It's generally the case that the arresting officer will give evidence in any trial, so if any of the relatives of a person the copper had nicked were bothered to attend they'd know what he/she looked like anyway. And if you're filming an officer on duty, you're not filming them in their home or even the station they're assigned to, you're filming then in a place they may or may not ever be again. You certainly couldn't use the fact that PC Plod was at <this place> on <this date> to be able to predict where they'd be at any point in the future. Plus the fact is that ever since we've had police, lot of communities have known exactly who the police officers in their midst are. The idea that police are somehow protected from some nebulous nefarious force by not allowing them to be filmed or photographed is arguable at best. This isn't Northern Ireland during the troubles - there are no widespread active paramilitary groups on the streets of the UK.

And in any case, police officers are not the same as 'members of the public'. Society as a whole makes a bargain with it's police - that bargain is this : we (society) will give you authority over the rest of us on condition that you are seen to be fair and reasonable and remain accountable to the rest of us. when the police cease to be accountable to the people they are given authority over, then you're in a pretty awful place. Part of that accountability is public scrutiny of what they are doing. Recording what the police are doing is merely an extension of that principle.

The police seem very much in favour of CCTV, and the continual mantra is 'if you're not doing anything wrong, you should have no reason to hide' - shouldn't that logic apply to police officers on duty as well? As it happens I'm very much in favour of the police - the ones I know do a very hard job well in the main. But police accountability is part of a we ll adjusted and we lose it at our peril. many psychological studies have shown that you anonymise people and make them feel that someone else is accountable for what they do, they find it much easier to do things they wouldn't contemplate doing as an individual.

Jon

now that is one horrid accent since when did the cops become his "mate"

Yes, I guess that is the case, and I confess I hadn't thought of the trial aspect. The thing that tipped me toward the anonymity aspect was being in London and seeing (particularly) the Police Officers on duty at the end of Downing Street or the HoP. I had assumed (although I don't know) that you would pull that same duty in the same place for a period of time, and so there was a liklihood of someone posting (as we did) the pictures of our trip to London on the internet and someone being fairly sure those same Officers would be there the following day, if they had a mind to violence.

All that said, I took lots of pictures while we were in London, some of them had Police Officers in, some of them couldn't help but have Police Officers in. They knew I was taking them and weren't bothered in the slightest, so perhaps it is a case that it's only when they're involved in something sensitive? While we were in London there was a group of tourist-types actually having their picture taken with two Police Officers so it's obviously not that much of a deal as far as your average Copper on the street is concerned.

It's because it's private property that they can impose that restriction. There's nothing in Statue Law to say you can't photograph/film children.



They walk round in a uniform, you don't get much more easily identifiably than that!

However, you need to be sensitive to the situation. Lurking in bushes with a 300+mm lens photographic kids may come across as suspicious behaviour.

True, but by the same token there's nothing suspicious about people who are just out in the street/park taking photographs or parents filming their child's sports day.

He wasn't in a public place, he was in his garden. Private property

Other way round Fin. The police were on the street.

If somebody was on the street and filming him in his garden, they would need permission.

The guy filming has done nothing wrong and simply knows the law better than those supposedly enforcing it. Many people here appear to be content to say that the state of our police/government etc. is just "how it is" and "if you're nice to them..." etc. As Jon points out, these people are supposed to have our consent to govern/police us and I personally have a problem with the way things are, and I don't feel that my express consent has been given for the way things are run.

I don't intend to deliberately aggrovate officers, but I do feel that my rights should not be infringed and I would certainly not just comply with what they said without having good cause to do so.

I posted about this a while ago, as this video was used as part of a talk on constitutional reform and lawful rebellion by John Harris of the British Constitution Group in January. However, it seems it didn't interest anybody here. Up to you. If you're happy with the way things are, carry on. If, like me, you're not - perhaps it's time to start doing some reading and understanding the forces at work and what (if anything) we as individuals, and people as a whole, can do about it.

In which case it's his call whether he decides to stop people taking photos/video.

"Owners of private property do not normally have the right to prevent someone from taking photographs of their property from a public place such as a public highway ..." Clicky

Sharks

True, but then if you're prying into somone's house or garden then that's a different matter.

Sorry - I should have been clearer - I meant to say "it's his call whether he decides to stop people on his property taking photos/videos"

Edd

No I got it the right way round, he was on private property, he gave himself permission to film. The police had no power to stop him as he was filming public property from private property

If it's against the law to film a police officer how about all those Police camera action shows....