August 21, 2010

The Thin Blue Line

British coppers: Finding new ways to fuck people up for no good reason.

Doesn't it make ya proud?



RantinRab said...

You have no idea how angry I am after watching the video.

Anonymous said...

Charlie Veitch is a very enlightened human being.

See more of his efforts at

Thank you Charlie

Anonymous said...

This video (along with many) proves beyond all shadow of a doubt that the police are no longer public servants. Servants do not arrest their masters, especially when they have committed no crime. It proves above all that they are nothing but corporate officers working as revenue collectors.

I have lost all respect for the police. They have clearly lost teh plot and no longer protect the public whom they are supposed to serve.

This therefore is the problem with society. We have people who don't give a fuck about anyone or anything. The spirit of Britishness is truly dead within the UK. Liberty is a seven letter word in a dictionary and nothing more. These bastards are sowing the seeds of a truly horrific future, part of the system that will totally fuck up their future generations and able to all because of dickheads obedients like Blair the copper (and also the ex PM).

The mind truly boggles when I think of it. Anything for an easy life, eh, for these coppers?

Anonymous said...

(Sorry I know this is not my blog, but please can I ask here anyhow)

I value this blog and (probably most) enlightened readers of this blog, so can I please ask for some feedback on the matter below:

Someone I know about, has been found guilty in a Crown Court. This person is yet to be sentenced. They were found guilty of crimes under UK Statute Law/Acts. This person has NOT been found guilty of any breach of Common Law, nor were they charged with any breach of Common Law.

Therefore, as far as I understand it, no loss, no harm, nor injury has happened to anyone due to their actions.

I assume that the person in question would not have known the difference between Statue Law and Common Law. They are NOT a Freeman. They were not born in the UK and do not hold a UK passport.

I'm not asking a direct question, because I don't know what questions to ask! I'm interested in whatever feedback you wish to provide.

I'm particularly interested to know what you think on this Captain Ranty.

Feel free to ask me questions back. However sorry for obvious reasons I'm not willing to provide identifying details about either the case or person.

Old Holborn said...

By entering court, your friend has entered into a contract with the court. End of story

Witterings from Witney said...

Why is it all prize idiots seem to be 'Blairs'? Off topic I know........

Administrator said...

Didn't cuntstable Blair place Mr Veitch in a state of fear and alarm by threatening to arrest him for Breach of the Peace, when he had done no such thing, thereby Plod was guilty of breaching the peace?

PS swung by courtesy of Rab the Ranter.

FTAC Watch said...

I think we need a searchable database of police officers known to have participated in actions like this. We can turn their beloved database state back upon them.

The police would go mad and do everything they could to shut it down. Which makes me want to do it even more. After all, I have nothing left to lose now.

Unknown said...

Thanks for posting this CR, I too came by here via the mighty Rab.

WTF has this country come to?

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

There is not enough information to make a judgement here. The only offences by the PC's that could be proved from the video are improper dress X3 for not wearing their headgear.

PC Blair was correct in advising the photographer to stop provoking the car driver verbally if he had an honestly held belief that a breach of the peace was imminent.

Re a database on policemens disipline convictions, there are two. One is the internal one and there is a private one run by the Law Society.

Oldrightie said...

"WTF has this country come to?" An EUSSR< simples.

richard said...

We don't know the facts. It appears as if the man is having his car taken and he seems to be harmless and a victim, but does the car belong to a hire-purchase company and has the man missed a load of payments? Is he therfore in breach of contract? Has he previously threatened the bailiffs, which is why they called the police, and that's why the police checked the car? Have the bailiffs applied for a court order to retrieve their client's property, which he has ignored? Much as this appears to be a brutal over-reaction, we just don't know. These days I no longer instinctively give policemen the benefit of the doubt but in all fairness there isn't enough information in the video to say who's in the right.

RantinRab said...

Richard, regardless of who is in the 'right', the police are in no doubt the wrong.

richard said...

I suppose so Rab, if it's a matter for the civil courts rather than a criminal offence. But we don't know from the video exactly what's led up to the police presence. Having said that, some policemen seem to have forgotten that they are employed by the public to protect the public, not to enforce idiotic and unlawful restrictions such as (for instance) photography in public places. And Constable Blair's aggressive attitude towards Charlie was unprofessional and disrespectful. He did not "advise" Charlie, he threatened to deprive him of his liberty.

microdave said...

Yes, I wondered if there's more to this than meets the eye. How did Charlie Veitch know about it for starters? But regardless of whether the bailiffs had a valid reason to impound the car, why did it need so many police? We all know what would have happened if another member of the public rang 999 to report a burglary in progress...

The man clearly wasn't acting abusively, and how does filming and asking the man for his side of the story constitute "behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace"??

They hadn't arrested him, so he should be free to speak to whoever he wants.

