Residents and motorists did a double take after spotting what some believed was a real polar bear at a Shell garage in Barking.
The creature, seen walking around the forecourt of the Ripple Road petrol station this morning, was in fact two Greenpeace members dressed in a polar bear costume.
Oh, how
badly wrong this could have gone, eh? Or perhaps
right...
The petrol station manager, Haran Siva, told the Post he and his colleagues asked the group to leave as they did not have permission to film at the station and were obstructing those wanting to buy petrol.
“They didn’t listen to us and stayed for more than an hour,” he said. “There were about 20 of them. We called the police who arrived soon after, but I think the Greenpeace people hid the cameras. The police said they couldn’t do anything.”
There's a surprise. Just what
do they do?
33 comments:
What did you expect the police to do Julia? What crime was being committed? Perhaps you could give the power, Act and Section, that the police should have used to deal with this?
Isn't this a bit hypocritical following your recent post regarding the PCSO wrongly telling animal rights protesters to stop filming?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sX2afvThhQ
@Brontosaurus - no, not at all hypocritical, because I'm not suggesting they should have turned up to stop them filming. But obstructing people wanting to buy petrol, as the garage owner claims?
Yes, that they should have turned up to investigate and put a stop to, if true...
Given that these Eco-Loons are well known for their addiction to Lentils & Tofu .. I wouldn't give much for the survival chances of the rear half ..
Let's be fair, second-hand methane just has to be far more injurious to the lungs than second-hand smoke .. ;)
@ Brontosaurus
The protestors were equally at risk from a cretinous 'armed' type...as you are unable to keep up with the news or comprehend this post.
Parliament should hurry an 'Incarcerate the plain stupid' Bill through the House, to further reduce future risks.
@ JuliaM - Obstructing people buying petrol. I haven't heard of that offence Julia. This is a good example of how difficult policing can be. People expect the police to turn up and sort things out as common sense would appear to dictate. 20 years ago in the days of Gene Hunt we would have turned up and used the Ways and Means Act and thrown them off the premises.
Nowadays we are being filmed, we have our powers quesioned all the time, we get sued, we get little support when things go awry or we try to do the sensible thing. So we have to act within the law and not how people think we should.
The police did turn up. They rightly concluded that no criminal offence was being committed. They said sorry we can't do anything and left. You reap what you sow Julia. Don't blame the police for that.
A quick but "accidental" squirt from the Unleaded nozzle would have seen the daft buggers off a bit sharpish .. ;)
The Right to Lawful Protest? Just because the garage owner said they were obstructing people buying petrol doesn't mean that they were.
Police turn up, no one is being obstructed....what is the problem?
Get Parliament to write up some nice clear laws making it a criminal offence to protest.....perhaps then you will be satisfied. Do you work for the Daily Mail?
Greenpeace have the right to protest, the rest of us have the right to call them ecoloon terrorist morons who haven't a clue how the real world works hence their addiction to the green cult of global warming.
Cuts both ways, I suspect however that the garage owner could have had them removed for trespass, if they did not have implied permission (as in buying a product from the premises) having been asked to leave.
What did these eco-loons give up to spend time dressing up and filming?
Could it be they skimped on spending time looking for a job?
Or perhaps they were university wastrels who needed a welcome break from studying Marxism and Allied Theories of Left Wing Lunacy.
Or they tore themselves away from meetings of the Rabid Dumbcluck Society as it debates forming sub-committees to support Militant Illegal Immigrant Benefit Fraudsters.
But as Greenpeacers they didn't give up their right to dumb sheeple-thinking. That goes with their terrotory, no problem.
I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't aggravated trespass cover it?
"An offence under s.69 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994). A person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land (see: Trespass to land) and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land. "
John Tee - sorry doesn't work. To be an offence the trespass must be accompanied by an intention to obstruct, disrupt or deter by intimidation.
Using the garage as a backdrop for a film might be a bloody nuisance but was it really intimidating? It didn't stop the garage operating and you prove that was their intention.
Years ago I might have given it a run but you learn that trying to do the right thing by bending the rules often gets you into trouble.
In this scenario you might have ended up arresting suspects for aggravated trespass. CPS wouldn't touch it with a bargepole. Arrestees all sue the police for unlawful arrest and detention. Police lawyer says pay them off. They all get £5000 and you get a bollocking or possibly disciplined and sacked.
If you want the police to remove trespassers from private property change the law to that effect. Until that happens, the police should not be criticised for declining to do so.
Brontosaurus:
The PCSO from the earlier post was attempting to use intimidation in order to prevent animal rights activists from filming on public property which they had every right to do.
The Greenpeace lot were on private property, the petrol station forecourt, causing a nuisance to people wishing to fill their tanks, The manager was within his rights to ask them to stop filming/leave and then call the police when they refused. At the very least there was a health and safety issue. People dressed as polar bears were causing a distraction to drivers and the activists risked injury from motor vehicles. Did the police officers attending perform an on the spot risk assessment before they decided to chicken out and do nothing?
The situations are not the same therefore Julia is not guilty of hypocrisy.
@ Lynne
Bigotosaurus is none other than plod incarnate. Of all Earth's creatures, Bigotosaurus is never wrong but the Great Architect made it smell so bad that even the blind could hate it.
Of course, if you were filling up with petrol at the time you could well appear in a portion of the film, perhaps in the background showing ancient British hand signs to the camera, or mooning.
Then the slack-jawed faithful who gasp in admiration at the ingenuity and bravado of a Greenpeas production will be horrified that not everyone thinks as they do.
Lynne - the PCSO was hardly intimidating. He was a simple idiot.
Were the Greenpeace lot causing a nuisance? Is that a criminal offence? Yes, the manager can ask them to leave and stop filming. He can call the police and then what do you expect the police to do? Stop them filming when they have no power to require them to as per the PCSO? The police have no power to remove simple trespassers so don't expect us to do so.
Causing a distraction to drivers on a private forecourt isn't a criminal offence. Standing around on private property at risk of being hit by a car. Hanging about at risk of getting petrol spilt on you. Not a criminal offence.
It is hypocritical to criticise the police on the one hand for abusing their powers and then criticise them for not abusing their powers when you think they should.
There is nothing 'chicken' about this. If you want us to remove trespassers in these circumstances we will, but we cannot if the law does not allow it.
Melvyn - for someone who thinks himself so remarkably intelligent when are you going to post anything constructive to the debate rather than pathetic trolling. Get a life you pathetic cretin.
Radiator- Melvin,come on you know you want to type it.......
"Can't the police do anything?"
"Yes we can even though we have no real powers"
"Great, now I can film it and criticise them"
OR
"Can't the police do anything?"
"Sorry we can't,the law doesn't allow us"
"Great, now I can criticise them"
@ Anon 20.42
I'm ex-plod incarnate and if Bronto's bleating, whining, pitiful excuses and blame throwing is what passes for copperdom these days then I'm glad I'm no longer part of it.
Perhaps he should look a little closer to home, to the politically correct leadership infecting many forces and to the highly politicised ACPO. According to Bronto the force has descended to the culture of tick box jobsworths too frightened or incapable of making decisions outside the box. If Bronto is a shining example of the modern police force then god help us all.
Unfortunately, Brontosaurus is right. A few years ago the protesters could and would have been arrested for Breach of the Peace, pursuant to Justice of the Peace Act 1361, but case law (Gapper v CC of Avon and Somerset)has decreed that there has to be fighting violence or damage to property. The offence of wilful obstruction only applies to a highway.
A Police Officer can assist a the owner to eject a trespasser, but in doing so he/she is acting as a private citizen, not a Police Officer and is not acting in the execution of his/her duty.
@ Lynne
I sense you belong to that gracious era before the advent of 'plod', when a strict protocol required us to exchange the titles 'Sir' and 'Officer', or 'Sergeant'. All our Village police were once held in high regard and the beat involved quick social stops for a hot tea in Winter or a cold lemonade in Summer. We could rely upon your support just as you could rely upon ours.
