The only thing this short bit of media proves is what a complete wanker you are Mr Pollard. Doh, if only the long arm of the law actually had the power, in this instance and in this case to take your camera off you.
This seems to me a small but important example which demonstrates the way in which policing has changed significantly in the last 20-30 years.
I’m old enough (60s) to remember the ‘Dixon of Dock Green era’, where police still exhibited the same sorts of characteristics that Robert Peel instigated over 170 years ago when he formed the Metropolitan police.
Until recent times the police were essentially the same sorts of citizens as the rest of us, albeit ones with the significant additional powers of arrest.
But nevertheless they were a citizen’s force first and foremost. They upheld the citizens rights against those who sought to act outside the law, be they state officials or other citizens.
In the last generation I’ve noticed a distinct shift away from their traditional role, and they are ever more becoming an arm of the state rather than the citizenry.
One only has to think of the powers they have acquired to arrest people who have the temerity to read out a list of those who have died in Iraq, outside Downing Street, or the arrest of those who wish to protestt within a kilometre of the Houses of Parliament.
This video neatly sums it up for me. The first reaction of the police in question, is to seek to prevent an ordinary Englishman going about his own business on his own property. Moreover they appear to be making up the law on the hoof, as is claimed by Mr Pollard in the film.
I contrast this with the way in which I have observed the Police in Manchester, who regularly film those who are participating in peaceful protests in the city centre. When I’ve asked them why they are filming, the stock excuse is, ‘in case any complaints are made afterwards, we have the evidence’. Well if filming peaceful protestors is good enough for the police, then it seems the sauce for the gander is that ordinary citizens should in turn be free to film the police.
Mr Pollard is to be congratulated on capturing this evidence on video. It is to be hoped that it receives a much wider audience. I’ve certainly added it to my blog and will be taking it up with my MP: asking her to raise the whole subject of police powers and their drift away from being a citizens force.
Dazza, Start contributing to this society that you hate so much and stop leaching off it, you waste of skin.
Poor Mr Pollard believes that the His local Police are harassing him. As if they have the time to, between attending the dozen or so domestics reported each 10 hour shift and the laughable report of assault following a Friday night fight where the “Victim” has lost and had a good kicking.
Darren needs to realize that filming the Police while they try to do their job, which someone has to do, only creates more work for them.
I suppose you would rather there be no Police at all so you could go about your “life” without be bothered by some jumped up kid telling you to stop filming him.
I’m sure you would love someone filming you while you do your job or collect you giro or both.
Sorry H, I can’t let you get away with such a lazy statement like that.
Please explain why you think that filming the police creates more work for them? What is this additional work you seem so exercised aboout?
And consider this. The police regularly film those who are going about their lawful right to protest or demonstrate. You need to ask why, and when you’ve answered that you’ll then know why filming the police is not so unreasonable. Have you forgotten, or perhaps you never saw, the police actions at Orgreave or Saltley.
I am not about to explain how filming them creates more work for the Police (Not a cop out, pardon the pun).
The Police film demonstrations, not to invade peoples privacy or breach their human rights, but for when the minority of morons, who attend the demonstrations with the sole agenda of causing trouble and having a fight with the Police, kick off.
The main difference is that the Police don’t film people to provoke a response unlike most ANWOA.
Mr Pollard thinks that he is Mark Thomas.
Darren’s time would be better spent pointing his camera at the parasites on his estate that lower everyone’s quality of life, assisting the police to do their job by providing evidence for them to act on. He may even feel some degree of satisfaction from it.
As for Orgreave, I wasn’t there and I am not qualified to comment on what happened. But I am sure that it would not happen again now that the Police have moved on to be a much more accountable establishment.
You may well be right, and Orgreave and Saltley probably would not happen again. Ironically I have to say, probably because people like Mr Pollard might be around. Would you see that as a bad thing?
However you haven’t addressed the fundamental question. Mr Pollard was in his own house filming the police. You need to explain to me why that created more work for them. Implicit in your comment is the suggestion that there was some need for them to take time out to prevent him filming. What exactly was that need? If they had stopped him filming, apart from that, what would have been achieved and how would it have added to the overall good of society?
Your other comment is inconsistent in another way. You complain that the police don’t have time to harass him because of all the rest of society’s ills that they have to attend to. I would agree, yet they did find time to harass him. And you haven’t yet explained what additional work his filming caused them, other than the harassment they were clearly prepared to undertake until they thought better of it.
And no, I don’t collect a giro, and I would equally object if the police tried to film me at work. Quite rightly too. Why exactly do you think the police should have powers to do this for heavens sake?
Look, I’m not some left wing throw back to the red brigade or a left wing socialist marxist sympathiser with a grudge to bear against the police. I’ve been a card carrying Tory for a large part of my life, and many years ago I had an inherent respect for the police. That has changed somewhat these last 10-15 years.
I mentioned Orgreave and Saltley because what I saw there many years ago was equally wrong. Until recent years the police were a highly respected force in society. That has undoubtedly changed and I find that rather sad. Actions like we see above do nothing whatsoever to bring a greater respect to the police and they need to recognise this.
Firstly I must apologize; the giro comment was not aimed at you Richard but at Mr Pollard.
As for filming the Police creating more work for them; any person, Police or public, must question anyone who is filming them. They are not acting unlawfully or harassing the camera person by doing so. But the Police have to account for everything that they do, in written format, more office time!
My comment about you (A member of the public) being filmed while at work did not mention the police, “I’m sure you would love SOMEONE filming you while you do your job.” Imagine going about your business and spotting someone filming you, what would you do? Think about it, I would be livid and want to know what they were doing, I haven’t given anyone permission to film me, never mind post it on the internet!
In another clip by Darren, he touches on censorship. I left negative feedback on his youtube clip, he removed it then blocked me from leaving further comments. Is that not censorship?
You’re an idiot.
Where would you be without the police. Fucked, that’s where. Unfortunately it’s the police that have to defend little dicks like you from all the people you piss off, and I can imagine that list is quite long!
With regards to being filmed while I work, every job I’ve ever had has had me under a camera. Darren, great work! I plan on purchasing a camera and filming police whenever I see them abusing power.
Well, last summer I worked for the US government as a park ranger, we were under video many different places there. I’ve also worked at gasoline stations with constant video, at call centers with video, at the airport with video, you name it man I’ve worked under the camera lol. Nothing important or exciting, just under the camera while I’m at work.
No, I don’t mind the cameras being there. I just feel if the government has a “right” to film me then I have a “right” to film them. From watching Mr. Pollard’s films, this concept is hardly a mainstream idea with police today. This is true even in America where I live, police brutality is on the rise.
Whoa there, let’s have a libertarian check shall we and start with some democratic basics.
No authority, of whatever sort or at whatever level, has an unquestionable ‘right’ to do anything.
The things they are permitted to do are only those things which citizens, through their democratic processes and law making, have decreed they should be allowed to do. It’s as simple as that.
Here in the UK I’m not aware that we have ever granted the police the ‘right’ to film us, or ever been asked the question. Unfortunately this has crept up on us, via the passive acceptance of CCTV monitoring, and the police assuming the right to film by virtue of the general power they have to keep order in society.
But just because this ‘right’ to film is de facto, it does not necessarily mean it is de jure. We should always be vigilant when it comes to these sorts of area. The one certain thing we know is that the authorities and government will assume powers they don’t have, knowingly or unknowingly, and leave its citizens to challenge them in law. You only have to look back at the number of times in recent years that government decisions have successfully been challenged in the courts, either here at home or in the European Court.
Well put. Having cameras filming us all the time is so commonplace anymore that I hardly ever give it a second thought. It would be interesting to do some research on the history of public taping for government use against it’s citizens.
Why do you think it is, “Against it’s citizens”?
The Police can not and do not film indiscriminately, they have to adhere to strict guidelines, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. CCTV is to protect the innocent, if someone is concerned that CCTV can be used against them, there is a good chance that they are doing something wrong.
As for “The government” You need to understand that the Police are not the Government, they are separate agencies and rarely pull in the same direction never mind communicate with each other, except than to ask for more powers or be asked to justify the powers they have or loose them. It is not “Big Brother” or “Enemy of the State”.
When you worked in the gas station, you were not being filmed, the cameras were there as a deterrent to criminals or to provide evidence should you be held up, shot or assaulted.
How would you feel if someone you love was a victim of a violent crime, in an area that was previously covered by a camera, but you were told that camera was removed due to public protest?
I have never seen a camera and thought it was an invasion of my privacy. On the other hand, if someone followed me around with a camcorder filming me and only and everything I did without my permission, I would have cause for complaint.
I have suggested in the past that Mr Pollards time would be much better spent pointing his camera at the scum that live in his estate and handing the tapes to the Police, they would be legally obliged to act on it and he might even feel good about raising the quality of life for the other residents by helping to removing the cancer of society that are bleeding it dry.
22 Comments
The only thing this short bit of media proves is what a complete wanker you are Mr Pollard. Doh, if only the long arm of the law actually had the power, in this instance and in this case to take your camera off you.
Lovely. Teach them Darren.
