Stop touching my groin | Detained and Searched Section 43 Again |  

*the only thing about this is *they KNOW NOTHING is going to happen to them, being sued means absolutely NOTHING to them because they DONT PAY for the law suit.*

whatever is happening in the UK expect the rest of the world to follow, I'm almost certain the UK and America are the main protagonists when it comes to "testing" how far they can push us before they get a reaction. Unfortunately the UK population have been considerably "dumbed down" over the past 50 years, so there's little to no reaction about us being flooded with illegal migrants and the country turning into complete anarchy in the next few years.

@peterjakobsen613 - Right? 😮... anyone could think that they are receiving their training in the US!! 🤪

@@_Why_123 U.S. are trained by Israel.

What are the police doing wrong?

@@alanboyd9013 it's a genuine question as the distain for police makes no sense

Definite a future inspector that one. Bullied at school now her chance for revenge.

this is the Met and lessons will never be learned

Low IQ knuckle draggers, --guided missiles , only hired to garner revenue for the crown.And to look after the corporatíons.

This was seven months ago, guess what, it's got worse mate.

Lesbian Nana MKII

how can that silly little girl be given all these powers over the public? she limbo-ed her way in to the police.. what a disgrace

Her parents will see this and cringe with embarrassment@@Superior208

@@Superior208 Diversity hire. She looks and acts like a sullen teenager.

Obviously you'll be suing these tyrants, it's a pity the money won't come out of their pockets, it's still a black mark on their records so that's something, corrupt to the core.

She must have had the same training as lesbian nana

BOTH CORRUPT WOKIES...& BOTH SHOULD BE SACKED!

Sec 43 abuse died down for a while, looks like it's being possibly sneaked back in again. This needs monitoring ............

How was it abused?

@@ronin2935 Because 43 again was pulled at the drop of a hat, the filming by Ski was overt not covert, plus he could be known to be a auditor, and police and auditors are like Tom and Jerry, - - natural enemies, and initially one cop and a dopey Doris PC come out for a suspected "alleged" terrorist, a terrorist could have had a gun, bomb, big bladed weapon, so a PC and a dopey wpc wander out...... Smacks of grasping at straws, as I said it couldn't be considered hostile reconnaissance for another time as the filming was clearly overt.

@@ronin2935 when was the last time an English police station was attacked by terrorists since 1945 Never that is Overuse if police stations were targeted with proof then use section 43

THEY ARE WOKE LIARS...DECEIVERS....MANIPULATORS...BOTH SHOULD BE SACKED...THEY ARE THE ONES COMMITTING CRIMES & BREAKING THE LAW!! A DANGER TO US ALL!

The risk of terrorism is the grounds

Great comment 👍

@@yardleyskiauditing you total crank

​@yardleyski3167 what was the outcome of the stop and searched section 43 of the terrorism act you were breaking no laws I hope you are taking further action against these corrupt police officers let us know many thanks for bringing us these videos

As soon as Yardley declined to give ID the PC jumped straight to section 43 expecting to find some ID, not anything terrorist related.

That little girl thing is a joke ! 👮🤡

yup, she was a piece of work and will only get worse when she's got the boys behind her

section 43 has to be removed for these jokers. ive NEVER seen such an abuse of a section no questions no nothing "we ARE going to detain and search you under section 43" what a load of shit

The search is all about getting ID details.. The section used is an abuse of power because section 43 should be intelligence led not because people are filming outside a building.

School girl in uniform, cheap but useless!

The use is justified tbf

How is the search illegal?

@@ronin2935 What were the grounds?

@@jeffreymiller5462 filming cameras on a police building, filming the parade square of a private event where a lot of people including high ranking members of the police will be gathered shortly, being unable to give a reason for being in the area. That's all that's needed.

@@ronin2935 🤣🤣🤣

@@jeffreymiller5462 you asked for the grounds, I gave you them in full. You have no response to them? 🍿

When did they lie?

​@@ronin2935so that's what you choose to comment on? When he asked her to repeat herself, do you think she really couldn't remember? Anyway it was more of a general observation. Police lie all the time or do you not think so? Or are you a police officer?

@@snatchwars She seems new and nervous. Police hear a lot about audits and terrorism during training, so no doubt she was stressed. What reason would she have to lie? They're both recording.

