about the vehicle being identified via the media and endeavoured to explain his concerns. Given those valid concerns the officer had to be guarded in the explanation he provided at the time. The officer did not object to being photographed and throughout sought the journalist's cooperation."

This appears to be the police equivalent of a public immunity defence, insofar as the Superintendent hints at the police officer having the power to act as he did – but that for reasons of operational concern, he needed to be guarded in any explanation he gave of the law. Again, it is not an answer to any of the key questions in respect of the legality or otherwise of the police officer's actions.

What a load of bollocks. All the fucker had to do was take the guy to one side, tell him what was going on and it would all have blown over. Instead, PC Dick Rambo went off on one:

Steve Farrell, a reporter for MCN, can be heard repeatedly asking the police constable to explain what legal powers he has for preventing him from taking such a photograph - and the police officer can be heard repeatedly ignoring the question. Then, when Farrell takes a photograph, the police constable allegedly snatches the camera from his hands in order to view the picture.

So, has he been sacked? Don't be stupid!

North Wales Police are quite happy to assert that the law is what a police constable says it is – as opposed to what is written in statute. This is backed up by a polite note from their Press Department

Fuckers. I blame that mental druid for their overweening arrogance and cack-handedness.

1 comment:

John Steed said...

I have the Tory MP for Clywd West on speed dial. Into The Cunts!