Both Videos by Charlie Veitch
I've posted previously about a Charlie Veitch video and often pop over to his YouTube channel to watch his short films. They are made to raise awareness about people in authority and how they interact with members of the public. There are also some very amusing ones with the public on tube trains. You can pick through many on his site and see PCSO's, Police Officers and Security guards dealing with Charlie, and boy are there some reactions from those in authority. He also has a blog entitled TheLovePolice where you can see some of his stuff.
The video above in two parts shows a recent interaction outside The Tower Of London where a Met Inspector is ultra cool and grounded when dealing with Charlie. I think his films make some valid points but I'd be rather pissed off to get called to deal with him in the middle of a busy shift.
Common sense does in the main resolve the situations because after all he is a film maker, but is he not aware that terrorists do conduct hostile reconnaissance at iconic sites and it would be negligent not to speak to individuals? we should of course be as professional as the Inspector when doing so. If the alarm bells were ringing around somebody I think a search would have taken place ... but it's an individual judgement. I think it's a fact that some individuals taking part in small assemblies have been shown to later be involved in terrorist activities so the request for details under stop and account or sec 44 is an intelligence plus. There is of course no obligation to provide those details.
I would have done the hug. He is actually gaining cult status amongst some police officers .. Is that bad for his image or showing that his message actually strikes a chord?
9 comments:
I disagree about S44. As you know I have posted extensively on it. If there are grounds then a person can be searched under S43. If there are no grounds then the person should be left alone. There is no trade off to be had between freedom and security. As soon as we sacrifice a bit of freedom in return for a bit of perceived security we may as well give up both. S44 must go.
I think it's healthy in a free society for people to go around seeing how people in authority institutions react to certain stimuli. It might be incredibly irritating to have to deal with that sort of thing when there are people who actually need help but that is the price of living in a civilised society.
Give me the British system - which is slightly chaotic, stupidly inefficient, but has a properly functioning feedback loop - any day.
I maintain interest in the activities of the intrepid duo.
Their success owes much to an alloy of research and fearless balance. In the UK, these qualities are fundamental to the maintenance of citizen dignity. Intimidatory body language from police in the background, spoke volumes of a viscious eagerness to attack without justification.
I am with you on the hug as much as I support a debut appearance on police blogs, expressing sympathy with citizen concerns. An efficient means has yet to be devised which accurately evaluates and records such a mindset during interviews for all senior police positions.
Blue Eyes
Most of us don't use it anyway .. did the vehicle stops which I can understand as a deterrant .. but then we did have armed back-up and were almost apologetic in it's use.
Melv
It comes with crusty wisdom .. you can smell the experience emenating from that Insp ... yeah the youngsters were chomping a little bit, but have seen discretion and common sense in action .. +++
That's why I like his videos - bringing us back to reality ... and rather questioning without being provocative and rude.
Awakening stuff when you put some thought to it.
SOC - the fact that most officers won't use it is not mitigation for the fact that it shouldn't be on the statute book!
I wish I was clever enough to understand MTG's point because if I had to guess I would guess that he and I are quite close to agreement on this. WHICH WOULD BE A FIRST. :-)
Blue
I have a non viewpoint on it .. sec 43/44 .. plenty of other powers that I would use first if I came across a suspected terrorist .. maybe that's why I have a non view.
Who would thought NuLabor would impose all these laws since they got into power - all about control of the populus who have swallowed it for years ..
If we don't use it - then do we need it ?
I think I get Melvs point - but you need to watch some of the videos. He has done so.
My goodness that man is ever such an annoying blighter. Those officers showed admirable restraint not to floor him and search him by force in a set of bracelets. What a total rotter he is.
I agree SOC. There is plenty of legislation without the `Legislation `O Plenty` of this government. They pass these damn laws assuming that everyone will comply with them and make everything better. How well they don't know human nature or the reality of policing. They seem to think by passing a law they can then pass the blame - onto the enforcers. Whatever next? Dog licences perhaps?
Well handled by the inspector, I reckon. Discretion of the senior officer present defusing what could become an embarassment.
Have to say though - the officer strolling around with his cap flat-aback & its chinstay half-way up the cap-band looks like either an off-duty sailor or a character from a 1980's sitcom. All he neeeds is a fag hanging from the corner of his mouth & he'd not be out of place in a cartoon strip.
C'mon Constable - smarten up lad.
The man is a bit of a legend for a good reason. He makes PCs on the ground actually think about why and how they are utilising a power.
For example section 44 and giving details. There is no obligation. Simple as that I really don't know why some officers struggle with this?
Likewise once the search is complete your reason to detain goes away so why should the person have to wait whilst you fill in the paperwork?
Post a Comment