douchebags reveal themselves for what they really are - the biggest gang on the block

Wankers.

That was handled very well by the cameraman. Refreshing compared to all the videos of police trampling on the citizens rights while the citizens screams hysterically and then eventually commits an offense of some kind (alleged or not). Although, here in the States the police would not have acted like this. They would immediately have escalated the situation with total control and worry about the letter of the law later.

The Bobbies are wankers, too? I thought the harassment of videographers and photographers was just a US phenomena.

By the title, I was expecting a fistfight. Glad it was resolved as it was though.

The cops should become familiar with the law; and know if they do nothing wrong, and act according to how they should, being filmed should never bother them, as it would only indicate that they act appropriately.

"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever." George Orwell, 1984

Nice find Kulpims.
I am drawn to this video. I've watched it a couple of times.
Is this how cops act if they don't have guns?
They are like the village idiots. They come running over to start some shit (cause thats what cops do).
The cameraman gently tells them to knock it off and go away.
They call in, and their boss tells them to knock it off and go away.
They then knock it off and go away!
BRILLIANT!!

Camera guy sure handled that well. Notice how the other one was still trying to save face by catching him out on something about 3:25

I love how he tells them to come back so he can print out the laws if they cant seem to find them at the police station. Priceless.

Imagine how douche-like police must have been back in the uneducated day. Shit.

The UK is getting scarier by the day. With the amount of CCTV and some of their Orwellian laws concerning photography and videography, they're lightyears ahead of us yanks when it comes to a police-state system.

So sad too, as England is somewhere I love.

And they have the cheek to tell us that ignorance of the law is no defence.

Maybe they mean that ignorance of the law leaves you defenceless against being taken away in cuffs for any old bullshit that they make up on the spot.

Of course, since this was filmed a new law has been introduced which allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.

See, it's all about keeping us safe from the terrorists. Nothing to see here, move along.

I'm really glad to see this video on the sift.

Anyone who wants to learn their rights under common law and how to deal effectively in any situation with the police should go here

TPUC.ORG


It's very powerful stuff in practice, it's also a very deep rabbit hole. Profoundly fascinating and life changing stuff.

http://runningclam.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/placa-de-george-orwell.jpg

How did those mall cops find themselves so far away from their post?

They deserved to have their skulls cracked.

I figure with all the cameras they have in England these days he wouldn't need to bring his own.

I love the surround sound. This is hilarious. "This isn't communist China, you know that mate."

>> ^Krupo:
I love the surround sound. This is hilarious. "This isn't communist China, you know that mate."


I love everything this guy says. " I'm in my own garden, mate" says it all!!!!
we don't talk like that here...very civil.

"Thank you! Have a nice day!" Haha!

err.... Actually, that is illegal today, in the UK...

"Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) … which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

The new laws are now in place and they allow for the arrest – and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'"

Ha ha! The Brummie accent works so well here Good on him.

However section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 doesn't specifically mention photographers and it's argued by some that section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 necessarily covered the same area. The worst problem is that the government is quite happy to allow the police to interpret bad legislation on the ground to whatever ends they like.

The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti-terror-laws, reports that "A spokeswoman for the Home Office said the law was not specifically intended for photographers and concerns about how it would be used were speculative. It would be the job of the police and the courts to interpret the law." So an unpleasant incident with the cops may go to court (unlikely in most cases), well after the damage to civil liberties and our relationship with the police has been done.

It's truly remarkable what changes have occurred thanks to New Labour.

Classic.

The interesting part is the bit before the discussion, where the police actually decide it's okay to come down his garden path and intimidate him. I mean.. they could've just walked on, it seemed a pretty a relaxed scene up until that point.

Also strange is the ending where they suddenly decide to stop talking altogether? A simple "Sorry about that, mate, have a nice day" would've made all this a lot friendlier.

What am I missing here? Pretty much all of the above comments and the speaker himself claim harassment, yet all they did was ask him to stop the camera and what his name was. You could argue intimidation etc etc but that was honestly a complete non-event. The cameraman instantly flies into a defensive rant about him being in his garden and keeps insisting that he isnt doing anything wrong, which ofcourse he isnt, but the only one trying to make this unpleasant is the cameraman himself.

