New Met police video

[Stinger 51]

This one is doing the rounds today.. Short of the officer not engaging the naive plonker in the first place, I think he handled it quite well.

 

Edited March 5, 2015 by Stinger

[Dash 32]

This one is doing the rounds today.. Short of the officer not engaging the naive plonker in the first place, I think he handled it quite well.

 

Not sure I would agree with you entirely. I would have thought it could have been handled better.

[Dave SYP + 2,963]

He's lucky he wasn't locked up for obstruct PC.  He should stick to positively helping the homeless by doing something constructive and not sticking his nose in police business.

[mike88 + 257]

Funny how in situations like this members of the public with no policing experience always know better than experienced people who actually do the job. 

Edited March 5, 2015 by mike88

[stoppedreality + 279]

Not sure I would agree with you entirely. I would have thought it could have been handled better.

 

Please do enlighten us..

[Stinger 51]

Not sure I would agree with you entirely. I would have thought it could have been handled better.

Fair enough.

How?

[Dash 32]

Fair enough.

How?

I can let you know "why" I think that way, not "how". I only state this to be clear as I am sure the play ground bullies are lining up to shoot me down.

 

I am not of the mind that a person who holds the Office of Constable should interact with a member of society in such a way.

 

The constable makes a statement "you really have a lot of learning to do, haven't you". The Constable does not appear to wait for a response and turns around to leave. Thats generally what those of an immature attitude display. The young gentleman then challenges the Constables statement with a remark about crime statistic, (not sure why). At this point the constable turns around and approaches the gentlemen and in my opinion gets unnecessarily close. He takes up a stance of tucking his thumb/s in his utility vest, a classic authoritarian stance and does not serve to allow the parties to feel on an equal level and only serves to add tension to the situation.

 

The Constable then parries the gentleman's statement regarding the fiddling of crime stats with, "honestly, you really need to grow up", I am not of the belief that to belittle someones age in regards to ones remarks is not a mature stance or a stance one would expect of the person holding the Office of Constable. Those types of exchanges are not productive, its not how one would seek understanding and enlightenment.

 

The constable, after telling the camera man he can film all he wants, then actually listens to what the gentleman is saying (not attempting to bait or belittle) which is the best course to take in my opinion. unfortunately after listening the constable reverts back to the immature display, making a statement and then turning away. A statement that can be perceived as a derogatory in regard to getting an education. The classic, I want the last word, can perceived as childish behaviour. The gentleman then takes the immature stance by inferring the Constable also need to get an education.

 

The Constable then decides to take a different approach and begins to enquire as to who the gentlemen works for, again not what appears to be a genuine engagement with the gentlemen. the Constable takes an authoritarian stance, this can be evidenced by his demeanor and body language, arms folded and asking questions about the individual rather than for explanations.

 

The Constable now turns his attentions to the camera person and asks him to not film so close, here the Constable touches his chin with his thumb, a classic sign of being aware of a choice needs to be made but not sure what. One may perceive it as how do I get out of here with both sides happy.

 

There are a few more verbal exchanges and then you can see him remove his thumb from stroking his chin, the constable has made a decision. The Constable has decided the best course of action is to explain what has gone on, what should have happened from the start.

 

If one does not wish to explain then do not engage is my advice.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Dash

[Chief Cheetah 6,915]

If one does not wish to explain then do not engage is my advice.

 

Great piece of advice, are you going to heed it?  Bearing in mind you state you won't explain how you would have done it differently, which was the question, but why it was wrong.  You complain at one point the PC is using a closed and hard stance in body language, inferring you would rather they took a more open and questioning stance and yet, when the PC takes an open and questioning stance you complain they appear to be showing signs of a weakness and that they are unsure.  How would you have held yourself?

 

I haven't actually seen the video but from your description and use of language it almost seems like you are describing a Gilbert & Sullivan operetta.

 

'Somebody fetch me a man of good standing who holds the warrant and office of Constable!'

 

So, HOW would you have dealt with it?  As a lay person and someone who could find themselves on the receiving end of an encounter like this, how would you want to be treated and if you were the PC how would you have dealt with it?  It's only fair you share this with us as you seem to know the PC was wrong in what they did so please tell us the right way to deal with the public in this situation (including the types of body language you would want us to use).

[Stinger 51]

I can let you know "why" I think that way, not "how". I only state this to be clear as I am sure the play ground bullies are lining up to shoot me down.

 

I am not of the mind that a person who holds the Office of Constable should interact with a member of society in such a way.

