Fit watch: On the buses

Friday, 5 June 2009

On the buses

This photo was sent to us by a demonstrator on the Mayday protests in Brighton. It shows two Sussex police evidence gatherers escaping the attention of the Mayday marchers by filming from the top deck of a bus.
FIT and evidence gatherers at the Brighton demo were given an exceptionally hard time. Evidence gatherers were pushed out of the crowd as it assembled near Brighton pier, and their cameras were the focus of constant attention from that point onwards. Photographers crowded them, demonstrators squirted water at them, FITwatchers blocked them. So presumably, these two took it upon themselves to escape from all that and hide on the top deck of a bus where no-one would notice them.
There is just one problem with that decision – it quite possibly meant that their filming of the march from this point was unlawful.
Their problem is RIPA, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This defines covert surveillance as follows:

9) For the purposes of this section—
(a) surveillance is covert if, and only if, it is carried out in a manner that is calculated to ensure that persons who are subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place;

Just like hiding out of sight in a bus with a video camera, then?
This type of surveillance is perfectly lawful if the police have justified it and obtained the appropriate authorisation. It is, apparently, quite an onerous process. According to an ACPO review it takes on average five hours to fill in the forms for an authorisation. Somehow I suspect that these two just didn’t bother to do that.
Normal FIT surveillance escapes all this because it is OVERT rather than COVERT. This means, according to the Met, “officers should clearly identify themselves as police officers and not hide the fact that they are filming”*.
COVERT filming, as defined by RIPA, carried out without authorisation, is of questionable legality. I am sure Sussex police, concerned as they are to prevent breaches of the law, will now conduct a thorough enquiry, discipline those involved and destroy the footage taken. Of course.

*Met police Use of Overt Filming / Photography Policy Statement, taken from Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2009]EWCA Civ 414 §13

53 comments:

Anonymous said...: but if someone saw them and photographed them doing it they can't have been in a place where people wouldn't notice they were being filmed from.; 5 June 2009 at 04:33
200g said...: "they can't have been in a place where people wouldn't notice they were being filmed from."

Erm what do you understand the term 'calculated' to mean?; 5 June 2009 at 04:39
Anonymous said...: Until police are relieved of their contractual obligations to enforce corporate policy (government acts and statutes), they are unable to perform their duties as peace officers and therefore forfeit their powers as such.; 5 June 2009 at 05:13
Anonymous said...: There are no such things as 'peace officers' in the UK, that's a US term and covers everyone from mall security through to Police officers. There is no contractual obligation as we are not contracted employees, we are holders of office granted by statute and the office of constable is to uphold and act upon acts of law and statute.; 5 June 2009 at 05:57
Clovis said...: like the hunting ban, for example.; 5 June 2009 at 06:57
Anonymous said...: yeah, along with all the nearly 3000 other unenforceable and unworkable pieces of legislation brought in by Labour in the last decade. They keep legislating and not giving any additional means to deal with them up on top of all the other crap we have to deal with as if just creating a new law means you'll cut crime over night.; 5 June 2009 at 07:18
Anonymous said...: Pics of fare dodgers are on. Numbers are CH451 And CB28

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2009/05/429409.html?c=on#c222684; 5 June 2009 at 08:11
Anonymous said...: Most new legislation is so badly written its unenforcable. Look at how simple the definitions are in most older common usage legislation compared to todays offerings.; 5 June 2009 at 10:29
Unknown said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5 June 2009 at 14:54
Sarah said...: 'but if someone saw them and photographed them doing it they can't have been in a place where people wouldn't notice they were being filmed from.'

I was the person who took that photo and I have to say it was PURE LUCK that I spotted them videoing everyone. When I mentioned to my sister that there were F.I.T filming from the bus she was shocked...as she didn't spot them...nor did, I would say, the majority of those who attended the protest. I mean..who the hell is going to take notice of a bus which has stopped because of the protest....just wish I checked out more buses on the way up to clock tower!!! Wonder how many more F.I.T officers used the buses as a way of gaining a good view point of the protest?; 6 June 2009 at 11:27
Anonymous said...: you can't speak for other people at the protest; 7 June 2009 at 02:42
Sarah said...: "you can't speak for other people at the protest"

Actually I can as I did ask several people who I know and who attended the protest if they had seen the police on the bus....ALL said NO. Question...was you there at the protest? Did you see the police on the bus??? If both are no then you can't comment really can you!! Like I said in my previous comment...it was PURE LUCK that I noticed them...especially as there were so many other things happening at the same time, people tend to look around them at ground level...not above them. Hence why it is that the police were bang out of order for using public transport to SPY on PEACEFUL protesters.; 7 June 2009 at 05:40
Anonymous said...: You lot really ought to wake up - the fact that you did not see them did not mean they were spying.

