Barbara Streisand strikes again ...
The British website briefly removed from the sight of some web surfers by the Met Police's e-crime unit is back in full effect. Of course Fitwatch never really disappeared; the site's hosting provider JustHost suspended the account after a stroppy email from the Met, but hardly had the plug been pulled than the site sprouted up …
Barbara Streisand strikes again ...
>Fitwatch's site includes a new post thanking the Met Police for all the publicity.
I have a feeling that this is the exception to the rule "all publicity is good publicity".
Chris, I don't think you've bothered to check what Fitwatch is about have you?
I'll leave the post there just to show I'm only human
I misread it that it was the hosting site that was thankful of the publicity.
Whoever gave the thumbs up needs help.
Childish perhaps, but they bring out the worst in me.
All of them?
I suspect he would need some sort of mechanical device to assist in the act, I agree, he is unlikely to be able to fuck that many people on his own in a reasonable time frame.....
I'm sick of hearing this crap. If living in a country that has law enforcement is so terrible, there are a bunch of choices, so go make one.
I hear Somalia is lovely this time of year, particularly if you like sailing. Then again, you could go and live on one of those abandoned oil platforms and join the rest of the revolutionaries.
I don't give a rats if they stop me, treat me like a twat and force me to go over to the station and submit all my proof of identity just because they're bored. I'd rather put up wqith that than getting shot thanks.
On topic, why the hell they bothered trying to get the site taken down is beyond me. The correct approach is to collect the data on the individuals who run it and pay them a visit. 4am wearing riot gear for preference.
While walking home with my fiancée we passed a scuffle between some police and a few young men, one officer bumped into my fiancée and without turning around I simply said one word "careful"
A second police officer muttered something about "you be careful" which for some reason made me laugh, not at him mind I was several paces away and looking forward.
The next thing I knew I was handcuffed and thrown into the back of a van.
The police refused to tell me what crime I had committed even when I was summonsed to court.
There I was told by my solicitor that 3 police officers were prepared to swear under oath that I had abusively confrounted the officers uttered a tirade of insults and profanities, calling them all the names under the sun.
I was found guilty of being drunk and disorderly and fined.
This gave me, an innocent man, a criminal record.
So I also say "Fuck the police" "All of them"
I will never trust a single police officer again as long as I live.
Anonymous for obvious reasons.
SB: "All of them?"
Maybe just the FIT ones?
Mine's the double-sided coat with a different cap in each pocket, and a burqa in the poacher's pocket.
"I suspect he would need some sort of mechanical device to assist in the act,"
I think you'll find a number of websites devoted to such equipment and its use.
Obviously I would have no idea how to find them.
there is corruption is all jobs, if a cop abuses their authority this way you can't blame a person for not trusting them
Because the story is just not possible.
A. You had a witness, who one assumes wasn't arrested, so could actually refute the argument
B. You have to be charged to be summonsed to court, both of which require you to be informed of the charge.
C. If the police really did that then your Solicitor would be able to drive a coach and horses through the case, and you have an amazing case for compensation, contact the IPCC now.
I do :)
Quote: "I don't give a rats if they stop me, treat me like a twat and force me to go over to the station and submit all my proof of identity."
Please supply address so they can pay you a visit & batter your front door at 04.00 hrs.
You never know, they might even provide a little stick to bite on while they do an internal search as well.
I don't have to provide evidence, you can either take my word for it or not. I guess you are the sort of person who refuses to believe anything anyone says if it contradicts your opinions.
I would like to state categorically that I was NOT drunk, I had been out for a meal with my fiancée. I was also not causing trouble, I was arrested by some thugs in uniform who obviously wanted an easy collar and me laughing (while walking and facing away) obviously made them angry..
You sound like one of those fools on YouTube that claim every film is fake.
Why don't you go there, you can have hours of trolling fun while arguing with 12 yr olds.
Now please go away and troll someone else.
A, Are you really naive enough to think that the magistrates will take my fiancée's word over 3 police officers?
B, I was not informed of the charge, this is a fact. You assume these officers would suddenly start to obey the rules.
C, You have no idea how the IPCC works in Britain do you?
That last point answers your question as to where I live.