@@ronin2935 nervous? More like rude and arrogant. So if she has heard about audits, surely she wouldn't be worried about that unless she is a tyrant

@@snatchwars call it what you want. The grounds were present, and you'll always end up offending someone regardless of how you talk. It was a legal search as I've stated

I doubt she will last much longer as a pig

A payout for what?

@@ronin2935 abuse of section 43

@@Azriel2k3 how was it abused? There were enough grounds and reasonable suspicion

Ronin2935 is old bill

100% TWO SHAMEFUL CORRUPT WOKE COPPERS!

How many have they set up in court

Go after his duty Sargent and the inspector as he under their command Strat going for 10k

You couldn't make it up, we all need to complain and get change and have them held account

Great comment 👍

The female officer in this video is way too immature to be an officer. She was acting like a petty teenager who just got scolded. Can't believe she slipped through the cracks! A walking lawsuit waiting to happen that one!

@@VR-hotlapsShe didn’t slip through any cracks, she was selected for her low IQ 👍🏻

Ha ha ha ha 😂

I agree totally. Especially about letting them dig their hole deeper and deeper.

Out of interest, how much could someone be paid for an illegal search?

​@mentalmickey1459 it all depends really on the circumstances, but on average I'd say a couple of thousand pounds

@@mentalmickey1459 Yardley should get a minimum of £1500

​@@mentalmickey1459AB usually gets £1500 - £2000

At least most officers in the UK don't carry firearms. US officers are not properly trained and ppl lose their lives because of it. Now that's very dangerous

What's wrong with anything the officers did?

I'm sure |Mummy and Daddy will console her. That beastly auditor!

oh I think she's there already

Useless petulent WPC

I'd prefer the Laurel and Hardy tune

LMFAO.....

I can't disagree with that!

Cheers 🍻

Wait, what did the officers do wrong exactly?

@@ronin2935 abusing section 43 of the terrorism act. Filming in public is not an offence.

@@Khox19 filming in public adds to the grounds required for a stop and search. If you watched the video, you'd know that he did more than only film in public.

@@ronin2935 I did watch it ronin, what else did he do to warrant section 43 being used. Filming in public don’t give grounds for stop and search.

That's the problem, if the money came out of their pockets and not the tax payers, they might think twice before abusing their powers.

Great comment 👍, cheers 🍻

You can legally film, and they can legally detain you for it. What's wrong with that?

@ronin2935 those grounds are not reasonable under S43 as they abused here

@@ronin2935 They over stepped the mark and have been shown up for being tyrants. I stood and video'd the parade and the walk that Sir Mark Rowley took when walking to the parade. There were commander's from other Borough's present at this passing out parade so I guess a decision was made to conduct a search before the parade began.. Unfortunately for the police the way they went about it was unlawful and illegal. No reasonable suspicion

@@grimprawn902 Grounds are as follows: filming cameras on a police building, filming the parade square of a private event where a lot of people including high ranking members of the police will be gathered shortly, being unable to give a reason for being in the area. That's all that's needed.

What makes you think this is corruption?

@@ronin2935 What part of the video did you not see?

@@koford I saw a video of a legal stop and search under S43 of the terrorism act. Grounds and reasonable suspicion were very present. Did we not watch the same video? Or are you unaware of what grounds and reasonable suspicion are? Are you not reasonable, as a result?

@@ronin2935 There was no suspicious reason for the stop and search, all they had was a person with a camera, which is perfectly legal. This type of stop and search S43 is typical abuse by the police and I bet that of all such S43 reports, nothing suspicious is found. That's why I wrote that they are corrupt who abuse this type of law, not necessarily the root of "terrorist"

I think a brick wall is more intelligent, so you are right.

... but she couldn't remember what she herself had said or done a few seconds after she said it. Wtf! Another "perfect" recruit for the Met.

Or 5, as the other go-to that they use.

They loved to use 44, until it was repealed.

That's wrong. S43 has lead to a lot of prevention of terrorism

👏

The previous information matters not

It was a legal search

@@ronin2935 I didn’t hear police give the section under the terrorism act he was searching for 🤷🏽‍♀️just after his ID

@@juvix40 then you didn't watch the video. The male officer stated it was section 43

@@ronin2935 oh I did watch

@@juvix40 yet you "didn't hear" what was said in the video... So you didn't watch it

What would the payout be for?

