This article was brought to you by Must Share Good Things. Check us out and follow us on our Tiktok, Facebook, Instagram or Telegram for more content!
–
A series of TikTok video showing a heated argument between Cheers employee and three police officers has lately gone viral on the internet, causing massive uproar. Jonathan (@Confederateginger), a TikTok user, humiliated himself in a series of videos he took when police officers attempted to investigate a claim that Johnathan filed at the Cheers Lau Pa Sat on Sunday. The videos that were posted hit a whooping 1.1 million views with numerous comments and reposts.
After more in-depth researching, it was clear that Jonathan was “anti-SPF” based on his recent videos he posted on TikTok. Even before this incident, it was clear that Jonathan was against the police force and would criticise them often from the other videos he posted.
The escalating chain of events began when Jonathan refused to provide cops his identity card after claiming that an intoxicated guy entered the store and tried to stir disturbance by insulting him and impersonating a police officer threatening to arrest him.
@confederateginger
Part 1: [SPF threatened to arrest, ‘Shutting off’ business entity for close to an hour]
An officer asked Jonathan if he mentioned the word “Bangladesh” during his conversation with the other man, who was not captured in the video. Jonathan confirmed this, and said he did so because “he play the race card first”.
After Jonathan explained the incident to the police, he was asked for his identity card for verification purposes. However, that’s when the whole commotion sparked. “I’m protected by my boss’s camera, I didn’t commit any offence, why do you need my ID?” Jonathan said in the video. Despite the fact that the police insisted on verifying his identity , the individual refused to hand his NRIC up, repeatedly claiming that he had not committed an offence. The cops also urged him numerous times to cease filming on his phone, but their warnings went unheeded.
Part 2: [SPF playing around with section 65]
Jonathan started telling the police: “There’s something called false report. Before you investigate me, you should investigate him for the false report first.”
After an officer flipped the sign on the door from ‘Open’ to ‘Closed’, Jonathan flipped it back and said: “Eh no, no, no. No such thing ah. There’s no disrupting of business just because of police business.”
An officer explained that Jonathan was handling the store alone, and would face interruptions if customers keeps entering.
“Is it mandatory to give (my particulars)?” Jonathan asked despite being warned the second time . The officer said yes and Jonathan asked ‘based on? ‘ . Based on section 65 the officer answered promptly while stating what section 65 is all about.
Section 65: A police officer may arrest any person who is accused of committing, or who commits in the view or presence of the police officer, a non-arrestable offence if, on the demand of the police officer, the person refuses to give his or her name and residential address.”
Part 3: SPF thug like behaviour
Jonathan said he had produced his identity card (IC) and would “viral this on TikTok”. When an officer stated that they had given him “more than three warnings”, Jonathan claimed that he was verifying the need for an IC yet he is being threatened to be arrested. He further alleged that he unsure if officers were “following SOP (standard operating procedure)” and made reference to the recent corrupted cases of SPF stating that he has “news articles backing up his claim”.
Cheers response towards the incident:
Cheers said in a statement on Monday that the staff involved had been “counselled” and “placed on administrative leave pending further investigation” in response to the event.
In the latest statement made by Cheers on 4 January 2023, the staff has been dismissed. Cheers also mentioned that “All staff, regardless of whether they are employed by franchisees, are required to comply with the authorities. We do not tolerate acts from staff who seek to undermine the authority of the police.”
Share with us your opinions on this incident in the comment section down below!
–
