正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

🚨POLICE ENFORCE SECTION 14 WITHOUT REASONABLE OR PROPORTIONATE GROUNDS - BREACHING SECTION 17🚨 This is the second time in less than one week the Police have done this to me. Metropolitan Police sort your minions out. Anyone (whether a journalist or a member of the public) has the legal...

MartinGauci's profile picture

Martin Gauci

9,503 subscribers

28,412 次观看 • 9 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

健康养生新闻政治
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

German Police Crack Down on Marxist-Muslim Violence in Berlin This is the full "super kick" clip of German police beautifully regaining control of this violent mob. A little bit of a breakdown. Berlin enforces the law as violent demonstrations break the law. Under Germany’s Assembly Act (Versammlungsgesetz), authorities may restrict or dissolve a protest if it endangers public order or safety. Section 15 of the Versammlungsgesetz explicitly authorizes police to prohibit or dissolve an assembly when “the public security or order is directly endangered.” This includes demonstrations that escalate into intimidation. Chants or symbols that glorify violence, promote extremist ideologies, or call for the destruction of another state or people fall outside constitutional protection. In Berlin, police operate under the General Security and Order Act (ASOG Berlin), which grants officers the authority to: • disperse unlawful gatherings • remove participants who refuse to comply • use proportionate force to restore public order The German police are great at this. The “Free Palestine” demonstrations in Berlin have repeatedly crossed from protest into Marxist-Islamist street violence, particularly in neighborhoods like Neukölln and Mitte. German authorities have documented patterns including: • blocking streets and emergency access • harassment of bystanders • intimidation of Jewish residents • slogans linked to banned or extremist organizations Germany’s constitutional order is shaped by history. The state has a special legal responsibility to protect Jewish life, prevent antisemitic agitation, and stop extremist movements from using public space as a pressure weapon. Because, you know, the Holocaust. This is why a functioning country enforces its laws instead of surrendering its streets to ideological hate mobs.
0:24

German Police Crack Down on Marxist-Muslim Violence in Berlin This is the full "super kick" clip of German police beautifully regaining control of this violent mob. A little bit of a breakdown. Berlin enforces the law as violent demonstrations break the law. Under Germany’s Assembly Act (Versammlungsgesetz), authorities may restrict or dissolve a protest if it endangers public order or safety. Section 15 of the Versammlungsgesetz explicitly authorizes police to prohibit or dissolve an assembly when “the public security or order is directly endangered.” This includes demonstrations that escalate into intimidation. Chants or symbols that glorify violence, promote extremist ideologies, or call for the destruction of another state or people fall outside constitutional protection. In Berlin, police operate under the General Security and Order Act (ASOG Berlin), which grants officers the authority to: • disperse unlawful gatherings • remove participants who refuse to comply • use proportionate force to restore public order The German police are great at this. The “Free Palestine” demonstrations in Berlin have repeatedly crossed from protest into Marxist-Islamist street violence, particularly in neighborhoods like Neukölln and Mitte. German authorities have documented patterns including: • blocking streets and emergency access • harassment of bystanders • intimidation of Jewish residents • slogans linked to banned or extremist organizations Germany’s constitutional order is shaped by history. The state has a special legal responsibility to protect Jewish life, prevent antisemitic agitation, and stop extremist movements from using public space as a pressure weapon. Because, you know, the Holocaust. This is why a functioning country enforces its laws instead of surrendering its streets to ideological hate mobs.

Shirion Collective

15,504 次观看 • 5 个月前

🚨 THE PUBLIC HAS HAD ENOUGH — POLICE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW LIKE EVERYONE ELSE Across the UK, more and more officers are refusing to show their warrant cards when asked — and the public is rightly pushing back. Let’s be absolutely clear: If an officer is not in uniform, they MUST show their warrant card. If they are in uniform, they SHOULD show it when asked — it’s not optional “courtesy.” It’s professional obligation. When exercising stop-and-search powers, they MUST identify themselves properly, including name or number and station. This isn’t about being “anti-police.” This is about the rule of law — the same law the police claim to uphold. A badge, a uniform, a vest — none of these replace lawful identification. And in a time when trust in policing is collapsing, refusing to identify yourself only fuels suspicion. The public has EVERY right to: • Ask for identification • Record the interaction • Refuse compliance until the officer identifies themselves • File formal complaints if they don’t No one in this country — not even the police — is above accountability. If officers want the respect of the public, then they must follow the law to the letter. Because the rule of law either protects all of us — or it protects none of us. @MartinGauci
2:13

