If he witnesses someone causing harm to another person he would say I can't arrest him or her because I'm not from this area or I'm busy doing a training course
For an officer to deal with a mobile phone offence at the time they need to be 'found committing' as per the law. This Sergeant did not 'refuse' to take your report, he advised that he was outside his force area delivering a driver training course and issued you with the correct advice which would enable you to report an alleged offence in the most cost-efficient and effective way once you had the footage available to upload.
So if you had just seen a mugging and the thief had run off and you spotted this sergeant he wouldn't go and chase after the thief because it was more cost efficient and effective to dial 999 and get police to drive to the scene then? The sergeant didn't need to do much other than get a CAD number, and radio in the number plate. PttP could then have sent the video evidence at a later date.
@@TheSadButMadLadthat would very much depend on whether a mugging is also a 'found committing' offence wouldn't it! I'm sure if PttP felt strongly enough about the alleged offence then he has been successful in reporting it via the prescribed channels just as quickly as if the officer had filled in the form for him.
If you want the public to report crimes, be witnesses or hand in CCTV and dash cam footage when the police fail, maybe you should join the ranks of the public PC Hill.
Yes mate! RAF Henlow is a HQ to tbe DCSU, the RAFs vesion of the 77th brigade that monitor social media...it also HQ to RAF police where they compile UAP reports...they moved theor from Rudloe Manor!
The Station Commander is not forced to take any action about the guy filming you from his stationery car whilst on the station. I dont think the Station Commander can issue points on ur licence. He/she can only deal with it as a disciplinary situation.
@@pillowcase2006 . . . and early retirement with a pension. . . unless they get caught for murder and/or rape. But to convict an offocer the Police normally need the help of the public , because they are so inept.
5:15 That my mate, is an old airfield surveillance radar. This was my first RAF posting back in 1984 … me and 2 of y mates turned up at the guardroom, the white fronted building over the road and were met by a very shouty Sergeant discip… Sgt Hurd was his name. He bollocked the 3 of us for not saluting an officer (that we didn’t see) so that was the first time we got in the shit… 😂😂😂 Happy memories of this place, my first posting was straight down that road looking past the radar as far as you can go and it was a big shed (hangar) on the right which is now knocked down and it was called GRIS. Ground Radio Installation Squadron. Sadly all gone. Henlow was known as REU Henlow, Radio Engineering Unit back innthe days and ther was a lot of people in the unit.
Its a pity you didn't take a look at MBDA system along the A600, this used to be a BAE facility before they were taken over. As I used to work there under MoD rules I can't say too much but it would have been interesting to see how security would have reacted to your presence. In my day it was a very secure site and any incident there would have instigated a complete lock down with all roads to the area blocked off!
Well, I don't know about now but when I was there, even Police were not allowed on site. Only MoD Police and the armed forces. Of course, I'm talking about the early 80s. There were no video cameras or smart phones. The air space above it even back then was strictly controlled and the perimeter fence had very high-tec measures (for the day) in place. We had a direct line to the guard room to get immediate assistance. Back then, the IRA were a serious threat. @@RovexHD
It strange that people that criticise auditors keep watching these types of videos they are either the police or relatives of one ,keep up the auditing to help remove some of the rotten apples in the police force and help them regain respect because if it stays the same we are sunk 👏👏👏
Firstly, the phone "offence" had already been committed. No amount of action could prevent that now so its purely a reporting matter and no concern of those officers (Thatll be like Tring to give your mcdonalds order to a worker putting something in the skips outside)... while the car parked with its arse out was a present danger to road users, blocked the pavement and blocked a camp access point so could be dealt with. Secondly the "phone offence" was on MOD property up to those lights by looks of things so not a public road.
For those with an issue with him reporting mobile use while driving. Go outside or within a Police establishment and do the same, let me know how you get on. It's like one rule for them, another for us. But the law says we're all compelled to abide, so call these people out, they would you
The sergeant may have been “a bit busy” but the message he was sending to a concerned member of the public was I’m not bothering to do anything about it because I’m more interested in my own business than accepting reports of crime. He may feel he was justified but it’s such a bad look and increases that disconnect. Most people would shrug and think well I’m not bothering if they aren’t bothered. Opportunity missed to bridge that gap.
As soon as he said: "Driver training", it was a lost cause. That's his job no doubt because he's previously proved that he cannot deal with the public, or cannot be trusted by the public. Would be interesting to see his disciplinary record. Btw PttP, can we SAR a cop's details to check such things. I know they can in the US - indeed, for any public servant, but unsure what self-protection they have built up over here.
Possibly the most inane comment I've ever read. Seriously have a word with yourself. The officer was a driver trainer in the middle of training a student who you can see in the car. The report was of a non urgent nature and he has directed him towards an appropriate channel of reporting. Yet you have somehow concluded that he has disciplinary issues and can't be trusted. Get a grip!
