# British police arrest women for asking for their badge numbers June 23rd, 2009



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 25, 2009)

*British police arrest women for asking for their badge numbers*

*June 23rd, 2009 · 6 Comments*


> *By Carlos Miller*
> Two British women were jailed for four days after photographing police and asking for their badge numbers.
> They were charged with obstructing a police officer but those charges were later dropped. Now the arresting officers are under investigation.



The video is interesting.  
Held 4 days, refused access to legal representatives, cops refused to ID which the suggestion is they are required to do so.  Also, seems 1 cop wasn't able to tell where his feet were, which could be a bad thing for his someday.

I'm curious on our UK members input here as you know your laws better than us Yanks do.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 25, 2009)

*Arrested for asking a policeman for his badge number*

 					 					The Guardian has obtained this police footage of Emily Apple and Val Swain being arrested by surveillance officers after asking for their badge numbers at the Kingsnorth climate camp last year. The two women speak to Paul Lewis about their arrest, imprisonment and official complaint
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-kingsnorth-arrests


Is [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Guardian a respectable source?
[/FONT]


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 25, 2009)

As they were arrested at the " Kingsnorth climate camp"...Im thinking that there is more to the story of what these two women were up to.

I also find it a bit funny that "Mr. Miller" posts this story on his "its a First Amendment Right" site...I dont think they have one of those....


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 25, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> As they were arrested at the " Kingsnorth climate camp"...Im thinking that there is more to the story of what these two women were up to.
> 
> I also find it a bit funny that "Mr. Miller" posts this story on his "its a First Amendment Right" site...I dont think they have one of those....


 
:rofl: 
"You can't arrest me because I'm an American."

"No, you're not."

"Dang."


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 25, 2009)

Wow.  Truly remarkable.  I hope something is done about it.



Bob Hubbard said:


> Is [FONT=Geneva,Arial,sans-serif]The Guardian a respectable source?[/FONT]



The Guardian is a well established paper with a long history.  Some will claim it is not reputable because it tends to come from a center-left slant, whereas a paper like the Daily Mail comes similarly from the right.  I've not seen any convincing evidence that it is not reputable.  As far as crazy fearmongering stupidity goes, The Guardian beats the Daily Mail by a country mile.

Papers in the UK just tend to be more ideologically aligned.  Papers in the US used to be too, the ideal of journalistic objectivity is a modern one. That probably has as much to do with Walter Cronkite as anyone.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 25, 2009)

Wow... that sucks. This would never happen in the US.  ...right


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 25, 2009)

I don't know much abouit it but this is whats on the BBC site. A resonably reliable account.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8112537.stm

I do know that these women are part of a group who demonstrate at a lot of anti government rallies etc and that the group is know to try and provoke reactions out of the police.
Now, knowing that, it's part of police intel, i very much doubt any officer would be stupid enough to break the law in regard to these women knowing that would please them immensely.
I have already explained in another thread that being arrested doesn't mean what americans mean by it, the length of time they spend is custody is up to 36 hours with written permission of a magistrate who would grant it if they felt felt the arrested persons were co-operating ie talking or being abusive etc. As soon as they are arrested they can have legal representation.
Whatever though, the case it has gone to the independent complaints commision, it won't be investigated by police so the outcome should be the truth as to what happened.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 25, 2009)

There's this too. A weapons stash was found near the camp site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7542592.stm


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 25, 2009)

Oddly enough, I know a little about the background to this as we provide the control system for Kingsnorth substation (and the Support Services chaps handle some kit on the powerstation (flue gas desulpherisation I think). 

These 'protestors' have been up to all kinds of dangerous stunts and it is only through vigilance and professionalism that there has not yet been loss of life due to their insanity. They need locking up for acts that are tantermount to domestic terrorism.

As to 'badge numbers', it's been a while since I was up close to a copper but our boys in blue wear their numbers on their shoulders in silver last time I looked (has this changed?).


