#29J Support the Show 7 Days a Week 9PM Free Speech Lives
#29J Support the Show 7 Days a Week 9PM Free Speech Lives
In England (and more broadly the UK), hostile reconnaissance refers to the preparatory actions taken by individuals (often terrorists or criminals) to gather information about a target before carrying out an attack or unlawful act. It involves observing, probing, or testing security measures, layouts, routines, and vulnerabilities — often under the guise of innocent behavior.
If accused or questioned under suspicion of hostile reconnaissance and you are acting lawfully (e.g., as a tourist, journalist, or curious citizen), a reasonable response might be:
“I am not conducting any reconnaissance or surveillance. I am lawfully present in a public space and not engaging in any activity intended to aid or prepare for any criminal act. If you have reason to believe otherwise, please explain the legal basis for your questioning or search.”
✅ Lawful Response to Police Requesting ID (England & Wales):
“I am not obliged to provide identification unless I am being lawfully detained or arrested. Am I under arrest or being detained? If not, I’d like to go on my way.”
Why do English police arrest You Tube auditors filming migrant hotels? Is there something wrong with filming or is there a policy which exists within the police force?
In the UK, filming in public is generally legal, including outside migrant hotels. However, there are specific circumstances and policies that can lead police to arrest or remove YouTube auditors or others filming these sites. Here are the main factors at play:
There is no law banning filming migrant hotels in public, but arrests often stem from interpretations of public order or harassment laws, as well as police sensitivity to political optics. Critics argue this can infringe on free expression, while others say it’s about protecting privacy and safety.
Would you like to see case examples or legal references backing this?
4o
It seems very odd, as the police seem to arrest victims of aggression, as opposed to those who commit the acts of aggression? Is there a specific policy to reverse arrest – as filming cannot possibly be considered to be ‘aggressive’ in and of itself?
You’re raising a legitimate concern shared by many observers of UK policing — especially in the context of auditing, protest, or politically sensitive topics like migrant housing.
Here’s a clear explanation of what’s going on:
There is no formal UK policing policy that mandates arresting the victim of an incident rather than the aggressor. However, what appears to be a “reverse arrest” often stems from:
So it’s not a written policy — it’s often improvisation based on perceived optics, not law.
While filming itself isn’t aggressive, police may claim it’s:
These are subjective thresholds, and that’s where things often go wrong — police overreach or misinterpret legitimate actions as criminal intent.
In many audit scenarios, aggressors (e.g., hotel security or hostile bystanders):
This creates the perception of bias, especially when auditors are calm, but are still handcuffed or removed.
Police in the UK have wide discretion to arrest under vague terms like:
This discretion is often misused or misunderstood, especially with people who know their rights and challenge authority — like auditors do.
Many of these arrests are later:
But the arrest still disrupts, intimidates, and sets a chilling precedent.
You’re right: filming is not a crime, and being arrested for it—while the actual aggressor is left alone—reflects poor policing practice, not the law itself. It’s about:
Would you like a template for a lawful notice or rights card to use when filming in public?
Do the police have a ‘legal’ right or lawful right to arrest someone who is NOT committing any criminal acts, such as simply filming? Are the police crossing a line – from ‘civil’ law into ‘criminal’ law?
This is a vital question and goes to the heart of the tension between public rights and police powers in the UK.
In principle: No, police do not have the right to arrest someone who is not committing a criminal offence.
But in practice, the law gives police broad powers under certain circumstances, and those powers are sometimes misapplied, especially around filming and auditing.
Under Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), a police officer may arrest someone only if:
🚫 Filming in public is not a crime, so unless something else is going on (like harassment, obstruction, or breach of the peace), arresting someone just for filming is not lawful.
Yes — police sometimes blur civil and criminal law boundaries.
So, if there is no crime, and no genuine risk of harm, police are crossing into unlawful territory when they arrest.
| Justification Claimed | Legal Problem |
|---|---|
| “Prevent a breach of the peace” | Must be imminent and real, not speculative. |
| “You’re causing alarm or distress” (Public Order Act s.5) | Subjective and often used without real evidence. |
| “You’re being obstructive” | Only applies if genuinely interfering with duties. |
| “You refused to leave private property” | This may justify a civil trespass claim, not arrest, unless accompanied by violence or threats. |
✅ Police can only arrest based on reasonable suspicion of a crime and only if necessary.
❌ Filming in public is not a crime.
❌ Arrests based on “discomfort” or “offence” alone are unlawful.
⚠️ When police act without lawful grounds, they cross from criminal enforcement into civil rights violations.
Would you like a printable rights card or notice you can carry to assert this when filming?
It appears from much evidence via video that the police abuse their powers regularly and do NOT abide by Section 24 of the PACE, so how could this be addressed?
You’re absolutely right — there is growing public concern, supported by numerous videos and legal cases, that some UK police officers routinely ignore or misapply Section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), especially during interactions with YouTube auditors, protesters, and other public watchdogs.
➡️ This forces forces (like the Met, GMP, etc.) to defend misconduct in court, costing them time, money, and public trust.
This method is why many auditors continue despite harassment — it’s evidence collection in the public interest.
| Action | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Sue the police | Legal accountability, compensation |
| Complain to IOPC | Disciplinary review, investigation |
| Film and share | Public exposure and pressure |
| Contact PCCs | Political accountability |
| Join campaigns | Structural change and legal reform |
Would you like me to create a downloadable “Know Your Rights” pocket guide or PDF toolkit for auditors and citizens facing these issues?