What I'm saying is that he's fishing for the cops to loose their patience/temper and there by get something worthwhile caught on tape, but he doesnt, the cops walk away, they did the right thing. This is somekind of a victory vs the police?

>> ^Xax:
They deserved to have their skulls cracked.

Geeez, spare me.

>> ^Offsajdh:
What am I missing here? Pretty much all of the above comments and the speaker himself claim harassment, yet all they did was ask him to stop the camera and what his name was. You could argue intimidation etc etc but that was honestly a complete non-event. The cameraman instantly flies into a defensive rant about him being in his garden and keeps insisting that he isnt doing anything wrong, which ofcourse he isnt, but the only one trying to make this unpleasant is the cameraman himself.
What I'm saying is that he's fishing for the cops to loose their patience/temper and there by get something worthwhile caught on tape, but he doesnt, the cops walk away, they did the right thing. This is somekind of a victory vs the police?
>> ^Xax:
They deserved to have their skulls cracked.

Geeez, spare me.


Utter tripe. The problem in this video is the police trying to extend/abuse their jurisdiction. They invaded his property and they told him what to do with his camera. No this may not be the most intimidating copper I've come across but it's still unpleasant when they try to throw their weight around. If this man hadn't stood up for himself who knows how far they would have chosen to pursue this.

The point is that he is allowed to film. To not stand up for his rights is to accept the thin end of the wedge. And at the other end you have police intimidating protestors and arresting them using section 58 or routinely filming political gatherings, another form of intimidation.

This was crappy policing and if I was that copper I wouldn't feel like I had done a good job in dealing with this man. If that's his beat (do they have beats anymore?!) then he's just making relations with the local community worse all round, step by little step. It's the same with section 76. Another law being layered on to gradually allow the biggest gang on the block to undermine civil liberties as and when they choose.

What this video ultimately illustrates is the way vague and poor legislation is finally interpreted on the ground. And with section 76 the police, both the malevolent and the incompetent kind, are going to interpret those laws in any number of ways.

We need better politicians drafting sensible and practical legislation that addresses real problems. I think they are in very short supply.

Best part is right after the video ends he crosses the street to get a better camera angle and gets nailed for jaywalking!

Yes, lots of laws with immense possble abusive applications are being drafted and passed all over the western world, individual freedom and privacy is most definetly being cut back all in the name of safety and protection against terrorism or what have you. But those laws are not the point here, although it is great that the cameraman knows his rights, the few that remain atleast, and that he stood his ground. What isnt great is this lame form of mild hate/anger towards police and the-like. To say that the police officers in this clip deserve to have their skulls cracked is just as bat-shit crazy (and ignorant) as Glenn Beck.

I'm siding with the cameraman in the clip more so then the officers, but I find the whole ordeal to be sensationalizing something utterly trivial. There is tons of REAL abuse of power and laws in other areas in the world, check thailand in the news today as an example, and here we are cheering for some dude in his garden. Weaksauce.

I'd love to know what they were asking the kid. Intimidation fail.
(sorry Xax, can't abide by that)

>> ^Offsajdh:
Yes, lots of laws with immense possble abusive applications are being drafted and passed all over the western world, individual freedom and privacy is most definetly being cut back all in the name of safety and protection against terrorism or what have you. But those laws are not the point here, although it is great that the cameraman knows his rights, the few that remain atleast, and that he stood his ground. What isnt great is this lame form of mild hate/anger towards police and the-like. To say that the police officers in this clip deserve to have their skulls cracked is just as bat-shit crazy (and ignorant) as Glenn Beck.
I'm siding with the cameraman in the clip more so then the officers, but I find the whole ordeal to be sensationalizing something utterly trivial. There is tons of REAL abuse of power and laws in other areas in the world, check thailand in the news today as an example, and here we are cheering for some dude in his garden. Weaksauce.


There are degrees of severity but just because things are worse somewhere else doesn't mean you let things like this fly. This is a real problem that matters. Small and gradual abuses cumulatively make things much worse. Also it's not really a sensationalised clip, this guy isn't claiming to be a hero. But you have to draw the line and be firm with public servants who overstep it.