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> Oddly enough, I know a little about the background to this as we provide the control system for Kingsnorth substation (and the Support Services chaps handle some kit on the powerstation (flue gas desulpherisation I think).
> 
> These 'protestors' have been up to all kinds of dangerous stunts and it is only through vigilance and professionalism that there has not yet been loss of life due to their insanity. They need locking up for acts that are tantermount to domestic terrorism.
> 
> As to 'badge numbers', it's been a while since I was up close to a copper but our boys in blue wear their numbers on their shoulders in silver last time I looked (has this changed?).


 

No all coppers *should *be wearing their numbers so the public can see them. Perhaps in anti riot gear the numbers weren't as clear as they could have been or perhaps these 'ladies' were trying to cause trouble!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 26, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> No all coppers *should *be wearing their numbers so the public can see them. Perhaps in anti riot gear the numbers weren't as clear as they could have been or perhaps these 'ladies' were trying to cause trouble!


 
Probably, but the cops should be more professional and give thier badge number instead of playing into the game these ladies were playing. 

Trouble Ladies: 1
Coppers: 0


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Probably, but the cops should be more professional and give thier badge number instead of playing into the game these ladies were playing.
> 
> Trouble Ladies: 1
> Coppers: 0


 
perhaps they did, we only have these women's word that they didn't.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 26, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> perhaps they did, we only have these women's word that they didn't.


 
That and a video showing the cops refusing to give it to them. LOL


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> That and a video showing the cops refusing to give it to them. LOL


 
The video isn't proof on anything at all, I'm far too cynical to believe something like that is all it appears. Unless I hear everyones side of the story and have proof put in front of me thats irrefutable I believe nothing.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 26, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The video isn't proof on anything at all, I'm far too cynical to believe something like that is all it appears. Unless I hear everyones side of the story and have proof put in front of me thats irrefutable I believe nothing.


 
True, the footage could have been doctored. It's obviously a huge conspiracy to discredit the professionalism of the the police involved.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> True, the footage could have been doctored. It's obviously a huge conspiracy to discredit the professionalism of the the police involved.


 
Er, have you seen what the organisation the women belong to is called and it's aims?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 26, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Er, have you seen what the organisation the women belong to is called and it's aims?


 
Irrelevant to the footage. They asked. The police refused to give it. End of story. 

The statement of that fact is just that, it's not a personal bash against English police or police in general. 

From what I gather, the women achieved their goal in part because the police allowed their personal feelings to interfere with their professionalism. They're only human after all and prone to mistakes just like everybody else.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Irrelevant to the footage. They asked. The police refused to give it. End of story.
> 
> The statement of that fact is just that, it's not a personal bash against English police or police in general.
> 
> *From what I gather*, the women achieved their goal in part because the police allowed their personal feelings to interfere with their professionalism. They're only human after all and prone to mistakes just like everybody else.


 
I'm glad you are so sure of the facts, I'm not, so am not making any judgements at all. I wasn't there and have no knowledge of the situation so I'm not going to say the police were wrong or right. That's what makes me good at my job, not jumping to conclusions based on what is reported in the media. I'm old fashioned like that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 26, 2009)

I believe the footage in question is the Police footage, where there is a specific question and denial of request.  Now, in fairness, the footage was edited.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 26, 2009)

First off, if I'm not mistaken, this was in UK. And thus they were subject to UK laws and not US laws. If they did not know UK laws then, well, ignorance is no excuse.

Two, I also understand in the UK you cannot stop talking to police. That is, if the question you, you can't clam up and say nothing.

Three, as we have already found out here, 'Arrest' in the UK is like being detained in the US.

And four, some cops here in the US have tried to do the very same thing, arrest people who video their activities or try to find out who they are.

See, all around the world, all government officials act like 'government officials'. That is, petty bullies who have power. That's just the nature of the beast.

Or like Oliver Lacon said, "Power corrupts, but someone must govern".