You assume I am lying, it must be easier for you to also accuse me of dishonesty that face up to what our "beloved" bobbies have become.
The reasons why I don't like 'em are similar to yours.
Except I've experienced their abuses over and over again. My favourite, which is not really abusive, but oh so indicative, is when a copper's opening gambit consists of:
"Now, you're not in any trouble, but ..."
No. I'm not officer. I'm here in a pub having a drink. You came in here seeking witnesses. Why did you start out by mentioning myself and trouble like that? Was "Hello" not good enough for you? How's that threatening attitude working out for you?
You are simply working on theory and perhaps good experiences of police. You cannot refute that this happens simply because it's not supposed to happen. As far as I know most people lie and those with power use lies to abuse their power on a routine basis. This mostly how it is and if you think otherwise without good reason then you may be in for a shock.
I recently got prosecuted for speeding which I am pretty sure I was not speeding. I just wanted to see the evidence, if they could prove it to me then no need for court. However they would not show evidence so I said OK then take me to court. Which they did, but without summoning me, so I was found guilty in my absence. They simply don't have the time, money or inclination for justice.
It could well be a story but there are plenty of true stories just like this. You could delude yourself that everything is actually OK because on this particular occasion and perhaps many others the person has not proved to your satisfaction that the police are corrupt. You are just hiding your eyes from reality with lame excuses.
Also missing the point that the CPS decide who is prosecuted, not the Police.
Hey, I'm all for the police not harasing innocent individuals going about their daily lives and I firmly believe in the right to peaceful protest, but having read some of that site I see that these are just the usual neo-anarchists who use barrack room lawyer tactics to serve their own devious purposes.
There is no moral high ground when you advocate destruction of evidence and there should never be denials of violent acts.
They are clearly not noble in their cause.
But are they wrong in querying some of the activities that the police appear to be involved in?
That's vot I zed, back in 1938, in Berlin!
You need permission to protest in the UK. If that is not granted then your protest is illegal. Simply being there at the same protest as vandalism is taking place probably makes you guilty. It's probably good advice not to co-operate with the police. You can see what sort of mission they are on by the fact they had the website removed.
I've heard it argued elsewhere that telling people who were at the demonstration to get rid of clothes, text messages, etc cannot possibly be destruction of evidence unless the person in question has actually been accused of a crime -- otherwise anybody getting rid of anything at any time would be destruction of evidence, if it later turned out that it could have been of use to the police.
IANAL, but it seems a logical argument to me.
The fact that you haven't been accused/arrested yet doesn't determine if you destroyed evidence.
If you kill someone, have your tshirt full of that person blood and you burn it, you destroyed the evidence...
On the other hand, while I usually support FitWatch action against the police building up files of peaceful political protesters (just in case...), I believe they should have stick to the usual arrest sheet reminding people of their rights, that they don't have to answer any question and should contact a lawyer.... telling them to shave their head and grow a beard sounds a bit childish :-(
Yep, it's evidence regardless of if you have been charged with a crime or not.
fitwatch were encouraging changing your appearance and one of the next sections said words to the effect of "just because you can identify yourself in a photo or video doesn't mean a Jury will be able to, a simple not me gov has gotten many people off the hook"
I call that lying under oath, legally known as perjury or perverting the course of justice.
Frankly, I had been of the impression that fitwatch was looking to cover what the police were up to and thereby protect peoples rights. It now looks like they are trying to give advice on how to evade prosecution by destroying evidence and advising lying under oath. That seems a bit pro criminal, anti justice for my liking.
"otherwise anybody getting rid of anything at any time would be destruction of evidence"
Careful. Labor will *eventually* be re-elected.
It's best *not* to give them ideas.
"It now looks like they are trying to give advice on how to evade prosecution by destroying evidence and advising lying under oath. That seems a bit pro criminal, anti justice for my liking."
Even so, do they not have a right to give such advice?
Clearly they do. I am an adult and fully capable of drawing sensible conclusions in spite of any bad advice I might read on the internet. If the police care so much about it, where is their "good" advice for what to do at a protest? Oh that's right, they don't want you to protest ever, about anything. That I find to be far more disturbing than a few teenage vandals with too much time on their hands.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
Evidence of what? That you were at a demonstration?
