Police commisioner Martin Surl questions investigation into complaint by photographer who says he was threatened and abused by policeman

Martin Surl feels the way the way complaint needs to be examined

Martin Surl feels the way the way complaint needs to be examined

First published in News
Last updated
Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard: Brendan McFadden
Wilts and Glos Standard by , Reporter

THE Police and Crime Commissioner for Gloucestershire has questioned the police's handling of a complaint from an amateur photographer who said a traffic officer grabbed his camera and threatened to make his day “a living hell”.

The 26-year-old man was taking pictures of a crash scene near Tesco in Churchdown, Gloucester, on November 19 where an 86-year-old pedestrian later died from her injuries.

A film posted by the photographer on YouTube shows a conversation in which he appears to be threatened and verbally abused by a sergeant at the scene.

An investigation into the way the police handled the incident is now drawing to a close.

“I have only seen the public facing evidence, but it appears the officer swore at a member of the public, follows that up by saying he was lucky not to have been assaulted by the police, is threatened with arrest, mistreatment and a remand in custody”, said Commissioner Martin Surl, who met with Chief Constable Suzette Davenport to discuss the incident.

“I appreciate the work of the police can be very challenging, but no matter what the situation they should deal with the public in a civil and responsible manner at all times.

“It is the responsibility of the Chief Constable to manage complaints against police officers, my role is to hold the police to account. It appears the officer involved has fallen far short of the behaviour expected and required by the Constabulary.

“I hope this incident will not cause the public to lose faith in the good work done every day by the majority of hard working, dedicated officers which is why I have asked for this issue to be dealt-with with the utmost urgency.”

View the video below.

 

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:57pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Titus Livius says...

So police officer shoves his face into a member of the public and accuses that person thereby of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty. Brilliant. On that basis, we can be at fault whenever a policeman chooses. The photographer is legally in the right - we don't need police permission to film in a public place. Nor can the photographer be considered, to a reasonable mind, to have been in the way of police clearing up after a road accident. Full marks to the photographer to refuse to be intimidated.
Yet another over-officious police officer who needs to learn that police duty is a public service. And the authorities wonder why respect for the police is at rock bottom – here's prime evidence why.
This officer needs to be given "a wee lesson" in how to deal with the public. Perhaps even "a wee lesson" that he's in the wrong job.
Moral of this story: if you ever encounter the police, film everything.
So police officer shoves his face into a member of the public and accuses that person thereby of obstructing a police officer in the course of his duty. Brilliant. On that basis, we can be at fault whenever a policeman chooses. The photographer is legally in the right - we don't need police permission to film in a public place. Nor can the photographer be considered, to a reasonable mind, to have been in the way of police clearing up after a road accident. Full marks to the photographer to refuse to be intimidated. Yet another over-officious police officer who needs to learn that police duty is a public service. And the authorities wonder why respect for the police is at rock bottom – here's prime evidence why. This officer needs to be given "a wee lesson" in how to deal with the public. Perhaps even "a wee lesson" that he's in the wrong job. Moral of this story: if you ever encounter the police, film everything. Titus Livius
  • Score: 23

10:00pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Rex Cooper says...

This was not an ordinary member of the public but a loner walking around a potential crime scene ( and location of a fatality ) with a camera.
My sympathies lie with the policeman trying to do his job.
This was not an ordinary member of the public but a loner walking around a potential crime scene ( and location of a fatality ) with a camera. My sympathies lie with the policeman trying to do his job. Rex Cooper
  • Score: -30

1:27am Tue 7 Jan 14

Robert Jeanes says...

So there you have it.
A 'Loner'.....! OMG!
A camera egh?.
He wasn't wearing a macintosh....or was he.......... ?
Presumably, Rex is an 'Ordinary Member of the Public' spotter.
So there you have it. A 'Loner'.....! OMG! A camera egh?. He wasn't wearing a macintosh....or was he.......... ? Presumably, Rex is an 'Ordinary Member of the Public' spotter. Robert Jeanes
  • Score: 21

6:47am Tue 7 Jan 14

Crispin Mount says...

If the rozzer had known he was being covertly filmed or taped would he have behaved differently?
If the rozzer had known he was being covertly filmed or taped would he have behaved differently? Crispin Mount
  • Score: 13

8:37am Tue 7 Jan 14

Iansky says...

As much as I respect the police, this is another case of a power crazy officer threatening a photographer unjustly.