Deaf


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2009)

Judging situations from reports in the media is pretty pointless, I'll wait for the independent ( from the police that is) police complaints commision's report to come out. 
The police here aren't government officials, they don't work for the government nor is their oath to the government.They may have good reasons for how they behaved, they may not, I'd like to hear their story before condemning them. 
People arrested here do have the right to be silent.
"_You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"_


----------



## seasoned (Jun 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> *Judging situations from reports in the media is pretty pointless, I'll wait for the independent ( from the police that is) police complaints commision's report to come out. *
> The police here aren't government officials, they don't work for the government nor is their oath to the government.They may have good reasons for how they behaved, they may not, I'd like to hear their story before condemning them.
> People arrested here do have the right to be silent.
> "_You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"_


Here, we make law enforcement jump through hoops, to hang that badge on. It is, in many cases, where news media and the citizenry, take much at face value, and discredit those same officers.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 27, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> J
> The police here aren't government officials, they don't work for the government nor is their oath to the government.



OK...now I'm lost. They're _not_ govt. employees, then? Do you mean that they're not _national_ police?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 27, 2009)

arnisador said:


> OK...now I'm lost. They're _not_ govt. employees, then? Do you mean that they're not _national_ police?


 
They come under the Home Office but their oath of alligience like the armed forces and the judiciary is to the Queen.

 "I,   of    do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will *well and* *truly serve the Queen* in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Each county/area has a police force, all under the Home Office but independant of each other, we also have the Transport Police, the Parks Police and the Civil Nuclear Police and the Ministry of Defence police (yay!). We don't have a national police service as such.
The police forces in England and Wales come under the same laws, Scotland has it's own law as does Northern Ireland. The Isle of Man has it's own police and legal system under their own government as does the Channel Islands who's laws are more akin to the French than English.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Jun 27, 2009)

So of the Queen orders the police to throw anyone she dislikes into prison they would obey? Can she order them to throw terrorist into Gitmo?

I mean if they plege alligience to the Queen, kind of like a Ceasar, well that's that.

Here the police, ALL police, and military, pledge to protect the Constitiution (well we hope they mean it.)

I find it strange the UK's 'Home Office' isn't part of the government. If it's not part of your government, who pays for it? How do the employees get their jobs? If it's the Queen, who is she accountable to?

Deaf


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 27, 2009)

Eh...thats all a matter of semantics. Law Enforcement always represents a governmental authority of some sort or another


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> So of the Queen orders the police to throw anyone she dislikes into prison they would obey? Can she order them to throw terrorist into Gitmo?
> 
> I mean if they plege alligience to the Queen, kind of like a Ceasar, well that's that.
> 
> ...


 
I have actually explained this on another thread.
The Home Office has a government minister in charge, I didn't say it wasn't part of the government. The work is done by the Civil Service who yes is also technically employed by the Crown. The government is Her Majesty's government as the Opposition is her Majesty's Opposition.
The tax payer pays for it of course, as pointed out we are subjects of the Crown.

The government balances the Queen, the Queen balances the government. She can't throw people into prison, the courts wouldn't allow it even though they are her courts, the government can't throw people into prison as your government has done because again the courts wouldn't allow it and if the Queen were to step in we'd have a huge constititional crisis which everyone will do anything to avoid however that doesn't mean to say if something came up she wouldn't interfere just because she hasn't done before. The Queen is known to advise Prime Ministers (who's title isn't Prime Minister it's actually First Lord of the Treasury, PM is an affectation) after all she has had a lot more experience than many of them.

Checks and balances! we have a nicely balanced system here which enables our democracy to carry on, yes we have glitches but on the whole the system works, it has evolved over a couple of thousand years and is actually very sophisicated.
As I said the police of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands come under their own governments as neither come under the UK.


----------



## myusername (Jun 28, 2009)

Looks like that there is more to this story than I first thought! I was appalled when I first saw this video, it is clear on tape that the officer is not giving over his number and it is also relatively clear that an officer is standing on one of the ladies feet whilst denying that he is doing so.

