MovieChat Forums > Freeze Frame (2004) Discussion > Q about the police in the UK

Q about the police in the UK

posted 19 years ago by Fragzem
14 replies | jump to latest

Another user posed this Q so I cant take the credit altho it did intrigue me so here goes...........

I have noticed watching "Vera Drake" and....well lets just say SO MANY other movies from the UK that the police and the courts there are pretty much different from here in the Colonies (the USA)and so I pose the Q of whether or not the police action taken during this flick is pretty much what they can and do in the UK. Can the police push "policing" to this type of an extreme? Ok, the guy is a total creep without a doubt but the laws are in place for the protection of many and not the actual few morons that break them and it means a LOT that we dont allow them to push us around to this extent, so is this close to what they can get away with?
Thanx,
ps This is one of the few places that yes we have some flame wars but basically most of us are pretty well behaved and I appreciate reading these comments, so Kudo's to all of you good people that entertain us with your thoughts!

Fragzem
and he does too!
All Knowing Ancient Fountain of Wisdom!

[–] hammerfc 19 years ago

Not seeing vera drake but i guess policing back then was much different to it is now.Policing now is much like the film freeze frame cameras everywhere.

[–] mark-1491 18 years ago

I would say that during the era of "Vera Drake", British policing was pretty relaxed compared to todays totalitartian police force. I mean, here in the UK you can now be arrested for ANY crime, including littering and spitting. The police can then take a DNA sample, with or without your consent and keep it on record for 25 years.
Trust me, you're better off in the good ole US of A

[–] delhart2001 18 years ago

I do not know the age of "mark 1491", but judging by his comment, he is either young or very nieve.
The police force or "police sevice" as the like to be referred in the UK is a joke, they are more interested in catching drivers speeding then catching criminals, in fact they are so stuffed up with political correctness, that anyone who is not white and british, can get away with anything here, here is an example of a ruling that was sent down from the top brass. if a suspect is of muslim decent, the police have to honour there religion,so they should take there shoes off when going into there homes, if they are preying they have to respect that, and several other things that are really stupid.
when i was a kid, we were afraid of the bobbys, a quick clip round the ear, and that was enough to keep us on the right track. nowadays there is no respect for the police at all, report a crime and it can take days for them to get round to seeing you,and as far as Mr Mark saying if you get caught spitting you can be arrested and your DNA taken, why not, spitting in any form is a disgusting habit in public, we need some of the Zero Tolorance laws that you have in the States, but it will never happen because of the PC brigade.

[–] bullzye15 18 years ago

the reason their is no respect for police is because they are all tossers!. they always tend to speak to every one like their in the wrong even if there not and try to be threataning. they treat everyone like a criminal. marks right they can literally arrest you for anything. and delhart, having your DNA taken for spitting sounds really fair dont it, if my spit is going anywere its on a pigs face, if their gonna take my DNA i might aswell get my share

[–] furryforest 16 years ago

I love the way the Police take a bashing for everything. Firstly the only way you can be arrested for spitting/littering is if it meets criteria such as you refuse to give your name or address. No Custody Sergeant will EVER authorise a detention for spitting/littering unless the suspect has failed to provide name or address for service of a summons.

Secondly the same people who bash the Police are the first ones to phone for them when their mouths write cheques their body's can't cash.

Oh yeah baby, it's Stifler time woo-hoo!!

[–] garyahampton 15 years ago

I think the problem here is :
1). Some of the posts have their own agenda,
2). The police are seen as the focus for so much disatisfaction over government policy, the drip-by-drip way they have intruded into our everyday lives and freedoms, and the slow process whereby they will have access or own information on each and every one of us; health records; places we visit; what we read or watch on television, cinema, theatre; our spending patterns from credit/debit card records; our telephone and email conversations; and even our DNA.

I don't think it's the fault of the average copper per se, and the higher up in the chain will hide behind the don't blame us, we don't make the rules, we just enforce them defence, but nevertheless, the police have badgered the government for years about getting these policies implemented, and we have a goverment - and, it has to be said, an opposition - who want nothing more than the keep its Big Brother eye over us all.