His approach was aggresive, threatening and beyond his legal remit and the photographer was Not interfering with a crime scene but documenting one; If Sgt Wallis had approached the photographer and dealt with him in a calm manner rather than being threatening & aggresive, he could have resolved the situation quickly and amicably.

Alas this is an example of the power trip some police enjoy in their approach to the public and only serves to cause less respect and trust for policing in the uk - he has no legal right to confiscate a camera either so well out of order.
As much as I respect the police, this is another case of a power crazy officer threatening a photographer unjustly. His approach was aggresive, threatening and beyond his legal remit and the photographer was Not interfering with a crime scene but documenting one; If Sgt Wallis had approached the photographer and dealt with him in a calm manner rather than being threatening & aggresive, he could have resolved the situation quickly and amicably. Alas this is an example of the power trip some police enjoy in their approach to the public and only serves to cause less respect and trust for policing in the uk - he has no legal right to confiscate a camera either so well out of order. Iansky
  • Score: 17

11:31am Tue 7 Jan 14

newscribbler says...

Think about the position the Police Officer was in:
- traffic accident
- an individual dying, or already dead, as a result
- family not yet aware
- police on duty trying to assist and collect any relevant information to establish cause
- someone taking photographs that could be on the internet in seconds, potentially identifying the individual
My sympathies are primarily with the family of the person but also with the policeman who is trying to do a professional job in distressing circumstances - how many of us have to deal with such tragic incidents up close?
If the photographer had any humanity he would have offered to delete the photos immediately instead of taking up valuable police time arguing his 'rights' to, essentially intrude into a family tragedy. If I was to be cynical I could accuse him of being mercenary and/or voyeuristic. His concerns about the Policeman being over officious, if indeed he was, could have been taken up separately after the incident had been attended to.
Think about the position the Police Officer was in: - traffic accident - an individual dying, or already dead, as a result - family not yet aware - police on duty trying to assist and collect any relevant information to establish cause - someone taking photographs that could be on the internet in seconds, potentially identifying the individual My sympathies are primarily with the family of the person but also with the policeman who is trying to do a professional job in distressing circumstances - how many of us have to deal with such tragic incidents up close? If the photographer had any humanity he would have offered to delete the photos immediately instead of taking up valuable police time arguing his 'rights' to, essentially intrude into a family tragedy. If I was to be cynical I could accuse him of being mercenary and/or voyeuristic. His concerns about the Policeman being over officious, if indeed he was, could have been taken up separately after the incident had been attended to. newscribbler
  • Score: -19

2:18pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Union Man says...

UPDATE: 1st APRIL 2009. Parliamentary discussion
When questioned about the ramifications of section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said

"I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute.

There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued."
UPDATE: 1st APRIL 2009. Parliamentary discussion When questioned about the ramifications of section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which was inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said "I want to be clear about this: the offence does not capture an innocent tourist taking a photograph of a police officer, or a journalist photographing police officers as part of his or her job. It does not criminalise the normal taking of photographs of the police. Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons, but the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute. There are no legal restrictions on photography in a public place, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place. My hon. Friend the Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing has said that we will issue all police officers and forces with a circular on the new offence. It will set out the policy intentions behind the offence and make it clear that it does not criminalise legitimate photographic or journalistic activity. The circular will be discussed with interested parties before it is issued." Union Man
  • Score: 7

2:46pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Harry_Collier says...

It is healthy that police can now be filmed and recorded while "doing their job". Means the evidence is now there and relatively impartial, rather than someone's word against that of a police officer (and guess who always had the benefit of the doubt, in the past?)
It is healthy that police can now be filmed and recorded while "doing their job". Means the evidence is now there and relatively impartial, rather than someone's word against that of a police officer (and guess who always had the benefit of the doubt, in the past?) Harry_Collier
  • Score: 9

3:04pm Tue 7 Jan 14

mr fleas says...

Oh dear.

Oh dear. Oh deary me.

See, this is what's become of our beloved country. Our noble and upstanding society. A copper who can't remain composed and polite under the slightest duress, and an offender too dumb to know he's been gotten, fair and bang to rights. And the whole of the rest rubber necking some unfortunate tragedy on youtube.

I tell you, it's the beginning of the end of civilisation as we once knew it.

Move along, nothing to see here....
Oh dear. Oh dear. Oh deary me. See, this is what's become of our beloved country. Our noble and upstanding society. A copper who can't remain composed and polite under the slightest duress, and an offender too dumb to know he's been gotten, fair and bang to rights. And the whole of the rest rubber necking some unfortunate tragedy on youtube. I tell you, it's the beginning of the end of civilisation as we once knew it. Move along, nothing to see here.... mr fleas
  • Score: -14

8:29pm Tue 7 Jan 14

Olly Cromwell says...

