Crosswords1 min ago
Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a Metropolitan Police officer
Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by a Metropolitan Police officer at the G20 protests, an inquest jury has said.
The 47-year-old collapsed and died after he was hit by a baton and pushed to the ground by Pc Simon Harwood at the demonstrations on 1 April 2009.
The jury decided that Pc Harwood used "excessive and unreasonable" force in striking him.
Mr Tomlinson, who was not taking part in the protests in London, posed no threat, the jury added.
Criminal proceedings could reopen against Pc Harwood after jurors ruled he acted illegally, recklessly and dangerously.
My question is slightly off on a tangent. Do you think the law that it is illegal under anti Terrorism laws to film or photograph the police should remain?
[If it wasn't for the public doing just that (and breaking the law), this case and others would not have come to the courts' attention. Is it even enforcable anyway give the number of phones that have a camera?]
The 47-year-old collapsed and died after he was hit by a baton and pushed to the ground by Pc Simon Harwood at the demonstrations on 1 April 2009.
The jury decided that Pc Harwood used "excessive and unreasonable" force in striking him.
Mr Tomlinson, who was not taking part in the protests in London, posed no threat, the jury added.
Criminal proceedings could reopen against Pc Harwood after jurors ruled he acted illegally, recklessly and dangerously.
My question is slightly off on a tangent. Do you think the law that it is illegal under anti Terrorism laws to film or photograph the police should remain?
[If it wasn't for the public doing just that (and breaking the law), this case and others would not have come to the courts' attention. Is it even enforcable anyway give the number of phones that have a camera?]
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.So evidence obtained illegally was used in the case. Is that not inadmissible in itself? How then was this evidence allowed in the inquest? To answer the question though, no it should not remain, in a civilised society we must be able to monitor the executive at work. I am somewhat unclear about the whole reasoning for this anyway.
I think it is not illegal to film or photograph the police - unless perhaps it can be shown that the images are intended for terrorist purposes.
I think if you do a search on YouTube there are a couple of obsessives on there who delight in filming coppers and quoting the law at them when they object.
I think if you do a search on YouTube there are a couple of obsessives on there who delight in filming coppers and quoting the law at them when they object.
There was this from last year: http://www.theanswerb...s/Question911214.html
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Gromit -
As a former Police Officer myself, I support the Police wholeheartedly. However, this officer acted completely unprofessionally and appears to have a penchant for hitting / pushing innocent bystanders. He appears to be a thug and as such, should be thrown out of the Police.
With regards to the filming of Police Officers whilst in the course of their duties, it is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 (subsequently amended by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) to photograph or film a police officer or any member of our armed forces if it is suspected that that film or photograph may be used for terrorist purposes. Reading the letter of the law, this seems reasonable and well intentioned.
However, certain grass-roots Police Officers and some senior members of the Police have interpreted this law to mean that there is a complete moratorium on filming or photographing the police in any circumstances. This is simply wrong. And potentially very dangerous.
When a Police Officer in uniform is carrying out their duties – be that walking the beat or controlling a rioting crowd - they should always be operating under the same rules as every other person in a public place: Anyone in a public place has no 'right' to privacy and can be filmed without their consent.
As a former Police Officer myself, I support the Police wholeheartedly. However, this officer acted completely unprofessionally and appears to have a penchant for hitting / pushing innocent bystanders. He appears to be a thug and as such, should be thrown out of the Police.
With regards to the filming of Police Officers whilst in the course of their duties, it is an offence under the Terrorism Act 2000 (subsequently amended by the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) to photograph or film a police officer or any member of our armed forces if it is suspected that that film or photograph may be used for terrorist purposes. Reading the letter of the law, this seems reasonable and well intentioned.
However, certain grass-roots Police Officers and some senior members of the Police have interpreted this law to mean that there is a complete moratorium on filming or photographing the police in any circumstances. This is simply wrong. And potentially very dangerous.
When a Police Officer in uniform is carrying out their duties – be that walking the beat or controlling a rioting crowd - they should always be operating under the same rules as every other person in a public place: Anyone in a public place has no 'right' to privacy and can be filmed without their consent.
I think anyone who has never been pushed in the back or given a smack by a police officer has lived a very sheltered life.
Have a look at this video clip and see what happens to someone filming Christmas.
http://www.youtube.co...DXBsk&feature=related
Have a look at this video clip and see what happens to someone filming Christmas.
http://www.youtube.co...DXBsk&feature=related
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.