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

Here is a recent confirmation of the law relating to breaches of the peace:
Held – The well-established principle that to detain a man against his will without arresting him was an unlawful act and a serious interference with a citizen’s liberty was subject to an equally well-established exception (which was not confined to detention effected by a police constable in the execution of his duty) that it was the right and duty at common law of every citizen in whose presence an actual or reasonably apprehended breach of peace was being or about to be committed to make the person who was breaking or threatening to break the peace refrain from so doing and, in appropriate cases, to detain him against his will……
Albert v Lavin 1981

At 4.34 on the video the driver displays signs of agitation and pushes PC Pearce. An important threshold is crossed in any experienced PC’s legal interpretation and risk assessment.
At 5.20, following a verbal intervention by the person with the Scots accent (who displays limited knowledge of the law, criminal and civil) and signs of increased agitation by the driver including brushing aside the female PCSO PC Blair is obliged to act as a common law peace officer and warns the Scotsman of the consequences of his action.
What is not shown is the tactical context, particularly whether a man shouting in an African accent is likely to be supported by passersby. That may well have had an effect on the numbers of police who responded to the call and PC Blair’s action.
The Scotsman’s verbal intervention was not unlawful until it began to agitate the driver in the PC’s perception. Any physical intervention on the Scotsman’s part would risk a charge of obstructing police as would refusing to assist the constable in preventing a breach of the peace or making a lawful arrest. If he wants to complain about the police there are avenues for him to do so.
PC Blair does have a bad habit of putting his hands inside his Metvest which limits his ability to react and has not pressed his trousers recently. I cannot see anything else wrong. There is no sound for the earlier part of the incident and I do not rely on telepathy.
Regards, John H.

Anonymous said...

I agree with some of the comments, we don’t know the full facts.

The thing that does come through though is this.

I, under my company’s instructions, have been forced to attend diversity and intervention courses in order to know how to address the people I encounter during my working day. It would occur to me that these police officers/council workers would do the same.

I couldn’t see old Dixon of Dock Green even dreaming of intervening in the manner in which these individuals have done in this clip.

How far we have fallen, or do I have a rosy view of yesteryear.

adelaide girl said...

Please read the information on The Anti Terroist's blog about how to deal with the police . Record any conversation on a mobile phone, good idea to practise at home first so it becomes second nature. Always ask, and repeat , repeat ,repeat "am i detained , am i free to go?". And if they insist on doing acts against you, repeat " i do not give my consent"
Make it clear you will offer no resistence or violence . Ask questions of them constantly, do not make verbal statements which can be used against you . They are never having a friendly chat or offduty.

In a car keep the doors locked when you are inside, only open the window enough to pass paperwork to them if requested. If you leave the car, shut the door behind you and lock the car . Use your right to remain silent if you are arrested . And silence means silence , no cosy chats about the weather,trying to butter you up.

This video made me so mad and i posted a long piece about a few points which puzzled me but the computer sent it into cyberspace. Never to be seen again.

Thanks to people like Charlie who document this appalling abuse of ordinary people.

Olly said...

@microdave, as far as I understand it the incident happened outside Charlie's flat.... If you check his youtube channel out you'll see a couple of incidents that he's recorded at that particular car park.

Captain Ranty said...

Some great comments.

I agree with the two main points made:

1. We don't have enough information

2. The bobbies acted correctly, sort of.

3. The bailiffs broke the law by searching his vehicle.

I think one understated opinion is that it took far too many bobbies & bailiffs (if that is what they were) to deal with one old fella with a heart condition.

Safety in numbers, eh?


Magna Carta Society Blog said...

There were only two sworn constables visible in the video. They were single crewed in station vans which indicates that the relief were short that day and they may well have been from neighbouring sections which also indicates a lack of resources
PCSO's are told that their common law obligation to preserve the peace is suspended. That is why they a known as CHIMP’s (Cannot Help In Most Policing). There are honourable exceptions though.
The bailiffs, if that is what they were, were not an inspiring bunch. The female (?) looked like a heart attack about to happen. The boy looked as if a cold draft could knock him over. That leaves the other chap in the yellow jacket to help out.
How many people does it take to arrest someone with minimum force BTW. The answer is 6, one each for the limbs and head and one to direct operations and watch their backs. If any less that that are available the potential requirement for the use of force increases. When it reaches one to one it is either him or me and it is not going to be me.
The PC’s, unlike the Scotsman, would know this. They dealt with the incident with body positioning, the slightest laying on of hands and words of advice. The Scotsman’s intervention could have made it a lot worse.
The remedy for the Scotsman’s ignorance would be to spend a busy Saturday night in the back of the Area Car. Unfortunately this has been stopped for health and safety reasons.

Regards, John H.

Captain Ranty said...

Ah John, now how would we fare without your help?

I appreciate you keeping us straight.

For those of you that may not know, John is an ex-policeman (a proper bobby, mind you), and I have had the pleasure of long telephone chats with him.

The force that lost John lost a good man. Indeed, the country lost a good copper when John retired.

We are fortunate to have him here.

If he says "No harm, no foul", then I believe him. 100%.

Thanks John. I mean it.


PS-six? Really? For one old man?

Magna Carta Society Blog said...

I am not alone. That is why I am trying to drum up support for a UK Chapter of the Oathkeepers.

Regards, John H.