No one doubts the Police have a very difficult job to do when faced with fatal Road Traffic Accidents.

However, Sergeant W****** (collar 321) is caught on camera exceeding his authority - so it's a fair cop!

The Gloucestershire Police force have a growing image problem; too many Masons (still), too dismissive of legitimate complaints (Operation Juggler -where members of the public were turned away from Cirencester Police Station when trying to give statements about Cotswold Water Park criminality)
AND the current Chief Constable is under her own misconduct investigation (from her time at another Force).
No one doubts the Police have a very difficult job to do when faced with fatal Road Traffic Accidents. However, Sergeant W****** (collar 321) is caught on camera exceeding his authority - so it's a fair cop! The Gloucestershire Police force have a growing image problem; too many Masons (still), too dismissive of legitimate complaints (Operation Juggler -where members of the public were turned away from Cirencester Police Station when trying to give statements about Cotswold Water Park criminality) AND the current Chief Constable is under her own misconduct investigation (from her time at another Force). Olly Cromwell
  • Score: 10

8:28am Wed 8 Jan 14

Iansky says...

For those who watched the video recording on television, the police Sgt & photographer (who was forced into reviewing the images) looked at the images and there were non that needed to be deleted!

The police have no authority to confiscate an individuals camera in a public place or force them to delete images; the tape had been removed so it was no longer a designated retsricted crime scene (the prublic were moving through the area freely) so the photographer was not interfering with the police doing their job.

The photographer remained calm and polite while the police Sgt was bullying and aggresive as well as making threats!

As much as I support our police and respect them, this particular Sgt overstepped his authority and was totally out of order in this approach, the gravity of the accident that had occured does not give justification to his attitude to someone who was away from the incident area and standing where other pedestrians were walking.

It does not matter how you look at this, Glos Police are currently losing the trust of the people and this incident does nothing to help them.
For those who watched the video recording on television, the police Sgt & photographer (who was forced into reviewing the images) looked at the images and there were non that needed to be deleted! The police have no authority to confiscate an individuals camera in a public place or force them to delete images; the tape had been removed so it was no longer a designated retsricted crime scene (the prublic were moving through the area freely) so the photographer was not interfering with the police doing their job. The photographer remained calm and polite while the police Sgt was bullying and aggresive as well as making threats! As much as I support our police and respect them, this particular Sgt overstepped his authority and was totally out of order in this approach, the gravity of the accident that had occured does not give justification to his attitude to someone who was away from the incident area and standing where other pedestrians were walking. It does not matter how you look at this, Glos Police are currently losing the trust of the people and this incident does nothing to help them. Iansky
  • Score: 9

6:14pm Thu 9 Jan 14

Smythe says...

Iansky wrote:
For those who watched the video recording on television, the police Sgt & photographer (who was forced into reviewing the images) looked at the images and there were non that needed to be deleted!

The police have no authority to confiscate an individuals camera in a public place or force them to delete images; the tape had been removed so it was no longer a designated retsricted crime scene (the prublic were moving through the area freely) so the photographer was not interfering with the police doing their job.

The photographer remained calm and polite while the police Sgt was bullying and aggresive as well as making threats!

As much as I support our police and respect them, this particular Sgt overstepped his authority and was totally out of order in this approach, the gravity of the accident that had occured does not give justification to his attitude to someone who was away from the incident area and standing where other pedestrians were walking.

It does not matter how you look at this, Glos Police are currently losing the trust of the people and this incident does nothing to help them.
It shows how little you know, Section 19(2) PACE 1984 allows a police office to seize ANY item into the investigation of an offence, does your knowledge go as far as whether to know whether an offence had been committed? The officer also has a duty to secure evidence on behalf of HM Coroner.
Looks like your Ladybird 'How to tell policemen how to do their job' doesn't exactly cut the mustard.
[quote][p][bold]Iansky[/bold] wrote: For those who watched the video recording on television, the police Sgt & photographer (who was forced into reviewing the images) looked at the images and there were non that needed to be deleted! The police have no authority to confiscate an individuals camera in a public place or force them to delete images; the tape had been removed so it was no longer a designated retsricted crime scene (the prublic were moving through the area freely) so the photographer was not interfering with the police doing their job. The photographer remained calm and polite while the police Sgt was bullying and aggresive as well as making threats! As much as I support our police and respect them, this particular Sgt overstepped his authority and was totally out of order in this approach, the gravity of the accident that had occured does not give justification to his attitude to someone who was away from the incident area and standing where other pedestrians were walking. It does not matter how you look at this, Glos Police are currently losing the trust of the people and this incident does nothing to help them.[/p][/quote]It shows how little you know, Section 19(2) PACE 1984 allows a police office to seize ANY item into the investigation of an offence, does your knowledge go as far as whether to know whether an offence had been committed? The officer also has a duty to secure evidence on behalf of HM Coroner. Looks like your Ladybird 'How to tell policemen how to do their job' doesn't exactly cut the mustard. Smythe
  • Score: -9

