To think the Police attitude to this is outrageous

[badlydrawnperson]

The Police are "trialling" facial recognition snooping. A man who decided he didn't want to participate in their trial was fined £90 for a "public order offence".

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000501m/click-short-edition-facial-recognition

Absolutely outrageous. There's a (good) reason San Francisco has just banned this technology.

That’s incredible and thank you for sharing.

Goes against the whole “innocent until proven guilty” ethos. The man had done nothing wrong and committed no crime; to be fined for refusal is extraordinary.

This country works on “policing by consent” - this completely breaks the Peel principles of policing

YABU to suggest the man was fined for declining to participate in the trial.

YABU to say it is absolutely outrageous that he was fined £90 when he got aggressive with Police and told an officer to "piss off".

YANBU to be concerned about the introduction of this technology.

ShatnersWig

I’m not sure how I would react to be honest, I’m not saying that kind of language is EVER justified or allowed against our officers. But this is an infringement of liberty and a disgraceful thing to foist on people.

OK he told the Police to piss off - but they had zero (justifiable) right to stop him.

Now I thought it was odd and shatners comment makes it all clear. You don’t get fined for public order for failing to take part in an identification procedure. You get fined for behaviour that causes a fear of violence, harassment alarm or distress. If he got aggressive and swore at me I’d fine him too. If he doesn’t want to take part he just says no.

As reported by the BBC, the tech the Police are using has a proven problem recognising the faces of BME people, too.

@GinDaddy I don't disagree with you. BUT the OP makes out that he was fined for "declining to participate" which isn't the case at all. Selective choice of facts and words. He was fined for being aggressive and telling a Police officer to piss off. Rightly.

@Karigan195

But to me this is bear baiting from the police. You tell people that they’re going to have their liberties infringed, and expect people to all go “oh that’s a bit unreasonable, I’ll lodge a complaint with my local constabulary and MP”.

The chap was out of order and deserved to be fined, but that’s convenient for the police and some readers here, because we can then focus on the little man getting angry rather than the ludicrously invasive unannounced policy from a police force that’s gradually forgetting what policing by consent actually means

@badlydrawnperson Then why didn't you make your posting solely about the technology and civil liberties? Which I'd back you on. Why choose to misconstrue the facts to suggest something that isn't true? You weaken your argument by focusing on the inaccurate aspect.

If he doesn’t want to take part he just says no.

He didn't want to take part so he covered his face. But the Police stopped him and demanded ID and insisted on photographing him. Of course he shouldn't have sworn, but they were way out of order.

@Shatnerswig I apologise for not doing it properly, I'll try to do a better job next time.

Rubbish. You can repeatedly and calmly say no without becoming aggressive and sweary. Imagine if every teacher, police officer, traffic warden etc became aggressive and sweary every time they were baited. You’d soon be on their case wouldn’t you.

I’ve been baited by an officer personally. Still didn’t find it necessary to swear at him despite him being an arrogant twat who was totally unreasonable. I reserved the name calling for after in the privacy of my own home 😂

@Badly The officers were NOT out of order. They were just doing the job they had been asked to by their superiors. They do not deserve to be treated aggressively and sworn at. Just the same as in any other job.

There are different issues here.

1. Were the officers out of order? No, following instructions.
2. Are there civil liberties issues here? Yes, quite probably.
3. Was this chap's behaviour acceptable. No.

No- they were out of order. There is no current law forbidding face covering in UK streets, and Police have no authority to stop you for covering your face.

As for how aggressive the chap was - I wasn't there - the footage describes him saying he told the copper to piss off, at which point he appears to have been very aggressively surrounded by several officers and photographed. Whilst I don't advocate swearing at the Police, he was hardly a threat.

Just following orders?

@Badly So, what you think these PCs just went out on the streets with these cameras of their own volition, not having been told to do so by someone higher up the chain?

@PigletJohn

I ignored that so I didn't get accused of Godwins :). I have already been told off for posting in a crap way. I don't want any trouble.

Were the officers out of order? No, following instructions - that’s always been an excuse used by those that would deprive us of our liberty

Outrageous policing. Winding him up till he "swore" (piss off is hardly outrageous or threatening) and then slapping a fine on him.

It's completely wrong to be doing this with no proper framework for how data is used/stored, quite apart from the total lack of any lawful right to compel face coverings to be removed like this. Really really dodgy.

And so called “public order”” offences are just an excuse for the powers that be to criminalise anyone that sticks in their craw

@MrsBertBibby How do you know there is no proper framework on how the date is used/stored?

@DontTread But that's a simple fact. They will just have been following instructions. The fault is not with the officers carrying out their role but those higher up the chain.

He covered his face, was told to uncover it. Then he told the Police he didn't want to be photographed so a Police Officer took a photograph. I'd be annoyed about that too.

@Shatners - Ok I was starting to think you had a point, but now this. Of course coppers take orders from senior coppers, that's how it works.

They have some leeway though, and there are rules about what they can and can't do.

I seriously doubt the senior coppers said "if you see someone covering their face, demand they stop". I will resist making an obvious observation - but you can probably imagine it.

So I think they made a serious error of judgement and overstepped the boundaries of the law.

I have personally witnessed coppers being sworn at in a highly. aggressive way and they dealt with it in a professional manner without issuing a fine - of course once the swearing happens, the option to fine is there, but they could have let him on his way, and I am fairly sure that wouldn't have been against their orders from above.

But that's a simple fact. They will just have been following instructions. The fault is not with the officers carrying out their role but those higher up the chain. oh that’s all right then, he should have let his personal liberty be infringed on the basis the police were just doing their jobs/following orders. People like you will turn this country into a police state

There may have been a Section 60AA in place. It’s not clear from the video.