Comments on: arrest : the latest

By: Blackadder2

Blackadder2 — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:42:20 +0000

If the arrest was unlawful, then the use of force was unlawful and you could consider a private prosecution for battery in the Criminal Justice Act (common assault is the threat of force) OR a civil claim for assault and false imprisonment. If the arresting officer is convicted of battery, they would only get a fine at most but it would be a stain on their character and could be career threatening, and the only way to stop these scum from abusing their powers.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:20:16 +0000

Brilliant! This is better than any so-called “reality” programme or soap opera. Keep it rolling, folks. It can only get better……………….can’t it?

By: Dave Murray

Dave Murray — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:18:38 +0000

I applied under the reedom of Information Act 2000 for the ranks, names and collar numbers o the oficers who arrested Alex Turner. This was refused by Kent Police on the grounds that this was personal information and subject to the Data Protection Act. I appealed on this point citing Information Commissioner’s Awareness Guidance No.1, that states that the name of an employee or member of staff is not personal information. This follows the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Durant v Financial Services Authority 2004. I also cited my own case (Murray v Humberside Police 2009) in which I won my appeal with the Information Commissioner and forced Humberside to disclose the details of the two officers who seized Steve Carroll’s films citing ’sensitive buildings.’ This being the biggest load of crap I have ever read. Kent Police denied that my case with Humberside existed. When I sent photocopies, they then upgraded the officers details to ’sensitive personal data’ stating that it would harm their careers if bad publicity was given to them in the light of the Alex Turner case. Reading between the lines, it seems that Kent Police inadvertently revealed the outcome of the Turner case before telling him! I now proceed to the Information Commissioner (again).

By: Tracy

Tracy — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:03:48 +0000

I wonder who’ll be first to say ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’? This story amply shows we have plenty to fear.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:16:10 +0000

“When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.”
Why should he have to give any personal details if he was doing nothing illegal? If he was doing nothing illegal, why was he challenged in the first place? Sounds like someone needs a refresher course in the law, instead of making up as they go along.
As has been clarified elsewhere, there is nothing illegal about taking photographs in a public place.
Was there ever any confirmation as to who the first two plain-clothes people were who tried to intimidate monaxle initially? Were they actually police or jobs-worth security or council employees?

By: Dave Murray

Dave Murray — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 12:32:05 +0000

Why is it that these situations invariably revolve around a ludicrous set of circumstances? This case is as typical as I have seen. The ’suspicious behaviour’ was to take a photograph of a fish and chip shop. How this can possibly suggest any sort of nefarious activity beggars belief. In another case, a photographer was accused of anti-social behaviour for taking photographs of buses.
As for taking shots of plod, if they still wore tunics with a whistle on a chain and traditional helmets, perhaps, but these days who wants to take pics of uniforms that are the same as bus drivers, airline staff, security guards etc. I know I don’t.

By: monaxle

monaxle — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:08:28 +0000

@ Dave – Your comment sums it up beautifully

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 07:53:39 +0000

We’re getting a lot of this kind of thing in Canada too, often with the added pain from a good tasering. If somebody questions a police demand for information anything that comes after that is blamed on the victim for provoking the officer. If the person goes along with the police request and complains later, they’re told it was their own fault because they didn’t object at the time. In other words, you can’t win. All the while, the government continues to give the police more powers, and weakens civil rights. And it’s all being done, the government says, to protect our way of life from those would destroy it.

By: More plod hubris unfolds… « Al Jahom’s Final Word

More plod hubris unfolds… « Al Jahom’s Final Word — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:32:11 +0000

[...] a police internal investigation was carried out; and this week, the Investigating Officer (IO) finally got back to him with the very welcome news that, according to their barrister, his arrest was [...]

By: Siddharth Kalelkar

Siddharth Kalelkar — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:29:58 +0000

And I’d thought this happened only in India …!! used to be a photojournalist in an earlier life in India and have faced such situations on countless occasions. Good for you Alex and much success!! It’s the cops need an education.