As if someone with drugs will have a body cam recording all their criminal activities. That removes any reasonable grounds they had to carry out their search.
Unlawful use of section 23, plain and simple. But they're trained to abuse Section 23, 43, 50 and many others because 99% of their victims don't know the law so they get away with it. You're going to have to make a complaint, which will not be upheld, then send a letter of intent to sue, which they will initially deny, and then maybe retain legal advice. Its a lot of time and hassle for a return of maybe £2000, and this is what the old bill is counting on with that 1% that know their rights have been abused.
I noticed the Officer claimed the S&S was presupposed on two premises: [i] Matching a description. [ii] Having his hands on his pockets. Whilst [i] is reasonable grounds, i.e., he may have genuinely matched the description of someone they believed to have drugs on his person, I could not find any section or subsection in law which implies hands in pockets is a lawful premise to carry out a S&S. Even the College of Police Training does not make any reference to hands in pockets being an objective premise. Therefore, it appears that by [ii] was a false premise, which means the Officer has opened himself up to a potential civil case.
I take it you would have a super way of just arresting all the criminals that nobody else has come up with? Don't forget, it was the old policing way of 'the coppers know the bad guys and just target them' that got society so angry in the first place, the public demanded that every stop target everyone 'equally' and there be several hours of recording reasons and equality stats after the shift has ended. It made the police pretty useless, but most importantly of all EQUALLY useless:)
''Its not an offence but it gives us the grounds'' What grounds? Half the population would require a stop search, for having hands in their pockets, this is a misuse of sec23 and requires a potential complaint The bald copper actually said ''I DONT FOR ONE MINUTE SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DRUGS'' yet they had reasonable suspicion for the search, very strange ?
I've never said you had for one minute suggested you had taken or dealt in drugs. 5:30. And yet you still searched under the misuse of drugs act because hands in pockets meant you were dealing.
I think you'll find that the camera man has annoyed the police BUT is protected from prosecution by officers/officials a bit higher up the food chain than beat officers. A lot of these videos break multiple laws both Civil criminal, national and international laws. I'm sorry but I have Zero sympathy and quite frankly you were treated EXTREMELY NICELY by Manchester Police! Technically they could of detained you for refusing to provide your details
@Just Ice no breaking GDPR for filming random people without consent and potentially breaching UK counter terror laws. Thus AUDIT BRITAIN is UNLAWFUL at best. However THIS is REAL unstaged AND 100% lawful (they are also "banged to rights" in this video) ruclips.net/video/C9GCNL8Bd_Q/видео.html
Going by the fact that they didn't know you two were regular photographers around the area implies they had been bussed in from some other part of Manchester. In that case, they should've been even more careful who they picked on.
@@mcfcmanc trolling implies I don't believe every single comment on this topic , yet o do ;-) I'mjust doing my part to rock these silly echo chambers with facts and realty. Just like medicine the truth doesn't always taste nice.
A DC and he searches for drugs because you had your hands in your pockets. All that extra training to be a DC didn’t go to waste! What an absolute lemon.
Sorry but just when did either officer claim to be a DC. I certainly didn’t hear anyone say anything about being a DC. If you could give us a time check so that I can verify your statement. Thank you in advance if you do respond.
Nice one. Handled amazingly. Does not matter if they are breaching your rights, you ALWAYS comply because when you go to sue the living hell out of them it is going to look way better for you.
Simple, make pockets in clothing illegal. Then people would have to strap or hang illicit items on the outside or inside of clothing, better yet, make wearing of gloves compulsory all year round. Gotta help the police anyway we can. 🙄( snigger)
Any policeman who calls you "pal" is condescending and deserves the same treatment back. Illegal search yet again. Good luck with your claim not that you need it.
"Not one minute have we implied you use or deal drugs" Well, that search in front of all those people sure did it. If your searches find nothing 80% of the time then you need to stop harassing 80 people out of every 100 you meet
The 20% claim is in any case a flt-out lie. I don't know the exact numbers,his kind of search has anywhere close to a 5% success rate I'd be very surprised.
Can't say I understood what he said. If 80% of stop searches yield no find then there's obviously a misconception in what constitutes reasonable suspicion to warrant those 80% of searches. The copper then admit he doesn't for one minute suggest you've taken or dealt drugs. That means he and his pal lied when they thought it was reasonably suspicious that you were stopped for a drugs search.
