https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=842092179158744

 

This should lead to a lively debate! 

 

Was he totally within his rights to film?

Was the civilian actually breaking the law?

Was he correct in his assumptions?

Was the rozzeress really trespassing?

Did she have to be so bloody rude?

Why didn't she simply remove her foot AS POLITELY requested to defuse a potential confrontation and scuffle if he touched her.......or is that what she was hoping for i suspect, quickly followed by an arrest?

Was the other copper within his rights to tell him to stop filming from his own property?

 

I don't know the FULL rights and wrongs here, but would be interested to know.

Edited 16 August, 201411 yr by Mr Ree

Just watched this on Facebook. It's quite funny lol. I haven't got a clue on the rights etc but maybe a police briskodian may have more info! I would have thought he has rights to film as coppers can film you like you see on those TV programmes where they are arresting drunks etc.

well, she's certailny got a face you'd like to punch

It is perfectly legal to film a police officer:

From the Met site - "Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."

Despite what many police officers believe...

well, she's certailny got a face you'd like to punch

Gorra dent in my screen now funnily enough!

Yeah, he's within is rights. If he wasn't they'd have done something about it, for one

 

I sometimes watch a program on foreign TV about a guy who does this all the time. Goes around checking out mobile speed traps to make sure they are 100% compliant with the regulations and more or less harasses them into either moving on or making them set the kit up correctly. Its quite funny to watch, sometimes. Last time I watched, he approached a marked vehicle parked on a grass verge with their camera set up and quoted the law and asked the second guy to give the driver a ticket for illegal parking. The exchange was amusing, basically, are you not going to give this guy a ticket for breaking the law because he's your mate? 

I saw that on facebook,i thought the camera & machine decided if you were speeding not the bloke sitting in the van as the guy filming suggested in his write up. The bloke in the van didnt want his face on film did he......lol. 

Brilliant! I love how they know they can't do a thing and just have to walk off

It's a Safety Camera Partnership van isn't it?  They are manged and staffed by civilians aren't they.  Presumably they are authourised by the chief constable to operate an approved device, they are not making any decisions on prosecution.  They could have trained monkeys in the back for all the difference it makes.

 

The guy was within his rights to film even if hes was a bit of an a-hole about it.

I always thought fireman sam was a nice guy. Turns out hes not keen on speed cameras

I think the issue around the van was that it was liveried up as a police vehicle. I *think* that the camera vans have to be shown as camera vans but should not be liveried as police unless operated by a police officer.

Many of the camera van operators are actually police officers seconded to the safety camera partnership.

 

So far as van markings are concerned, the rules changed about 3/4 years ago when the funding arrangements changed.  These days there are no rules about markings, indeed they do not have to be marked at all (although generally they will be).  Certainly in Devon and Cornwall they are police marked these days.

See here, there's lots of different types:

 

http://www.ukemergency.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=56&layout=blog&Itemid=90

 

Certainly no 'standard' markings.

I think the guy filming is a bit of a ****.  It's not unlike the cyclist with the camera on a recent thread that clearly (to me - just my opinion) wants people to react to him so he can film it and post it for attention.

 

The police were pretty tolerant, and it seems to me they just wanted to talk to him about it.  The guy operating the camera obviously just wanted to do his job, and not have some wad shove a camera down his throat because he's a civil servant (and that apparently makes him a fair target for weirdos).

 

If the police or civil servant were actually doing something not ok then fair enough, expose it.  This though just seems like a good way to waste police time to me...

It's a Safety Camera Partnership van isn't it?  They are manged and staffed by civilians aren't they.  Presumably they are authourised by the chief constable to operate an approved device, they are not making any decisions on prosecution.  They could have trained monkeys in the back for all the difference it makes.

 

The guy was within his rights to film even if hes was a bit of an a-hole about it.

 

I wonder then, if you went around with a big van and blocked the line of sight of the camera van what they could do about it (assuming parked legally). I assume nothing as they are not police officers?

I think the guy filming is a bit of a ****.  It's not unlike the cyclist with the camera on a recent thread that clearly (to me - just my opinion) wants people to react to him so he can film it and post it for attention.

 

The police were pretty tolerant, and it seems to me they just wanted to talk to him about it.  The guy operating the camera obviously just wanted to do his job, and not have some wad shove a camera down his throat because he's a civil servant (and that apparently makes him a fair target for weirdos).

 

If the police or civil servant were actually doing something not ok then fair enough, expose it.  This though just seems like a good way to waste police time to me...

 

Except for the pinch faced bitch clearly trying to intimidate him and implying that his mental health was in question and he shouldn't be allowed to drive! I think that's for qualified persons to decide love (you know, doctors, judges...), not you!

Except for the pinch faced bitch clearly trying to intimidate him and implying that his mental health was in question and he shouldn't be allowed to drive! I think that's for qualified persons to decide love (you know, doctors, judges...), not you!

Sincerely hope he reported that tbh.

Unbelievably unprofessional, especially as she knew she was being filmed too.

 

What a complete and utter WAY above her station  arse.

That's Ferndale folk for you !!!

Makes me wonder if Taffycam had recieved a fpn from one of those vans and was intent on 'revenge' as he certainly was on some sort of evangelical mission. Personally I thought he was a complete t**t and the 2 coppers handled it reasonably well given the circumstances.

Haven't watched it but yes you can film the rozzers in a public place and they know it.

You can also film traffic wardens if you like.

Bear in mind they might film you back. Lots of them have body cameras now.

 

No one has rights to not be filmed in a public place. This changes if you're being filmed for commercial purposes and you are the subject of of the footage.

Crowd scenes don't count.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 says police officers can stop you filming them if they believe that the video will be used for purposes of terrorism.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 says police officers can stop you filming them if they believe that the video will be used for purposes of terrorism.

well the geezer in the rozzer van looked a bit terrified the way he was ducking diving weaving  and hiding, or doesn't that count?

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 says police officers can stop you filming them if they believe that the video will be used for purposes of terrorism.

 

Doesn't that only apply in certain designated areas?

 

 

An officer making an arrest under section 58A must reasonably suspect that the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.  An example might be gathering information about the person’s house, car, routes to work and other movements.

Reasonable excuse under section 58A

It is a statutory defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for eliciting, publishing or communicating the relevant information.

Important:Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse. Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.

 

 

Irritating a rozzer in the street is probably ok then :peek:

Edited 18 August, 201411 yr by Aspman

So, can a civilian work in the back of a marked Police vehicle? Is he in fact impersontaing a Police officer?

Doesn't that only apply in certain designated areas?

 

 

Irritating a rozzer in the street is probably ok then :peek:

 

 

nope, applies everywhere. They can arrest you and really inconvenience you and then later release you when they manage to establish you're not in league with terrorists. Genuine suspicion, sorry for the inconvenience and any embarrassment and all that