civil liberty

Talk Electrician Forum

Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

phil d

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
143
Location
merseyside
At the weekend I heard something that disturbed me very much indeed, a police force is looking at using spit hoods, some police forces currently do, some don't, for those unfamiliar with this piece of kit it's a mesh bag that is placed over someone's head to prevent them spitting at you. They can see through it, they can breathe through it, what they cannot do is spit through it, it stays inside the hood.

Now spitting is not only a vile habit, it can also transmit diseases, if you are unlucky enough to be spat at and it enters a bodily orifice or an open wound then it can take 6 months of tests before you find out if you have caught anything, during this time you have to take all kinds of precautions to avoid passing on anything that you may or may not have caught.

Now it would appear that a certain civil liberties group is objecting to the use of these hoods as they infringe a persons human rights, not only that but they are, allegedly, a cruel and unusual punishment, how stupid is that I ask.

Just how far would this group go to defend peoples rights? If someone wishes to play loud music at 3am, and it disturbs others, should they be allowed to do so because it's their "human right" to enjoy themselves? Should someone be allowed to get blind drunk and drive their car, because it is their "human right"? Even more alarming, if said neighbour plays loud music and keeps me awake, should I be allowed to go round and stab him, because it is my "human right" to get a good nights sleep?

I remember one afternoon and there was a guy trying to make a citizens arrest on some youth who'd stolen his son's bicycle the night before, the guy was obviously a junkie and was lashing out and spitting at him. I stopped to help and the first thing I did, after the junkie spat at me was to take him to the floor, hard! When the police arrived I advised the officer about the spitting and he was kept face down on  the ground until a van arrived to take him away. Spitting isn't nice, it's disgusting, and I think that anyone who says that spit hoods are an infringement of a persons human rights needs to be put in a position where they are getting spat at and then see how they feel.

The world has gone mad, with this civil liberties stuff these days, it's the same with "stop and search", people are objecting to that now, if the police can't stop a suspect then how are they to know if that person is carrying drugs or weapons? If you are not carrying anything you shouldn't then why fear being stopped? An interesting one I heard over the weekend concerned police dogs, due to government cuts a lot of forces have had to reduce the numbers of dogs they operate, now after the recent attacks in London, the government are requesting that officers with dogs patrol around the houses of parliament, blooming cheek!   

 
Related to this civil liberty thing, there were two cases recently up here where the RSPB caught people setting traps or shooting birds of prey. The cases were thrown out of court because the covert filming infringed their human rights.  The fact they had evidence of them comitting the crime was never allowed to be shown to the jury.

I am sure the police would only use a spit hood if they thought the nature of the person deemed it. I am sure they are not going to slip one on when they stop you for speeding....

 
Hi Prodave.

The RSPB thing would be because the RSPB have money, and money talks.... Just about EVERY case of old people in care homes being abused, is brought to light by means of secret filming. Say the police film you, is that deemed to be illegal?? No, but then the police will claim to have "special powers" which they might well have for all i know. But what about insurance companies and the DWP?? I know someone that is a fraud investigator for the DWP and they have some VERY high tech stuff..

There is NOTHING to stop you filming ANYTHING in a public place. I know a fellow that was arrested for kerb crawling. Unhappily for them, with the police was an undercover reported for the local paper. When this bloke protested about being photographed, the police laughed and said it was a public place and they could photograph anything they wanted to.

So far as i know, it is down to the judge. No matter how teh evidence is obtained, if the judge thinks it is in the interest of justice he can allow it..

The judge in the case you mention [or was it magistrates] simply either do not know the law or chose to ignore it..

The bird trappers could not sue anyone for anything anyway, as you CANNOT sue anyone that was doing ANYTHING, that was deemed to be acting in the public interest.

john...

 
Hi Prodave.

The RSPB thing would be because the RSPB have money, and money talks.... Just about EVERY case of old people in care homes being abused, is brought to light by means of secret filming. Say the police film you, is that deemed to be illegal?? No, but then the police will claim to have "special powers" which they might well have for all i know. But what about insurance companies and the DWP?? I know someone that is a fraud investigator for the DWP and they have some VERY high tech stuff..

There is NOTHING to stop you filming ANYTHING in a public place. I know a fellow that was arrested for kerb crawling. Unhappily for them, with the police was an undercover reported for the local paper. When this bloke protested about being photographed, the police laughed and said it was a public place and they could photograph anything they wanted to.

So far as i know, it is down to the judge. No matter how teh evidence is obtained, if the judge thinks it is in the interest of justice he can allow it..

The judge in the case you mention [or was it magistrates] simply either do not know the law or chose to ignore it..

The bird trappers could not sue anyone for anything anyway, as you CANNOT sue anyone that was doing ANYTHING, that was deemed to be acting in the public interest.

john...
Quite, I was in a film some years back, and people who were filmed, for example, talking to me had to sign a form stating they were happy for their image to be used, this was because they were not "taking part" in the film, hence why in some documentaries you see people with their faces obscured, they have not given their consent to be filmed. However anything to do with a crime doesn't require anyone's permission, it gets filmed and that's it.

Some years ago there were a group of people who were engaged in criminal activity, as it happened their actions were causing me problems. I was talking to a friend who was a police officer working on the case, he said that the problem was in getting a warrant to film them, it would take time and they'd probably have moved on by then, I decided to film them covertly, purely for my own amusement you understand. Unfortunately some days later I happened to be having a drink with my friend in the local nick, silly me I managed to drop a disc containing footage of these criminals on the floor, it was found after I had left and a curious officer decided to play it and see what it contained. The footage was enough for the officer to act on it and the criminals were dealt with, result my problem was solved. I received a call from my mate about my "carelessness" and naturally denied everything. 

 
probably the Anarchist brigade, there's still a few of those indiots around who complain at anything they can, especially if involves the Police. A minority who ruin things for the majority, as seems fairly normal these days.

I heard a snippet on the radio about dash-cams, and how that may be construed as voyerism if the owners keep posting footage on You Tube and the like.

Fixed CCTV needs signage displayed, I suspect the RSPB fell foul af that little gem. But on the other foot you get nuisance neighbours with CCTV who do infringe on other people rights to privacy. The law is always too slow to keep pace with technology.

 
probably the Anarchist brigade, there's still a few of those indiots around who complain at anything they can, especially if involves the Police. A minority who ruin things for the majority, as seems fairly normal these days.

I heard a snippet on the radio about dash-cams, and how that may be construed as voyerism if the owners keep posting footage on You Tube and the like.

Fixed CCTV needs signage displayed, I suspect the RSPB fell foul af that little gem. But on the other foot you get nuisance neighbours with CCTV who do infringe on other people rights to privacy. The law is always too slow to keep pace with technology.
Ah,

Do I need a sign on my house if I have CCTV then,?

It only covers my property, and a bit of public area directly in front where I park my van. 

 
Then there is the next problem of people flying drones where they shouldn't, heard some instances recently about drones hovering low over peoples gardens. Maybe just a kid with an Aldi toy, or could be someone spying over their neighbors goings on, in the privacy of their back garden. I suspect these sort of camera problems will be on the increase.

Doc H.

 
CCTV signs .  Print firm asked me to fix their signs , one on each elevation of the outside of building.

Reason was they were told any footage can NOT be used in court without the warning signs  in place.

 
Ah,

Do I need a sign on my house if I have CCTV then,?

It only covers my property, and a bit of public area directly in front where I park my van. 
I believe so, otherwise any evidence presented isn't legal.

I've been meaning to put up some 'Covert CCTV' signs at the back of my house wkithout any actual system - keep the buggers guessing :^O

 

Latest posts

Top