The real reason the British police wanted the change: Counter-Terrorism Act 2008? To stop youtube videos?

I blogged on February 16th about how that day should be added to infamy in the British legislation system and the laws that are enacted by the British parliament.

I also said:

[…] even if, as we have seen, that it was the police that was in the wrong half killing someone, invariably an innocent person, to boot.

Unfortunately it wasn’t half-killing someone – someone actually died, and that person was Ian Tomlinson.

I did a simple search on youtube and typed “Police Brutality UK” and came up with several hits for that term, some even of a soldier who had served the country being punched by one of three police officers in the act of arresting/subduing him. Others were a matter that police, and notably all seemed very young, just did not understand the laws they were supposed to be enforcing.

Now why is that a problem?

Firstly it means that the officer attending really doesn’t have a clue – and, as such will make up what he or she thinks is the law. That, once it gets to court, means that the officer has to lie to a judge – and that isn’t what anyone wants to do! A judge will then simply throw the case out of court – his/her court.

Please understand this – no matter what you see on TV – a police officer DOES NOT have to tell you the truth – they can lie to you for hours and hours, and instinctively most people will believe that the officer, because he or she is a police officer, is above reproach and that they are, in fact, telling you the truth.

A police officer in court is another matter – but that isn’t this post – that is for another time altogether.

You can see from the youtube video’s that officers are not as up to speed as many think.

And, what you also see is that the officers are decidedly uncomfortable being filmed.

This means that they will complain that they don’t like this at all – and that will reverberate to those who are higher up and in so doing will mean that pressure will be put on weak-willed home office staff and weak-willed home secretary’s, such as Jacqui Smith and Justice minister’s like Jack Straw.

The public does not need to know every law of the land, that would be preposterous, but a person who is enforcing the law should know what they are talking about – this is, after all, a persons liberty you are playing with.

Ignorance is the rule here – but not by the public, it is ignorance by the police.

Now that so many have camera phones on hand, this law should be looked at much more closely, repealed in fact, and better worded and understandable law enacted if needs be.

Terrorism against anyone is horrific and should be stamped out! I think I can safely say that all of the general public would agree with that and do not want officers subjected to any kind of terrorist act.

Again, not to be understood by the public, but by those who are in uniform who use these laws to keep the peace – if not, there will be a time when another Ian Tomlinson will happen, and the whole trust of the police will be lost.

The vast majority of the public wants to believe that police officers are there, not just as a career for those young people putting on the uniform; but to be the first line in keeping us safe and upholding what is right and, more importantly, the law of the land.

As the old adage goes, if you can’t trust the police, who can you trust? Well, with the death of Ian Tomlinson – a lot of that trust has been lost – and that effects the police more than a lie both on the stand and in front of a hand held camera or phone.

The people will be watching.

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to Ma.gnoliaAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl


About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Big Brother Britain, Blogroll, Civil Liberties, Comment, Democracy, Media, Modern Liberty, Personal Opinion, Personal philosophy, Technology and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to The real reason the British police wanted the change: Counter-Terrorism Act 2008? To stop youtube videos?

  1. museditions says:

    Well, they’ve got to SAY something. One can’t expect them to remain silent for four-eight years, can one? 😉

  2. Kim says:

    I think most people are prepared to support reasonable actions by the police . However the police must be held accountable – otherwise things can get right out of hand – as we have seen in the Ian Tomlinson case . The public are under constant surveylance so it should not be any different with the police . Anyway – it can work both ways – as recently happened in Perth WA where the public videoing police under attack actually helped convict the perpetrators .

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s