The police would like to identify everybody at the protest to add to their DNA and CRB database as potential trouble makers, otherwise why have FIT. Would you like that to happen to you just for attending a largely peaceful demonstration? The advice is aimed at the majority of attendees who got caught up in a small part of a protest that has been blown up out of all proportion. Once things do get out of hand the police generally cordon off the area and prevent anybody from leaving partly so as to get better photos of all participants innocent or otherwise. If you think this is just to be able to identify witnesses then you need a gullibility check, those witnesses will be processed as suspects and be recorded as such no matter what spin the police put on it. Personally, I'd rather not get a potential criminal record due to acts of others and would follow such advice so as not to.
That's exactly what the Police asked themselves when they realised they'd done too good a job fighting football hooliganism. They had to find something else to do to justify keeping their budget.
"JustHost sent us a frankly baffling statement of legalese this morning claiming it could not divulge customer information without a subpoena or court order."
This, after closing down one of its own customers on the say-so of an "acting Detective Inspector" at least gives me my answer to: Should we be finding better places to host stuff?
Yep, time to up and not walk, but run, run away! Away!
...that it's not just these wannabe so-called eco-warriors (WARRIOR?! Don't make me fucking laugh. A warrior not some fuckwit who looks like Worzel Gummidge and who can't hold down a job, for fuck sake, a WARRIOR is someone who joins the Armed Services and fights for his or her country), anyhow, if those unemployed gobshites read that stuff, they will now potentially know how to avoid prosecution for knocking over someones granny and robbing her of her meagre pension for another hit of speed, or whatever.
As if we needed more layabouts to know how to do it...
Event the bloody brats down the local estate know how to do that already, the gobby bustards.
I've bloody had it with this planet. Halt the rotation, I wanna get off.
would like you to get off this planet.
"Anonymous coward" rants about what makes a real warrior. Prep my ROFLcopter, sarge.
... I'll agree with your comments. Until then, anything that levels the playing field so that the ordinary person has a chance against the forces of "law and order" (ha ha ha) is just fine by me.
It is up to those that want law to be seen to adhering to it, otherwise it is anarchy.
that was a remarkably *unintelligent* strategy.
"We were concerned this website was giving information ...."
And we wouldn't want that, would we?
This does not surp[rise me in the slighest, I know what the Met/Police are like. I can also say that
they are not alone in disliking websites that do not "tow the party line" . I put up a website that simply poked fun at David Blunkett because of his pathetic answers on Mastermind some while ago. I was very surprised when lawyers acting for the Labour Govt contacted my webhost and on pain of legal proceedings forced them to take the website down. Now THAT was surely over the top. They backed down after I referred matter to a journalist, but it does highlight just how paranoid Labour are about anyone saying anything they havent approved !. No wonder they turned UK into a Police State.
I thought fat cops were just a stereotype, I had no idea they would go so far as trying take calorie counting sites offline.
Damn!! I should have checked first before having a look... I thought it was...well never mind... but a title like that I can only say I misunderstood!! :->
Paris...cos' only Paris can!!
im guessing you forgot to tick the AC box
This is my first exposure to FitWatch, as I am in the USA. We have our own issues with police and their scoutmasters. Attacks on CriticalMass rides and on the peaceful demonstrations against the Republican National Convention a few years back may be familiar to those across the pond.
Yes, we want the police to stop muggings. We really don't need them to mug us when they or their bosses disagree with our politics.
"......We really don't need them to mug us when they or their bosses disagree with our politics." Well, if you behave like the majority of the student protestors did on the Westminster march, that is you protest within the law, then you should be fine, regardless of your political beliefs. However, if you commit an illegal act, like the rent-a-mob morons that gatecrashed Millbank, then you will be pursued by the Police, just as if you were an ordinary mugger. Political faith does not make you immune to the law. And, should you offer advice to those that may have committed a crime, in the hope that it will help them avoid prosecution, then you will be committing a crime under either US or UK law. Should you ever leave the comfie circle of your equally-deluded buddies and actually get the chance to talk to a copper, either here or in the US, you'll find they're actually people too, they have a wide range of political views and can actually think for themselves, and they would much rather be protecting grannies from muggers than having to police student protests.