I'm honestly not sure thats an "as per usual" refusal, while yes the sargent could have taken the report, it was no emergancy matter and I believe their time was better spent in the training they were brought to the area to do. you're issue with the driver while valid is something considered lesser/ non emergancy. you wouldnt have 999'd for that and the sargent would hopefully be willing to assist in a more time sensitve or emergancy situation. Seeing as you have the fotage and the sargent didnt whitness the offence an online submission would be the more practical and cost efficent solution. Of course that is if they were actually training and not just on their lunch break but this sargent was polite and professional and there is nothing I see to suggest they were lying.
@@davidsmith5523how is Dom going to give that copper the evidence? Hence a bit of common sense shows that going to a station or even better, uploading it online, would be a better solution. Of course that was a minor offence to the one Dom committed, filming THE prohibited place, should that get reported as well? (And it does not matter if you are on the pavement or not, the offence is filming THE prohibited place).
@@davidsmith5523 it wasn't ignored though, it was redirected to the channels built to streamline that very report and save taxpayers money. I would always expect a police officer to be able to delegate and prioritise on the job where necessary. if this sargent is from a different police force and has come to the area for the purpose of training, by stopping to take the report it would make that report cost signifcantly more as you're now paying for the sargents time at a premium as im sure they get travel pay compensation ect as well as the officer stuck in the car now being paid to do nothing. I fully support pttp and all they do and I hold police to a very high standard myself. I'm not saying this sargent was perfect but I do believe their refusal was justified at face value based on this interaction.
@@Clobbit to start with, the law comes first, there is no law that states you have a right to film anything from public, there are laws that stop you filming though, it's just very poor education that has been passed down by auditors who have no idea about photography in the first place. The 2 basic rules that are covered in law are that you cannot take a right someone else already has and you cannot break the law. It goes a bit further than that but that is the basis of what you can or cannot do in personal photography. As for the law, google is your friend, it will pull up what you need to know 😉
The building you called "a reception" is actually called the Main Guardroom". Also, the equipment you thought was a World War I aircraft propeller is a mobile radar unit - for a long time Henlow was known as Radio Engineering Unit Henlow!
With all the arm waving and the tripod attempt to get the interaction you so desired failed. It just proves that if you don't get the interaction you want you just go home. This is a quicker resolution than any interaction. Nice job at attempting too distract drives on the road. No news reporter waves there arms at the side of a road distracting drives attention away from the road. I consider this as dangerous behavior when just telling your viewers that the road goes both ways. Mega fail on safety issues.
It's funny you couldn't read his badge from a meter away, yet if your in any sort of job centre youl claim a gdpr breach from a monitor waaay further than that
You've missed the point about data on display, that's the offence. . . PttP also asked for and received the offices number, job done. You have misinterpreted 'reading data' / 'collecting data' with 'displaying data' . Here's your starter for ten . . . www.gov.uk/data-protection. For your specialist subject. . . . www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/12/contents/enacted
I'm all for going after corrupt coppers or G4S staff doing more than their remit, but going after some poor erk thats probably been scared witless by the RAF higher ups about terrorism and being vigilant, for taking a snap of someone outside the wire with a camera is a bit much.
No issue with him taking my picture, but using a handheld device while in control of a vehicle is paramount to me as a biker. No excuse for it. He could have parked up properly and taken my picture, I wasn't exactly hiding
@@powertotheproletariat No you wasn't exactly hiding, however he wasn't exactly driving sat at a junction and not moving. Parked up is still in control of a vehicle if the engines on. You would still have complained unless he'd stopped turned his engine off and got out of his car, and the poor bloke probably just wanted to get home after doing a shift. Whatever your reasons its still acting sh*tty.
@@dave4728100% agree with you. These people in the RAF put there lives on the line if the time come and he wants to report people like that. There is no such as an auditor anymore. It’s all about the online clicks they get by causing issues. The law is changing on photography and small drones. Game over for these idiots
Yes, I agree...and I can't help but question the true motive - why would anyone be interested in filming leaflets in job centres, etc? It just all seems to be about picking a fight.
. . . because the police will make any excuse other than do any work, especially that which is in the interests of the public. That's why the public have no respect for them as they are too lazy. A salary incentive scheme needs to be introduced. If only 3% of crimes reported are solved, plod should only get 3% of their salary. That might get them off their backsides.
@@Error_404_Not_Found_timed_out_all that just goes to show how utterly unprepared you are for the real world. Not one thing you wrote has any basis in fact.
I think you may be missing the point. What he is actually doing is ascertaining whether the police are sufficiently cognizant of the laws they enforce and do they enforce those laws in a lawful manner