To be fair, not suggesting that he deals drugs doesn't exclude someone from suspicion. This is the police we're talking about here, they have to have grounds for suspicion (even when it's made up shite) without making an accusation because a straight accusation is very obvious grounds for a prosecution against the officer. It's all crap though mate, old bill are as crooked as the crims now, that dissapoints me so much because they used to be hard but fair, now they're neither: soft where they should be hard (paedos, murderers etc) and bent as a 9 Bob note when they should be squeaky clean.
And they wonder why their is a disconnect from the public, they were just fishing to see if they could get their arrests up, they will never learn, as soon as they put that uniform on common sense goes out the window and their brain disengages into dealing out their own brand of law because they are untouchable
The "you match a description" is bollocks and a means which they use to justify their illegal actions. As you well know. They're city centre plod so will be working in conjunction with city centre CCTV who would have tracked anyone suspicious as it's what they do all day every day. If they had a suspicion about him they could have just asked the camera operator to keep an eye on him. No need to stop and search as he wasn't going anywhere by the looks of it. The balding plod didn't even have his body worn camera on recording it because what they were doing was sketchy.
At 1:15 he takes your wallet, fumbles around inside it and then puts his hand in his own pocket. It looks quite clear that he didn't take anything but that cant be good practice, surely? If the cop later 'found' something in the wallet, it could be that he had planted it, or at least the video would support that claim. Quite sloppy in my view.
And they wonder why there is no respect. They no longer serve to protect the children or the adults. You did well not to abuse them so follow up on how they just abused you. Hands in pockets is nowhere near enough to embaress you in public like that.
There was so much wrong with that stop and search and all the fault lies with the two cops. As for calling you pal and mate, if you think we're mates after you do a stop and search, not a chance! They did not make the statement that needs to be made when recording the stop and search with their cameras rolling and it's a lie that they no longer do a paper version of the a copy of a search. It's sickening. They stopped you for having your hands in your pockets, but the Sgt had his hands hidden from the start and did not ID himself. No I do not understand! Misuse of section 23, a possible section 26 misuse of powers as well.
Well spotted. There is no section or sub section of law which states that hands in pockets is grounds for reasonable suspicion, and no text issued by the College of Policing states that hands in pockets is reasonable grounds. This means that [i] the premise for the S&S was invalid, and that [ii] the Officer later negated the premise they used.
"It's a lie that they no longer do a paper version" is incorrect. A number of forces no longer use paper forms, it's done digitally and emailed. Alternatively you can attend a police station from the force where the search was conducted and ask for a copy within 3 months of the search.
Clearly the only reason was because you looked like someone that could PAY a fine, if the PoPo were lucky enough to stumble upon a real criminal! I suggest they look a little harder around Piccadilly Gardens for the real problem there….Disgusting behaviour from the Police yet again!!!!
3:25. Cycling on the pavement, that's an offence. Level 2, £500. In that case you have a delivery driver, so they have ID, and you can get them. There were other offences in the background too and they were blind to it.
@@whatilearnttoday5295 I suspect you are right. Junior is being indoctrinated. Problem for senior is that he broke lots of the rules, and that's easy to show with the video.
Disgusting to see this! Stopped and searched because you 'relatively' (their words) matched a description and had your hands in your pocket. Thank you for sharing this and you stayed so calm during it all, good on you and I hope you take this further mate
i hope this man enjoys spending the money that he will get from the PUBLIC for these police officers incompetence and law breaking assault on this innocent member of the public, it's about time law breaking police officers started getting held accountable for their unlawful actions or at least start paying out the compensation from their own bank accounts, maybe that would encourage them to stop breaking the law and stop violating and abusing the public, but unfortunately as long as other people have to pay their debts and damages they will never change and will continue to break the law.
greed. For the obvious definite abuse of power, people need to take these pigs to county court £250 or thereabouts, and get the money directly from their bank accounts.
@@25242824 following them matching a description from cctv hands in pockets and under section 23 i beleive it was the cop said, im not necessarily saying its right but that was the grounds for the search currently as the 'law' stands
“You match a description from cctv” “We’ve been passed descriptions of males.” Never says what crime cctv has seen this described male commit. Makes me think he’s either making it up completely or cctv has sent information through because they’re filming.
@@brianbickle7395 embarrassing. When they fcuk you over you’ll be the first to come on here crying about it and wanting justice. And you’ll do it all online obviously because you don’t have the balls to do anything in real life.