Invoking both nostalgia and despair, are the rubble and remnants of that magnificent edifice.
@ Anon - Yep. You got to know everyone on your beat and it was a damn good way of keeping your ears to the ground. I signed up almost 40 years ago as soon as I was eligible.
Blueknight: We (and that includes your good self) are royally screwed if that is what policing has become. There was a time I wouldn't have believed it possible. Change is needed but I suspect that it will have to come from within. It sure as hell won't come from Westminster or Whitehall unless their arms are twisted painfully behind their backs.
I wish you luck.
Lynne - you are the one whining and bleating. If you are better at thinking outside of the box pray tell us how you would have dealt with the situation..... preferably lawfully.
I was policing when it was a different world too. There was more respect, things got done under the Ways and Means Act. I am afraid for us old dinosaurs times have changed. You do things by the book or your job is on the line.
Time the silent majority speak up and stop the lunatics running the asylum. Until that happens decent people will carry on suffering.
Your anonymous 'flatterer' is 'Dr' Melvin Gray a sad little man from Huddersfield who spends his life trolling police blogs. His ilk epitomises almost everything that has gone wrong with our society.
Back to my radiator and doughnuts.
Brontosaurus - I'm a libertarian. I didn't vote for any of the LibLabCon lunatics. I shall continue to not vote for them because almost every one of them is unfit for purpose. Unfortunately the silent majority tend to keep on hoping for change, hold their noses and vote mainstream, not realising that it doesn't matter what party gets in because nothing much is going to change for the better. I don't think that mainstream or tribal voting is going to change any time soon.
What the hell do you expect me to do about the state of affairs? Get pumped on Seven Seas, hijack a tank and storm Westminster? Go and set fire to the WI preserves and baked goods tent at the next village fete? Loot the local cheese shop? Protest outside the long abandoned local police station?
As I said in my previous comment. Change must come from within because if you wait for change from without (or wait for the electorate to get smart) the sun will turn to cinders first.
As for Anon, I have no idea who he is and I don't particularly care. You're the one who has a problem with him. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean that what he has to say is any less relevant to what you have to say.
As for the PCSO, he is indeed an idiot who tried to intimidate people by labeling them terrorists if they didn't do what they were told. He must have made the people who trained him very proud. The PCSOs are trained before they are let loose aren't they?
Still he's not along in his idiocy. You get proper coppers making similar mistakes and intimidating people filming in the street too:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2073072/Jules-Mattsson-compensated-police-inspector-photo-outburst-military-parade.html
Seems to me that the Ways and Means Act is alive and kicking when it suits. How many of the Romford incident coppers lost their jobs? All of them? None of them?
"@ JuliaM - Obstructing people buying petrol. I haven't heard of that offence Julia. "
There's a lot of offences you have heard of, and you seem to have lots of reasons why those - and the ones suggested by other commenters - won't work.
Tell me, does it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, if you put as much effort into finding ways to do your job, you might not now be facing the potential creeping privatisation of the police?
"Nowadays we are being filmed, we have our powers quesioned all the time..."
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. Remember?
"A quick but "accidental" squirt from the Unleaded nozzle..."
And a flick of the Bic..? ;)
" Do you work for the Daily Mail?"
*sigh* No.
"What did these eco-loons give up to spend time dressing up and filming?"
Well, I bet they avoided signing-on day...
"If you want the police to remove trespassers from private property change the law to that effect. Until that happens, the police should not be criticised for declining to do so."
I'm beginning to wonder if you really needed those last five words...
"Did the police officers attending perform an on the spot risk assessment before they decided to chicken out and do nothing? "
That's a damned good question.
I suspect the answer is that they conducted one before they left the office, and decided the risk of one more taxpaying businessman becoming receptive to privatisation of the police and the reform of their pensions was worth it.