 

The constable makes a statement "you really have a lot of learning to do, haven't you". The Constable does not appear to wait for a response and turns around to leave. Thats generally what those of an immature attitude display. The young gentleman then challenges the Constables statement with a remark about crime statistic, (not sure why). At this point the constable turns around and approaches the gentlemen and in my opinion gets unnecessarily close. He takes up a stance of tucking his thumb/s in his utility vest, a classic authoritarian stance and does not serve to allow the parties to feel on an equal level and only serves to add tension to the situation.

 

The Constable then parries the gentleman's statement regarding the fiddling of crime stats with, "honestly, you really need to grow up", I am not of the belief that to belittle someones age in regards to ones remarks is not a mature stance or a stance one would expect of the person holding the Office of Constable. Those types of exchanges are not productive, its not how one would seek understanding and enlightenment.

 

The constable, after telling the camera man he can film all he wants, then actually listens to what the gentleman is saying (not attempting to bait or belittle) which is the best course to take in my opinion. unfortunately after listening the constable reverts back to the immature display, making a statement and then turning away. A statement that can be perceived as a derogatory in regard to getting an education. The classic, I want the last word, can perceived as childish behaviour. The gentleman then takes the immature stance by inferring the Constable also need to get an education.

 

The Constable then decides to take a different approach and begins to enquire as to who the gentlemen works for, again not what appears to be a genuine engagement with the gentlemen. the Constable takes an authoritarian stance, this can be evidenced by his demeanor and body language, arms folded and asking questions about the individual rather than for explanations.

 

The Constable now turns his attentions to the camera person and asks him to not film so close, here the Constable touches his chin with his thumb, a classic sign of being aware of a choice needs to be made but not sure what. One may perceive it as how do I get out of here with both sides happy.

 

There are a few more verbal exchanges and then you can see him remove his thumb from stroking his chin, the constable has made a decision. The Constable has decided the best course of action is to explain what has gone on, what should have happened from the start.

 

If one does not wish to explain then do not engage is my advice.

 

Some interesting points and I happen to agree with some of what you say. As I said in my previous post, he'd have been better off not engaging in the first place. However I disagree about the whole authoritarian stance thing. In my experience it's easier to fold your arms or put your hands on your vest because there's nowhere else for them to go! Wearing a utility belt with various bits of kit hanging off it, you can't just stand there with your arms at your side. Well I suppose you could, but your hands would then be on your handcuffs, or your baton, or CS spray. I presume you'd find this less preferable?

 

The officer doesn't appear to have the perfect attitude, however take the following two points in to account;

 

- The exchange had clearly started before the recording, and would almost certainly have been instigated by the young man.

- The best way to communicate with somebody is in a manner that they understand. It always amazes me that some people think police officers should always took to people in a formal manner. Police officers are there to be members of society empowered to deal with social issues, not trying to secure a business deal.

 

The young man clearly took exception to the police removing a drunk homeless fella from the restaurant but appears to not consider why this was actually happening. Police officers do not routinely remove people from privately owned public areas because trespass is a civil matter. However where such a person is causing or likely to cause a breach of the peace the police will quite rightly deal with that breach. The report to the police was that the homeless fella had been aggressive, and it's quite reasonable to assume that the report came from McDonald's themselves. Such situations can be difficult enough to deal with, without some plonker in the background chiming in and aggravating the situation, which is the what the officer stated was happening. Removing homeless people from shelter is never a pleasant thing to do but sometimes it's necessary. One thing is for sure; it's not the police who are responsible for people being homeless, but it's their job to deal with those people when they breach the peace. It's a sorry state of affairs but following such incidents the police will make the relevant referrals to social services and support agencies.

 

What would the alternative have been? The young man seems unable to comprehend the fact that the police intervened because he had been aggressive, as opposed to homeless. That is why his outlook is immature.

[Cockney_Doris 29]

The Constable then decides to take a different approach and begins to enquire as to who the gentlemen works for, again not what appears to be a genuine engagement with the gentlemen. the Constable takes an authoritarian stance, this can be evidenced by his demeanor and body language, arms folded and asking questions about the individual rather than for explanations.

 

The Constable now turns his attentions to the camera person and asks him to not film so close, here the Constable touches his chin with his thumb, a classic sign of being aware of a choice needs to be made but not sure what. One may perceive it as how do I get out of here with both sides happy.

 

 

Alright Cracker....!

 

You aren't a police officer, you don't know what it's like to have self-righteous lefties verbally attack you when you're simply doing your job. Sometimes people crack and it looks like that's what happened with this PC. I don't think he was rude, and don't forget we haven't seen the behaviour of the "homeless man" before his arrest.