MAIN CHALLENGES TO POLICE:
What legal reference can be stated to a police constable to cause him or her NOT to go ahead with an arrest for this type of conduct?
To lawfully challenge an attempted arrest by a police constable during a peaceful, non-aggressive filming situation (such as outside a migrant hotel), you can calmly cite specific legal references that show both your rights and the limits on police powers.
Here’s what you can say — clearly and respectfully — to assert your rights and make the constable think twice:
“Officer, under Section 24 of PACE, you may only arrest me if you have reasonable grounds to suspect that I am committing or have committed a criminal offence, and if the arrest is necessary. I am doing nothing unlawful.”
✅ This challenges the lawfulness of arrest directly.
✅ If they cannot articulate what crime you’re suspected of, the arrest risks being unlawful.
“I am exercising my Article 10 right to freedom of expression under the Human Rights Act 1998. I am filming peacefully in a public place and not interfering with anyone.”
✅ This invokes a qualified human right the police are legally obligated to consider.
✅ Unless your conduct is threatening, harassing, or violent, they cannot override this right arbitrarily.
“There is no law against filming in public, and case law supports this, including Murray v United Kingdom (1994) and Wood v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (2009).”
✅ These cases show that surveillance or observation is not inherently unlawful, and that privacy does not extend to public places.
“If you arrest me without lawful grounds, I reserve the right to take civil action for false imprisonment and breach of my human rights.”
✅ This warns them of personal and departmental liability.
✅ Police often de-escalate when they realise the arrest could backfire legally.
“Constable, I am filming peacefully in public. Under Section 24 of PACE, you need reasonable grounds and necessity to arrest. I’ve committed no offence. I am exercising my Article 10 right to freedom of expression, and case law confirms that filming in public is not unlawful. I request you explain what crime I’m suspected of. Otherwise, any arrest may constitute false imprisonment and breach of my civil rights, for which I may seek legal remedy.”
The problem with the use of the words ‘reasonable grounds’ is that they can be subjective – what example of ‘reasonable grounds’ could an individual challenge when a constable claims to have them, (when they clearly do not)?
You’re absolutely right to be cautious of the term “reasonable grounds”, as it can be misused or misinterpreted — and police often exploit the vagueness to justify arrests they could not otherwise lawfully make. However, “reasonable grounds” is not just what the officer believes — it must meet an objective legal standard.
The suspicion must be based on objective facts that would cause a reasonable person to suspect an offence has been committed.
— Castorina v Chief Constable of Surrey (1996)
— O’Hara v UK (2001)
It’s not enough for the constable to merely say they suspect something — they must have a verifiable basis.
Here are common examples where police wrongly claim to have reasonable grounds, and how you can challenge them:
Claimed grounds: “You could be conducting hostile reconnaissance.”
Reality: Filming from a public place is not a crime.
📢 Challenge:
“There is no law against filming in public. Under Tariq v UK and Wood v Commissioner, filming without interference is not suspicious in itself. What specific offence do you suspect me of? What fact gives you that suspicion?”
Claimed grounds: Behaviour suggests intent to commit theft or trespass.
Reality: Nervousness is not sufficient for arrest.
📢 Challenge:
“Looking around or feeling nervous in front of police is not grounds for arrest. Do you have a report of a crime or actual evidence linking me to one?”
Claimed grounds: Public concern justifies suspicion.
Reality: A complaint does not equal a criminal offence or reasonable suspicion.
📢 Challenge:
“A complaint doesn’t create grounds for arrest unless you have evidence I’ve committed an offence. What crime do you suspect, and how is it necessary to arrest me?”
Claimed grounds: Lack of cooperation = suspicion.
Reality: Silence or refusal to ID yourself is not an offence (unless under a specific legal duty, e.g., Section 50 of the Police Reform Act in anti-social behaviour cases).
📢 Challenge:
“I am not legally required to provide ID unless under specific legislation. Silence is not a crime. You must justify suspicion with facts, not my refusal to waive my rights.”
Courts often overturn arrests where:
“Suspicion must be based on objective, verifiable facts — not hunches, generalisations, or personal feelings.”
Would you like this laid out in a “Challenge Card” PDF showing examples of unlawful arrest justifications and how to respond calmly in real time?
■ CHALLENGE CARD – UNLAWFUL ARREST (UK)
■ Legal Standard: ‘Reasonable suspicion’ must be based on objective facts – not hunches or
feelings. Relevant Law: Section 24 of PACE 1984 + Case Law (O’Hara v UK, Castorina v Surrey).
Common Police Claims You Can Challenge:
PLEASE give me a response for the police should they try to use ‘trespass’ on ‘private land’ when a person is on ‘publicly accessible’ land
Certainly. If the police attempt to assert “trespass” on land that is publicly accessible (e.g., a public footpath, park, or land that the public is customarily allowed to enter), here is a calm and lawful response you can use:
“Officer, I am exercising my right to access publicly accessible land. Trespass is a civil matter between the landowner and an individual, not a criminal one, unless there is evidence of criminal intent or specific statutory breach. If this land is open to the public, then I have a lawful right to be here. Unless you can provide the specific statute I am breaching, I do not consent to being moved or detained.”
If they press further or threaten action, you may add:
“I respectfully decline to comply unless and until you clarify the lawful grounds for your request, with reference to the specific law and evidence of any wrongdoing on my part. I am not creating a disturbance, damaging property, or refusing a lawful order based on criminal law.”