"...you could well appear in a portion of the film, perhaps in the background showing ancient British hand signs to the camera, or mooning."
Oooh, I like that idea!
"Lynne - the PCSO was hardly intimidating. He was a simple idiot."
He was accompanied by a real live policewoman! Strangely, the same seems to apply to her, doesn't it, as pointed out by Woman on a Raft on that thread..?
"A Police Officer can assist a the owner to eject a trespasser, but in doing so he/she is acting as a private citizen.."
Does that ever actually happen?
Even when there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed, the police seem to bend over backwards to try to avoid it - just look at the situation with Eastern European squatters.
You can hardly blame people for being less than enchanted - and less than supportive - can you?
"Invoking both nostalgia and despair, are the rubble and remnants of that magnificent edifice."
Sadly true. All this seems to be softening up the police force for dismantling and privatisation.
"Seems to me that the Ways and Means Act is alive and kicking when it suits."
Shocker, eh..? /sarc
I'm still no wiser: are the CSOs under the control of the police or have the real coppers been told they can't give them orders, they are separate council workers?
Mooning is not nearly enough. You have to be able to keep up with a motorcade for at least 50 metres whilst - and this is the impressive part - waddling furiously with your shorts round your ankles and a national flag on a stick clenched between your buttocks.
Bloke in Australia did it.
@ JuliaM - calm down dear!
It's all very well carrying on about the lack of police action in this case and making excuses. The fact is the police haven't got any powers to deal with it. Squatting isn't a criminal offence either. So yes, don't criticise the police for taking unlawful action in one breath and then criticise them for not doing so in the next.
If you want the police to deal with these sorts of incidents we are happy to do so. Have a go at your MP to change the law instead of those that enforce it.
@ Bigotosaurus
Did you know...one further negative added to your double negative would have put you right back on course?
There he is again-nothing to add to the debate except clever word play and correcting someones English grammar.Don't you get bored Melvin?
Lynne, I retired in 2005, so I am not 'involved' anymore. The Police have many challenges to face. -
There are are and will always be good Officers who try to do a good job, but are let down by weak, ambiguous laws, soft sentencing, and are undermined by the media reports of PCSOs, specials and even other Police Officers who do not know the law. You will know how hard we studied at District Training Centres, but new recruits have not attended for the past few years, they go to college instead .
Royally screwed sums up the situation ....
Julia, I lifted this from Porter v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis it is a 1993 case, but I think the arguments still hold.
Lord Justice Sedley - There is long-established authority that a constable may lawfully assist others in self-help, but acting as an individual and not as a constable: R v Prebble (1858) 1 F & F 325, R v Roxburgh (1871) 12 Cox CC 8. Equally, it is clear that everyone, whether a constable or not, has both a power and a duty to detain persons committing or provoking a breach of the peace, in order to abate or prevent it: Albert v Lavin [1982] AC 546. But neither of these powers is a power of arrest. The power of arrest, the purpose of which is to bring a person before a court, will arise if a person creates or threatens to create a fracas in the course of being lawfully removed, whether the police are assisting in the removal or (as they may be wiser sometimes to do) are standing by to keep the peace while the occupier removes the trespasser.
".. waddling furiously with your shorts round your ankles and a national flag on a stick clenched between your buttocks. "
Now, that's the Australia we all know and love! :)
"Squatting isn't a criminal offence either. So yes, don't criticise the police for taking unlawful action in one breath and then criticise them for not doing so in the next."
Breaking in is. Despite all the signs when householders call, none of you ever does anything about that.
Fraud is. When these people stand there and wave a supposed 'rental contract' in your face, which is obviously bogus with the real owner standing there denying he has signed one, you never investigate it.
Sing another song, chum, this one's getting old and hackneyed.
"The power of arrest, the purpose of which is to bring a person before a court, will arise if a person creates or threatens to create a fracas in the course of being lawfully removed..."
It never gets to that, does it? Because no-one ever removes them, they just back off at warp speed...
Post a Comment