Glass = transparent and furthermore they are wearing hi vis jackets.

Be more observant in future or don't commit crime and it won't affect you!; 7 June 2009 at 05:59
Anonymous said...: i didn't say i could comment beyond sniping at your ridiculous suggestion that you could speak for other people at the demo. You can't possibly have asked even a mojority of people that were there so you're data doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.; 7 June 2009 at 13:20
Anonymous said...: Mr 07 June 2009 05:59

"Glass = transparent and furthermore they are wearing hi vis jackets."

Are you being serious or taking the piss? Do you really think officers inside on the top deck of a bus are clearly visible and not basically hiding? Think about this practically as if you were on the ground for fuck sake.

Furthermore this situation is clearly affecting people who aren't committing crime. I really fear you won't allow yourself to accept this under any circumstance from reading your responses. You clearly revel in the ideology of the ruling class. (Might want to look up ideology and false consciousness); 7 June 2009 at 22:27
Anonymous said...: It's quite clear that the EGT are being overt - hi-vis jackets, orange, looking through glass - at the FRONT of a bus (not hiding at the back). Perhaps they were fed up with jobless hippies trying to block their cameras so took it upon themselves to film from an area where they could do their job. What the boys in blue were doing was NOT unlawful.

You EGT/FIT haters are just keyboard warriors. I bet if you or your friends/family were in danger you'd call the police, just like everyone else. You lot (activists) are not above the law. You are professional victims - everything that the police do is against what you beliefs.

Can you post the non-cropped photo of the plod doing their job so we can see if FITwatch have manipulated the photo in any way?; 8 June 2009 at 04:03
Clovis said...: the last few times i've been in danger, there was no point calling the cops as they were the ones presenting the peril.; 8 June 2009 at 04:57
Sarah said...: "i didn't say i could comment beyond sniping at your ridiculous suggestion that you could speak for other people at the demo. You can't possibly have asked even a mojority of people that were there so you're data doesn't really stand up to scrutiny."

Erm excuse me but I asked over 20 people...sorry I couldn't ask everyone but hell I can't be friends with everyone and I knew you could do nothing more but snipe as thats probably all you can ever do and sorry but a psychological experiment can stand up to scrutiny with just ten people...so I think i've done ok with 20 odd. I also spoke to F.I.T officers and asked them how they have to operate and they stated that they have to be VISIBLE at all times and this means that people don't have to go searching for them. Have to say again PURE LUCK I saw them...so not quite so visible. They have rules they have to abide by and they did not do this.

"You EGT/FIT haters are just keyboard warriors. I bet if you or your friends/family were in danger you'd call the police, just like everyone else. You lot (activists) are not above the law. You are professional victims - everything that the police do is against what you beliefs.

Can you post the non-cropped photo of the plod doing their job so we can see if FITwatch have manipulated the photo in any way?"

First of being a gay women I have experienced enough violence by homophobic twats...and guess what the police did bugger all. I have also known of several people who have been raped, sexually abused etc and again the police did bugger all. A mate was beaten with a heavy duty metal dog chain around the head causing him serious injury, he knew who attacked him and I witnessed it...again the police did bugger all. So no I wouldn't bother calling the police.

Also the photo has not been manipulated in anyway...and I know this as I was the bugger who took it...all they have done is zoomed in on the actual police officers. And whilst I agree with you that we (activists) are not above the law it has to be stated that neither are the police, but hell we will just forget those coppers who have broken the law and got away with it yeah....you lot who come on this blog to bitch and moan at us should really grow up and open your eyes. The police force as a whole needs to be taken back to basics as they do think themselves above the law..and I have heard this from a COPPER.

F.I.T are filming EVERYONE on protests and placing them on a database...and for what? The MAJORITY of people who attend protests are normal everyday people who just wish to voice their beliefs...what is so wrong with that? But all you SCUM BAGS (and its not often I refer to people in such a way) can comment on is how all these normal people are jobless hippies with nothing better to do....how wrong can you be. Why don't you do something good with your spare time and actually research just how much we have lost our human rights instead of bleating on about if people like myself have spoken to the majority or not etc etc.; 8 June 2009 at 06:10
Anonymous said...: "They have rules they have to abide by and they did not do this."

Oh, so you're actually twelve people, who have heard all the evidence subtmitted by the CPS and defence and deliberated, according to the judges directions the questions which indicate guilt in these offences.

were the psychological experiments being done on you by any chance?; 8 June 2009 at 09:43
Clovis said...: the cops on here may wish to read the stories in the current police review about the possible effects of their radios on their brains before talking about other people being the subject of psychological experiments.; 8 June 2009 at 13:58
Sarah said...: "They have rules they have to abide by and they did not do this."

Oh, so you're actually twelve people, who have heard all the evidence subtmitted by the CPS and defence and deliberated, according to the judges directions the questions which indicate guilt in these offences.

were the psychological experiments being done on you by any chance?

Christ I would really wish you would learn to read...or is it your working memory that is all messed up? Did you not read this bit.....I also spoke to F.I.T officers and asked them how they have to operate and they stated that they have to be VISIBLE at all times and this means that people don't have to go searching for them....so no I'm not twelve people just one person with brains enough to ask OTHER F.I.T OFFICERS how they are meant to operate within the LAW, unless you are saying that these officers do not know the law themselves!!!

Also no psychology test has ever been conducted on myself...but I have actually conducted several psychological studies on other people...; 8 June 2009 at 15:06
Anonymous said...: But they are visible and you weren't searching for them, you just saw them. Case dismissed?; 8 June 2009 at 23:47
Really Fit said...: Sarahs point is quite clear. FIT / EG officers are not permitted to take action that hides, or attempts to hide, the fact that they are filming. I agree with Sarah that in this instance that is exactly what they were doing.

The fact that someone saw them - or even if a number of people had seen them - does not change the fact that they had taken this course of action. They were clearly out of line, and it would be nice if some of the police who comment on this blog would acknowledge that.; 9 June 2009 at 01:52
Anonymous said...: They're standing on a public bus, in public, in full high vis uniform in front of a two way transparent window on the top deck of a bus where they would be more visible than if on the bottom deck; 9 June 2009 at 04:31
Clovis said...: er...

a bus is not public space in the same way as the street is. you have to pay to enter the bus, which has a range of conditions of carriage: many things you're allowed to do on the street are prohibited on buses. so it is disingenuous - at least - to say that being on a bus is being 'in public'.; 9 June 2009 at 05:22
Clovis said...: Brighton and Hove buses, Conditions of Carriage

10.3:
Passengers must not travel on the upper deck unless they are occcupying a seat.; 9 June 2009 at 05:28
Sarah said...: "They're standing on a public bus, in public, in full high vis uniform in front of a two way transparent window on the top deck of a bus where they would be more visible than if on the bottom deck"

I did tell either yourself or another to do research....this is what is said about COVERT surveillance....Covert surveillance is defined in section 26(9)(a) of the 2000 Act
as any surveillance which is carried out in a manner calculated to ensure that the persons subject to the surveillance are unaware that it is or may be taking place.

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/publication-search/ripa-cop/covert-cop?view=Binary

This is what Wikipedia says regarding F.I.T

Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) are units in UK police forces that use cameras, camcorders and audio recorders to conduct overt surveillance of the public. The police officers wear full uniform, and are intended to be a highly visible presence. Their uniform is different from normal police officers in that the upper half of their yellow fluorescent jackets is blue. Civilian photographers are also employed by the police to work alongside Forward Intelligence Teams.

Now in case you are confused OVERT means....OPENNESS.

So you have two members of F.I.T carrying out surveillance on the top deck of a bus...this is a calculated move...why is it calculated...because the police officers in question thought that this view point would give them an advantage. Now it is clearly stated that OVERT is where those under surveillance are unaware of the fact that they are under surveillance by those person doing the surveillance....Please please tell me how those of us ON THE GROUND are AWARE that we are being filmed and photographed by two officers on the TOP DECK of a PUBLIC BUS????? If your are now thinking of bringing up the fact that I was able to photograph them and that I saw them then sorry but please re-read posts stating that IT WAS PURE LUCK THAT I SAW THEM. This within itself does show that these police officers were acting COVERTLY whilst their fellow officers ON THE GROUND WHERE WE COULD SEE THEM are acting OVERTLY. Do you get the point yet or do I have to explain it in lamer terms? And if you are a police officer then you yourself should know this.; 9 June 2009 at 05:47
Sarah said...: Dam should have previewed post before posting...the mistake made "Now it is clearly stated that OVERT is where...." I missed out the C for Covert.; 9 June 2009 at 05:50
Anonymous said...: Payment to enter a place does not mean it is not public, nor do rules or conditions of entry. Any public place offence can occur on a bus; 9 June 2009 at 07:31
Anonymous said...: The fact that you saw them by luck, not after an effort to find them is exactly what i feel proves they were on full view, i don't see how you can claim to know what was in the minds of the officers when they decided to get on the bus, unless you are one of them, has it crossed your mind that it simply gives a better view, and is not for the purpose of disguising their filming ?; 9 June 2009 at 07:36
Clovis said...: anonymous 0731

the two officers on the bus were behaving in such a way that the police might - according to the conditions of carriage - have been summoned to remove them. point one.

point two: as has been observed, the officers had mounted to the upper deck. being a frequent bus passenger, i can assure you that from observation few people look at the top deck of a bus. and those who do are, in the main, seeing if there's seats available.

it's hard to see how this can be resolved, when one side in this debate, the police, resort to a range of sophistic arguments, which don't really answer the points raised by other people. taking the met as an example, they have to be in a position to abide by MPS policy on overt filming, part of which is being able to explain to people why the filming is taking place and how people can obtain copies of images of them. as part of this, a form can be obtained from the FIT detailing these things. it is hard to see how, assuming there's a similar sussex police policy, anyone could have approached those officers to gain that information.

removing themselves from street level, and entering a non-police vehicle, renders them practically (ie in practical terms) at the very least less visible. overt filming, in my experience, takes place on the street, not from behind windows.; 9 June 2009 at 12:46
Sarah said...: The fact that you saw them by luck, not after an effort to find them is exactly what i feel proves they were on full view

I'm sorry but how much of a dick head are you???? Lets explore what you have just said....the fact that you saw them by luck...right so to see them by luck means that they were not obvious to those around them....this leads on to COVERT operations...as OVERT...as in openness means that I don't have to spot them by luck they are just there in PLAIN VIEW. So how on earth can you say that my saying I saw them by PURE LUCK is them being in plain view....really examine what you are saying then smack yourself around the head for being a total dick by what you have said. If someone spots something by pure LUCK then that within itself states that the person(s) involved are not being open in what they are doing....why on earth are you flogging a dead horse....as your argument is a dead horse. Please re-read what I have posted and use that brain that god or whoever gave you and stop being so blinkered as it doesn't help anyone. Pure luck means that those person(s) are hiding themselves or as others put it are not in PLAIN view which is what is expected of the F.I.T.....that they be in PLAIN VIEW NOT HIDING ON A TOP DECK OF A BUS....christ....are we talking to a brick wall or just a copper..or are both the same?; 9 June 2009 at 12:59
Anonymous said...: I see that you have lost the ability for reasoned discussion and entered into trading insults, how childish!; 9 June 2009 at 13:15
Sarah said...: LMAO...i'm the childish one who has lost the ability for reasoned discussion....hmmm well lets think about this for a minute. Well perhaps I shouldn't have called you a dick...but that is more to frustration that someone can still so blindly repeat the same argument after evidence has been put forward which puts their argument into the realm of doubt. I do believe that it is you losing (or just not having) the ability for reasoned discussion as lets face it you have repeated the same line since first coming on here. Also isn't it amazing how you can not argue against anything that has been put forward but yet manage to pick up on the little things...like me calling you a dick (or was it the wall and copper bit that upset you?)

So I am making it easy for you to respond with something different then what you have been...and with no insult in sight.

Imagine if you can....a member of F.I.T comes up to your house/flat and hands you photos of yourself walking about Brighton...all of which have been taken from the top deck of a bus with this person wearing a high vis jacket. Would you class what that person has done as Covert or Overt? Also, how much of a rage would you be in that some person you don't even know has been taking pictures of you going about your day in which you have not acted in a criminal way?

Can you put forward an intelligent argument in which you can state that the person taking photographs are acting overtly?; 10 June 2009 at 03:55
Anonymous said...: Sarah, I simply disagree that they were not being overt. It's that simple. I accept that you have argued in a reasoned sense, and I respect both your point of view and the way you've fought your corner. I do still personally think that standing in a bright yellow jacket in front of a window on a bus isn't covert. If they'd taken those jackets off, I'd agree with you.

I also agree that some coppers are like brick walls. I hate bent coppers. I hate the effect that their actions, when quite rightly publicised, have on the day to day work of police officers. Officers who break the law should be punished to the same extent as members of the public.

As for FIT tactics, they were borne out of football policing and, with their success there were moved to protest policing when the British people decided they wanted violent criminal protest stopped. The problem is they work. People can't expect to get away with breaking the law on protest anymore and that irks some people. BUT it is a copying of the FIT tactics that exposed the violence of a minority of police on the G20, so it’s not all bad is it. I'll bet those police were wishing there weren't cameras there so that they might escape punishment, in the same way that law breaking protesters (also a minority) wish the police weren't there with their cameras.

You make a point about finding that the police have images of me on a day when I did nothing illegal. Personally I'm not concerned. The police could go into any shop or council and get CCTV of me wandering around without the need of uniformed police on the streets with cameras. If they did, this debate would die and you would never know they were doing it, unlike when two officers in full uniform stand in front of a large window and film, when, as you so correctly pointed out, you did see them.; 10 June 2009 at 05:07
Sarah said...: First off I have to say thank you for actually giving a really good reply, respect levels have risen.

As like with you I do respect your view point. I do understand that we will probably not agree with the whole covert/overt thing..but what I will ask is that you think about this matter from a protester side rather then your own. Whenever I go on a protest I always make a point to talk to the officers who are having to march with us as I would like to understand things from their point of view. I have had some blinding conversations which have enlightened me as well as scared me half to death. With regards to those officers on the bus...later that day I had a wonderful laugh and conversation with other F.I.T officers who stated pretty much what I have been saying, that officers must be easily spotted by those they are filming. This is why I am arguing so dam hard. Its not often that those on the ground will realize that they are being filmed from above, this makes the line between covert and overt very blurred...how do you decide which is which?

In regards to people on the G20 'copying' F.I.T with all the filming...sorry but I believe you are wrong. For the weeks before G20 all the police would state in the news is that they were expecting violence/riots (which is a psychological tactic). That is why there were so many people with camera's attended...they believed the police line and wanted to capture the violence on film...nothing more nothing less. People are really that crap and that low.

Also what is a violent criminal protest? This has been bugging me since reading it. What do you mean by this??? I won't say any more then that as it will be interesting as to what you reply with.

Your last point did make me smile, I have to admit. You answered my question without actually answering but kept me intrigued...nice one. You are right the police can just get hold of CCTV...especially seeing as we are at the top of the list for countries with CCTV. So let me change my question....why do we need F.I.T if we have so many CCTV? What is the point of them, as all they are doing is wasting yet more of our money when CCTV can do just a well a job. Also what is the job of F.I.T...I actually do know the answer to this which I will be putting in the next post...am worried I will run out of words on this one....; 10 June 2009 at 14:54
Sarah said...: Rite post number two. When I was having a giggle with the other F.I.T officers I was given a leaflet which explained why it is they film us...here it is word for word.

Why are you filming me?
Images taken in compliance with Article 8 ECHR as upheld by the Court of Appeal i.e., Police are allowed to take images of persons in public on public demonstrations for the use of future identifications of those persons.
1. Demonstrations and public events are recorded when there is a possibility of Public Order or other offences being committed.
2. To identify individuals who may have opposing views and wish to infiltrate and disrupt peaceful and lawful protest.
3. To negate malicious complaints against Police Officers
4. To lessen the opportunity for Police Officers to be assaulted/obstructed in the lawful execution of their duty.
5. To assist Professional Standards Department in dealing with complaints against Police.
6. To record the conduct of the Police.
7. To ensure the correct use of Police powers an procedures by Police Officers.
8. To supply Police Officers with evidence for court.