8:52am Fri 10 Jan 14

Iansky says...

Smythe I see you are obviously enthusiastic about your support of the police and knowledge of the law (serving police perhaps?). to the point of direct insult, however, we have and continue to see too many cases of serving police abusing their powers - Section 2 clearly states:

(2)The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing— .
(a)that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and .
(b)that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.

As such, this does not apply in this case as there is no correlation between a photographer taking photos of a public place no longer classed as a crime scnene and has not in any way been involved in the commission of an offence!

If you had watched the news coverage and seem the clarification of the law in relation to this event , it quite clearly stated that the police have no authority to prevent a member of the public taking photographs in a public place and no legal right under any law to force the photographer to delete the images.

The photographer was in a publice place, the tape had been removed so the area could no longer be classed as a crime scene especially as there were other members of the public freely moving through the area - it is only because he stopped to take photos that this occured.

I do not /have not attempted to "tell the police" how to do their job just commented on the way this particular Sgt did his job and if you feel his attitude, approach and legal remit quoted was correct then I feel sorry for you.
Smythe I see you are obviously enthusiastic about your support of the police and knowledge of the law (serving police perhaps?). to the point of direct insult, however, we have and continue to see too many cases of serving police abusing their powers - Section 2 clearly states: (2)The constable may seize anything which is on the premises if he has reasonable grounds for believing— . (a)that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence; and . (b)that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent it being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed. As such, this does not apply in this case as there is no correlation between a photographer taking photos of a public place no longer classed as a crime scnene and has not in any way been involved in the commission of an offence! If you had watched the news coverage and seem the clarification of the law in relation to this event , it quite clearly stated that the police have no authority to prevent a member of the public taking photographs in a public place and no legal right under any law to force the photographer to delete the images. The photographer was in a publice place, the tape had been removed so the area could no longer be classed as a crime scene especially as there were other members of the public freely moving through the area - it is only because he stopped to take photos that this occured. I do not /have not attempted to "tell the police" how to do their job just commented on the way this particular Sgt did his job and if you feel his attitude, approach and legal remit quoted was correct then I feel sorry for you. Iansky
  • Score: 7

12:36pm Fri 10 Jan 14

JGH says...

I think the officer did a sterling job in not nicking him and I have to concur the 'cameraman' was indeed acting as a bit of a t*t, he has been the techno-version of the motorway rubber-necker
As for the comments of Lansky about Smythe , have you considered that the police were investigating an offence be it, driving without due care, assisted suicide or just plain obstructing a police officer?
The Sgt clearly explains that he considers it obstruction and the usage of the camera what part and parcel of that offence, had Mr Nosey-Parker have not been so argumentative who knows the road might have been opened a darned sight earlier.
I think the officer did a sterling job in not nicking him and I have to concur the 'cameraman' was indeed acting as a bit of a t*t, he has been the techno-version of the motorway rubber-necker As for the comments of Lansky about Smythe , have you considered that the police were investigating an offence be it, driving without due care, assisted suicide or just plain obstructing a police officer? The Sgt clearly explains that he considers it obstruction and the usage of the camera what part and parcel of that offence, had Mr Nosey-Parker have not been so argumentative who knows the road might have been opened a darned sight earlier. JGH
  • Score: -8

3:25pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Iansky says...

JGH wrote:
I think the officer did a sterling job in not nicking him and I have to concur the 'cameraman' was indeed acting as a bit of a t*t, he has been the techno-version of the motorway rubber-necker As for the comments of Lansky about Smythe , have you considered that the police were investigating an offence be it, driving without due care, assisted suicide or just plain obstructing a police officer? The Sgt clearly explains that he considers it obstruction and the usage of the camera what part and parcel of that offence, had Mr Nosey-Parker have not been so argumentative who knows the road might have been opened a darned sight earlier.
If as you say the Police were still investigating the incident, why did they remove the tape that had previously been in place restricting access so they could photograph/measure/r
ecord the scene?