3:20 “What you filming?” Response: “You abusing your police powers” No wonder there is little to no confidence in the police. Like the lady at the end,same old usual advice, “Phone 101”! when they’re right there.
PACE Code A states that reasonable grounds for suspicion must relate to the likelihood that the object in question will be found. S23 MDA: This provision specifies that the person must be suspected of being in possession of the drug, not merely to have used it or been present during its use by others.
Im not pro police but with all the s**t going on with knives, drugs, etc, any suggestions on what else can be done to help stop the murder of young kids .
The second copper says that 80% of stop and searches turn out to be negative so it's not an efficient use of police resources. Unless it's just used to intimidate people in general.
@@rushfan9thcmd surely if "stop n search"stops one knife death, isn't it worth it? I understand the attitude of teens carry knives because they fear for their safety.. But I as a teen, and other more sensible teens would be deterred from carrying if one knew there was the high likelihood of being "stopped n search". Deterrence is the best way to stop crime... In respect to what you call 'freedom', I think you mean the inconvenience of being stopped n searched. Such searches can and should be done respectfully and rapidly with police wearing cameras to prevent abuse. Local Authorities could be allowed to appoint there own observers to acompany the Police on S n S... If I was a parent of a teen.. especially a black teen, I would welcome S n S.. The vast majority of deaths are black on black.. If I was a parent of a ginger teen and there was a problem of 'ginger on ginger ' knife deaths then I would welcome targeted 'ginger' S n S until the problem abated.. As would any sensible ginger teen...
Wow! you better get these Goons held fully accountable for their illegal actions. The opportunity for an amazing payout is too good to miss out on ! DO NOT SETTLE FOR AN APOLOGY!
Well this gave me strong flashbacks. I was stopped and searched in Paddington last year for having my hands in my pockets. All they found in there was a half-eaten pack of polos. Never committed a crime in my life. Also it was a freezing day in February so why wouldn't my hands be in my pockets? State of the old bill these days...
@@stevejobson3399 Exactly. I put a complaint in against GMP about riding horses on the pavenment, by the police. They tried to fob me off but made it worse. ruclips.net/video/HO7OCtQ4eCo/видео.html&ab_channel=CharlesVeitch if you want to see it. Untrained horse, wrong way down a one way street, ignoring traffic signs. ...
I have never suggested you've ever dealt or taken drugs but we just did a search to check if you're in possession of drugs or drug related paraphernalia. The only reason to be in possession of such items is personal use or dealing. Genius.
appalling attitude, appalling conduct, appalling approach and appalling speech. and all upon an assumption without grounds,, then the cops wonder why people do no trust nor wish to engage with arrogant hostile thugs given a uniform and who did they protect who did they serve. who did they help. assist protect ?
I got banned for 7 days from the centre as the cctv caught me selling drugs. I’ve never touched one in my life or even know what they look like, I even told them to show me the cctv to prove it and they wouldn’t :(
After you said to those cop that you've never taken or dealt drug's the sargent said "I not for one minute suggest that you have mate not for one minute". Word from the person that just stopped and detained for a drug's search for having your hands in your pockets.... So why the search if he knew that you haven't....
These Brits got a little heavy handed with this stuff in the USA in the late 1700's...Our forefathers found it prudent to revoke England's visiting privileges...And down the road found it necessary to generate the 4th Amendment in the articles of the newly minted Constitution...
the trouble is it was then usurped by qualified imunity, but is still better than we have in the UK as we are subjects with no constitutional rights at all.
@@lonestardavid Yes all UK nationals have rights, under the Human rights act 1998. Right to privacy is one, and the other to liberty. The problem in the England & Wales and NI, is that reasonable suspicions is the key fault with the police legislation.
@@blenderbeachwavesblend yes we do have rights under the human rights act as it was adopted in the UK in the mid 90s, however there are three potential problems, firstly to take a case to the Court of Human Rights can take years and sometimes decades, also the tories have stated they wish to disengage the UK from the convention, also the cost of such action is punitive to most ordinary people, i think it would be better if we had constitutional rights with enforcement by criminal law.
I was once stopped and searched for zipping up my jacket as I left a Hi Fi shop on a cold winters day. The reason given was, you did just walk out of a Hi Fi shop and zip up your jacket, you could have just stollen something. Also, I too have witnessed drugs being sold right in clear view of the public and the police and nothing is done.
This is the easiest lawsuit win ever. Having hands in pockets doesn't even begin to meet the threshold for grounds for a search
.....