🚨 THE PUBLIC HAS HAD ENOUGH — POLICE MUST FOLLOW THE LAW LIKE EVERYONE ELSE Across the UK, more and more officers are refusing to show their warrant cards when asked — and the public is rightly pushing back. Let’s be absolutely clear: If an officer is not in uniform, they MUST show their warrant card. If they are in uniform, they SHOULD show it when asked — it’s not optional “courtesy.” It’s professional obligation. When exercising stop-and-search powers, they MUST identify themselves properly, including name or number and station. This isn’t about being “anti-police.” This is about the rule of law — the same law the police claim to uphold. A badge, a uniform, a vest — none of these replace lawful identification. And in a time when trust in policing is collapsing, refusing to identify yourself only fuels suspicion. The public has EVERY right to: • Ask for identification • Record the interaction • Refuse compliance until the officer identifies themselves • File formal complaints if they don’t No one in this country — not even the police — is above accountability. If officers want the respect of the public, then they must follow the law to the letter. Because the rule of law either protects all of us — or it protects none of us. @MartinGauci

Jim Ferguson

206,918 次观看 • 7 个月前

"Is he police or abuser goon?" 😡 The government must strictly focus on training the police to behave properly with people. Abusing common people is not law and order. It is a misuse of power.
0:42

"Is he police or abuser goon?" 😡 The government must strictly focus on training the police to behave properly with people. Abusing common people is not law and order. It is a misuse of power.

Mission Ambedkar

11,839 次观看 • 3 个月前

Public protests are a form of free speech. We are not expected to agree with the messaging of every public protest (I often hate them). But, boil it down and we have a simple choice: 1. Let public protests take place ... and in some cases put up with some minor inconvenience. If things get unruly, well ... that's why we have a police force. 2. Use state power to say 'yes to this protest' but 'no to that protest' ... and then use state violence to physically stop all the illegal protests. This is what is known as a 'police state.' The Libertarian Party supports the adoption of a US style First Amendment in our state and federal constitutions: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.' Libertarian Party NSW (formerly Liberal Democrats) Free Speech Union of Australia
5:09

Public protests are a form of free speech. We are not expected to agree with the messaging of every public protest (I often hate them). But, boil it down and we have a simple choice: 1. Let public protests take place ... and in some cases put up with some minor inconvenience. If things get unruly, well ... that's why we have a police force. 2. Use state power to say 'yes to this protest' but 'no to that protest' ... and then use state violence to physically stop all the illegal protests. This is what is known as a 'police state.' The Libertarian Party supports the adoption of a US style First Amendment in our state and federal constitutions: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.' Libertarian Party NSW (formerly Liberal Democrats) Free Speech Union of Australia

John Ruddick MLC

61,618 次观看 • 11 个月前

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.
6:03

He’s filming everyone at the market, but the police say there’s nothing they can do. Whose side are you on? A male videographer (the "auditor"), who is wearing a disguise for anonymity, is filming at an outdoor market. He is confronted by a market organizer (Kaylee Dolan) regarding his filming of vendors and attendees. A law enforcement officer arrives to mediate the dispute. ​The organizer expresses concern that the videographer is making vendors and patrons uncomfortable and asks him to stop or leave. The videographer asserts his right to film in a public area, refusing to comply with her request. ​The responding officer confirms that the videographer is in a public space where he has a legal right to record. The officer acknowledges the organizer's frustration but explains that, as no crime is being committed, he cannot compel the man to stop filming or force him to leave. ​The tension arises from the intersection of constitutional rights and personal expectations of privacy. ​Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals generally have a protected right to film in public spaces (such as sidewalks, public parks, and plazas). This includes the right to film government officials and police officers performing their duties, as well as things that are plainly visible from those public areas. ​In general, there is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a public space. If something can be seen by the naked eye from a location where a person is legally permitted to be, it is typically legal to photograph or record it. ​While filming is a protected activity, it is not absolute. If filming crosses the line into harassment, stalking, or disorderly conduct—or if it is done to "clandestinely" capture private or intimate areas, it can become illegal. In this specific interaction, the officer determined that the videographer’s actions did not meet the legal threshold for a crime, which is why he could not intervene. ​If the market were held on private property rather than public land, the owners or organizers would have the right to set rules regarding photography or to ask people to leave. If someone refuses to leave private property after being asked, they can be cited for trespassing. The officer's inability to remove the videographer suggests that the location was either public property or that the organizer lacked the legal authority to exclude him from that specific area.

✨️Serenitee♡Sam✨️

42,518 次观看 • 1 个月前

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!
0:31

The Singaporean has been arrested after he being defrauded? Why is the NDC Regional Chairman Ashie Moore still free? I know this turn of event follows For The Records exposé on this issue Let’s revisit what the law says from the Political Party Act 2000 (Act 574) PART III-FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES Section 23: Contribution by Citizens. Only a citizen may contribute in cash or in kind to the funds of a political party. A firm, partnership, or enterprise owned by a citizen or a company registered under the laws of the Republic at least seventy-five percent of whose capital is owned by a citizen is for the purposes of this Act a citizen. Section 24: No Contribution by Non-Citizens. A non-citizen shall not directly or indirectly make a contribution or donation or loan whether in cash or in kind to the funds held by or for the benefit of a political party and no political party or person acting for or on behalf of a political party shall demand or accept a contribution donation or loan from a non-citizen. Section 25: Contraventions of this Part. Where any person contravenes section 23 or 24, in addition to any penalty that may be imposed under this Act, any amount whether in cash or in kind paid in contravention of the section shall be forfeited to the State and the amount shall be recovered from the political party as debt owed to the State. The political party or person in whose custody the amount is for the time being held shall pay it to the State. A non-citizen found guilty of contravention of section 24 shall be deemed to be a prohibited immigrant and liable to deportation under the Aliens Act, 1963 (Act 160). The provisions of sections 23 and 24 do not preclude a goverment of any country or a nongovernmental organization from providing assistance in cash or in kind to the Commission for use by the Commission for the collective benefit of registered political parties. The law is clear on this and we expect the NDC Chairman to refund the money sponsored by Toh You Kang into their campaign to the state. Total Abuse of Power! Scam Aban!

For The Records

58,828 次观看 • 11 个月前

More two-tier policing, this time from Birmingham. A man questions the presence pro-Palestinians on Remembrance Sunday & is arrested by the police under a Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Intentionally causing harassment, alarm, or distress to someone. A man asks what are they going to do about being called Nazis & fascists. The filmer describes the police as "scumbags" & is told to take his poppy off.
4:53

More two-tier policing, this time from Birmingham. A man questions the presence pro-Palestinians on Remembrance Sunday & is arrested by the police under a Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. Intentionally causing harassment, alarm, or distress to someone. A man asks what are they going to do about being called Nazis & fascists. The filmer describes the police as "scumbags" & is told to take his poppy off.

David Atherton

739,280 次观看 • 1 年前

Citizen journalist told by police that he has to move to the other side of the protest and must have a press pass to go where he wants. Is this correct, or is it a jumped up copper throwing his weight about?
1:01

Citizen journalist told by police that he has to move to the other side of the protest and must have a press pass to go where he wants. Is this correct, or is it a jumped up copper throwing his weight about?

Patriotic 🇬🇧 Nation 🟣

69,465 次观看 • 10 个月前

The law is clear, SAPS members may not own or operate taxis. There are no exceptions. This is not a small administrative issue. SAPS is expected to police taxi violence, extortion, organised crime and related disputes. A police officer cannot have a financial stake in the very industry they are meant to enforce the law against. I have written to the National Commissioner requesting urgent action. Where these allegations are proven, members must not only be disciplined and dismissed, criminal cases must be opened. They must be arrested, charged and, where the evidence supports it, convicted. Public trust in policing depends on integrity, accountability and consequences. IC
0:40