I think you are clutching at straws here and to imply the officer could have knicked him for obstruction is a completely asinine statement, he was not obstructing anyone - whether his actions in taking photographs were insensitive is a different matter but they were certainly not illegal.

Look at the recording again you will see the only person being aggresive was the policeman the photographer was well within his rights being there and I suspect that if the policeman knew he had a real justification and legal right to arrest him he would have done so rather than stand and threaten.

As much as I support the police and spent many years working with them when in the military I do see a force that is changing in their attitude possibly due to lower numbers/added pressure and the void is definately widening, incidents like this do not help ther credibility and a man of his rank should have known better.

The road was in fact open and again, if you look at the video you will see people openly walking past the policeman & photographer without being challenged and you will also hear the part of the discussion where it was pointed out that the photographer did not go anywhere near the area that had previously been taped off.
[quote][p][bold]JGH[/bold] wrote: I think the officer did a sterling job in not nicking him and I have to concur the 'cameraman' was indeed acting as a bit of a t*t, he has been the techno-version of the motorway rubber-necker As for the comments of Lansky about Smythe , have you considered that the police were investigating an offence be it, driving without due care, assisted suicide or just plain obstructing a police officer? The Sgt clearly explains that he considers it obstruction and the usage of the camera what part and parcel of that offence, had Mr Nosey-Parker have not been so argumentative who knows the road might have been opened a darned sight earlier.[/p][/quote]If as you say the Police were still investigating the incident, why did they remove the tape that had previously been in place restricting access so they could photograph/measure/r ecord the scene? I think you are clutching at straws here and to imply the officer could have knicked him for obstruction is a completely asinine statement, he was not obstructing anyone - whether his actions in taking photographs were insensitive is a different matter but they were certainly not illegal. Look at the recording again you will see the only person being aggresive was the policeman the photographer was well within his rights being there and I suspect that if the policeman knew he had a real justification and legal right to arrest him he would have done so rather than stand and threaten. As much as I support the police and spent many years working with them when in the military I do see a force that is changing in their attitude possibly due to lower numbers/added pressure and the void is definately widening, incidents like this do not help ther credibility and a man of his rank should have known better. The road was in fact open and again, if you look at the video you will see people openly walking past the policeman & photographer without being challenged and you will also hear the part of the discussion where it was pointed out that the photographer did not go anywhere near the area that had previously been taped off. Iansky
  • Score: 4

6:25pm Fri 10 Jan 14

Smythe says...

Lansky you found me out! Yes I was an officer alas I had to cut my career short after being injured whilst dealing with an incident protecting members of the public.
I have seen the video and whilst I don't condone the officers delivery do you know what happened prior to the exchange, like me, a short, fat 'No'.
Yes there are images captured of members of the public walking about in the area, now ask yourself their question, how long was it from the officers attendance at the scene to the confrontation ? You don't know because the photographer has managed to set up his mobile phone to record the confrontation after the camera had been seized as can be seen because the officer has it. If the photographer is anything like me, that would mean a delay of many minutes.
As for the right to take photographs, usually only the Official Secrets Act prevents people from taking pictures, but until the images have been examined how do the officers know whether they contain evidence?
If it is anything like the fatal collisions or potential fatal that officers go to every day it is likely that the road aka crime scene had been closed for a number of hours. All similar incidents are treated as crime scenes because you don't know what is and isn't evidential, dependant on the situation, weather etc can change or move evidence minute upon minute,that's why cameras are seized, mobile phones ( to see if the driver was using it at the time) and also vehicles, none of them are in premises as your cut and paste shows, but are none the less subject to the PACE Act.
The photographer is lucky he didn't get lifted if nothing else but to prevent a breach of the peace, the video shows something's but not others, like how many people at the scene were upset, offended or insulted by such insensitive actions and for all we know the officer may have been reacting to such a complaint, at least press photographers have the good grace and above common sense to know when to take and not to take images.
Lansky you found me out! Yes I was an officer alas I had to cut my career short after being injured whilst dealing with an incident protecting members of the public. I have seen the video and whilst I don't condone the officers delivery do you know what happened prior to the exchange, like me, a short, fat 'No'. Yes there are images captured of members of the public walking about in the area, now ask yourself their question, how long was it from the officers attendance at the scene to the confrontation ? You don't know because the photographer has managed to set up his mobile phone to record the confrontation after the camera had been seized as can be seen because the officer has it. If the photographer is anything like me, that would mean a delay of many minutes. As for the right to take photographs, usually only the Official Secrets Act prevents people from taking pictures, but until the images have been examined how do the officers know whether they contain evidence? If it is anything like the fatal collisions or potential fatal that officers go to every day it is likely that the road aka crime scene had been closed for a number of hours. All similar incidents are treated as crime scenes because you don't know what is and isn't evidential, dependant on the situation, weather etc can change or move evidence minute upon minute,that's why cameras are seized, mobile phones ( to see if the driver was using it at the time) and also vehicles, none of them are in premises as your cut and paste shows, but are none the less subject to the PACE Act. The photographer is lucky he didn't get lifted if nothing else but to prevent a breach of the peace, the video shows something's but not others, like how many people at the scene were upset, offended or insulted by such insensitive actions and for all we know the officer may have been reacting to such a complaint, at least press photographers have the good grace and above common sense to know when to take and not to take images. Smythe
  • Score: -4

