Apparently, it's now anti-social to remain silent. Funny that, it used to be a right in this country. The Police Officers who do this need to be prosecuted in court every time for malfeasance in a public office, regardless of how your solicitor wants to proceed. If your solicitor won't prosecute, then represent yourself in court, and call all parties as witnesses, especially the ignorant workers, as it's the only way that they'll learn the law.
@Petey194 true putting their hands so close to his lens is threatening and an invasion of his personal space and should be seen by any judge as assault on Ash directly. They should also loose thier jobs they where on a public street not at their place of work which was across a public road.
*Police Reform Act 2002* Section 2 (1)If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person [has engaged, or is engaging, in anti-social behaviour] ..., he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable. (1A)In subsection (1) “anti-social behaviour” has the meaning given by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ignoring subsection (2) of that section). *Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014* *Section 2* Meaning of “anti-social behaviour” (1)In this Part “anti-social behaviour” means- (a)conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person, (b)conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises, or (c)conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. So what evidence does the cop have that standing at the side of the road carrying out a lawful activity has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person? Certainly, there is no possibility of conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person's occupation of residential premises since nobody is residing in the industrial premises, so subsections b, and c do not apply. In fact, the only ones breaching section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 were the ones milling around the photographer in an intimidating manner holding their paws up to his camera. The arresting officer appears to be in breach of section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. *Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges* (1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she- (a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and (b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper. (2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
I don’t know. The test is supposed to be if it alarms or distresses a person “of reasonable firmness”. It’s not just “being silent”; it’s filming outside the business AND being oddly silent and refusing to engage when approached by the staff. The employees looked a little alarmed, but what’s the case law?
@@JonCookeBridgethe employee has no right to demand information or even to approach a member of the public. What are you taking about? Are you really suggesting that I can get people arrested because I don't like their demeanor even though I may have engaged with them without any suggestion they wanted me to? 🤔
@@MrGhostTube When did I suggest that? I’m simply asking what’s the case law for whether acting socially strangely outside a business while filming and not engaging constitutes a public order offence. The Law says “a person of reasonable firmness being harassed, alarmed or distressed”, but that’s pretty ill-defined so there’s bound to be case law.
Threaten me? ATTACK me? Try to put ME in chains, kidnap and throw ME into a cage, for ENJOYING my Rights? That's the precise moment this Govt. *MOBSTER* (And any of his cohorts, should they be present and choose to attempt the same), will hear the business end of the Second Amendment. Try it. Play those 'FAFO' games against THIS Citizen/USMC Veteran. I f*cking dare him/them.
You have the right to remain silent until you can speak to a lawyer and he can speak for you. Carry are card stating- I have a right to remain silent, please appoint a lawyer for me so that he can speak for me.
Are you implying that because this cop is corrupt ,has no idea on how to carry-out his duties correctly and is basically a rude and demanding person while on duty , only has the skills for " flipping burgers " ? That is an insult to the hard-working , honest and polite people who deal respectfully with the public , and this cop clearly shows he has none of those qualities. I say he is perfectly suited for what the top brass consider needed to be a tyrant and treat innocent people in the way they do. Trash !
Arrested for not speaking then told :- “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
Why would you want to talk to a friend of Wayne Couzens, abuse of power should be a sackable offence ! The foreign guy that phoned the police seems to have more rights than a British person, These company`s get more protection than any member of the public because the bosses get looked after .
As other people have said case law =Rice v. Connolly (1966) is an English legal precedent holding that there is no strict, general legal duty to assist a police officer prior to any possible arrest or caution, with even basic police enquiries nor to accompany the officer to a requested location. = equals false arrest.
Wow how uneducated do you have to be, that is totally disgraceful behaviour, 3 police cars and not one officer said he is doing nothing wrong, so if you say nothing it will be held against you 😡😡😡😡😡
Does anyone else believe that the British police have far to much power as they can make a crime out of anything it's going to end up walking down to the shops is an arrestable offence even if someone is not making a sound it's antisocial behaviour are you fuckin kidding me. If you think that you are free, think again
You can. After a legal prosecution, I believe you can bring a civil claim for compensation against the particular Police Constable, but I think you have to wait 6 months to bring it, due to legal complications caused by 2 separate legal claims. Also, with civil claims, your only legal cost are about £50, and the other benefit is that the Police Constable cannot use the Police Force's solicitors to defend their civil claim, because their legal liability doesn't cover any behaviour that isn't considered to be acting within their Police powers as a Police Constable.
The tyrant police officer messed up big time obviously there'll be a civil claim going in, the money won't come out of his pocket but it's still a black mark on his record. 21:23
The problem is that when you sue it’s relatively small sums they pay out. If they were really massively hit financially it would soon be filtered out by senior officers that the constables on the street really need to fallow the law due to the financial implications to that constabulary.
3 coppers for this ? Meanwhile my mate's stolen motorbike remains unrecovered and the thieves at liberty. This is why people get angry, no one cares about a bloke with a camera,what a waste of time . I assume this is easier for them than catching crims. God help us all.
At first smiling then his ego gets the better of him, cannot say nothing when he is asking you questions, its not allowed, anti social behaviour for not speaking What is antisocial behaviour? There are three main categories for antisocial behaviour, depending on how many people are affected: Personal antisocial behaviour is when a person targets a specific individual or group. Nuisance antisocial behaviour is when a person causes trouble, annoyance or suffering to a community. Environmental antisocial behaviour is when a person’s actions affect the wider environment, such as public spaces or buildings.
The police geezer said "You are shaking", I wonder why. Could it be that the multitude of people walking up to Ash putting their hands in his face, threatening him with the police may have caused him distress. The only people in this video committing crimes are the factory workers and the copper with the threat of a section 50 and illegally obtaining Ash's details under threat of arrest. Well done Ash, you got them good Mr !
This is worrying. When police can arrest you for not engaging with them, or showing them your identification when you are going about your lawful business, it becomes a police state.
So scary that you can be arrested on someone else fears and feelings ... so if I was walking down an alleyway and there was a gang of youths standing at the end, then I can call the police out of "fear for my safety" and have them all I'D, searched and arrested ???
Which idiots are you referring to ? - Idiots that you've never met, and therefore cannot form an opinion of, because you only know anything about them from what you see in RU-vid videos of them I presume ?
There is no obligation to speak or assist the police unless there is an offence. Anti social behaviour requires more than one occasion. Standing and filming in a public place can in no way be considered as anti social. The only exception would be for example filming through a domestic residence window. This is a slam dunk as filming in public without any conversation or action likely to cause distress. Refusing to engage with another person therefore cannot be anti social . he also failed to qualify what behaviour he was alleged to have committed that was potentially antisocial And an ex police officer this is rediculous and today it seems many officers are poorly trained and don’t have a clue
No, you're right, we don't, but neither do we have to risk incriminating ourselves by speaking without legal representation, while not knowing our legal rights. I would keep my solicitors' name and phone number written in ink on my arm, to be used to contact them, when I'm at the Police station, but before I'm interviewed under Caution. We are also under no obligation to assist the Police with their enquiries. Rice vs Connelly 1966, plus at least 4 others since then.
This is poor policing and in the face of silence, he decided to threaten, arrest and abuse the rights of the cameraman. I do hope at least a complaint was made to inform this officer that feelings do not trump the law.
Why do they keep walking up to the camera not wanting to be filmed...thick as two short planks..be better off going to buy a bucket of steam or some sky hooks
Before we were overcome with Health and Safety logic, some bloke , in the old days, would have come out, told the photographer he might get run over and then vanished! Or he may have been ignored completely! As for the police.......clueless! I'm with you....some Section 26 arrests need to take place. Probably won't happen but one can hope!
I've tried reporting actual anti-social behaviour in the past. They'll respond, saying I needed to report it to the Council instead, and if it's a common occurrence, only then the police will look at it. I reported it to the Council, and of course, nothing happened until the individuals committing the anti-social behaviour started to cause criminal damage. Real crime is no concern to the police, but when somebody is doing nothing wrong, they'll come out. In the words of this disgrace of a policeman; I'm not really sure what they're trying to achieve here.
Not for over 20 years, I'm afraid. It was replaced by a much more sinister Caution, which is designed to treat you as Guilty until proven Innocent, unfortunately.
The difference between a police state and not a police state is this. In a police state you have to engage with the police. In a country that is not a police state you do not have to engage with the police. Simple, but very, very important. In this offficers mind he works in a police state due to his absense of understanding of law. There should be no place for an officer like this in the police service. He should be removed from having any contact with the general public. We must prevent our country becoming a police state. If we ignore interactions like this we jeopardize our long held, protected, and cherished freedoms.
How do you intend to prevent it from becoming a Police state ? - Walking around in groups of 10,000 or more, so that we outnumber the Police wherever we go ? - I bet the Police would just mobilise the Army to disperse us if we all did that. You can't win against tyranny, without having an Army of your own, with weapons and be willing to kill people. We might as well have Anarchy.
They started using section 50 over section 43 because of the crap they were getting from the bosses. Nothing about standing still and not speaking is antisocial behaviour.
When crimes are out of control and three vehicles turned up for no crimes whatsoever is the governments trying to do remember we are paying them to do that to you and your family they seem to be terrified of the camera
the misuse of section 50 is widespread and very sinister. I do hope a claim is made. If enough people do things might change, though perhaps it's the police's own pockets that need to take the hit.
Unfortunately, I believe that all that will happen will be that those particular Police Forces will just ask for larger budgets each year, under some false pretext.
So when the arrest happens the mandatory caution from police starts with: "You do not have to say anything if you do not wish to do so..." But before he is deemed to have yet done anything requiring arrest then he is somehow compelled to speak? Absolute nonsense. Also the cop couldn't wait to escalate things - he rattled through his spiel without drawing a breath he was so desperate to get his fix of Arrestomol 500mg. And, it looks premeditated because before he walked over you can see him adjusting his belt and checking the time (announcing the current time is in police scripts in between announcing the arrest and giving the cautiion). Bent, corrupt policing of the kind that earns the dislike and distrust of the public.
If you have the right to remain silent after arrest you have it prior to arrest. Being arrested does not confer extra rights it typically removes them. I guess logic isn't required in todays police force.
What I don't get, is if they are SO concerned that he "hasn't got permission to film me", then WHY on EARTH walk UP TO THE CAMERA giving him a BETTER VIEW ? ? ?
This has to be the most calm and collected audits ever, can you imagine Marti Blagbrough keeping his trap shut? I couldn’t! What a ledgend. Lets see more, stay safe dude.
What if you were a "mute" which is an anxiety condition? That's despicable that anyone would treat anyone for not saying anything, like this. Bloody muppets........
The business wanted Ash gone, a sec 50 achieved that goal. I doubt it's got much to do with wanting ID. Sec 35, basically a dispersal order, is currently in more regular use as a way to shunt people off out the way, just like sec 50.
S44 was repealed because of abuse, so they switched to S43. Bad publicly meant they were told to back off on this. Now, they have turned to misusing S50.
I know he wants footage, and to show them up, but I wouldn't make a good auditor because both men assaulted him. There would be a ruckus if they had done the same to me!