The law is clear, SAPS members may not own or operate taxis. There are no exceptions. This is not a small administrative issue. SAPS is expected to police taxi violence, extortion, organised crime and related disputes. A police officer cannot have a financial stake in the very industry they are meant to enforce the law against. I have written to the National Commissioner requesting urgent action. Where these allegations are proven, members must not only be disciplined and dismissed, criminal cases must be opened. They must be arrested, charged and, where the evidence supports it, convicted. Public trust in policing depends on integrity, accountability and consequences. IC

Ian Cameron

22,480 次观看 • 1 个月前

Watch this video. This is just sad!! I'm deeply concerned about the recent developments in Ghana, and I urge the Ghana Police Service (Ghana Police Service) to fulfill their duties impartially and ensure that the perpetrators of vandalism are held accountable. As a concerned citizen and member of the New Patriotic Party, I believe that destruction of property under the guise of protest is unacceptable and must be condemned. The Ghana Police Service has assured the public of their commitment to maintaining law and order during protests. I implore them to take swift action and bring the culprits to justice. The youth of the New Patriotic Party will not tolerate chaos on our streets, and we expect the police to uphold their mandate to protect citizens and property. The Ghana Police Service is constitutionally mandated to maintain law and order, and it's crucial they remain impartial and committed to serving the public interest. We must work together to ensure peace and stability on our streets.
0:22

Watch this video. This is just sad!! I'm deeply concerned about the recent developments in Ghana, and I urge the Ghana Police Service (Ghana Police Service) to fulfill their duties impartially and ensure that the perpetrators of vandalism are held accountable. As a concerned citizen and member of the New Patriotic Party, I believe that destruction of property under the guise of protest is unacceptable and must be condemned. The Ghana Police Service has assured the public of their commitment to maintaining law and order during protests. I implore them to take swift action and bring the culprits to justice. The youth of the New Patriotic Party will not tolerate chaos on our streets, and we expect the police to uphold their mandate to protect citizens and property. The Ghana Police Service is constitutionally mandated to maintain law and order, and it's crucial they remain impartial and committed to serving the public interest. We must work together to ensure peace and stability on our streets.

Mr Irish

199,988 次观看 • 1 年前

Police management in Gauteng has responded to viral social media footage allegedly showing a police officer in full uniform soliciting a bribe from a member of the public. Authorities confirmed the officer has been identified and a criminal case of corruption has been opened for immediate investigation by the Provincial Anti-Corruption Unit. An internal departmental disciplinary process has also been instituted. Gauteng Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Tommy Mthombeni strongly condemned the alleged conduct, saying police members are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. He warned that any officer found guilty of corruption or abusing public trust will face serious consequences. SAPS reiterated its zero-tolerance stance on corruption, stressing that accepting or soliciting bribes is a criminal offence and a direct violation of the SAPS Code of Conduct. Members of the public have been urged not to offer bribes and to report any incidents of corruption, extortion or misconduct involving police officials through official complaint channels or to Independent Police Investigative Directorate. This is the VIDEO…
1:48

Police management in Gauteng has responded to viral social media footage allegedly showing a police officer in full uniform soliciting a bribe from a member of the public. Authorities confirmed the officer has been identified and a criminal case of corruption has been opened for immediate investigation by the Provincial Anti-Corruption Unit. An internal departmental disciplinary process has also been instituted. Gauteng Provincial Commissioner Lieutenant General Tommy Mthombeni strongly condemned the alleged conduct, saying police members are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. He warned that any officer found guilty of corruption or abusing public trust will face serious consequences. SAPS reiterated its zero-tolerance stance on corruption, stressing that accepting or soliciting bribes is a criminal offence and a direct violation of the SAPS Code of Conduct. Members of the public have been urged not to offer bribes and to report any incidents of corruption, extortion or misconduct involving police officials through official complaint channels or to Independent Police Investigative Directorate. This is the VIDEO…

Yusuf Abramjee

34,574 次观看 • 2 个月前

Governors Who Misuse State Police Will Face Federal Intervention - Adaramodu If it is perceived that a governor is using state police to pursue a partisan, religious, or sectional agenda, the federal police can step in. The law provides that the federal police can take over the roles and functions of a state police force if it is found to be operating outside its constitutional mandate. These are important safeguards designed to prevent anyone from using state police for personal or political interests. Senator Yemi, Adaramodu, Chairman, Senate Committee On Media And Public Affairs
3:07

Governors Who Misuse State Police Will Face Federal Intervention - Adaramodu If it is perceived that a governor is using state police to pursue a partisan, religious, or sectional agenda, the federal police can step in. The law provides that the federal police can take over the roles and functions of a state police force if it is found to be operating outside its constitutional mandate. These are important safeguards designed to prevent anyone from using state police for personal or political interests. Senator Yemi, Adaramodu, Chairman, Senate Committee On Media And Public Affairs

ARISE NEWS

38,189 次观看 • 13 天前

In Chesterfield Derbyshire Police police arrested Ay Audits for a breach of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, for failing to comply with a police-imposed condition on a public assembly. It seems charlatan Amelia Jenne of Channel 4 News, after her fake expose on AY has painted a target on him.
0:20

In Chesterfield Derbyshire Police police arrested Ay Audits for a breach of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986, for failing to comply with a police-imposed condition on a public assembly. It seems charlatan Amelia Jenne of Channel 4 News, after her fake expose on AY has painted a target on him.

David Atherton

15,002 次观看 • 7 个月前

From this angle it certainly appears as though the Ottawa Police officer who threatened to "make me move on" from filming in public is taking direction from the masked leader of this march Do the police work for masked thugs or the public? Or is this about me?
0:35

From this angle it certainly appears as though the Ottawa Police officer who threatened to "make me move on" from filming in public is taking direction from the masked leader of this march Do the police work for masked thugs or the public? Or is this about me?

Dacey Media

26,123 次观看 • 1 年前

🇬🇧 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: THE BATTLE FOR BRITANNIA HOTEL 🇬🇧 They Can’t Silence You: Protesters Must Know Their Rights as Police Roll Out Unconventional Tactics to Protect Illegal Migrants. London, Canary Wharf. A 28-day dispersal order has been slapped on protesters outside the Britannia Hotel, where dozens of young, fighting-age men illegally ferried into our country have been put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation. The reason? They say your presence causes them “alarm and distress.” Here’s what they won’t tell you: you have rights. And those rights don’t get suspended just because some migrants feel uncomfortable. The Real Agenda Behind the Dispersal Order This is not about “safety.” This is about silencing dissent. It’s about protecting a government policy that has deliberately imported chaos while calling it compassion. This 28-day “dispersal zone” isn’t even clearly legal. The law under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 only allows 48-hour dispersal powers at a time. To extend this, police must: * Re-authorise it every 48 hours, * Show credible risk of ongoing harm or intimidation. * Avoid blocking lawful protests and access to homes, medical appointments, or workplaces. If none of this has been done, the entire enforcement is open to legal challenge. What You’re Legally Allowed to Do Every protester should remember the following: You have the right to peaceful protest under Article 11 of the Human Rights Act (freedom of assembly). You can record the police and their conduct. If stopped under a dispersal order, ask: * “Who authorised this?” * “Where is the documentation?” * “Is this a public space?” * “Am I under arrest or free to go?” Do not identify yourself unless legally required. They must have a valid reason to demand ID. You may challenge any fines or arrests in court if the dispersal order was not properly issued or proportionate. Unconventional Police Tactics Being Used We are seeing disturbing tactics across the country: “Rolling Dispersal Orders” renewed every 48 hours, in what amounts to a legal sleight of hand. Exaggerated language, “harassment and distress” used to describe legal protest. Meanwhile, 12-year-old British girls get harassed in parks by the very same men housed inside these hotels, no dispersal orders for them. Covert filming and facial recognition tech is being deployed on peaceful demonstrators. Police liaison officers posing as friendly contacts, collecting names, affiliations, and protest plans. This is psychological warfare masquerading as public safety. The Loopholes THEY Use (and How to Expose Them) The police may try to say the hotel is “private property” and protests “interfere with business” but this only applies within the building, not the pavement, park, or public road outside. They may cite “alarm and distress” but case law (e.g., Redmond-Bate v DPP) says people being offended is not enough to criminalise free speech. If it’s a PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order) it must: * Be properly consulted on, * Be published with clear signage, * Include a right of appeal in the Magistrates’ Court. If none of that has happened, it’s unenforceable. Message to the British Public Enough. The British people are being pushed out of their own country told to keep quiet, go home, and let the government flood every town with unvetted men who show no loyalty, no gratitude, and no intention to integrate. You have every right to say "NO." You have every right to stand shoulder to shoulder and protect your neighbourhood, your women, your country. Don’t be intimidated by blue lights and buzzwords. The law still belongs to the people for now. Stand Stong 🇬🇧 Stand United
0:49

🇬🇧 KNOW YOUR RIGHTS: THE BATTLE FOR BRITANNIA HOTEL 🇬🇧 They Can’t Silence You: Protesters Must Know Their Rights as Police Roll Out Unconventional Tactics to Protect Illegal Migrants. London, Canary Wharf. A 28-day dispersal order has been slapped on protesters outside the Britannia Hotel, where dozens of young, fighting-age men illegally ferried into our country have been put up in taxpayer-funded accommodation. The reason? They say your presence causes them “alarm and distress.” Here’s what they won’t tell you: you have rights. And those rights don’t get suspended just because some migrants feel uncomfortable. The Real Agenda Behind the Dispersal Order This is not about “safety.” This is about silencing dissent. It’s about protecting a government policy that has deliberately imported chaos while calling it compassion. This 28-day “dispersal zone” isn’t even clearly legal. The law under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 only allows 48-hour dispersal powers at a time. To extend this, police must: * Re-authorise it every 48 hours, * Show credible risk of ongoing harm or intimidation. * Avoid blocking lawful protests and access to homes, medical appointments, or workplaces. If none of this has been done, the entire enforcement is open to legal challenge. What You’re Legally Allowed to Do Every protester should remember the following: You have the right to peaceful protest under Article 11 of the Human Rights Act (freedom of assembly). You can record the police and their conduct. If stopped under a dispersal order, ask: * “Who authorised this?” * “Where is the documentation?” * “Is this a public space?” * “Am I under arrest or free to go?” Do not identify yourself unless legally required. They must have a valid reason to demand ID. You may challenge any fines or arrests in court if the dispersal order was not properly issued or proportionate. Unconventional Police Tactics Being Used We are seeing disturbing tactics across the country: “Rolling Dispersal Orders” renewed every 48 hours, in what amounts to a legal sleight of hand. Exaggerated language, “harassment and distress” used to describe legal protest. Meanwhile, 12-year-old British girls get harassed in parks by the very same men housed inside these hotels, no dispersal orders for them. Covert filming and facial recognition tech is being deployed on peaceful demonstrators. Police liaison officers posing as friendly contacts, collecting names, affiliations, and protest plans. This is psychological warfare masquerading as public safety. The Loopholes THEY Use (and How to Expose Them) The police may try to say the hotel is “private property” and protests “interfere with business” but this only applies within the building, not the pavement, park, or public road outside. They may cite “alarm and distress” but case law (e.g., Redmond-Bate v DPP) says people being offended is not enough to criminalise free speech. If it’s a PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order) it must: * Be properly consulted on, * Be published with clear signage, * Include a right of appeal in the Magistrates’ Court. If none of that has happened, it’s unenforceable. Message to the British Public Enough. The British people are being pushed out of their own country told to keep quiet, go home, and let the government flood every town with unvetted men who show no loyalty, no gratitude, and no intention to integrate. You have every right to say "NO." You have every right to stand shoulder to shoulder and protect your neighbourhood, your women, your country. Don’t be intimidated by blue lights and buzzwords. The law still belongs to the people for now. Stand Stong 🇬🇧 Stand United

MarXmeN

18,483 次观看 • 11 个月前

Latur, Maharashtra Police ! Are we waiting for people to die at the hands of such Police Officers ? When are we going to say enough is enough ? The role of the traffic police is to regulate traffic, enforce road safety, and issue penalties (challans) for violations. They do not have the authority to inflict physical punishment on citizens. Any act of physical violence by an officer is a violation of the law and human rights. Right to Due Process: If a rider fails to stop, the legal recourse for the police is to note the vehicle's registration number, track the owner, and issue a challan or summon the individual to court.
0:51

Latur, Maharashtra Police ! Are we waiting for people to die at the hands of such Police Officers ? When are we going to say enough is enough ? The role of the traffic police is to regulate traffic, enforce road safety, and issue penalties (challans) for violations. They do not have the authority to inflict physical punishment on citizens. Any act of physical violence by an officer is a violation of the law and human rights. Right to Due Process: If a rider fails to stop, the legal recourse for the police is to note the vehicle's registration number, track the owner, and issue a challan or summon the individual to court.

copwatchbharat

757,274 次观看 • 29 天前

The police took my content, so the police became the only content I have of the trip.😂 I’m 100% certain this situation was not handled correctly by the yellow vest baton holders. Police aren’t allowed to seize property like they did. Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) says these police would’ve needed a search warrant or consent from me. Under Section 22(4) of PACE, police cannot retain your physical property for evidence if taking a photograph or making a digital copy would be sufficient for the investigation. “An officer cannot pop open your camera on the sidewalk and confiscate the memory card under this power.” (That’s exactly what they did) I was pushed by pro Palestine guys and then had my property seized, what the actual bloody hell! 😂 They don’t even follow or know their own rules. What kind of police force is this? It’s a free for all for them…
1:14

The police took my content, so the police became the only content I have of the trip.😂 I’m 100% certain this situation was not handled correctly by the yellow vest baton holders. Police aren’t allowed to seize property like they did. Section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) says these police would’ve needed a search warrant or consent from me. Under Section 22(4) of PACE, police cannot retain your physical property for evidence if taking a photograph or making a digital copy would be sufficient for the investigation. “An officer cannot pop open your camera on the sidewalk and confiscate the memory card under this power.” (That’s exactly what they did) I was pushed by pro Palestine guys and then had my property seized, what the actual bloody hell! 😂 They don’t even follow or know their own rules. What kind of police force is this? It’s a free for all for them…

Angela Rose

363,269 次观看 • 1 个月前

VIOLATION OF THE SAPS CODE OF CONDUCT * NO visible name tags * Smoking in public in uniform * Not wearing a headrest in public * Use of foul language. Refrain from provoking officers with the intent of taking videos when being reprimanded. According to criminal procedure Act 51 of 1977, Section 22 of the Act allows for warrantless searches under specific circumstances: Consent: When the person concerned consents to the search. Urgency: When a police official reasonably believes a warrant would be issued but that the delay in obtaining it would hinder the search's purpose. Reasonable Grounds: If a police official reasonably suspects an article is on premises and that it is connected with an offense, they can enter to search.
0:50

VIOLATION OF THE SAPS CODE OF CONDUCT * NO visible name tags * Smoking in public in uniform * Not wearing a headrest in public * Use of foul language. Refrain from provoking officers with the intent of taking videos when being reprimanded. According to criminal procedure Act 51 of 1977, Section 22 of the Act allows for warrantless searches under specific circumstances: Consent: When the person concerned consents to the search. Urgency: When a police official reasonably believes a warrant would be issued but that the delay in obtaining it would hinder the search's purpose. Reasonable Grounds: If a police official reasonably suspects an article is on premises and that it is connected with an offense, they can enter to search.

˗ˏˋ CrimeInSA ˊˎ˗

223,203 次观看 • 1 年前

[KWAZULU-NATAL PROTESTERS TO REFRAIN FROM CRIMINALITY] Police in KwaZulu-Natal are reminding those who stage protests, plan, organise and or participate in marches that they must do so within the perimeters of the law. Police have manned several marches in Durban and other parts of the province which are mainly targeted on foreign nationals. There are also video clips circulating on social media showing acts of lawlessness during certain marches. As much as it is a constitutional right to march, the rights of those marching must never infringe the rights of those who are not. No civilian has the right to search a fellow civilian and request or demand any form of identification. Only law enforcement officers are authorised to stop, search, and request individuals to produce documentations that permit them to be in the country. Police have also noted that several shops, owned by both South Africans and foreign nationals, have remained closed following threats of violence from certain individuals who were part of a march. Police wish to remind residents that intimidation can constitute a criminal offence and people must refrain from threatening others. Assaulting another person, whether a foreign national or not, is a criminal offence and police will not standby and watch when the law is being broken. Public Order Police officers will continue to monitor marches, ensuring that the is stability, law and order. The management of police in KwaZulu-Natal will have a meeting with the organisers of the marches soon in order to have a common understanding and provide assistance and clarity where needed. It is illegal for a foreigner to be in the country without proper documentation, however, only mandated law enforcement officers can arrest undocumented foreign nationals and detain them pending deportation processes. Anyone who has information about illegal activities, whether committed by locals or foreign nationals, must tip-off the police so that the information can be operationalised. Doing the right things the wrong way, such as taking the law into someone’s hands, can lead to unintended consequences of being in conflict with the law.
1:19

