|
9 Nov 2007, 14:27
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 247
|
Law Question
Yahwe, milo's sig has a link to this article. Gorman is told he would be arrested for breach of the peace if he didn't leave. Are the Police actually within their rights to do that given the specifics of the circumstance?
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 15:54
|
#2
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Law Question
Of course they are, he sounds like a pedo who's going to pedo-eat them with his digital camera!
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 22:21
|
#3
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by You Are Gay
Yahwe, milo's sig has a link to this article. Gorman is told he would be arrested for breach of the peace if he didn't leave. Are the Police actually within their rights to do that given the specifics of the circumstance?
|
Can there even be a proper answer to that question?
Could the police have physically arrested him? Yes.
Would have any charges been placed against him? Almost certainly not.
Were the cops being twats? By the sounds of it, yeah.
Would he have suffered beyond inconvenience? Not likely.
Would, if challenged, the cops and security guard swear blind that he kicked off and was getting agitated? Very possibly.
If he complained to the police force in question, would his complaint be upheld? Possibly.
Could he sue the police for eighty billion pounds? No. But he might get a letter of apology and a mug saying "I've Met the Met".
Does any of this matter? No.
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 22:30
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Law Question
Even if he was taking photos of children why would this be illegal
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 23:56
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Hicks
If he complained to the police force in question, would his complaint be upheld? Possibly.
|
Almost certainly not, having had a friends who tried to complain what most people are left with is a letter to the affect of
Dear Sir/Madam/Ms/Mrs/Prof/Foreign git/Dr
Thank you for your letter dated ../../.. in which you expressed the aggressive/inapppropriate/judgemental/bullying/bastardish/fascist/abusive and generally shit attitude of PC/WPC/DC/DS .........
We have been unable to find any evidence of what you say, and PC/WPC/DC/DS contradicts you. We trust them so **** you. I would like to assure you we hold ourselves to the highest standards and I will be sure to advice the officer concerned to be clearer in his/her mannerisms in the future.
yours sincerely
Blah.
Thats assuming the complaint isn't outright rejected, i don't know anyone whos complained in about a year but afaik in england and wales complaints first go to the force concerned not the ipcc. If your complaint isn't alledging anything illegal and basically just says the officer was a complete and utter cnut* they do little more than ignore you.
* which from what i hear most complaints are about
|
|
|
9 Nov 2007, 23:59
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,094
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Even if he was taking photos of children why would this be illegal
|
If the photographs were thought to be indecent?? Which is vague enough a term to arrest anyone you don't like the look of. I don't think any law states the child has to be naked or in xyz pose, just 'indecent'.
|
|
|
10 Nov 2007, 01:18
|
#7
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Even if he was taking photos of children why would this be illegal
|
because nowadays, unlesss you have the specific permission of the parent/guardian, it is most definately frowned upon to take any pictured of kids, in a most serious way
oh, and for the record, i would have turned the recorder on my phone on for both conversations, and refused to leave
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
10 Nov 2007, 01:21
|
#8
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Law Question
'frowned upon' is not the same as 'illegal'.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Nov 2007, 01:27
|
#9
|
cynic
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bishop Auckland Co. Durham
Posts: 8,809
|
Re: Law Question
you're right, it isnt, however, speaking as someone who has to work with this stupidity, if they had looked at his camera, and it had pictures of children on, no matter how innocuous they seemed, the police wouldnt have been asking him to leave
__________________
lazy
|
|
|
10 Nov 2007, 01:35
|
#10
|
Clerk
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 13,940
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by milo
Almost certainly not, having had a friends who tried to complain what most people are left with is a letter to the affect of
|
Assuming that blog is actually Dave Gorman (I've not checked), I suspect the difference here is that your friends weren't minor celebrities.
If I was the Inspector (or whomever it is responds to this sort of thing) I'd weigh up the possible damage of simply apologising for the officers "understandable heavy handedness given recent problems in the area" versus the potential damage if some stupid media "thing" occurs and four thousand witnesses contradict the officers versions of events.
|
|
|
10 Nov 2007, 14:34
|
#11
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Law Question
I don't approve of this gimmick account.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
10 Nov 2007, 15:15
|
#12
|
:alpha:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: London, UK
Posts: 7,871
|
Re: Law Question
It isn't a gimmick account - he's made 142 posts already. He's normally into creative kooks though!
__________________
"There is no I in team, but there are two in anal fisting"
|
|
|
11 Nov 2007, 19:48
|
#13
|
I ♡ ☠
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 834
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Even if he was taking photos of children why would this be illegal
|
I know professional photographers who require their models to fill out a minor model release form. I guess this does not apply to celebrities though else most of the tabloids would be bankrupt by now.
|
|
|
11 Nov 2007, 23:09
|
#14
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hebdomad
I know professional photographers who require their models to fill out a minor model release form. I guess this does not apply to celebrities though else most of the tabloids would be bankrupt by now.
|
weeks can I ask where you grew up?
I don't want this to be a big thing. So I'm not saying publicly why and it certainly isn't a bad thing. Just something you typed is interesting for a study my father's been doing. - please pm
__________________
hi
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 00:47
|
#15
|
I ♡ ☠
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 834
|
Re: Law Question
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
weeks can I ask where you grew up?
I don't want this to be a big thing. So I'm not saying publicly why and it certainly isn't a bad thing. Just something you typed is interesting for a study my father's been doing. - please pm
|
but you wrote this in a thread
it is a big thing. it's very big. i've compared.
|
|
|
12 Nov 2007, 17:08
|
#16
|
Gone
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 14,656
|
Re: Law Question
horn's in parties
it's in the can
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:21.
| |