Auditors

[Jinxer 43]

Is this Charlie Veich's dad or is he just a stupid freeman.

Won't s.5 work in this case.

[AnthonyB + 451]

Firstly I can't believe you seriously don't know who Ken Livingstone is (I despair for today's society!)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Livingstone

Secondly Ken is spot on, yet again two cops make idiots of themselves getting involved in something related to filming and photography that is not their problem and that they have no powers over.

[HazRat 762]

Got to love Red Ken. He made his point well I thought. The only issue I have is that quite a few venues have condition of entry rules over commercial filming (More London do around Southbank). I would suspect that this falls into that realm. Still not a lot the officers can do about it though.

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

The cops did nothing wrong.

The vast majority of uniformed policing doesn't involve crime as we know.

I should say this video has been edited...Westfield security do not shy away from dealing themselves. They would have notified the Westfield the policing team for support and that's what appears to have happened.

I work monthly as a hospital officer as I've alluded to many times before and most of my shift is spent enforcing standards of polite behaviour within NHS premises at the request of staff or at my own discretion.

As an aside it's amusing for Red Ken to take a stand against corporations when he himself formed a corporation to evade income tax.

Edited May 6, 2016 by MerseyLLB

[Inbtsiyp + 347]

That situation is easily dealt with.

Explain that the place is private property and as such the security have a right to remove them using reasonable force of necessary and that you as an officer will observe to prevent a BOP.

Talk to security state that alibi stone is aware that they can remove if they want. You will stand by to prevent BOP. Emphasise to security to request they leave and if they don't then use reasonable force to remove.

If security are not willing to make a request to leave and support that request with the use of reasonable force if necessary then me personally would not be willing to hang around.

The company quite rightly can then deal with the matter in court.

Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

[Radman + 2,165]

The officers have every right to approach Ken Livingston and tell him the legal position, the fact that at a common law level the security can remove him using reasonable force from their premesis, without them even having to take it to a court - intimidating set of circumstances.

I generally hate the limp handed security we have in this country - too scared to go hands on, too unwilling to carry out duties they're employed to do.

[Milankovitch + 3,445]

1 hour ago, Radman said:

I generally hate the limp handed security we have in this country - too scared to go hands on, too unwilling to carry out duties they're employed to do.

Probably because a lot of cops seem to want to stick on a security guard for looking at a member of the public, let alone doing anything more than that!

[Radman + 2,165]

14 minutes ago, Milankovitch said:

Probably because a lot of cops seem to want to stick on a security guard for looking at a member of the public, let alone doing anything more than that!

Hence why we've seen the establishment of the 'reluctance' society - the fault largely in my opinion lies with the Policing styles of the past where our Chiefs allowed us to take on a far wider remit then lets be honest we should be dealing with... Of course in a time when we could take on these extra responsibilities without it effecting us too much since we had healthier numbers of cops and a larger budget... All at the same time past governments eroding the rights and responsibilities of individuals to 'crack on' and deal with matters themselves (I'm pointing the finger squarely at New Labour here.)

Now that we're cutting back costs, officer numbers are low etc we've finally realised that frankly we've been doing the jobs of other people/organisations and society now expects us to deal with these issues... 

There needs to be a push within society to start dealing with more themselves, the nanny state well and truly exists in Britain thanks to Policies of the past where we bent over backwards to accommodate everyone.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Radman

[millfield 12]

As far as I can see the police hardly had chance to say/do anything and Ken just started shouting the odds at them - making the average reader think the police did something wrong.

 

 

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

As per Milankovitch's post...

Many cops have been far too quick to arrest/over investigate use of force by security.

When I worked NTE regularly, unless there was indication of grossly excessive force, drunken complainers were sent on their way by myself. Under our new crime everything rules if someone drunkenly rings 101/999 saying 'a bouncer has just assaulted me' they get given a crime reference straight away!

[jimmyriddle 87]

Radman - I agree they are too limp handed but not totally their fault. Their supervision and company will most likely back down even if the security guard was 100% right. They think that their insurance won't cover something so just say no or that the officer was wrong.

And also, would you want to deal with coked up violent bastards at an A&E with no kit whatsoever?

[jimmyriddle 87]

Mersey and Milankovitch are also spot on. For too long police have looked down on security and MoPs for that matter. I know of lads from security that are good lads but work for a bad security firm. Guess which allegations CID would be all over? Operation Seahog and all that.

Some used to come into Tescos and threaten them for ringing up with threats of arrest for false imprisonment even though they knee the law well and most of the time people would come into the back voluntarily.

[Remmy + 1,401]

6 hours ago, jimmyriddle said:

Mersey and Milankovitch are also spot on. For too long police have looked down on security and MoPs for that matter. I know of lads from security that are good lads but work for a bad security firm. Guess which allegations CID would be all over? Operation Seahog and all that.

Some used to come into Tescos and threaten them for ringing up with threats of arrest for false imprisonment even though they knee the law well and most of the time people would come into the back voluntarily.

I agree with you jimmyriddle, I worked in the real world before becoming a copper. I like to treat everyone fairly even criminals, afterall life isn't always easy even good people make bad choices. Even when dealing with hardened OCG'S who are in my mind nothing better than rats, I still try to be fair and friendly (doesn't always work but their loss). I even agree about good people working for bad companies, it's a job and it pays the bills.

However can't agree with your allegations over false arrest. It's just not worth it the IPCC and defence brief would be only too eager to challenge that sort of behaviour and the force pays out enough compensation on well intentioned arrests that are later deemed to be unlawful due to a misunderstanding or legal technicality.

As regards to Seahog can I ask why you highlighted that operation? I was directly involved in that operation for a number of years we weren't targeting decent legitimate security firms, in fact we assisted these firms wherever possible. What we did use every legal means to disrupt though was sham security firms, which where nothing more than protection rackets or worst.