However, with the additional info provided by Sukerkin and Tez and the possibility that this tape could have been edited the best thing to do would be to sit on the fence and wait for the complaint to be investigated before settling with my previous judgement. It just goes to show that you can't always take things at face value, I admit that politically my views are always better served by The Guardian newspaper than The Daily Mail but I do need to try and remember when reading these stories that The Guardian often has its own agenda too.

I have no problems with the police as I know a few lovely officers through my MA training. However, I have also encountered the odd arsehole as well. Which to be fair is to be expected as the police are only human, however problems of heavy handedness will come out when you have an arsehole in uniform! I wonder if we will see more of this coming to light now that we have a greater increase in mobile phone cameras!


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

I read The Independant, less bias. I never read the red tops nor the Guardian or Mail. 
It could well be that the coppers share some of the blame here but we'll have to wait and se what the commission says. If they are guilty it will come out and they'll most likely lose their jobs, pensions etc.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I read The Independant, less bias. I never read the red tops nor the Guardian or Mail.


Like that great American Churchill said,  we are separated by one language...
in other words, WTH are Red Tops? Not these I hope. *shudder*


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Like that great American Churchill said,  we are separated by one language...
> in other words, WTH are Red Tops? Not these I hope. *shudder*


 
Mmm Churchill's mother was American, he wasn't lol, she was one of the 'Buccaneers'
The red tops are The Sun,The Star, The News of the World. The tabloids who have their names on a red background.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Mmm Churchill's mother was American, he wasn't lol, she was one of the 'Buccaneers'


 By today's citizenship laws, and by act of congress he was an American





> The red tops are The Sun,The Star, The News of the World. The tabloids who have their names on a red background.


Oh. That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Big Don said:


> By today's citizenship laws, and by act of congress he was an American
> Oh. That makes sense. Thanks.


 

Fight you for him lol! He was however very much a product of the public school system and our aristocratic way of bring children up, wonder what he would have been like if he'd grown up in America?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Fight you for him lol! He was however very much a product of the public school system and our aristocratic way of bring children up, wonder what he would have been like if he'd grown up in America?


Ooh! Good one. I wonder if he'd have been as funny.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Ooh! Good one. I wonder if he'd have been as funny.


 
The way he was brought up (the aristocratic way ie abandoned to nannies and boarding schools) certainly teaches resilance and the value of a sense of humour!
You know he was a Liberal as well as a Tory? Liberal as in the time honoured British way.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> The way he was brought up (the aristocratic way ie abandoned to nannies and boarding schools) certainly teaches resilance and the value of a sense of humour!
> You know he was a Liberal as well as a Tory? Liberal as in the time honoured British way.


I've even read a few of his books


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Having had time to really look at the video, which has obviously been edited as bits don't follow on, I don't see beyond not telling them their numbers (which may have been their instructions) what the police have done wrong there. As I explained on another thread wherever possibly police are required to use specific methods of moving demonstrators/suspects/prisoners etc, this is why so many officers are used, that's Home Office guidelines in place.
 The women claimed she was choked, she wasn't, as myusername said, it was a mastoid hold, it's been changed recently, it used to be first finger under the nose pushing up and the thumb on the mastoid bone, painful but harmless. Now it's just the hold against the mastoid to save the officers being bitten.
Taking photographs of police officers isn't illegal but I think many officers as perhaps many of you will, might prefer not to be photographed. The bobbies who patrol around London tourist spots will always oblige but understandably perhaps the Special Branch wouldn't want to have their photos taken!
Taking photos of government buildings and MOD sites has always come under the Official Secrets Act dating probably from when photography was invented! MOD sites have notices stating this fact all along their fencelines so it shouldn't be a surprise and they aren't secret.