There's a good point made in another Guardian article that the UK government should be tough with the police on core matters of important legislation but hands-off with how they run things internally. However it's actually the opposite way around. They try to micro-manage their internal processes, screw them over on pay but then pass poor legislation that dumps on all citizens. Instead they could stop asking them to make lots of arrests and actually work on preventing crime. If you give them different incentives and stop forcing them to fill out loads of forms we might get better policing. We might get a scenario where this copper walks up and starts chatting about how things are in the area and if he has any concerns. Then he'll find that people aren't so interesting in filming him in the first place because he will have their respect.

hmm did the original video go dead? This has been on the sift before, but I can't find it.

"when he noticed the police harassing a youth opposite his house"
Sorry, but I must have missed the meeting when it was decided that, whenever the police speak to someone, it's classed as harassment. We have no idea what they were talking about, so theres no right to claim it was harassment.

When they came over to him, they weren't exactly harassing the guy. They asked him to put his camera down, which he (rightly) didn't do. They told him why they thought he should put it down(which was wrong), and after being corrected, they called a supervisor to check up on it.

Other then not apologising for the mistake just before they left, they did nothing else wrong. But to be honest, I can't blame them for wanting to get away from the gobby shit as fast as possible.

And to the sifters shouting 'Police State!!'. If that were so, this footage would've never made it to the internet, and that guy would've probably been arrested. Take a nice little vacation in China or North Korea with your video camera, and see how real, polite, and respectful police officers handle this situation.

this is not harassment, this is boring...white people need to re-evaluate their definition of harassment

I once corrected a traffic police officer. Someone broke the law in front of him and he didn't realize it. Then he tried to accuse me of speeding, when I was not. I then counter questioned him, informed him of what he had failed to catch, and then caught him in a contradiction in his own argument. It took him a few moments to realize that he had cornered himself, and he just left. No apology. Nothing. Some cops are just looking for a quick speeding ticket to meet a quota. Police have responsibility, they need to exercise it. Mind you, my cousin was a police officer, and another cousin was a military MP. I have respect for the law most certainly, but the power can quickly fatten one's head. Sometimes they forget they exist to protect and serve. Not to harass and intimidate.

Want to trade Southern California accent for British. Am willing to itemize, for instance I will trade my "dude" for your "mate".

I've seen far worse in the States. Bored Huntington Beach officers or the Irvine hired hoodlums driving around in "Collision Investigation" vans, snatching up the homeless then dropping them off in Santa Ana, where all the other "scum" belong. Fuck's sake, I don't know that there's ever been a time when the police in any country didn't make up the rules as they go and get away with their bullshit coupled with amoral city codes.

The cameraman was a bit arrogant...
but that being said, I can't argue with anything he said or did.
The cops had no right of coming onto his property, imo.

Wow... an instant #1

Wow, 115 votes in 24 hours? You'd think it was a video of Ron Paul announcing he is an atheist to get this kinda love from the sift.

"The cops had no right of coming onto his property, imo"

And imo, the guy had no right recording something which had nothing to do with him(the police stopping/speaking to the bike guy)

The internet is great for having opinions!

oh transporter, do please shut up you racist prick.

Only in America.

"...minding my own business"

Um, no. You were minding other people's business.

While the guy was well within his legal rights to film whatever he wants, he is most certainly not minding his own business while filming someone off his property who was NOT being harassed by the police.

One way to prevent abuses by police like these, is to surveil fucking everything and broadcast it to *everywhere* via the internet. The worst thing about excess surveillance by the state is that it stays in the hands of the state, amplifying an asymmetry of power and thereby enabling oppression. The second worst thing about it is that it enables the state to prosecute victimless crimes that shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

"could i have your names please?" priceless...

>> ^Deano:
Ha ha! The Brummie accent works so well here Good on him.
However section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 doesn't specifically mention photographers and it's argued by some that section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 necessarily covered the same area. The worst problem is that the government is quite happy to allow the police to interpret bad legislation on the ground to whatever ends they like.
The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti-terro
r-laws, reports that "A spokeswoman for the Home Office said the law was not specifically intended for photographers and concerns about how it would be used were speculative. It would be the job of the police and the courts to interpret the law." So an unpleasant incident with the cops may go to court (unlikely in most cases), well after the damage to civil liberties and our relationship with the police has been done.
It's truly remarkable what changes have occurred thanks to New Labour.


