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

[Astronom]

If someone is "obstructing" them it should be immediately obvious. It would be someone standing in their way somehow, actually physically obstructing them, yet the article says -

Officers have been told to look out for members of the public trying to video them when they attend 999 calls.

If the police have to actually pause what they are doing and carefully scan bystanders to make sure they aren't pointing a cellphone camera at them, then most likely those bystanders aren't actually "obstructing" them are they?

This is all about preventing police being recorded in action, plain and simple.

[Kalis]

If someone is "obstructing" them it should be immediately obvious. It would be someone standing in their way somehow, actually physically obstructing them, yet the article says -



If the police have to actually pause what they are doing and carefully scan bystanders to make sure they aren't pointing a cellphone camera at them, then most likely those bystanders aren't actually "obstructing" them are they?

This is all about preventing police being recorded in action, plain and simple.

I think you may have overanalysed the wording to a level that wasn't intended

[Noradin]

"Look out for" could also mean "being wary that someone might get into danger because they focus on filming".

[procne]

The issue is that it being that vague allows them to stop people not obstructing them in any real way as well, because they don't want evidence of their misdeeds and abuse of power being recorded. This allows them to take bystanders recording devices, then proceed to beat an unarmed man to death, and claim he was pulling a weapon and oh whoops look no evidence to say otherwise!

Well, how about you quote your current laws on that and propose a less vague way to word it, without risking people doing rule-lawyering "the law doesn't say anything about what I was doing!"?

[Shadowmelded]

Why has Britain turned into fucking 1984 in the past 10 years?

Banning porn, banning offensive speech, banning filming the cops. What the fuck.

None of these things are accurate.

[procne]

banning filming the cops

What, where? Who banned filming the cops?

[Deleted]

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

They don't in the UK either.

- - - Updated - - -

Why has Britain turned into fucking 1984 in the past 10 years?

Banning porn, banning offensive speech, banning filming the cops. What the fuck.

Coming from the country with the NSA monitoring everything you do?

[Deleted]

That's really not a good refutation.

Especially considering i am completely against the NSA also.

Alright, so your against it, is that stopping them? The fact that is an entire branch of your government that monitors everything your citizens do is incredibly 1984 like.

[Shadowmelded]

How are they not accurate? o.O

I just made a thread about the UK prosecuting someone for a social media post that people found offensive, so at the VERY LEAST that is true.

You're still free to be as offensive as you want in person. When sent through mail, physical or electronic, certain restrictions apply to prevent harassment. The problems arise from the fact that they amended a bill that was passed in 1988 (and it didn't happen recently) prior to the internet really taking off or any inclination of how it would affect society. It's just old people being old and out of touch rather than oppressive authoritarianism. It's not as black and white as "Offensive speech banned" nor are any of the other examples listed.

[alzoron]

I'm pretty sure that no one else would appreciate someone walking into their workplace, and shoving a cameraphone in their face, demanding what they are doing or that they are wrong about the way they are doing their job.

The kid working the cash register Mcdonald's also doesn't have the power and authority to ruin or end my life.

[Shadowmelded]

Do... i really need to explain why this is ridiculous? Do you really not know? Are you really saying they didn't ban free speech because "Oh well you can walk over to your neighbors house and call him a twat still!"


You just can't speak freely in any place that actually matters at all, see? They didn't ban free speech!

- - - Updated - - -


I'm glad you edited your original post. I was losing my mind a little bit.

I edited my post to provide background information but the initial post was fine. Restrictions on speech =/= banning free speech. In this case I don't particularly have a problem with the law as it's protecting a vulnerable group who are stigmatized. In general I feel that the law is a little broad but that's fixable. It's a complex issue however and one that won't be resolved until we all have a serious discussion about cyber-rights and the distinction between public and private sphere in the digital age. It may take a while since digital natives don't hold a great deal of political influence but it's not exactly 1984.

[Shadowmelded]

I'm pretty sure "I don't like the law, but because it's in line with my feelings on this issue, it's probably fine" is not a valid opinion. Either you support the law or you don't lol. Supporting it when it's convenient for you makes you a hypocrite.

Nuance is a thing that exists and that people employ. I don't agree with the exact wording of the law but I agree with the spirit, while acknowledging that there is room for improvement. How you got "it's fine" from my post I have no idea, especially since I highlighted the two areas that are flawed and need to be addressed before we can actually fix things. In this particular case there was no miscarriage of justice. Nothing hypocritical about that.

[Deleted]

The kid working the cash register Mcdonald's also doesn't have the power and authority to ruin or end my life.

I doubt you know this, but in the UK getting arrested doesn't directly lead to a criminal record. Often it's just to get morons and drunks out of the way.

- - - Updated - - -

Why has Britain turned into fucking 1984 in the past 10 years?

Banning porn, banning offensive speech, banning filming the cops. What the fuck.

Oh look, someone who never read 1984.

[alzoron]

I doubt you know this, but in the UK getting arrested doesn't directly lead to a criminal record. Often it's just to get morons and drunks out of the way.

And for the time being you have your camera phones and misc other recording devices to make sure it stays that way. At least until it officially becomes against the law of course.

[Deleted]

And for the time being you have your camera phones and misc other recording devices to make sure it stays that way. At least until it officially becomes against the law of course.

I can feel the American bleeding off your post.

I have been in a police station holding cell once, and that was a drunk and disorderly because I pissed on a guys car. All the police did was hoist me into a van and led me sober up back at the station.

I know it's hard to understand, but British Police are not the jackbooted thugs armed with lethal weapons you think all police are.

[Kalis]

Why has Britain turned into fucking 1984 in the past 10 years?

Banning porn, banning offensive speech, banning filming the cops. What the fuck.

The other poster covered your comment reagarding offensive speech.

There is no ban on filming cops, you've read a headline without reading the actual article.

There is no ban on porn that hasn't been in place for a long time - in fact the law is less likely to prosecute you now for illegal porn than it was a decade ago. What the Government did was ask the ISPs to place an optional filter on internet accounts, which meant the account holder could choose whether or not to allow porn. If you aren't the account holder, then you have no right to unrestricted access to a service provided to them.

[Deleted]

UK is quickly turning into a police state. this needs to be stopped. Body cameras should be in place and better training of the cops needs to be done.

Really? coming from an american ? Really?