If you go on FIT Watch's website you will see they have the numbers of the police officers so they must have been displaying them somewhere which gives a lie to the fact they weren't displaying them. They also post up
" FIT Watch can be done by anyone and can be as passive or *as confrontational as you wish.* "
http://fitwatch.blogspot.com/

I should point out that police surveillance including CCTV, cameras and filming has gone a long way to stop the appalling football violence we suffered here. We have also recently been suffered from violance at big conferences, not by genuine protestors but by people who come specifically to commit acts of violence. 




 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-yiJaiHNg&feature=related

In London where the police aren't wearing riot gear and aren't protected.




 
Anti Nato riots in France.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_dRTcSLjQk&feature=related

One thing you may or may not be surprised about is how many photographs of the same people pop up across Europe in these situations.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2009)

> One thing you may or may not be surprised about is how many photographs of the same people pop up across Europe in these situations.


Small group of traveling troublemakers?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Small group of traveling troublemakers?


 
I think it's more that they are an organised group or even an organisation. They are predominantly far left groups ( thats by yours and our definition of left) and groups dedicated to bringing down governments regardless of whether they are democratic or not, I suspect strongly that the FIT Watch people who have complained about the police here are part of them or are funded by these anarchist groups. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ers-and-what-exactly-do-they-want-674375.html


Europe has a long history of anarchist activists. Google 'European anarchists' and you'll have several pages, here's a couple.

http://www.afed.org.uk/
http://www.italiansrus.com/articles/ourpaesani/redbrigade.htm


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 28, 2009)

The way I see it, and I'm no loyal fan of the Po-Po myself, but...

If you poke the bear... you have to expect it to bite your hand clean off.

And this group seems to be carrying some sticks...


----------



## Big Don (Jun 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think it's more that they are an organised group or even an organisation. They are predominantly far left groups ( thats by yours and our definition of left)


I really like the terms kooks and moonbats...





> Europe has a long history of anarchist activists.


Yeah, one shot Franz Ferdinand setting off WWI...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 28, 2009)

Big Don said:


> I really like the terms kooks and moonbats...
> Yeah, one shot Franz Ferdinand setting off WWI...


 
That's the ones. We've had the Red Army Faction, Bader-Meinhof etc plus a number of nationalistic terror groups like ETA, the IRA, UDA etc to contend with in Europe. 
The trouble is those 'kooks' and 'moonbats' can be very dangerous. There's also many naive idealists who are unwitting pawns in the game of terror.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jun 28, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm glad you are so sure of the facts, I'm not, so am not making any judgements at all. I wasn't there and have no knowledge of the situation so I'm not going to say the police were wrong or right. That's what makes me good at my job, not jumping to conclusions based on what is reported in the media. I'm old fashioned like that.


 
I'm sure of what I saw and heard in the clip. 

I'm also sure there's probably more to it and plenty about the organization the women belong to as well as English Law that I don't know about. 

Am I wrong in thinking that English police must provide their badge number when it is requested? Perhaps that's where I got off track?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm sure of what I saw and heard in the clip.
> 
> I'm also sure there's probably more to it and plenty about the organization the women belong to as well as English Law that I don't know about.
> 
> Am I wrong in thinking that English police must provide their badge number when it is requested? Perhaps that's where I got off track?


 


The clip, as has been said before, was edited so we didn't get a proper sense of what was going on. 
You are entitled to know the number of a police officer arresting you, doesn't mean to say he will give it to you _then and there_, it can be later when being booked into the station or being interviewed which will all be taped. The name and number of the police officers will be on all paperwork, presumably_ this is where they got the names and numbers of_ _the officers to put on their website._ For operational reasons these officers may have been instructed not to give out their numbers if threats were made to their safety or for other operational reasons.
The women were arrested on suspicion of obstructing a police officer in the lawful execution of his/her duty, not for asking a police officer his number. They weren't charged so no charges 'could be dropped'.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 29, 2009)

Much like when some knucklehead here demands "I want your name and badge number!!" as Im arresting them for some offense.

I tell them "it will be all over your arrest paperwork...."


----------