Nothing to do with new labour. It's just the pile of shit that happens to be in power. Rather than the pile of shit that isn't in power. Either way we'd be detecting the same scent.

>> ^transporter:
this is not harassment, this is boring...white people need to re-evaluate their definition of harassment


woot race war!!!!! good job playing the race card mate!

Oh and no, MGR, he can film whoever he likes - that's HIS business.

arf double post

>> ^dannym3141
Oh and no, MGR, he can film whoever he likes - that's HIS business.


Um, wow. I don't know whether to insult you or just laugh at you. I'll quote my other comment:

"While the guy was well within his legal rights to film whatever he wants"

Now for good measure, I'm going to quote you again:

"Oh and no, MGR, he can film whoever he likes"

And P.S. - It was still someone else's business.

...why does this sound soooo familiar...?

I could just close my eyes and expect this exact scene with an upstate New York resident on his Adirondack chair sipping away on his ubu beer in his front lawn,

as the local authority local authority comes over to warn him not to drink in public. And he responds with 'it's my front lawn, it's my property'.

And the rest of the dialogue would be exactly the same as this video, minus the British accent, and insert west New Yoaker accent, donchano.

Hello Folks,

I'm from the UK and so at the risk of getting flamed I thought I'd throw my two pence in...

I nearly posted yesterday to say how I couldn't believe the attention this video has received considering how trivial a matter it seems to be.

Admittedly there is some douche-baggery on the part of the police – sticking their noses in quite unnecessary as far as I can see – but the cameraman is melodramatic to say the least.

Someone however made a very good point to me this evening which made me reconsider.

He pointed out that as of February 2009 it's illegal to film the police in the UK, and that while this matter might seem trivial in and of itself, consider the recent film from the London G20 protests.

Despite being present in huge numbers the mainstream media initially missed the case of the chap who was hit with a police baton whilst on his way home from work and later died.

Similarly they failed to report on the case of the female protester who was hit with a police baton, if not entirely unprovoked then at least out of proportion to what was appropriate.

The point was that if it were not for the amateur film makers then it's likely neither of these cases would have come to light, and this shows what an important right it is to film the police.

So I stand self-corrected. I still think the incident shown in this video is kind of trivial, but the rights the film maker is exercising are surely not!

Finally I just wanted to add that my experience of the police here in the UK has been pretty good. While I have at times seem arrogance and douche baggery, for surely power corrupts, for the most part I have to say that I've found the police to be restrained and highly professional.

I guess the point though is that with the power and responsibility the police have you only need one exception for it to be a huge problem for the rights of the individual.

Anyway, just my thoughts...

>> ^legacy0100:
...why does this sound soooo familiar...?
I could just close my eyes and expect this exact scene with an upstate New York resident on his Adirondack chair sipping away on his ubu beer in his front lawn,
as the local authority local authority comes over to warn him not to drink in public. And he responds with 'it's my front lawn, it's my property'.
And the rest of the dialogue would be exactly the same as this video, minus the British accent, and insert west New Yoaker accent, donchano.


Are you describing a previous video? Or making a new scenario. If its a vid please post the link, I'd like to see it.I like watching cops flexing their muscles and then failing. I'm not sure why. Probably its that in my whole life A cop has never done anything nice or helpfull to me.

While the guy was well within his legal rights to film whatever he wants, he is most certainly not minding his own business while filming someone off his property who was NOT being harassed by the police.

Wait, one of the biggest arguements i see for or against filmed abuses of power is, "We don't know what happened before the camera was switched on."
How do you know he wasn't being harassed by the police? Surely you cannot claim it as fact that he was "NOT" being harassed because you don't know.

If the guy switched his camera on just in time to see a baton crack the kid in the face, we would be arguing over whether said abuse was justified or not. Again, we have no evidence for or against this arguement.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by critical_d.

Awarding critical_d with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.