Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 14:59:41 GMT
I guess I’m being wooshed here or something! You are not being 'whooshed'. People can watch the video. Listen to the other woman asking the Policeman why the guy was stopped. We can hear his reply. We can see a minimum of four Police taking the guys picture. In his place I would also tell the Police to 'f**k off'. It's disgraceful. Absolutely. Big brother or what. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 16:50:18 GMT
I guess I’m being wooshed here or something! You are not being 'whooshed'. People can watch the video. Listen to the other woman asking the Policeman why the guy was stopped. We can hear his reply. We can see a minimum of four Police taking the guys picture. In his place I would also tell the Police to 'f**k off'. It's disgraceful. Haha top wumming. The main part of the incident where he’s stopped is not being shown. That’s the disgrace. Still, ACAB. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 16:56:57 GMT
You are not being 'whooshed'. People can watch the video. Listen to the other woman asking the Policeman why the guy was stopped. We can hear his reply. We can see a minimum of four Police taking the guys picture. In his place I would also tell the Police to 'f**k off'. It's disgraceful. Haha top wumming. The main part of the incident where he’s stopped is not being shown. That’s the disgrace. Still, ACAB. Why should he have been stopped? |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on May 18, 2019 19:48:02 GMT
Haha top wumming. The main part of the incident where he’s stopped is not being shown. That’s the disgrace. Still, ACAB. Why should he have been stopped? There it is. This all day long. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugo the Elder on May 18, 2019 20:37:49 GMT
Why should he have been stopped? There it is. This all day long. But that's Weezords point isn't it. Completely out of context something could look really bad. Maybe someone could film me assaulting someone completely unprovoked. What no one would know was that person just stole a purse or something. Just a small snippet of video really tells us nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on May 18, 2019 21:15:07 GMT
Our personal rights and freedoms are going eroded at a rapid rate.
Not just here in the UK, but globally.
This isn't a left v right issue. It's a world-wide thing as governments of all flavours find new ways to control their troublesome populations.
This particular issue is the thin end of the wedge, and is one of the reasons why I, as a long term Labour voter, am now considering voting Liberal from now on. They seem to still believe in personal freedom, unlike the other two main parties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on May 18, 2019 22:03:41 GMT
There it is. This all day long. But that's Weezords point isn't it. Completely out of context something could look really bad. Maybe someone could film me assaulting someone completely unprovoked. What no one would know was that person just stole a purse or something. Just a small snippet of video really tells us nothing. well I should imagine that as we know he was given a public order offence it's unlikely he did anything in terms of assaulting anyone. Frankly we could have done without the video, the point is the same really. Cover your face from big brother and the policy enforcers can have you for it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 23:14:36 GMT
Haha top wumming. The main part of the incident where he’s stopped is not being shown. That’s the disgrace. Still, ACAB. Why should he have been stopped? Police don't have the power to just stop people on the street unless they suspect them of/they have committed an offence. They can walk up to you and ask you to stop, but unless you're detained (for a search etc), you can walk on.
Covering your face isn't an offence but as soon as you tell a copper to f**k off, you're quite obviously going to be in play. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 0:07:32 GMT
But that's Weezords point isn't it. Completely out of context something could look really bad. Maybe someone could film me assaulting someone completely unprovoked. What no one would know was that person just stole a purse or something. Just a small snippet of video really tells us nothing. well I should imagine that as we know he was given a public order offence it's unlikely he did anything in terms of assaulting anyone. Frankly we could have done without the video, the point is the same really. Cover your face from big brother and the policy enforcers can have you for it. Only if you're threatening and tell them to f**k off. |
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on May 19, 2019 6:28:58 GMT
well I should imagine that as we know he was given a public order offence it's unlikely he did anything in terms of assaulting anyone. Frankly we could have done without the video, the point is the same really. Cover your face from big brother and the policy enforcers can have you for it. Only if you're threatening and tell them to f**k off. maybe maybe but they stopped him for covering his face. If he committed an offence before they stopped him then fair enough |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 10:49:37 GMT
Only if you're threatening and tell them to f**k off. maybe maybe but they stopped him for covering his face. If he committed an offence before they stopped him then fair enough Not everyone who refuses to be scanned is viewed as suspicious. The police have said this. They have said this man’s actions in the area aroused enough suspicion for them to stop and speak to him. During which he was threatening and issued a fine. We don’t know that he was stopped just for ‘covering his face’ because there is no video of that. was He doing anything leading up to the encounter? Was there a burglary just happened round the corner? Did he look like someone who may be wanted? This list is endless. The BBC video and consequent DM article gives the impression that everyone who covers their face or refuses to be scanned will be fined. And people believe it which is the saddest part. Nothing like a bit of big brother hysteria to get people going. Just hope these people cover their faces every time they walk into a CCTV equipped shop, street, turn off their smartphones which are tracking everything they do etc etc. The Police can’t store footage of people without lawful reason anyway, you and I walking down the street and being picked up on this camera isn’t going to be stored. And if it is, they’re liable to civil action. May be intrusive to some people, despite my posts I’m quite apathetic towards it but if it takes a few violent offenders off the streets (even tho the technology has numerous teething issues by the sounds of it) then I’m not entirely against it But I understand for many it’s just another reason to have a dig at the police/government |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 12:28:41 GMT
maybe maybe but they stopped him for covering his face. If he committed an offence before they stopped him then fair enough Not everyone who refuses to be scanned is viewed as suspicious. The police have said this. They have said this man’s actions in the area aroused enough suspicion for them to stop and speak to him. During which he was threatening and issued a fine. We don’t know that he was stopped just for ‘covering his face’ because there is no video of that. was He doing anything leading up to the encounter? Was there a burglary just happened round the corner? Did he look like someone who may be wanted? This list is endless. The BBC video and consequent DM article gives the impression that everyone who covers their face or refuses to be scanned will be fined. And people believe it which is the saddest part. Nothing like a bit of big brother hysteria to get people going. Just hope these people cover their faces every time they walk into a CCTV equipped shop, street, turn off their smartphones which are tracking everything they do etc etc. The Police can’t store footage of people without lawful reason anyway, you and I walking down the street and being picked up on this camera isn’t going to be stored. And if it is, they’re liable to civil action. May be intrusive to some people, despite my posts I’m quite apathetic towards it but if it takes a few violent offenders off the streets (even tho the technology has numerous teething issues by the sounds of it) then I’m not entirely against it But I understand for many it’s just another reason to have a dig at the police/government A very reasonable post. However if there were circumstances that led to the police suspecting this guy, why didnt they question him formally? If there was no such suspicion based upon any evidence or circumstance what is the justification for facial recognition technology to be utilised? If in reality it's just a case of the police, or any "authority" determining when and who they can apply this technology to at random, or without traceable quantified reason or evidence, I object. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 17:59:53 GMT
If they don't store the photos, then how can they compare what the see against who they are looking for?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 18:38:23 GMT
If they don't store the photos, then how can they compare what the see against who they are looking for? From an independent article: “Police leaders claimed officers make the decision to act on potential matches with police records and images that do not spark an alert are immediately deleted.” Ironically when I clicked on the article I got the message about privacy and the independent and partners using cookies to analyse data about users of the website etc. Lots of people blindly clicking accept, I'm sure |
|
