Friday, 6 November 2009

Winston Smith is busy

Dear all

As of now, any still or moving photography or images of police officers must show them wearing their correct shoulder numbers/markings and name badges if these areas of uniform are included within the shot.

If any of these items are missing the photography or images must not be used.

As a precaution, if you hold any photography or images that do not meet this instruction they should be culled from your libraries or other systems you may have for their storage.

If you are reprinting or updating any existing documents or materials, including moving images, the opportunity should be taken to check whether the photographs meet this instruction. If not, they should be changed.

If you work with any external suppliers you need to make them aware of this instruction.

Also, when putting any uniformed officers up for interview you should make sure that they have their shoulder numbers/markings and name badges in place.

Dick Fedorcio OBE
Director of Public Affairs
Metropolitan Police Service


John Steed said...

Way to go, stealing that image from Mr Broxted! OK in Norn Ireland the incredibly brave police (8 of 'em shat themselves against a smaller but armed patrol of CIRA) must be pixilated. All images are of plods backs. They are so fugly that it is a blessing.

sixtypoundsaweekcleaner said...

Do those pics of that spanking session I had with PC Bigalow of the Yard count?

Anonymous said...

Might be missing the point here, but this looks like an internal Met memo to tell anyone *within* the Met that if they're going to publish something, then anyone pictured should be dressed in accordance with regulations and therefore showing their numbers, badges etc.

And that as part of this policy they should clean up existing material to ensure it follows these rules.

After all the shit over numbers being hidden I'd have hoped they'd start to push this.

Now, if they were forcing this rule on other people it'd be bad. But within the Met itself? Where's the problem?? Surely this is a good thing?

Anonymous said...

the police-
the establishments private army!!

oh yea- and sting you cant sing you are shite!

Anonymous said...

It's an internal arse covering memo, obviously.

They might be able to censor themselves, but they can't censor the proles/protestors/whoever else may be there.

The spackers.

What a lot of soppy shit!

Sir Henry Morgan said...

Anon 00.31


They can't give us instructions - they are giving instructions to their own.

denverthen said...

Copy all files and then upload everything to YouTube. Just before send all data to the dumbass government Thought Police, as per their "request".

Fuck 'em. Utterly.

scunnert said...

Winston Smith indeed. Rewrite history and then deny it ever happened - we've got pictures to prove our officers always display their identifying tags. Oh aye.

banned said...

No mention of identifying officers in their own gallery and disciplining them for being improperly dressed ?

Mitch said...

How long before us "free" people have to wear ID numbers for easy recognition by CCTV?

Guthrum said...

It is a fact when studying History, if a regulation was introduced it is because the situation prevailing did not conform to the 'ideal'

Therefore it is safe to assume the Police have been deliberately concealing their ID, the fact they are now doing an airbrush Trotsky style is new low.

Plus it looks like you can get a gong for this type of public service.

Gendeau said...

But when the images are destroyed that means it is true that numbers were / are never concealed.

You lot need to improve your powers of doublethink, and learn to love Big Brother.

He who controls the past, controls the future.

He who controls the present, controls the past.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't worry Mitch,We don't need to wear ID Face recognition software is coming on in leaps and bounds....

TheBigYin said...

the police-
the establishments private army!!

Well they have competition in Darlington:

They are paying £3.50 a week each for patrolling teams of wardens equipped with head cameras and wearing high-visibility uniform.

They will react to calls as well as monitoring the estate by car. So far more than 300 residents have backed the scheme.

The patrols, which will begin on Monday, were devised by former boxer 'Fearless' Francis Jones, 28.

Rogerborg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rogerborg said...

[Aside: The quote is "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY", not the other way around]

>Might be missing the point here

Might be.

>And that as part of this policy they should clean up existing material to ensure it follows these rules.

But what does "clean up" mean, and what "material"?

OH even bolded the significant parts for you. "As of now" is also significant: it isn't just "existing" material. This isn't a one off historical exercise, it's an ongoing policy.

The scope of this dictat is also significant: while you may infer that it only applies to images that are being or are intended to be used for publicity, it does not. It can (and will) be read to apply to all images in the Met's possession that currently show officers not wearing their ID, because any of them could be used in a publicity shot. That's not speculation, it's the plain language.

So, allow me to paraphrase: whenever the Met find themselves in possession of images of riot cops without IDs murdering innocent citizens for the crime of Not Running Away, they can whip out this dictat, obey zere orders, and either destroy those images, or (worse) alter them to give the murderers fake IDs.

Get it now? You can argue over whether that's the intent - likely it's not - but this dictat gives the Met carte blanche to destoy or alter any self incriminating evidence, because (and this isn't meant to be ironic) it could generate bad publicity for them if it were seen by anyone.

Now, you or I might gasp in liberal horror and say "But destroying evidence of a crime is illegal!". Indeed, but that's irrelevant if you're the (collective) criminal, even more so if by destroying the evidence you can makes the crime unhappen, and thrice so if you can avoid responsibility by waving a piece of paper written by a chap who'll doubtless be pensioned off to the Lords by the time any of this comes before a judge.

Gendeau said...

Hmmm, disappointing for life in the UK, but I suspect Rogerborg is on the right lines there.

Come the revolution I want a HUGE clear-out of the Lords.

I think it's full off scum paid off for crooked activities. Oh, and those who got in for politically motivated reasons, that have turned it into an opportunity to trough in udderly criminal ways.

Let's have a court of responsible public opinion where reasonable standards of honest behaviour can be applied. And those found lacking sacked (and prosecuted if possible)

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails