dyna-ti":m3qrvuq8 said:
Neil":m3qrvuq8 said:
dyna-ti":m3qrvuq8 said:
I have seen video footage of coppers abusing their "authority" and behaving like thugs - I just don't think this is an example of it, that's all.
Or wear that tinfoil hat/hide your head in a bucket of sand
Or whichever metaphor you want to use.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=da4znQaE ... re=related
Not truly sure I understand what you're saying there?
dyna-ti":m3qrvuq8 said:
Quite funny really but on a serious note it is our civil liberties as free people of Great Britannia that are being stepped upon
Like to point out to the haters that in the past i have went[with a m8]to the defence of our local plod.
who appeared to be outnumbered one friday eve outside the public bar and would do again and to whatever that brings in the way of my personal safety.
As to the video you posted - surely 6 of one, half a dozen of the other?
Whilst I realise the guy was trying to do his best in being passive-aggressive and resisting the police - he didn't really know enough about the law to challenge, and ended up giving in in the end.
And yes, it did look like they were being a bit over-enthusiastic when they got him out.
In fairness, he didn't help himself - and at least from the sounds of it, it looked like they had reasonable grounds for suspicion.
Looking at the van and the description of how he was behaving, he sounded very much like the Scrap-man-cometh - and some of their behaviour has to be at least legally questionable, and at least suspicious from an appearances perspective.
Part A- Just really pointing out that some are happy to ignore these issues and will go to extraordinary lengths to do so.The tinfoil hat quote is an attempt to hide from the truth.Better to dismiss it completely out of hand than take the time to examine all the facts.[im in no way suggesting thats directed at yourself Neil,just an example
]
Part B- This isnt the only example this chap has,its part of a long series of him being stopped fro trumped up reasons.The bottom line appears to be that he knows the civil liberties laws and the authorities dont appear to like that.Plus it also clearly shows that the upholders of the laws are not being strictly up front with their powers,they are infact relying on ignorance of the law.
Example- please step out of your car.Do you have to? well the policeman makes it look or sound like thats what you should do instantly and snap to attention or you will be liable for further criminal offences possibly carrying penalties, when in reality you dont have to exit the car at all.they complain and refuse so have some stated statute banded at them in the hope the public ignorance will force them to comply.
Do you understand? or should i put it as 'do you stand under' ? I ask if you see the differences in these 2 statements?
I do get what you're saying, and I understand some of this.
I think some people just choose to fight pointless battles, when there's more subversive and insidious assaults on their rights, than simply having a conversation with a police officer if stopped.
Certainly in the example of van man, the (I have to say, rather dislikable) copper in the beige top didn't do himself any favours - but I'll assume he's not lying or inventing something - his reasons for suspicion appeared justified (him seeing the driver approach a property, then have it away when he's spotted, then running to his van, locking the door, and refusing a search.
Not having the experience of being a copper, though, it's hard for me to say - but that kind of resistance and attitude may be somewhat familiar to them, for people who do have something on them that they shouldn't.
I just think if freedom and liberty are really what these people want to protest against, they pick odd subjects, and perhaps lead lifestyles that at least put them on the edge of suspicion. In many circumstances, I'm almost inclined to think there's something of a ruse or double-bluff going on.
I get that a lot of the police procedure in such incidents, is very much a trained thing, with preferences for other reasons, in seeing people outside of their vehicle (and if I'm not mistaken, in the US, it's almost the reverse - they prefer you stay inside the vehicle?) that may not have any true bearing or backup in actual law. All the same, they do have some powers, and nothing is more likely to put their back up and do all they can, than being needlessly obstructive - under some guise and weasel words on defending rights and freedoms - I suspect that's about as far as these people go in terms of defending their rights and freedoms.
As another example, a while back I saw another video of a bloke, filming from his property - and two young, and apparently naive, somewhat underendowed with knowledge, yet overendowed with arrogance of their office - and I was largely in complete agreement with the guy filming.
Problem is, though, there's nearly always some edge or background.
All the while, I think they're a good leap away from this idiot kid who decides to do a few BMX tricks, making him encroach on the security "bubble" for the Olympic torch procession.