[KWAZULU-NATAL PROTESTERS TO REFRAIN FROM CRIMINALITY] Police in KwaZulu-Natal are reminding those who stage protests, plan, organise and or participate in marches that they must do so within the perimeters of the law. Police have manned several marches in Durban and other parts of the province which are mainly targeted on foreign nationals. There are also video clips circulating on social media showing acts of lawlessness during certain marches. As much as it is a constitutional right to march, the rights of those marching must never infringe the rights of those who are not. No civilian has the right to search a fellow civilian and request or demand any form of identification. Only law enforcement officers are authorised to stop, search, and request individuals to produce documentations that permit them to be in the country. Police have also noted that several shops, owned by both South Africans and foreign nationals, have remained closed following threats of violence from certain individuals who were part of a march. Police wish to remind residents that intimidation can constitute a criminal offence and people must refrain from threatening others. Assaulting another person, whether a foreign national or not, is a criminal offence and police will not standby and watch when the law is being broken. Public Order Police officers will continue to monitor marches, ensuring that the is stability, law and order. The management of police in KwaZulu-Natal will have a meeting with the organisers of the marches soon in order to have a common understanding and provide assistance and clarity where needed. It is illegal for a foreigner to be in the country without proper documentation, however, only mandated law enforcement officers can arrest undocumented foreign nationals and detain them pending deportation processes. Anyone who has information about illegal activities, whether committed by locals or foreign nationals, must tip-off the police so that the information can be operationalised. Doing the right things the wrong way, such as taking the law into someone’s hands, can lead to unintended consequences of being in conflict with the law.

Justice, Crime Prevention and Security

12,190 次观看 • 2 个月前

IMPERSONATION OF A SAPS OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION An individual has been captured on video dancing with alcohol in hand while wearing official SAPS insignia, raising serious concerns about impersonation of a police officer, and misuse of state symbols. The incident allegedly took place over the weekend at a Pub in Mpumalanga. This conduct is a direct violation of SAPS regulations and may constitute a criminal offense. According to SAPS Dress Code Regulations and National Instruction 4 of 2014 (Wearing of Uniform and Insignia): "No person who is not a member of the Service may wear or use the official uniform, insignia or equipment of the SAPS in a manner that could reasonably be construed as impersonating a police" Section 68 of the SAPS Act prohibit impersonation of a police official, which can lead to criminal prosecution. This clearly undermines the integrity of law enforcement and public trust. SA Police Service 🇿🇦
0:35

IMPERSONATION OF A SAPS OFFICER UNDER INVESTIGATION An individual has been captured on video dancing with alcohol in hand while wearing official SAPS insignia, raising serious concerns about impersonation of a police officer, and misuse of state symbols. The incident allegedly took place over the weekend at a Pub in Mpumalanga. This conduct is a direct violation of SAPS regulations and may constitute a criminal offense. According to SAPS Dress Code Regulations and National Instruction 4 of 2014 (Wearing of Uniform and Insignia): "No person who is not a member of the Service may wear or use the official uniform, insignia or equipment of the SAPS in a manner that could reasonably be construed as impersonating a police" Section 68 of the SAPS Act prohibit impersonation of a police official, which can lead to criminal prosecution. This clearly undermines the integrity of law enforcement and public trust. SA Police Service 🇿🇦

˗ˏˋ CrimeInSA ˊˎ˗

462,899 次观看 • 1 年前