As for being arrested for spitting and littering, the police have powers to arrest anyone under any one of the Acts that have been brought in over the last few years. Eg, they now have to right to stop any motorist regardless of whther they have infringed the smallest detail of the Road Traffic Act or not; if you are caught speeding by a Gatso camera, you are assumed to be the driver (which infringes the basic freedom of enshrined by the Magna Carta as habeas corpus) and you are crippled by a fine and points system if you refuse to present them with information, and yet we are still supposed to have the right to silence even after being charged, as well as the fact that the Justice system in the UK is still based on the fact that the onus is still supposedly firmly with the prosecution to prove guilt. Another common arrest is made for swearing, which in itself is not an offence. The offence sited here is often threatening behaviour - that is, not if the use of strong language is deemed to have caused offence to a third party, but if the individual is deliberately using threatening behaviour as covered by the common assault laws. You technically cannot be arrested for refusing to give your name and address, even in relation to another misdemeanour covered by the vast umbrella that is breach of the peace. We do not have ID cards yet, related to which, you are under no obligation to give a police officer your identity and, in theory, if it is claimed you obstructed a police officer by this refusal, there is no provision under the justice system to support an arrestable offence.

"Do you want to go to the toilet, Albert?"

[–] bing-57 13 years ago

> the same people who bash the Police are the first ones to phone for them when their mouths write cheques their body's can't cash.

You know, that's a fun sound bite and all, but do you have any actual evidence that this is the case? In my experience, the people that bash the police are the LAST people to call for police help since they know darn well that the police are NOT your friends and might just as well arrest you instead of the criminal.

Do you have any real data on this subject?

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] Blarhhh 13 years ago

they know darn well that the police are NOT your friends and might just as well arrest you instead of the criminal.

Do you have any real data on this subject?

"No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?"

[–] alexandra24 15 years ago

IMO the police in this country are bound by ridiculous beuraucratic rules. Years ago police were on able to go on the beat, catch criminals, interact with the public. I'll admit I don't think they were all saints, many were probably corrupt, but if criminals were off the streets who cares.
Today though, officers spend wasteful time on paperwork rather than being able to persue cases and catch offenders.
The political correctness that has seemingly overtaken this country since Tony Blair's stint as prime minister is shocking, delhart2001 is right about how religion seems to come before the law, as does race and sex. The police don't have any authority anymore, whilst I don't think they should be given all power like they were apparantly given in the past, what good is having a police force in a country and a law system if it is no type of deterrent?
The frankly pathetic sentences criminals are given (due to prisons being overcrowded)aren't going to stop people commiting crimes, neither is the fact that people have zero respect for the police force and the laws of this country, in particular the smart-a_rsed, weapon carrying, "i-get-away-with-anything" teenage louts who do f_uck all but intimidate the public and think that carrying a knife or gun is cool/neccessary. (Just look at the Rhys Jones trial)
It seriously pi_sses me off! I know people in this country do not like the police in general, either because they don't do anything (can't IMO) or they are part of society that police are targetting.
But really, if people are going to be angry with anyone it should be the government for imposing so many restrictions that officers cannot do their job properly and our streets aren't especially safe.

About the G20, I am not condoning the actions of some (not all) the officers, they should not have hit that women, or struck that man from behind(unprovoked) who later died. I think these officers are the few that give the police force a bad name. However, I think that if the police are too lenient in situations like this then they are in the wrong, and if they use too much force they are wrong. Sort of like in any situation people are standing by to point out the many, many faults in the system. IMO these cannot be solved without the correct funding (much like any public spending) and the government are too concerned with covering up their expenses, raising their own wages and pension, and paying for their security.

Rant over, I think.

[–] pete887 15 years ago

Well in the G20 protest a policeman killed someone, then covered it up

[–] furryforest 15 years ago

Talk about a wild statement! The Police officer killed him?? The Police officer pushed him and in my opion was WRONG to push him, but he didn't die as a result of that push or a fall to the ground. The last i heard there were two different causes of death and a third post mortem had been ordered.

The cover up being??? I believe the Officer came forward after the tape was broadcast. Hardly a cover up

Oh yeah baby, it's Stifler time woo-hoo!!

[–] pete887 15 years ago

If the tape was never given to the press. The policeman would'nt have came forward. Its funny how the autopsy report suddenly changed when the the tape was revealed.
Plus its not like the police would'nt have seen footage of the attack. There's plenty of cctv cameras in that area, which they would have checked. The police would have seen the man getting attacked by the police.
Fact is if the footage was never given to the press, nobody would even know the Police attacked the man. There would be no second autopsy. And I'm sorry but if you push a man to the flaw and he dies of a heart attack, I'd say you are responsible for that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

Thats the video of him being attacked

[–] furryforest 15 years ago

I think you make a valid point, had the tape not gone public it's possible that officer would never have come forward. As much as i hope that if i were in that situation i'd have the backbone to step forward of my own account, hopefully i'll never know.

Oh yeah baby, it's Stifler time woo-hoo!!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]