I have seen no evidence of F.I.T actually doing any of these things. I have seen them film members of the public not involved in the demonstration. I have seen F.I.T not film police assaulting members of the public. We have all heard how F.I.T did not come forward when Police Officers used excessive force and not using their powers in the correct way at the G20. F.I.T do not just capture those as stated in number 2...they do film EVERYBODY involved in a protest. What is the job of F.I.T as its not what they are stating....if it was do you think people would really have a problem? I don't have a problem with Police Officers filming those they KNOW are out to cause trouble...but they film those who are heavily involved in protests...we have seen this with SmashEDO...do watch on the verge...very good film. Even at the G20 it was those who were protesting that posted all the video's of police abusing their power...not the F.I.T and to this day we still do not know if they have put any film footage they took forward. Christ the police even lied about the whole Ian incident..the man died..why lie?

As stated before we are the top country for CCTV....so why on earth do we need F.I.T? Is it to do what they state or is a another psychological tactic which says to people...'you are on a protest so this makes you a criminal'.

Established research has shown that police perceive all those in or near a physical crowd as subject to a homogenizing process whereby all become irrational, dangerous, subject to social influence etc, i.e., pathological criminals.

We know this isn't the case but this is what the police think and which are probably trained to think..remember me saying I was scared by things told to me by police...well that is one of them...the public are your enemy...even though you are there to protect and serve. Things have changed in regards to the police and the change is scary.; 10 June 2009 at 15:14
McGonagall said...: So the Met is waterboarding suspects!

http://tinyurl.com/mqj5vr; 10 June 2009 at 15:17
Clovis said...: Sarah

The leaflet about overt filming - was that a Met one or from Sussex police?; 10 June 2009 at 16:37
Sarah said...: Well it was given to me at the Smashedo protest so i can only assume its Sussex police.; 11 June 2009 at 06:37
Anonymous said...: No the met are not waterboarding suspects.....a paper has said they might have put someones head down a toilet once. You really dont get the innocent until proven guilty idea do you. Just because a paper prints something to sell papers it doesnt make it fact.; 12 June 2009 at 10:57
Sarah said...: 'You really dont get the innocent until proven guilty idea do you'

Nor do the police....so at least we are all on the same page; 13 June 2009 at 04:08
Anonymous said...: 'You really dont get the innocent until proven guilty idea do you'

Nor do the police....so at least we are all on the same page

Oooh good come back sarah what you basing that on ??; 13 June 2009 at 05:48
Sarah said...: Anonymous said...

'You really dont get the innocent until proven guilty idea do you'

Nor do the police....so at least we are all on the same page

Oooh good come back sarah what you basing that on ??

Ahh thank you for stating that I do good come backs ;o)

Am actually basing that upon my own arrest which was on Oct 15th O8. I went to film the SmashEDO protest as I saw the start of it when leaving uni and went to film it as part of my third year degree. Now being someone who suffers from a long term medical condition I wrapped up warm like any good girl would do. This meant wearing my Liverpool FC scarf which was raised over my mouth (as that does give the feeling of being warmer then what you are), now some might say that a Liverpool FC scarf is bad taste but hey I support them with all my heart. Now the officer who arrested me was also the first officer I came across and who also assaulted me (all on video). I had already stated to him that I was not part of the demo in any way and was a student working on a project. Thirty or so minutes later this same copper arrested me under Section 60AA (which I assume you know so I don't have to go into what it is). Now I wasn't hiding my ID, I was not aware that this section had been placed over the ENTIRE city of Brighton and Hove as I was a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC and I really don't remember seeing in the local rag the police warning residents that this section would be in force. I was arrested treated badly (refused medical treatment) and then had EVERYTHING taken off me and left to get a taxi home past 10pm on a freezing cold nite.

