UK Police and Judiciary out of control?

[McAhuna]

What are you referring to?

I clearly stated I corrected your original post and clarified the (inaccurate) points in your second and third sentences. They are shown in the image below and for the avoidance of doubt said the following;

“Pretty sure that’s not allowed. They can only mask up for specialised operations, public order incidents, or protective, safety-critical roles.”

That is completely wrong and I explained why (in great detail) in posts #171 & #173.

So yes, you were corrected.

Actually, you were corrected.
They can only wear head coverings when serious public order has broken out. 'in the event that petrol or chemical bombs may be thrown and pose a risk to the officers’ health and safety.'
See #172

Your subsequent claim that 'helps manage the sweat and moisture & stops the NATO helmet sticking to your head' is a nonsense justification and not a public order issue.

 

[McAhuna]

If it helps anybody understand; they're traveller children I would think. Irish Traveller I would say.

You would 'think'? What's the source of that claim? Not that it makes much difference what their cultural background is.

The video is alleged to be from Rotherham, where we might hope that the police had learned their lesson regarding the treatment of teenage girls, but no.

 

[ASCPFC]

You would 'think'? What's the source of that claim? Not that it makes much difference what their cultural background is.

The video is alleged to be from Rotherham, where we might hope that the police had learned their lesson regarding the treatment of teenage girls, but no.

Just from my own experience of them.

 

[McAhuna]

Just from my own experience of them.

Poor from you tbh ASCPFC, you can do much better than that.

Not really a good time to be dismissing/disregarding teenage girls from Rotherham who are being attacked and abused. Let alone accepting the word of the authorities against them.
As I thought you were well aware.

 

[ASCPFC]

Poor from you tbh ASCPFC, you can do much better than that.

Not really a good time to be dismissing/disregarding teenage girls from Rotherham who are being attacked and abused. Let alone accepting the word of the authorities against them.
As I thought you were well aware.

You're reading a lot more into it than anything I said. I said they were Irish travellers. That's about it. I made no value judgements. I could just tell because I deal with them a lot.

 

[eaglesdare]

If it helps anybody understand; they're traveller children I would think. Irish Traveller I would say.

Yeah they look like travellers who are a different breed. The girl looks like she pushed the police officer first aswell.

I don't think English police know how to deal with Irish travellers.

 

[Stirlingsays]

Yeah they look like travellers who are a different breed. The girl looks like she pushed the police officer first aswell.

I don't think English police know how to deal with Irish travellers.

Build a drive tarmac detention centre and serve Guinness.

They would never leave.

 

[McAhuna]

More details emerging. Not one single comment on social media suggesting they were travellers.

Over the June 20, 2026 weekend, South Yorkshire Police responded to a 999 call about a disturbance at a school leavers' party near Rotherham, leading to footage of officers pushing and using force against girls estimated to be 14 to 16 years old. The force called the clip shocking and launched a Professional Standards Department review of all footage, including body-worn video, to assess the full context and ensure actions were lawful and proportionate. Online backlash highlighted Rotherham's history of grooming scandals where police overlooked abuse, with many decrying the response as excessive while others awaited bodycam details on the rowdy celebration.

 

[HeathMan]

Sorry to lower the tone.

"Well unless there’s a Section 60AA in place it is personal choice and you can wear it"

i looked up Section 60AA. It left me wondering whether the Niqab and balaclava could be considered in these days as interchangeable.

 

[Phil’s Barber]

Actually, you were corrected.
They can only wear head coverings when serious public order has broken out. 'in the event that petrol or chemical bombs may be thrown and pose a risk to the officers’ health and safety.'
See #172

Your subsequent claim that 'helps manage the sweat and moisture & stops the NATO helmet sticking to your head' is a nonsense justification and not a public order issue.

You don’t know what you’re talking about!

Your FOI response in post #172 is only part of the SOP and nowhere in it does it state that they can ONLY be worn when ‘serious public order has broken out’. That is just absolute bollox. They can be worn beneath the NATO for ‘Method of Entry’ or whilst carrying out raids and searching premises, are you saying serious public order has broken out there? NO, you are just talking absolute crap!

The officers were able to wear their balaclavas because it is down to the individual officer. Funnily enough that’s why they were wearing them and it’s not some ruse to obscure their identity - Their shoulder numbers & helmet markings are there for all to see!

The only time they don’t have the choice of whether they wear them or not is when circumstances are such that a supervisor can order them to be worn under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 - Duty of care.

As for your last sentence, that is just risible. The balaclava does make the wearing of the NATO helmet a lot more comfortable and that is obviously a public order issue because the NATO helmet is being worn in a public order situation.

Did you read the bit where I explained I’d served as a Level 2 officer for the Met for over 30 years? I’ve worn the NATO helmet for more hours than I care to remember…tell me, how many times have you worn one?

 

[McAhuna]

You don’t know what you’re talking about!

Your FOI response in post #172 is only part of the SOP and nowhere in it does it state that they can ONLY be worn when ‘serious public order has broken out’. That is just absolute bollox. They can be worn beneath the NATO for ‘Method of Entry’ or whilst carrying out raids and searching premises, are you saying serious public order has broken out there? NO, you are just talking absolute crap!

The officers were able to wear their balaclavas because it is down to the individual officer. Funnily enough that’s why they were wearing them and it’s not some ruse to obscure their identity - Their shoulder numbers & helmet markings are there for all to see!

The only time they don’t have the choice of whether they wear them or not is when circumstances are such that a supervisor can order them to be worn under the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 - Duty of care.

As for your last sentence, that is just risible. The balaclava does make the wearing of the NATO helmet a lot more comfortable and that is obviously a public order issue because the NATO helmet is being worn in a public order situation.

Did you read the bit where I explained I’d served as a Level 2 officer for the Met for over 30 years? I’ve worn the NATO helmet for more hours than I care to remember…tell me, how many times have you worn one?

Just semantics now. You might not describe 'carrying out raids' as serious public disorder, but my point still applies. It has to be seriously kicking off in some way, however you describe it. They can't justify balaclavas for strolling down the High Street on a dull Tuesday afternoon, unless a serious threat is going down. Clearly that is open to interpretation (and abuse) - my point was that wearing them at a peaceful Selhurst Park at full time was a misinterpretation and borderline abuse of the guidelines.

Seriously, saying making their heads 'more comfortable' is a public order issue is laughable. Maybe it makes sense in your police handbook, but maybe its statements like this which is the reason no-one trusts the police any more?

You might have worn it for 30 years. I hope your head was very comfortable as a result. But as we all know, practices being long established doesn't make them correct - in any profession.
* The staff nurse administering thalidomide because it had been done hundreds of times before.
* The Council building Inspector signing off Grenfell cladding because it had already been installed on dozens of other tower blocks.
* The Post Office punishing another Postmaster because the accounting software system has flagged them up under the guidelines.

Some extreme examples perhaps, but established habits count for nothing and still need regular checks and questions.

 

[McAhuna]

Sorry to lower the tone.

"Well unless there’s a Section 60AA in place it is personal choice and you can wear it"

i looked up Section 60AA. It left me wondering whether the Niqab and balaclava could be considered in these days as interchangeable.

You mean can they apply a Section 60AA and oblige people to remove Niqab head coverings?
No idea whether they can legally, but we all know they wouldn't do it in practice.