>> The press (many, not all) have fallen far short of the standards expected to retain
>> public trust.
At the moment, the politicians are setting a very low bar for standards. Journalists are amateurs.
>>Reporting of events is frequently skewed to meet preconceived conclusions.
Bias is everywhere, always. Even I am biased, no matter how hard I try to be objective. That's why we need rules and why it's important they are observed.
>>It is understandable
>> that the police first remove them from the scene, and then properly confirm their credentials
>> and intentions.
Which is very open to abuse, and I believe that is what we have just seen.
"The police have five main powers of arrest. These are to:
- arrest, without a warrant, anyone they suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offence (and they believe that an arrest is necessary)
- execute arrest warrants issued by the court
- arrest those who fail to answer or breach their bail conditions and those who breach the conditions of a Police Caution
- arrest those who breach a court order or injunction
- arrest those they suspect have ‘breached the peace’ or are threatening to do so."
It sounds as if none of these applied, because if it did then the arrests would not have been judged to be illegal.
A speculative arrest is in the vast majority of cases be an illegal one (is my non-expert instinct).
Of course, you have nothing to fear of you haven't done anything wrong:)
The police can ask me any questions they want, but if they cart me off without good reason I will not pretend it's OK.
|