I gave the Police a letter from my Dr stating that I did suffer from this medical condition and that keeping was is a kinda must....I also gave them a letter from my Uni stating that yes I was a student and that I was researching for my dissertation. Now anyone would have thought after that I would have just been cut loose but no I was re-bailed for a further month whilst the police tried to get the CPS to try my case (which they refused to). All the while I was in police custody I was treated like a criminal and yeah I did feel like I was GUILTY until I could prove my INNOCENCE and even whilst I had already stated all the evidence which proved my INNOCENCE the Police decided to totally IGNORE it all.....innocent until proved guilty my arse. Also have lots more stories of people being treated guilty until they have proven their innocence.....need any more info...i'm certain if your police you can now just go and look me up. You can also look at the coppers statement in which he LIED...all very good for the police isn't it!!!!; 13 June 2009 at 07:32
Anonymous said...: Sarah, I don't doubt your account at all. Is it fair to suggest that the police have to check the validity of your claims?; 13 June 2009 at 14:27
Sarah said...: 'Sarah, I don't doubt your account at all. Is it fair to suggest that the police have to check the validity of your claims?'

Well you would have thought that they would want to check out the validity of my claims....but they didn't bother. They thought I was a protester end of story...didn't matter if I gave them evidence to state that I was not...they had already made up their minds and wanted my case to go to court...I was thought guilty from the start and their attitude towards me at the station said that loud and clear!!!; 14 June 2009 at 08:23
Anonymous said...: On a slightly different subject, should police be able to blog anonymously, the courts say no,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8103731.stm

whilst I accept that it is not desireable to have coppers spouting on the net about the lives of the people they deal with, is there a case to be made for police being able to blow the whistle and not fear the retribution of force discipline?; 16 June 2009 at 11:33
Anonymous said...: cops who want to blow the whistle can always email fitwatch.; 16 June 2009 at 14:58
Anonymous said...: how does one get involved with FIT watch?

knstable@gmail.com; 21 June 2009 at 10:07
Anonymous said...: TO the cop who wrote this

'I hate bent coppers. I hate the effect that their actions, when quite rightly publicised, have on the day to day work of police officers. Officers who break the law should be punished to the same extent as members of the public.'

My response is, go on then DO SOMETHING when you see your mates of colleagues breaking the law! When was the last time you or any other cop reported unlawful activity by other cops? Do something but until you do don't come on here and whine.; 22 June 2009 at 12:31
Anonymous said...: "Evidence gatherers were pushed out of the crowd as it assembled near Brighton pier"

So you assaulted the police officers?

You really are scum.

You don't like being filmed because you have something to hide.; 23 June 2009 at 17:59
Anonymous said...: So you assaulted the police officers?

You really are scum.

You don't like being filmed because you have something to hide.

First off do you know in which manner they were pushed? Was it groups of people actually laying on hands and 'pushing' the police with great force or was it the crowd using themselves as a way to push the officers in question. Now if individuals had been phsycially 'pushing' police officers then would have been arrested quicker then what you could snap your fingers. If it was the crowd using their vast numbers to stop a police officer from entering into the protesters space then this is really not assualt. It is just a case of a crowd using their main body as a force to stop someone from moving freely into their space.

Now if you want to call a group 'scum' for pushing then please go and visit youtube and type in protests you could pick either the G20 or smashedo...then spot the amount of times a police officer 'pushes' (assults) a member of the public who wish to use their human right of free speech and protest, now are you going to call them scum or just say they were doing their job?; 24 June 2009 at 04:45
Anonymous said...: Hardly think standing at the window of a big red bus with clear glass, whilst wearign an indigo jacket is covert???? Plum; 3 September 2009 at 03:57

Fitwatch

http://www.fitwatch.org.uk

Fit watch

Pages

Policewatch Films

Friday, 5 June 2009

On the buses

53 comments:

Twitter / Fitwatcher

Donate To Fitwatch

Who are FIT Watch?

Some Ideas For Fitwatching

Cop Photographer pulling face

Fit Eating Ice Cream

Blog Archive

Contributors

Links

Fitwatch

http://www.fitwatch.org.uk

Fit watch

Pages

Policewatch Films

Friday, 5 June 2009

On the buses

53 comments:

Twitter / Fitwatcher

Subscribe To

Donate To Fitwatch

Who are FIT Watch?

Some Ideas For Fitwatching

Cop Photographer pulling face

Fit Eating Ice Cream

Blog Archive

Contributors

Links