 

Personally I would have told them this is none of their business and I won't be discussing the reasons for the man's arrest with them because of the data protection act.

 

It doesn't matter if the homeless man wasn't bothering anyone, he wasn't buying anything and the restaurant staff wanted him to leave. In my own experience, in most cases the "homeless" in Mcdonalds aren't homeless but have gone in there - usually the disabled toilets - to take drugs. Why should mcdonalds have to put up with that? Would you accept it in a branch of Pizza Express or an upmarket restaurant? Why should McDonalds be any different because it's a fast food restaurant?

[Radman + 2,165]

This one is doing the rounds today.. Short of the officer not engaging the naive plonker in the first place, I think he handled it quite well.

">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwMsq6pEoo&feature=youtu.be

Edited March 6, 2015 by Radman

[Dash 32]

Some interesting points and I happen to agree with some of what you say.

Thank you, I appreciate not being attacked for sharing opinions and thoughts.

 

 

As I said in my previous post, he'd have been better off not engaging in the first place. However I disagree about the whole authoritarian stance thing. In my experience it's easier to fold your

arms or put your hands on your vest because there's nowhere else for them to go! Wearing a utility belt with various bits of kit hanging off it, you can't just stand there with your arms at your

side. Well I suppose you could, but your hands would then be on your handcuffs, or your baton, or CS spray. I presume you'd find this less preferable?

I do not dispute that it may be comfortable and easy to place ones thumbs in the utility vest. The fact it is more comfortable does not negate the image it portrays.

 

The officer doesn't appear to have the perfect attitude, however take the following two points in to account;

 

- The exchange had clearly started before the recording, and would almost certainly have been instigated by the young man.

- The best way to communicate with somebody is in a manner that they understand. It always amazes me that some people think police officers should always took to people in a formal manner. Police

officers are there to be members of society empowered to deal with social issues, not trying to secure a business deal.

I recognise the need to communicate with others in a way that is appropriate, what I do not subscribe to is language that is used to belittle another.

 

The young man clearly took exception to the police removing a drunk homeless fella from the restaurant but appears to not consider why this was actually happening.

All the more need to take an approach that explains why, if the Constable did not wish to explain then its best to simply ignore the request of the bystanders and carry on about the business at

hand.

 

Police officers do not routinely remove people from privately owned public areas because trespass is a civil matter. However where such a person is causing or likely to cause a breach of the peace

the police will quite rightly deal with that breach. The report to the police was that the homeless fella had been aggressive, and it's quite reasonable to assume that the report came from

McDonald's themselves. Such situations can be difficult enough to deal with, without some plonker in the background chiming in and aggravating the situation, which is the what the officer stated

was happening.

The only part I disagree with is the calling of the young man a "plonker"

 

 

Removing homeless people from shelter is never a pleasant thing to do but sometimes it's necessary. One thing is for sure; it's not the police who are responsible for people being homeless, but

it's their job to deal with those people when they breach the peace. It's a sorry state of affairs but following such incidents the police will make the relevant referrals to social services and

support agencies.

Its definitely a sorry state of affairs.

 

What would the alternative have been? The young man seems unable to comprehend the fact that the police intervened because he had been aggressive, as opposed to homeless. That is why his outlook is

immature.

The homeless persons demeanor is alleged to have been aggressive, as I did not witness and the the video footage does not show any aggression.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Dash

[Cockney_Doris 29]

The homeless persons demeanor is alleged to have been aggressive, as I did not witness and the the video footage does not show any aggression.

 

So you're immediately taking the side of the lairy young boy in the video despite acknowledging the fact you haven't seen the man in question or his behaviour leading up to his arrest? Ok...

[TheJesusofKayaking 0]

This one is doing the rounds today.. Short of the officer not engaging the naive plonker in the first place, I think he handled it quite well.

 

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrwMsq6pEoo&feature=youtu.be

Edited March 8, 2015 by TheJesusofKayaking

[Radman + 2,165]

Pleasing to see someone so young stand up for what he believes in. 

 

Cop came across as retaliative when fronted out by the guy.

 

Would be interesting to view video footage showing any alleged aggression by the homeless man.

 

EDIT. Cop said 'potentially aggressive'.  .

Again at the end of the day McDonald's isn't a homeless shelter, why should a man impose himself on someone else's property?

No doubt you'd be upset if a random man was sleeping in your business annoying customers and taking up retail space... Why should people tolerate such behaviour?

Answers on a post card please...