Police threaten to seize phones if officers are filmed on duty (UK)

[Shadowmelded]

Causing obstruction is a vague term though. Its not like they specify what that means.

Welcome to law.

From the Police act 1996


So basically if you are preventing an officer from making an arrest by being in their way with a camera phone shouting abuse at them, you probably would be judged to be wilfully preventing him executing his duties.

EDIT: further information from the CPS

Scotland has a different legal system so those don't apply. There'll be a similar enough line in one of these though (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/77/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/46/contents http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2006/10/contents)

Is Mirror one of those sensationalist tabloids in UK?

Yes. Specifically it's a Labour backing tabloid and Scottish Labour are desperately trying to win back support after being decimated in the elections by the SNP. Attacking the police force has been one of their recent themes.

[Cerus]

Except there are huuuugggggeeeee differences in the duties and rules of police vs fire depts or paramedics.

Not to mention that paramedics are not public servants. They're part of a for profit industry.

- - - Updated - - -

I think people forget that despite police being Public Servants they also pay taxes to the same value that everyone else does, so technically they also pay for themselves.

You dont see people going up and shoving cameras in the face of Paramedics, or even the Fire Brigade - who are also public servants, so they shouldn't for the Police.



I wouldnt agree the UK is becomng a police state in any way - But I agree for the protection of officers and those they interact with body cameras should be mandatory for every officer - training for UK officers is fine, having been a Special Constable (who get compressed training) I felt I was given enough to be able to go out confidently and serve - however followup and retraining is required, this isnt done enough for officers as things change.

The few thousand if that in taxes they pay every year won't even come close to paying their 30k plus salaries. And most of those taxes go into social security, Medicare, federal funds etc. Not to mention the expensive police vehicles they buy every couple years or the thousands of gallons of gas they use up just letting their car idle while on duty. That ain't even a fraction of the cost of one police officer.

[Kathandira]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...ficers-6795298
(Titled alter to indicate this is a United Kingdom issue, not a U.S one. This is because most police threads are about the U.S)

This is fine if you ask me. It specifically says, "They say the warning isn't a ban on the public photographing incidents but 
anyone obstructing officers may be arrested and have their phones confiscated."

Don't move in for the close up, and you are fine. Stay at a safe and responsible distance, and they will not bother you, or take your phone.

However, the best way to get people to stop filming, is to get chest cams on these officers already. The public wouldn't need to record the arrests, if the arrests were recorded by the officers.

[Independent voter]

The head of the FBI said the recent spike in US crime is due to citizens videoing police officers. Police arrive at a crime scene and there's a dozen smartphones pointed at them, recording their every move. Cops didn't want to get out of their cars, letting the victim bleed out on the street.

Videoing cops is interfering with police work. We all should acknowledge that police work is inherently a messy business and requires some privacy.

[Strangebrew]

The head of the FBI said the recent spike in US crime is due to citizens videoing police officers. Police arrive at a crime scene and there's a dozen smartphones pointed at them, recording their every move. Cops didn't want to get out of their cars, letting the victim bleed out on the street.

Videoing cops is interfering with police work. We all should acknowledge that police work is inherently a messy business and requires some privacy.

Or maybe, the police should just start doing their job fucking properly and there wouldn't be a need for civilians filming them.

[Deleted]

You dont see people going up and shoving cameras in the face of Paramedics, or even the Fire Brigade - who are also public servants, so they shouldn't for the Police.

The difference is police officers are ass-holes, no one likes the police. Failures at life on a power trip.

[procne]

The difference is police officers are ass-holes, no one likes the police. Failures at life on a power trip.

Aren't there some strict requirements to become police officer?
It's funny though, as your argument is used against municipal police ("those who failed when applying to police") in my country, which, has almost no requirements for officers compared to the police.

[the game]

The difference is police officers are ass-holes, no one likes the police. Failures at life on a power trip.

All the officers around where I live are pretty respectable. I have yet to find one that's an asshole.

[Kathandira]

Videoing cops is interfering with police work. We all should acknowledge that police work is inherently a messy business and requires some privacy.

Man, I don't know how I get a days work done with all these cameras on me.

Where I work, I am being video, and audio recorded at all times. I just ignore it, and do my job the way I am supposed to be doing it.

[Raelbo]

Or maybe, the police should just start doing their job fucking properly and there wouldn't be a need for civilians filming them.

As with most things in life, try a little bit of moderation. You get asshole cops, you get decent cops. You get asshole bystanders and you get decent bystanders.

You try doing your job with someone constantly standing next to you filming what you do. It's going to affect most normal people. Especially when said person then goes and edits what it is filmed to completely misrepresent what you're doing.

- - - Updated - - -

Cant say I really understand that argument. If the police officer is carrying out his duties in a legal manner, why should it matter if they are filmed, also in a legal manner, at work?

Or is the increase in crime due to police officers being filmed breaking the law?

Performance anxiety. Knowing that someone is recording what you're doing makes you nervous about screwing up, even accidentally. Being nervous affects your ability to focus properly, increases the probability of making a mistake. It's really not a hard concept to understand if you have any EQ.

[procne]

Man, I don't know how I get a days work done with all these cameras on me.

Where I work, I am being video, and audio recorded at all times. I just ignore it, and do my job the way I am supposed to be doing it.

Actually, small digression.
While filming police might not be a problem, filming other people might be. While policeman's job is something public then the "events" they take part in might not be. Not sure about law in other countries, but in mine you can't just film and publish videos of private persons (as in not state representatives) without their consent. That would include victims / criminals as well.

[Machismo]

And if your filming is negatively influencing the behaviour of those involved, then that is also obstructing.
Unless you have a damn good reason to film it, DON'T.

There's a difference between someone filming being a negative influence, and police officers reacting negatively to being filmed. Often times, the latter is the case, and they begin to stomp on the freedoms of others. That was one of the real problems with Ferguson, the way the police reacted after the shooting.

[Noradin]

Seems like many here only read the highly misleading title of the thread and not the article below that.
The article itself isn't really worth the attention as there is nothing new and nothing surprising in it.

You could just as well exchange anything pertaining to phones in the article with something else (like brooms or something) and nothing would change.
If you use something to obstruct the police in their duties then they can confiscate it. Be it phones, cars, or singing sunflowers.

The title is simply bait.

[ParanoiD84]

Some cops just dont care and will taser you anyways, like this very funny video with a idiot getting tasered by a badass. Give that man a medal.

[Noradin]

While filming police might not be a problem, filming other people might be.

That is indeed true, and thus they might confiscate the device if you continue to film someone after they protest - because that would make it clear you won't use the material later without getting permission from the individual(s) in question.

[Leih]

Nor do paramedics and the fire brigade go around wearing you know, a gun.

Neither do the police, in the UK.

[Kalis]

Not to mention that paramedics are not public servants. They're part of a for profit industry.

In Scotland? I thought they'd be a part of the NHS.


OT: Obstruction has a definition in law, as others have pointed out, it isn't just whenever the police don't want to be filmed.

I really wish people would understand the sources they use, the Mirror is not a reliable source.

[Strangebrew]

Neither do the police, in the UK.

If that is true, i stand corrected.
But that still doesn't change my standpoint, the police are in a position with alot of power that can be easily abused, paramedics and Firefighters are not even remotely compareable to the police.

[Kathandira]

Actually, small digression.
While filming police might not be a problem, filming other people might be. While policeman's job is something public then the "events" they take part in might not be. Not sure about law in other countries, but in mine you can't just film and publish videos of private persons (as in not state representatives) without their consent. That would include victims / criminals as well.

In the public, nothing is private. If it is in a private business, there might be issues, but even then you are still technically in the public.

[Revi]

Private citizens should be fine with surveillance even in their own home, unless they have something to hide.

Public servants on the job should not be facing surveillance because it could prevent them doing what they were doing even though they have nothing to hide.