@@ronin2935 Unlawful arrest, it becomes classed as a kidnap by the police in court.

@@godsgod1677 and how was it unlawful? They had enough grounds and reasonable suspicion, making it legal

@@ronin2935 That's literally why, the grounds are insufficient for a detainment. Watch it back and listen to what the officer says were the grounds, he literally struggles.

@@godsgod1677 the grounds are as follows: filming cameras on a police building, filming the parade square of a private event where a lot of people including high ranking members of the police will be gathered shortly, being unable to give a reason for being in the area. That's all that's needed.

yep! over-worked and under-staffed. Eff'n joke isn't it?

It takes about 5 minutes. It was a justified search

If he wasn't filming, he wouldn't have been legally searched

They've been a joke for years

I don't know they achieved what they set out to do that being to turn over a member of the public, he probably knew what he was going to do before he left the building they don't care because there is very rarely any comeback or repercussions

The stop and search was legal

Yeah I got the 2 confused.. my bad. Plus the medical information was a list that I printed off the Internet regarding conditions that could make people Not be able to see when a PC dips their shoulder.. its Not my medical conditions.. Cheers 🍻

A. Previous searches for S43 neither add nor retract from this encounter. These officers are acting upon reasonable suspicion and are justified. B. No, reffer to; A. C. Yes.

@@ronin2935 The search was completely UNJUSTIFIED as it was based (as so often) on wholly UNREASONABLE suspicion as a guise to find ID by a power-tripping egomaniac flexing in front of the little girly copper. The female INTIMATED that their alleged " reasonable suspicion " was based on intelligence that he'd been there before and further intimated that he had been searched on previous occasions, the intimation there being that regardless of whether anything was found on previous occasions, the mere fact that there actually were previous occasions was sufficient to reasonably suspect guilt on this MALICIOUS occasion. They ignorantly and wrongly believed they were justified but they OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN that they were engaged in " Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges. " as per Section 26 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 as their actions were to the detriment of an innocent videographer filming a passing out parade that was clearly visible FROM PUBLIC. If it was such a big deal they should have had their little narcissistic, self-praising ceremony AWAY FROM PUBLIC VIEW !!! The hypothetical " Reasonable Person " that the courts use to determine whether grounds given for a search or arrest are reasonable would find the spluttering and stuttering reasons as to why the searching officer claimed to have " reasonable grounds " to be woefully inadequate ! = Civil claim = £££ Ker-ching ! SLAM and DUNK !

@@ronin2935 There was No reasonable suspicion.. They came with the intention of conducting a search. He said I was filming at a passing out parade.. but if I had said I was a family member it would have changed the dynamics. In other words he wanted to check out who I was. I doubt he had information about me but was trying to make it seem that was part of the reason. I know he was bluffing. The medical information I showed him was a list of reasons people may not be able to see things, and that's why the Police should Not say.. 'my number is here, you can see it.' The reason why section 43 was used unlawfully was because I had not committed a crime and there was No other section of the law to force such search.. I wasn't being anti social, they couldn't use PACE or anything else. So they blatantly came out with the only search option, Section 43. If I was such a threat why was a proper search Not carried out.. I stood with my coat on and the 'pat down' was pathetic. But the police will end up trying to justify the search because that is what they do.. lie lie lie.

@@yooochoooob Regardless, obtaining his ID allows them to know if he is one of the many wanted terrorists active right now via PNC. "Intimated"??? That's not a word, yet it's the key for your sentence, which means I can't read about half of your second statement. Even if you mean to say "insinuated", that word doesn't work here. Try again. The officer's intentions were to establish that he is not a terrorist, plain an simple. The officer's stated multiple times that their is nothing wrong with filming in public, but it does have consequences if reasonably suspected to be involved in terrorism, which it is. It doesn't matter if the officers stutter when giving their grounds or wait for 5 minutes in silence half-way through them. The grounds are there, making this a legal stop and search, along with more than enough reasonable suspicion

yup no other reason

why would they give an easy payday to someone that they want to annoy

@@crabtreedrive6689 Because it's not their money.

​@@lordlucan3706 giving someone you want to annoy a wad of cash does not equal a win, regardless of where the money comes from

Cheers 🍻