Tim Ireland on tabloids, media, blogs and politics
Bishopsgate Police Station
This entry was posted on
Monday, April 20th, 2009 at
11:25 am and is filed
under The War on Stupid.
Bishopsgate Police Station (via)
Bishopsgate Police Station. Bishopsgate Police Station. Bishopsgate Police Station.
Bishopsgate Police Station!Bishopsgate Police Station!Bishopsgate Police Station!/timmy
| Print article | This entry was posted by Tim Ireland on April 20, 2009 at 11:25 am, and is filed under The War on Stupid. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed. |
Comments are closed.
about 2 years ago
I read the transcript of this video in one of the papers on Friday evening – disgraceful. When the Police start behaving as if they are above the law, then there is a massive problem. I wonder why they are trying to make it a criminal offence to Photograph or Video the Police ?
about 2 years ago
I'm shocked that they didn't try to arrest the cameraman under some obstruction of justice or the terrorism act or something along those lines.
about 2 years ago
He appears to be City of London police and an Inspector, so that's a senior supervisor breaking the law. So much for the bad apple argument.
about 2 years ago
You do know now as a senior officer he only need show his pips and not his number?This is an annoying fuss over nothing.
about 2 years ago
So why not tell the questioner that and give his rank and name? I have had a comment to this effect also, can someone confirm that on such duty such officers are exempt? And if so doesn't this show they shouldn't be?
about 2 years ago
Phoned City plod, who said Inspectors and above don't have the number on their Epaulettes. Doesn't explain why he just kept saying- Bishopsgate Police Station!
about 2 years ago
"a senior officer he only need show his pips and not his number"Yes, but as Rick points out he could've said this instead of repeating the name of his station. And, personally, I'd like to see the rules changed, if not the attitude.Let's see senior policemen setting an example and wearing their badge numbers with pride.Lead by example and all that.:o)
about 2 years ago
I think I should add, to be fair, yes DHG/Guy, an annoying fuss over nothing in this instance. The officer from (which station was that again?) didn't do himself any favours, mind. Perhaps the contempt is there because the lad doesn't know his law… then again, perhaps the contempt is just there.I still think senior officers should wear badge numbers, too. I don't regard this to be an unreasonable expectation, but I'd happily listen to any reason(s) why it's a bad idea.
about 2 years ago
This is what I'm talking about, we get the G20 events and certain people pick up on any old bollocks to help further prove their point and by doing so, lose steam.This is exactly that in my opinion. The events of G20 were and are enough of an example of bad practice by the police but trying to make this annoying twunt (as in the guy behind the camera) out to be some kind of hero and the officer in question a bad guy is the step too far which makes the whole argument lose focus and power.Which is a shame.
about 2 years ago
Why are senior officer not required to have their numbers on display?To the public they are still just policemen.There is no reason for this guy not to give his number at least, but instead, as Manic says, shows contempt.That contempt filters down through the ranks. If the boss can behave like that, then rank and file are going think its ok too.This guy with the camera is no hero. He has gone upto a copper to ask for his ID number, knowing that it may annoy the coppers. Maybe he was trying to provoke a reaction, maybe he just wanted to prove a point. Whatever it was the copper just had to say his ID number and that would've taken (at least half of) the wind out of this guys sails.What would we have had then? A copper not wearing his number because he doesn't have to, identifying himself when requested. How many blogs would that video have got onto?Instead we have a policeman being deliberately obstructive. Nice one, PC Plod.
about 2 years ago
Sorry Sim-O, don't buy that at all, this is becoming an argument of spite, which is understandable considering the pointless and nasty acts of a few officers at G20 but all this does, it weaken the argument for change and makes 'us' look like pissy idiots.
about 2 years ago
DHG/Guy, I'm going to stop you right there and fully admit to waving this video clip about somewhat carelessly when it doesn't prove what others claim it proves.I should have added words to that effect (to the post or under comments) a lot earlier instead of only making fun of Mr Bishopsgate Police Station and leaving it at that.That said, I have worked very hard not to tar all policemen with the same brush, and I will happily try even harder.I won't sniff at you and make out that I do this merely to keep you happy, but because I recognise that you do have a point.
about 2 years ago
That said, while I recognise your point enough to act on and exercise more caution based on it, I also supect that some people might have an interest in using that same point to dodge or draw attention away from valid questions/issues:http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/04/poli...We've known each other long enough for you to know that I'm not for a minute suggesting that this is what you're up to here. It is not something I have ever seen you do, and it's not something I would expect of you.(Boris I've known even longer, and I totally expect it from him.)
about 2 years ago
Cool, I'm just about the grey that's all, rather than the black and white, as in the wider spectrum and both sides of the argument and all that.Which indeed you are.Just want to chip in with an alternate voice.Peace.