Enforcement officers contracted by Harrow Council deliberately switched off their body-worn cameras before threatening to “knock out” a member of the public and “rip his teeth out”, a viral video has revealed.
The footage, filmed in Harrow, northwest London, shows two workers wearing branded jackets with hoods obscuring their faces as they accost an individual whose identity is not known. One officer is clearly heard asking his colleague “is it off?” before being assured the body-worn camera — still visible on their clothing — had been disabled. The pair can then be seen issuing explicit threats of violence, with one telling the person recording: “Come to the alleyway right now, we’re going to show you what time it is.”
The red-hooded officer continues: “We’re going to make sure you can’t work no more and earn no money because you’re trying to butt in with our money — and bruv, do you know what I do to people like that? Come here now. Let’s go.” Standing in a bus lane, he then signals for the individual to cross the road, warning: “I swear, when I’m not in uniform, I’m going to knock you the f*** out and rip your teeth out. Do you know that? If I give you one punch, I’ll knock all your teeth out.”
The second officer, wearing a black hoodie, is heard saying “we’ve got people to feed”, prompting the cameraman to respond: “I don’t know why you’re getting aggressive.” The red-hooded officer then threatened to call the police, claiming: “If I call a police officer for you, he’ll f*** you up, you know, because we work with them and you didn’t know that, did you? So come across the road now because I’m going to show you what time it is.” The dispute is thought to be about money, though the precise cause of the confrontation remains unclear.
The deliberate switching off of body-worn cameras is considered a serious breach of standard practice. Government guidance across the UK states that such devices should be used overtly, with officers required to give a clear verbal announcement that recording is taking place as soon as it is safe to do so. Footage is expected to be retained for investigations and potential court proceedings, and access is restricted to authorised personnel for specific purposes such as quality assurance, training or formal inquiries. Tampering with body-worn cameras is prohibited, and the footage itself is classified as personal data, meaning it must be processed lawfully, fairly and transparently under the UK General Data Protection Regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.
Kingdom Services Group, the agency that employed the two officers, promotes body-worn cameras as an important safeguard for both the public and its staff, stating on its website that the devices can have a “civilising effect” and help modify behaviour. The company literature describes its “local authority support” as being “committed to helping local authorities create safer, cleaner and more welcoming communities”. In practice, its officers work alongside Harrow Council’s internal teams to issue fixed penalty notices and tackle anti-social behaviour, with income from fines shared between the council and the agency to offset service costs.
The incident has also cast a spotlight on previous allegations surrounding Kingdom Services Group. A 2019 investigation by the Guardian alleged that staff had used aggressive tactics, specifically targeting elderly and vulnerable individuals for littering fines. Whistleblowers reportedly described a culture that encouraged officers to issue as many fines as possible, with a “100 club” league table for those issuing more than 100 penalties a month. Some councils, including Liverpool, have dropped contracts with the company following complaints about its officers’ conduct. There have also been allegations of staff being told to wear plain clothes and “hide in bushes” to issue fines, contrary to council requirements for visible enforcement. An action group in North Wales with thousands of members has been set up to campaign against the agency’s methods.
Council and agency respond after swift dismissals
Harrow Council confirmed that the two individuals involved in the Harrow incident “no longer work for Kingdom” after swift action was taken. A spokesperson said: “We are aware of a video circulating in relation to the conduct of two enforcement officers. Swift action was taken as soon as the incident and complaint were raised to us and Kingdom in May, and the individuals involved no longer work for Kingdom.”
The council’s own enforcement policies emphasise transparency, proportionality, targeting, consistency and appropriateness, with officers required to carry identification. The local authority operates a Public Spaces Protection Order framework to tackle anti-social behaviour, breaches of which can result in a fixed penalty notice of £100 or prosecution leading to fines of up to £1,000. Its Environmental Compliance Enforcement Policy sets out the legislation and powers used for street environment enforcement, including issuing fixed penalty notices for offences such as littering. The council also has powers to take direct action, issue statutory notices or pursue prosecution for non-compliance.
Responding directly to the deliberate disabling of the cameras, the council spokesperson added: “We take any instance of officers deliberately turning off body-worn cameras extremely seriously. Threats of violence towards members of the public are wholly unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
Kingdom Services Group issued a near-identical statement, saying: “As soon as the incident and subsequent complaint were brought to our attention in May, swift action was taken. The individuals concerned no longer work for Kingdom Local Authority Support. We take any instance of officers deliberately disabling body-worn cameras extremely seriously, as these devices are an important safeguard for both the public and our staff. Equally, any threats of violence towards members of the public are wholly unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
The agency’s website notes a partnership with Kingdom Local Authority Support to assist Harrow Council’s internal teams in dispensing fixed penalty notices. No further details have been provided about the identity of the individual who was threatened or the exact nature of the dispute that triggered the confrontation.