@@ChefEarthenware Has to be 'reasonable grounds', not just 'any (old) reason'.
As if someone with drugs will have a body cam recording all their criminal activities. That removes any reasonable grounds they had to carry out their search.
@@ChefEarthenware my god I’m so surprised people like you have no idea
@@ChefEarthenware did you hear that Sting was having tantric sex with his wife and her head exploded? He really is amazing is old Sting
'I've not suggested for one minute you do drugs'
Actually for the last 5 minutes that's EXACTLY what you've been doing, Officer
Yeah, what a liar!
100%
scum bags pigs stand against the people after the last 2 years
💯 what a lying turd!!
Facts
Well done for retaining your calm demeanour 👍🏼
Unlawful use of section 23, plain and simple. But they're trained to abuse Section 23, 43, 50 and many others because 99% of their victims don't know the law so they get away with it. You're going to have to make a complaint, which will not be upheld, then send a letter of intent to sue, which they will initially deny, and then maybe retain legal advice. Its a lot of time and hassle for a return of maybe £2000, and this is what the old bill is counting on with that 1% that know their rights have been abused.
I noticed the Officer claimed the S&S was presupposed on two premises:
[i] Matching a description.
[ii] Having his hands on his pockets.
Whilst [i] is reasonable grounds, i.e., he may have genuinely matched the description of someone they believed to have drugs on his person, I could not find any section or subsection in law which implies hands in pockets is a lawful premise to carry out a S&S. Even the College of Police Training does not make any reference to hands in pockets being an objective premise.
Therefore, it appears that by [ii] was a false premise, which means the Officer has opened himself up to a potential civil case.
They said it themselves, 80% of searches come up with nothing.
@@danielfinch362 that's because they're done without reasonable suspicion; and my estimate from watching police interaction RUclips videos is 99%
@@mfrost71w That's because the vast majority of people who are lawfully searched don't post a video of the interaction on RUclips.
@@henrypurcell7833 what about the ones filmed by a third party?
Unbelievable with all that goes on right in front of their faces, they stop and search you!!
its easier and they have to go back to station and log it ..half a shift over with.
Shameful what's wrong with police officers today
@@maddrivers1018 Too many of them, like the Officer in this video, act like street thugs.
@@freqeist Wtf are you on about? It'll get logged AFTER their patrol, at the end of their shift.
I take it you would have a super way of just arresting all the criminals that nobody else has come up with? Don't forget, it was the old policing way of 'the coppers know the bad guys and just target them' that got society so angry in the first place, the public demanded that every stop target everyone 'equally' and there be several hours of recording reasons and equality stats after the shift has ended. It made the police pretty useless, but most importantly of all EQUALLY useless:)
''Its not an offence but it gives us the grounds'' What grounds? Half the population would require a stop search, for having hands in their pockets, this is a misuse of sec23 and requires a potential complaint
The bald copper actually said ''I DONT FOR ONE MINUTE SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH DRUGS'' yet they had reasonable suspicion for the search, very strange ?
I'm begging the cops be allowed more powers to do this. So fuck your way of thinking
He matched the description
@@joebloggsvlogs1657 exactly
@@joebloggsvlogs1657 What description?
@@djinnxx7050 the description of the person they are looking for
I've never said you had for one minute suggested you had taken or dealt in drugs. 5:30. And yet you still searched under the misuse of drugs act because hands in pockets meant you were dealing.
Copper "Do you understand what I'm saying?"
Fritz "no" absolutely brilliant
You're alive, breathing and physically here. That's all the grounds they need.
Gets like that
I think you'll find that the camera man has annoyed the police BUT is protected from prosecution by officers/officials a bit higher up the food chain than beat officers.
A lot of these videos break multiple laws both Civil criminal, national and international laws.
I'm sorry but I have Zero sympathy and quite frankly you were treated EXTREMELY NICELY by Manchester Police!
Technically they could of detained you for refusing to provide your details
@Just Ice no breaking GDPR for filming random people without consent and potentially breaching UK counter terror laws.
Thus AUDIT BRITAIN is UNLAWFUL at best.
However THIS is REAL unstaged AND 100% lawful (they are also "banged to rights" in this video)
ruclips.net/video/C9GCNL8Bd_Q/видео.html
@@billiehuman9173 this is how the police get in the UK when imports start bombing people
@@billiehuman9173 xD this comment has to be satire
Going by the fact that they didn't know you two were regular photographers around the area implies they had been bussed in from some other part of Manchester. In that case, they should've been even more careful who they picked on.
Take both badge numbers and report them, disgusting!, Unlawful search
Lol naive 1st world child
shut up
@@mcfcmanc trolling implies I don't believe every single comment on this topic , yet o do ;-) I'mjust doing my part to rock these silly echo chambers with facts and realty. Just like medicine the truth doesn't always taste nice.
WTF is going on Fritz ? Standing with your hands in you pockets , crazy stuff. Take care mate ,all the best from down under 👍
An the comedy is that if they found drugs the evidence can be chucked out of court because of weak grounds for the search.
A DC and he searches for drugs because you had your hands in your pockets. All that extra training to be a DC didn’t go to waste! What an absolute lemon.
Next time, turn your pockets inside out as you pull your hands out.
Sorry but just when did either officer claim to be a DC. I certainly didn’t hear anyone say anything about being a DC. If you could give us a time check so that I can verify your statement. Thank you in advance if you do respond.
A dc in uniform would be a first
Peter Hitchens described the modern police as Paramilitary Social Workers. A very good description.
Nice one. Handled amazingly. Does not matter if they are breaching your rights, you ALWAYS comply because when you go to sue the living hell out of them it is going to look way better for you.
Perhaps CCTV should be looking for ppl putting there hands in other ppl's pockets
Wtf they'll be searching people who walk with hands in pockets, crazy.
The UK is not a free country
They have to do something . If you saw them with their hands in their pockets chances are they were busy tugging away.
Simple, make pockets in clothing illegal. Then people would have to strap or hang illicit items on the outside or inside of clothing, better yet, make wearing of gloves compulsory all year round.
Gotta help the police anyway we can. 🙄( snigger)
"You put your hands in your pockets" - this gives us the powers to do whatever we want and abuse your rights
Any policeman who calls you "pal" is condescending and deserves the same treatment back.
Illegal search yet again.
Good luck with your claim not that you need it.
When a pig calls you 'pal' you call him 'baby doll' or 'cupcake' back.
grow up
Tiny 789.....grow up and shut up....what was your other one liner?
Good at those aren't you.
@@tiny789 you must be a boot licker.
"Not one minute have we implied you use or deal drugs"
Well, that search in front of all those people sure did it. If your searches find nothing 80% of the time then you need to stop harassing 80 people out of every 100 you meet
The 20% claim is in any case a flt-out lie. I don't know the exact numbers,his kind of search has anywhere close to a 5% success rate I'd be very surprised.
Message to this officer! Just tyrants guys like you are ruining ordinary citizens freedom
Can't say I understood what he said. If 80% of stop searches yield no find then there's obviously a misconception in what constitutes reasonable suspicion to warrant those 80% of searches. The copper then admit he doesn't for one minute suggest you've taken or dealt drugs. That means he and his pal lied when they thought it was reasonably suspicious that you were stopped for a drugs search.
To be fair, not suggesting that he deals drugs doesn't exclude someone from suspicion. This is the police we're talking about here, they have to have grounds for suspicion (even when it's made up shite) without making an accusation because a straight accusation is very obvious grounds for a prosecution against the officer. It's all crap though mate, old bill are as crooked as the crims now, that dissapoints me so much because they used to be hard but fair, now they're neither: soft where they should be hard (paedos, murderers etc) and bent as a 9 Bob note when they should be squeaky clean.
Bullshit, I bet if you asked for the crime number for the person matching your description there won't be one. Just abusive poolice.
they are getting just as bad as those knobs in Australia.
And they wonder why their is a disconnect from the public, they were just fishing to see if they could get their arrests up, they will never learn, as soon as they put that uniform on common sense goes out the window and their brain disengages into dealing out their own brand of law because they are untouchable
The "you match a description" is bollocks and a means which they use to justify their illegal actions. As you well know.
They're city centre plod so will be working in conjunction with city centre CCTV who would have tracked anyone suspicious as it's what they do all day every day.
If they had a suspicion about him they could have just asked the camera operator to keep an eye on him. No need to stop and search as he wasn't going anywhere by the looks of it.
The balding plod didn't even have his body worn camera on recording it because what they were doing was sketchy.
If anything the camera was what matched the description. Cops hate camera's. That's why he was targeted.
At 1:15 he takes your wallet, fumbles around inside it and then puts his hand in his own pocket.
It looks quite clear that he didn't take anything but that cant be good practice, surely?
If the cop later 'found' something in the wallet, it could be that he had planted it, or at least the video would support that claim. Quite sloppy in my view.
Are these real cops??
And they wonder why there is no respect. They no longer serve to protect the children or the adults. You did well not to abuse them so follow up on how they just abused you. Hands in pockets is nowhere near enough to embaress you in public like that.
There was so much wrong with that stop and search and all the fault lies with the two cops. As for calling you pal and mate, if you think we're mates after you do a stop and search, not a chance! They did not make the statement that needs to be made when recording the stop and search with their cameras rolling and it's a lie that they no longer do a paper version of the a copy of a search. It's sickening. They stopped you for having your hands in your pockets, but the Sgt had his hands hidden from the start and did not ID himself. No I do not understand! Misuse of section 23, a possible section 26 misuse of powers as well.
Well spotted. There is no section or sub section of law which states that hands in pockets is grounds for reasonable suspicion, and no text issued by the College of Policing states that hands in pockets is reasonable grounds.
This means that [i] the premise for the S&S was invalid, and that [ii] the Officer later negated the premise they used.
100% section 26 offence
In addition, the Sgt searched through the wallet, he isn't allowed to do that as he isn't the one undertaking the search.
@@chrishartley1210 Good spot.
"It's a lie that they no longer do a paper version" is incorrect. A number of forces no longer use paper forms, it's done digitally and emailed. Alternatively you can attend a police station from the force where the search was conducted and ask for a copy within 3 months of the search.
Jesus christ you were just there ready to catch witching hour at McDonald's. Fair play for taking it well fella.
Cops did not want y'all recording them going in to McDonalds to get free food.
Those vests look like a kind of hanging storage shelves for wardrobes.
Wonder what the matching description was. "Male wearing a jacket and trousers"?
What a disgusting abuse of "power" and of the cameraman's rights and dignity. And the police wonder why respect for them is fast disappearing??
Clearly the only reason was because you looked like someone that could PAY a fine, if the PoPo were lucky enough to stumble upon a real criminal! I suggest they look a little harder around Piccadilly Gardens for the real problem there….Disgusting behaviour from the Police yet again!!!!
3:25. Cycling on the pavement, that's an offence. Level 2, £500. In that case you have a delivery driver, so they have ID, and you can get them. There were other offences in the background too and they were blind to it.
They don't even need the fine. They're filling a quota on searches.
@@whatilearnttoday5295 I suspect you are right. Junior is being indoctrinated. Problem for senior is that he broke lots of the rules, and that's easy to show with the video.
Disgusting to see this! Stopped and searched because you 'relatively' (their words) matched a description and had your hands in your pocket. Thank you for sharing this and you stayed so calm during it all, good on you and I hope you take this further mate
i hope this man enjoys spending the money that he will get from the PUBLIC for these police officers incompetence and law breaking assault on this innocent member of the public, it's about time law breaking police officers started getting held accountable for their unlawful actions or at least start paying out the compensation from their own bank accounts, maybe that would encourage them to stop breaking the law and stop violating and abusing the public, but unfortunately as long as other people have to pay their debts and damages they will never change and will continue to break the law.
He won’t even get £1000
greed. For the obvious definite abuse of power, people need to take these pigs to county court £250 or thereabouts, and get the money directly from their bank accounts.
what you on about, (as annoying as the whole situation is) it was lawful
@@darrengooding8785 not without grounds it wasn't
@@25242824 following them matching a description from cctv hands in pockets and under section 23 i beleive it was the cop said, im not necessarily saying its right but that was the grounds for the search currently as the 'law' stands
Its so absurd im amazed they can keep a straight face "you've got your hands in your pockets" 🤔🤔
How was that reasonable and articulate suspicion I would complain to PSD
5:30 he contradicts himself.
“You match a description from cctv”
“We’ve been passed descriptions of males.”
Never says what crime cctv has seen this described male commit. Makes me think he’s either making it up completely or cctv has sent information through because they’re filming.
He made up the CCTV part.
They wont go after real criminals they are part of their gang
Need a copy of the CCTV footage & call to service..
He did say "matching a description" , none of you know the description the police were given. The search was legal
Sshh! Just be outraged at proactive policing.
@@brianbickle7395 embarrassing. When they fcuk you over you’ll be the first to come on here crying about it and wanting justice. And you’ll do it all online obviously because you don’t have the balls to do anything in real life.
@@brianbickle7395 proactive ? Or taking away their rights
So the guy with his hands in his vest, says you have your hands in your pockets.😂
3:20 “What you filming?”
Response: “You abusing your police powers”
No wonder there is little to no confidence in the police. Like the lady at the end,same old usual advice, “Phone 101”! when they’re right there.
101 for this 101 for that FFS
Yet stopping and searching someone for putting their hands in their pockets .
The way that bald copper looked you up and down was quite insulting in my opinion!
If you have hands in your pockets your subject to searched
Always get the stop and search slip there and then from the officers never rely on 101..
PACE Code A states that reasonable grounds for suspicion must relate to the likelihood that the object in question will be found. S23 MDA: This provision specifies that the person must be suspected of being in possession of the drug, not merely to have used it or been present during its use by others.
Im not pro police but with all the s**t going on with knives, drugs, etc, any suggestions on what else can be done to help stop the murder of young kids .
Hands in your pockets equals abuse of drugs? Man I'm lucky I live in California. Good job bro. New subscriber
I’m speechless
The second copper says that 80% of stop and searches turn out to be negative so it's not an efficient use of police resources. Unless it's just used to intimidate people in general.
Surely they should have stopped the search as soon as they had checked his pockets since it was "hands in pockets" that prompted the search!
They were using section 23 as an excuse to try and find out who you are as they don't like being made accountable. They are fishing for information
What did he do for them to want to search?
In London apparently the percentage for not finding anything from stop and search is more than 80%. It’s actually a bit of a controversy down there.
Its too bad the citizens have tolerated this decay.
Too be fair.. Stop n search may inhibit some knife crime.. But of course not all..
@@pyellard3013 surrendering freedom for a dream of security.....
@@rushfan9thcmd surely if "stop n search"stops one knife death, isn't it worth it? I understand the attitude of teens carry knives because they fear for their safety.. But I as a teen, and other more sensible teens would be deterred from carrying if one knew there was the high likelihood of being "stopped n search". Deterrence is the best way to stop crime... In respect to what you call 'freedom', I think you mean the inconvenience of being stopped n searched. Such searches can and should be done respectfully and rapidly with police wearing cameras to prevent abuse. Local Authorities could be allowed to appoint there own observers to acompany the Police on S n S... If I was a parent of a teen..
especially a black teen, I would welcome S n S.. The vast majority of deaths are black on black.. If I was a parent of a ginger teen and there was a problem of 'ginger on ginger ' knife deaths then I would welcome targeted 'ginger' S n S until the problem abated.. As would any sensible ginger teen...
@@pyellard3013 never in a million years. Quite said to see freedom surrendered so easily. It explains a lot.
So how much do you reckon the claim will be on this. I reckon £1700, worse bit of policing EVER
Wow! you better get these Goons held fully accountable for their illegal actions. The opportunity for an amazing payout is too good to miss out on ! DO NOT SETTLE FOR AN APOLOGY!
Well this gave me strong flashbacks. I was stopped and searched in Paddington last year for having my hands in my pockets. All they found in there was a half-eaten pack of polos. Never committed a crime in my life. Also it was a freezing day in February so why wouldn't my hands be in my pockets? State of the old bill these days...
3:25 - Offences against the highways act. You are NOT ALLOWED to cycle on the pavement. Muppet two directly looks at him and does nothing.
Did you see the guy on the 5000w ebike lmao priorities 🤣
@@stevejobson3399 Exactly. I put a complaint in against GMP about riding horses on the pavenment, by the police. They tried to fob me off but made it worse. ruclips.net/video/HO7OCtQ4eCo/видео.html&ab_channel=CharlesVeitch if you want to see it. Untrained horse, wrong way down a one way street, ignoring traffic signs. ...
@@Slaine_OP It's illegal.
@@Nickle314 True But that doesn’t mean anything if people don’t listen or care
If a police officer has their hands in pockets it must mean they should be searched for drugs under section 23 too
Is that the same police who tried to arrest Charlie yesterday??
4:21 "we ahve to do it for a reason"... and what is the reseaon?...
Should wear a burka. Plod will not dare to search and run away as fast as their knees will take them.
I have never suggested you've ever dealt or taken drugs but we just did a search to check if you're in possession of drugs or drug related paraphernalia. The only reason to be in possession of such items is personal use or dealing. Genius.
Plenty of visible crime and disorder in front of their eyes, hands in the pocket, 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Were they using Boots CCTV? How did they know he had a Prescription?
Crazy glad I live in the USA.
I cannot believe these officers considered putting your hands in your pocket warrants a member of the public to be a drug addit!
You were an easy target to boost up their search numbers, don't expect them to tackle real scumbags.
illegal search can only search the pockets where thinks drugs are not bag or inside jacket or down legs
There have been at least a dozen people walking past with their hands in their pockets. Disgusting.
Why consent to the search. There goes a claim
appalling attitude, appalling conduct, appalling approach and appalling speech. and all upon an assumption without grounds,, then the cops wonder why people do no trust nor wish to engage with arrogant hostile thugs given a uniform and who did they protect who did they serve. who did they help. assist protect ?
I think the cop on the left 0:15 might be dealing drugs, he's concealing his hands in his vest 😮💨
I got banned for 7 days from the centre as the cctv caught me selling drugs.
I’ve never touched one in my life or even know what they look like, I even told them to show me the cctv to prove it and they wouldn’t :(
officer at end of video - 'you two enjoy yourselves'. fritz media - 'thankyou'
Ofcourse tyrants will abuse whatever power they can.
Getting his search for the tick in the box ✅
After you said to those cop that you've never taken or dealt drug's the sargent said "I not for one minute suggest that you have mate not for one minute".
Word from the person that just stopped and detained for a drug's search for having your hands in your pockets....
So why the search if he knew that you haven't....
It’s a blatant abuse of “reason of suspicion that a criminal offence is being or about to be committed”.
Malicious
“I’ve not for one minute suggested your have drugs” Drugs was the premise for the search.
Sad.
My towns become really rough recently. There’s been kids as young as 11 and 12 seen with their hands in the pockets. What has this world become? 😔
Since when was Ross Kemp working for police
These Brits got a little heavy handed with this stuff in the USA in the late 1700's...Our forefathers found it prudent to revoke England's visiting privileges...And down the road found it necessary to generate the 4th Amendment in the articles of the newly minted Constitution...
the trouble is it was then usurped by qualified imunity, but is still better than we have in the UK as we are subjects with no constitutional rights at all.
Like every uneducated American your judicial system is based on Magna Carta, which has been enshrined in Britain law since 1215
George Washington was an Englishman, cannot deny your ethnic background regardless of how brain dead you are. You're probably an Englishman 😂
@@lonestardavid Yes all UK nationals have rights, under the Human rights act 1998. Right to privacy is one, and the other to liberty. The problem in the England & Wales and NI, is that reasonable suspicions is the key fault with the police legislation.
@@blenderbeachwavesblend yes we do have rights under the human rights act as it was adopted in the UK in the mid 90s, however there are three potential problems, firstly to take a case to the Court of Human Rights can take years and sometimes decades, also the tories have stated they wish to disengage the UK from the convention, also the cost of such action is punitive to most ordinary people, i think it would be better if we had constitutional rights with enforcement by criminal law.
6:05 *I would hazard a guess your ethnicity is English? If so, why did you not correct him?*
No way 😂 that’s a joke for his hands in his pocket 😂😂😂 abusing their power
Subject access the radio/telephone comms. See if he is actually lying.
"I'll get your details because I've searched you"
10/10
that cop just put his JOB ON THE LINE HERE
03:28 the bacon's attempt to not seem like tyrants, whilst regretting searching these law abiding citerzen, laughable
"I've never dealt or taken drugs in my life", " we're not suggesting in any way that you have," as they search you under the Misuse of Drugs act..
I was once stopped and searched for zipping up my jacket as I left a Hi Fi shop on a cold winters day. The reason given was, you did just walk out of a Hi Fi shop and zip up your jacket, you could have just stollen something. Also, I too have witnessed drugs being sold right in clear view of the public and the police and nothing is done.
If you are going to invade my pockets I am not going to warn you if you might find something harmful. You are on your own.
copper put his hand in his pocket twice...
I always put my hands in my pockets when I am in town because of pick pockets.
''Are you having a nice day?'' These cop are tyrants.
He says “I haven’t for one minute suggested you have” taken or deal drugs that is. Why then did they search you? 🙄
"Having a nice day" is he taking the piss ? I think they was doing just fine until the stazi turned up. Freedom my arse.
Request the CCTV footage and the operators log .
Perfect example that England have become a police state....
“Got your hands in your pocket in a high crime area”.
What an abuse of police powers