Hah, there are more on his Youtube. :)
haha great this. funny because same experience just about happened to me!
I’m not so sanguine as Scott appears to be.
This seems to me a small but important example which demonstrates the way in which policing has changed significantly in the last 20-30 years.
I’m old enough (60s) to remember the ‘Dixon of Dock Green era’, where police still exhibited the same sorts of characteristics that Robert Peel instigated over 170 years ago when he formed the Metropolitan police.
Until recent times the police were essentially the same sorts of citizens as the rest of us, albeit ones with the significant additional powers of arrest.
But nevertheless they were a citizen’s force first and foremost. They upheld the citizens rights against those who sought to act outside the law, be they state officials or other citizens.
In the last generation I’ve noticed a distinct shift away from their traditional role, and they are ever more becoming an arm of the state rather than the citizenry.
One only has to think of the powers they have acquired to arrest people who have the temerity to read out a list of those who have died in Iraq, outside Downing Street, or the arrest of those who wish to protestt within a kilometre of the Houses of Parliament.
This video neatly sums it up for me. The first reaction of the police in question, is to seek to prevent an ordinary Englishman going about his own business on his own property. Moreover they appear to be making up the law on the hoof, as is claimed by Mr Pollard in the film.
I contrast this with the way in which I have observed the Police in Manchester, who regularly film those who are participating in peaceful protests in the city centre. When I’ve asked them why they are filming, the stock excuse is, ‘in case any complaints are made afterwards, we have the evidence’. Well if filming peaceful protestors is good enough for the police, then it seems the sauce for the gander is that ordinary citizens should in turn be free to film the police.
Mr Pollard is to be congratulated on capturing this evidence on video. It is to be hoped that it receives a much wider audience. I’ve certainly added it to my blog and will be taking it up with my MP: asking her to raise the whole subject of police powers and their drift away from being a citizens force.
Dazza, Start contributing to this society that you hate so much and stop leaching off it, you waste of skin.
Poor Mr Pollard believes that the His local Police are harassing him. As if they have the time to, between attending the dozen or so domestics reported each 10 hour shift and the laughable report of assault following a Friday night fight where the “Victim” has lost and had a good kicking.
Darren needs to realize that filming the Police while they try to do their job, which someone has to do, only creates more work for them.
I suppose you would rather there be no Police at all so you could go about your “life” without be bothered by some jumped up kid telling you to stop filming him.
I’m sure you would love someone filming you while you do your job or collect you giro or both.
Sorry H, I can’t let you get away with such a lazy statement like that.
Please explain why you think that filming the police creates more work for them? What is this additional work you seem so exercised aboout?
And consider this. The police regularly film those who are going about their lawful right to protest or demonstrate. You need to ask why, and when you’ve answered that you’ll then know why filming the police is not so unreasonable. Have you forgotten, or perhaps you never saw, the police actions at Orgreave or Saltley.
Rgds
I am not about to explain how filming them creates more work for the Police (Not a cop out, pardon the pun).
The Police film demonstrations, not to invade peoples privacy or breach their human rights, but for when the minority of morons, who attend the demonstrations with the sole agenda of causing trouble and having a fight with the Police, kick off.
The main difference is that the Police don’t film people to provoke a response unlike most ANWOA.
Mr Pollard thinks that he is Mark Thomas.
Darren’s time would be better spent pointing his camera at the parasites on his estate that lower everyone’s quality of life, assisting the police to do their job by providing evidence for them to act on. He may even feel some degree of satisfaction from it.
As for Orgreave, I wasn’t there and I am not qualified to comment on what happened. But I am sure that it would not happen again now that the Police have moved on to be a much more accountable establishment.
You may well be right, and Orgreave and Saltley probably would not happen again. Ironically I have to say, probably because people like Mr Pollard might be around. Would you see that as a bad thing?
However you haven’t addressed the fundamental question. Mr Pollard was in his own house filming the police. You need to explain to me why that created more work for them. Implicit in your comment is the suggestion that there was some need for them to take time out to prevent him filming. What exactly was that need? If they had stopped him filming, apart from that, what would have been achieved and how would it have added to the overall good of society?
Your other comment is inconsistent in another way. You complain that the police don’t have time to harass him because of all the rest of society’s ills that they have to attend to. I would agree, yet they did find time to harass him. And you haven’t yet explained what additional work his filming caused them, other than the harassment they were clearly prepared to undertake until they thought better of it.
And no, I don’t collect a giro, and I would equally object if the police tried to film me at work. Quite rightly too. Why exactly do you think the police should have powers to do this for heavens sake?
Look, I’m not some left wing throw back to the red brigade or a left wing socialist marxist sympathiser with a grudge to bear against the police. I’ve been a card carrying Tory for a large part of my life, and many years ago I had an inherent respect for the police. That has changed somewhat these last 10-15 years.
I mentioned Orgreave and Saltley because what I saw there many years ago was equally wrong. Until recent years the police were a highly respected force in society. That has undoubtedly changed and I find that rather sad. Actions like we see above do nothing whatsoever to bring a greater respect to the police and they need to recognise this.
Rgds
Firstly I must apologize; the giro comment was not aimed at you Richard but at Mr Pollard.
As for filming the Police creating more work for them; any person, Police or public, must question anyone who is filming them. They are not acting unlawfully or harassing the camera person by doing so. But the Police have to account for everything that they do, in written format, more office time!
My comment about you (A member of the public) being filmed while at work did not mention the police, “I’m sure you would love SOMEONE filming you while you do your job.” Imagine going about your business and spotting someone filming you, what would you do? Think about it, I would be livid and want to know what they were doing, I haven’t given anyone permission to film me, never mind post it on the internet!
In another clip by Darren, he touches on censorship. I left negative feedback on his youtube clip, he removed it then blocked me from leaving further comments. Is that not censorship?
You’re an idiot.
Where would you be without the police. Fucked, that’s where. Unfortunately it’s the police that have to defend little dicks like you from all the people you piss off, and I can imagine that list is quite long!
And what’s your job anyway, so I can bring down a camera and film you all day.
You probably don’t have one!
With regards to being filmed while I work, every job I’ve ever had has had me under a camera. Darren, great work! I plan on purchasing a camera and filming police whenever I see them abusing power.
Bakrain, what jobs have you had where you are filmed? Sounds really exciting or important! Or are you an actor?
Well, last summer I worked for the US government as a park ranger, we were under video many different places there. I’ve also worked at gasoline stations with constant video, at call centers with video, at the airport with video, you name it man I’ve worked under the camera lol. Nothing important or exciting, just under the camera while I’m at work.
Would you rather the camera’s were not there? If so, Why?
No, I don’t mind the cameras being there. I just feel if the government has a “right” to film me then I have a “right” to film them. From watching Mr. Pollard’s films, this concept is hardly a mainstream idea with police today. This is true even in America where I live, police brutality is on the rise.
Whoa there, let’s have a libertarian check shall we and start with some democratic basics.
No authority, of whatever sort or at whatever level, has an unquestionable ‘right’ to do anything.
The things they are permitted to do are only those things which citizens, through their democratic processes and law making, have decreed they should be allowed to do. It’s as simple as that.
Here in the UK I’m not aware that we have ever granted the police the ‘right’ to film us, or ever been asked the question. Unfortunately this has crept up on us, via the passive acceptance of CCTV monitoring, and the police assuming the right to film by virtue of the general power they have to keep order in society.
But just because this ‘right’ to film is de facto, it does not necessarily mean it is de jure. We should always be vigilant when it comes to these sorts of area. The one certain thing we know is that the authorities and government will assume powers they don’t have, knowingly or unknowingly, and leave its citizens to challenge them in law. You only have to look back at the number of times in recent years that government decisions have successfully been challenged in the courts, either here at home or in the European Court.
Well put. Having cameras filming us all the time is so commonplace anymore that I hardly ever give it a second thought. It would be interesting to do some research on the history of public taping for government use against it’s citizens.
Why do you think it is, “Against it’s citizens”?
The Police can not and do not film indiscriminately, they have to adhere to strict guidelines, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. CCTV is to protect the innocent, if someone is concerned that CCTV can be used against them, there is a good chance that they are doing something wrong.
As for “The government” You need to understand that the Police are not the Government, they are separate agencies and rarely pull in the same direction never mind communicate with each other, except than to ask for more powers or be asked to justify the powers they have or loose them. It is not “Big Brother” or “Enemy of the State”.
When you worked in the gas station, you were not being filmed, the cameras were there as a deterrent to criminals or to provide evidence should you be held up, shot or assaulted.
How would you feel if someone you love was a victim of a violent crime, in an area that was previously covered by a camera, but you were told that camera was removed due to public protest?
I have never seen a camera and thought it was an invasion of my privacy. On the other hand, if someone followed me around with a camcorder filming me and only and everything I did without my permission, I would have cause for complaint.
I have suggested in the past that Mr Pollards time would be much better spent pointing his camera at the scum that live in his estate and handing the tapes to the Police, they would be legally obliged to act on it and he might even feel good about raising the quality of life for the other residents by helping to removing the cancer of society that are bleeding it dry.