1:01pm Sat 11 Jan 14

Rex Cooper says...

and the little t*t took the mobile film secretly. There is nothing about this altercation that makes me sympathise with the "photographer". Not much better than News of World journalists.
and the little t*t took the mobile film secretly. There is nothing about this altercation that makes me sympathise with the "photographer". Not much better than News of World journalists. Rex Cooper
  • Score: -6

7:59pm Sat 11 Jan 14

marka108 says...

point to note, irrespective of the what, when and who, the police officer in question should not have acted or spoken in the manner he did, he is a public servant and as such should be treating members of the public with respect.

taking pictures in public is not an offence and after reading the story and watching the video it's clear the accident wasn't fatal at the time, the pedestrian died later in hospital. the photos were taken after the incident occurred and there were no pictures of the persons involved as they had already been removed by ambulance so after all is said and done the sergeant was being a bit of a ****.
acops released a memo to all Chief constables in England, Wales and NI basically telling them not to interfere with photographers or there equipment,
https://www.facebook
.com/photo.php?fbid=
647942921930627&set=
a.391151617609760.89
182.391123800945875&
type=1&theater
point to note, irrespective of the what, when and who, the police officer in question should not have acted or spoken in the manner he did, he is a public servant and as such should be treating members of the public with respect. taking pictures in public is not an offence and after reading the story and watching the video it's clear the accident wasn't fatal at the time, the pedestrian died later in hospital. the photos were taken after the incident occurred and there were no pictures of the persons involved as they had already been removed by ambulance so after all is said and done the sergeant was being a bit of a ****. acops released a memo to all Chief constables in England, Wales and NI basically telling them not to interfere with photographers or there equipment, https://www.facebook .com/photo.php?fbid= 647942921930627&set= a.391151617609760.89 182.391123800945875& type=1&theater marka108
  • Score: 2

1:48pm Sun 12 Jan 14

JGH says...

marka108 wrote:
point to note, irrespective of the what, when and who, the police officer in question should not have acted or spoken in the manner he did, he is a public servant and as such should be treating members of the public with respect.

taking pictures in public is not an offence and after reading the story and watching the video it's clear the accident wasn't fatal at the time, the pedestrian died later in hospital. the photos were taken after the incident occurred and there were no pictures of the persons involved as they had already been removed by ambulance so after all is said and done the sergeant was being a bit of a ****.
acops released a memo to all Chief constables in England, Wales and NI basically telling them not to interfere with photographers or there equipment,
https://www.facebook

.com/photo.php?fbid=

647942921930627&
set=
a.391151617609760.89

182.391123800945875&
amp;
type=1&theater
Police officers are not public servants, they are crown servants or employees, answerable to HM Queen or her representatives not you or I .
[quote][p][bold]marka108[/bold] wrote: point to note, irrespective of the what, when and who, the police officer in question should not have acted or spoken in the manner he did, he is a public servant and as such should be treating members of the public with respect. taking pictures in public is not an offence and after reading the story and watching the video it's clear the accident wasn't fatal at the time, the pedestrian died later in hospital. the photos were taken after the incident occurred and there were no pictures of the persons involved as they had already been removed by ambulance so after all is said and done the sergeant was being a bit of a ****. acops released a memo to all Chief constables in England, Wales and NI basically telling them not to interfere with photographers or there equipment, https://www.facebook .com/photo.php?fbid= 647942921930627& set= a.391151617609760.89 182.391123800945875& amp; type=1&theater[/p][/quote]Police officers are not public servants, they are crown servants or employees, answerable to HM Queen or her representatives not you or I . JGH
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree