funny you should say that, my copper mate says that the English police are a lot more tolerant of assholes.
There is no excuse for that plod's behaviour. He was out of control and unprofessional threatening an abuse of power. He should take a long hard look at himself.
It's impossible to say from that clip, isn't it? Who knows how annoying the "photographer" was being. From the sounds of things, very.
So lets say Mr Camera was obnoxious is it not for Mr Policeman to stay professional and calmand not rise to the situation? In a disagreement or a situation Id say the one that loses his calm is the loser. IMO Mr Camera was morally wrong, but he was not commiting an offence. The Police dont Police morals they uphold and enforce the Law. Andy dont satrt say what if this and what if that, we only have the facts of the video we can see/hear to make our judgements. We can only guess at the first part of that video but take no conclusion from the bit unavailable.
So what you mean is we should make judgements with no context because that is all the information we have? How about making no judgements at all on the basis that we just don't have sufficient information to make one? If there is one thing people loathe it is doubt and ambiguity. They just can't handle it. Everyone wants a black and white story and to make a judgement. On the basis of this tape, there really isn't any judgement to make. Fair enough, one of the Plod rose to the bait. So what? Without knowing what the bait was, you don't know if you should feel empathy with him or not. Now. Now. Move along please. Nothing to see here.
Broadening this out, real life judgements often have to be made on the basis of doubt, ambiguity, and insufficient information. I am thinking of political and economic judgements here, where everything is shrouded in a fog of speculation. If politicians waited for full and clear information before making a decision, nothing would ever get decided.
Yes and no. Decisions are continually being made without optimal information - as they have to be because you have to get stuff done and no one knows the future. However, court judgements are routinely thrown out for lack of sufficient evidence. When it comes to condemning behaviour, you have to have a lot more evidence than what is presented here. I'm surprised that someone so cognisant with the law and judicial procedure would have difficulty with seeing this distinction.
No difficulty at all. The judgments of courts are made by applying strict rules to ascertainable facts, and there are well-defined "defaults" in the event of insufficiency of facts. I was contrasting this with political judgements, for example, which are made in fog and there are no defaults - just apportionment of blame later.
