BBC man in terror quiz for photographing St Paul's sunset

[CT]

LOL. I try not to pass an opinion on these type of threads, but I can't help thinking Mr BBC has totally over-reacted to being asked to identify himself. 'Incensed' seems like someone looking for a reason.

Personally I'd have no issues at all with being asked to identify myself by a cop provided they approached me in the proper fashion. What on earth have I got to hide or be worried about?

If on the other hand I was being threatened with my camera being confiscated or being arrested, they'd find themselves dealing with a very different bunny, but this seems to me to be total over-reaction.

 

[jerry12953]

LOL. I try not to pass an opinion on these type of threads, but I can't help thinking Mr BBC has totally over-reacted to being asked to identify himself. 'Incensed' seems like someone looking for a reason.

Personally I'd have no issues at all with being asked to identify myself by a cop provided they approached me in the proper fashion. What on earth have I got to hide or be worried about?

If on the other hand I was being threatened with my camera being confiscated or being arrested, they'd find themselves dealing with a very different bunny, but this seems to me to be total over-reaction.

If it was an isolated case I would agree with you, CT. But as you know there are many of these cases reported, and probably more again that go un-reported. What is it about guys with big cameras and/or tripods?

 

[coldpenguin]

It's muppets like this that give most photographers a bad name. Yes, state you are not happy at being stopped, yes take a copy of the med guidelines - but follow due process politely then complain after the event.

Surely we can counter the police questions with one question of our own.

How have i given you grounds to suspect me of being a terrorist?

If the officer was following the quote above then she should have been able to explain why she suspected him of being a terrorist.

There is no point getting worked up about it, its annoying at the time but just provide your name and date of birth and let the officer leave.
---
The bloke in the story has made a complaint which I think is a bit over the top as he was only asked his details and what he was taking pictures of

This is it. Before we should be /required/ to give information of who we are, the officer should be able to give /good reason/ as to why they are /suspicious/ that a terrorism act is taking place.
Without good reason, there should be no conversation. Complain bitterly after the event, to their superiors. Before giving identification, ask under what grounds there is suspicion of terrorism. If they cannot give suitable grounds, then suggest that they are not actually allowed to continue. If they insist, then you have to give your ID, it isn't worth a night in the cells. But if they insist without good grounds, ensure you get their ID first, and it written down that there are no good grounds for this inquiry. I do not think of myself as being one of these people worried about big brother, but, if everyone goes about assuming that the policeman on the street is always right, there is a chance that some day a bigger injustice might be done.

The law stating we had to continue to have identification, was repelled a few years after the last 'Great' war.

I don't blame the police officers on the ground for things like this , they tend to only be working from instructions higher up most of the time .

And their instructions are wrong? Or is the person doing the stopping just not bothered to read them? By complaining, it reinforces the fact that they were acting outside of their law and guidelines. It brings it to their superiors attention. It might be a bit harsh on this poor chap, but if the superiors are oblivious to the fact that this is going on, because the bobbies on the beat do not understand their /requirements/ before performing a stop, then they cannot fix it.

 

[coldpenguin]

Try this if your stopped in your car and asked for your details I think you come unstuck. Any officer can ask you for your details at any time

Yes and no.
They are no longer allowed to ask for your details at any time. This law was repealed after the last war.

However, if they have good grounds for suspicion that you are in progress of performing something which is against the law, they can ask for whatever is required to prove that it was you breaking the law.
(i.e. if you are speeding, have a bald tyre or other item which might make your car of un-roadworthy condition, then name, address and driving license is suitable.)

I have a couple of reasons for not wanting to give my details to the police. I don't particularly like strangers anyway for a start.
The main reason why I do not want to freely give my information, is because of the mis-understanding above. The more people who believe the above, the further they stretch the boundaries.
The police are not above the law.
If you are in a public place they may ask for your details, but they may not demand them.
If they have good reason to suspect you of being in the process of breaking the law (or proof that you have just done, i..e shoplifting), they /may/ demand them, BUT, if practical, (and taking a photograph is not a high-speed chase), they MUST give the reasons as to why they are demanding them.
You are also allowed to refuse your details, if you do not wish to, or if you do not believe that their suspicions warrant the demand, but I am not suggesting that you do refuse. All I am suggesting is that the police are reminded that as a citizen, you are allowed to be anonymous, the police have no /right/ to your details.

As to the question about the fact that this helps stop terrorism.
Quite frankly, IF I were a terrorist, and I gave my name and address to a policeman and community support officer, do you think they would recognise it out of the several hundred on the watch list? It is a waste of time. Ok, so at the end of the shift, some poor SOB is going to type these details into a computer. My name is commonly miss spelt, I have probably around 5 or 6 different spellings in my wallet at the moment because I cannot be bothered any more to correct people. IF my name were on the watch list, (and if it was, would I really give my real name?), and if they managed to spell it correctly, then all they would know is that I was in London, on the south bank, on Tuesday. This information, without context, means nothing. Even with context it means little.

 

[the_doctor199]

Here's the interview from The Andrew Marr show with a form below to tell the BBC if you've been stopped: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8384972.stm

 

[Craig_B]

Craig, I carried a warrant card for 30 years, I'm pretty conversant with the details on it.

You and I both, in fact I'm looking at one now.

All officers are required to carry a warrant card at all times - period.

Thats not true and therein lies the problem. Forces throught the UK operate in different ways.

You'l notice that I haven't been so bold as to say "this is how it is" quite simply because I am aware of that fact. Laws here in Scotland are VERY different in lots of ways to England and Wales and sweeping statements can be extremely unhelpful when someone tries to "stand up for their rights". Something that I'm sure an officer of your experience will have been all too familiar with.

 

[poacher]

deleted

 

[coldpenguin]

My understanding is, and it could be wrong, was that you had to have a warrant card in order to arrest.
Therefore, if you are in uniform, then you must have it.
If you are plain clothes, then you could be used as a competent witness, but not perform an actual arrest. You had to call on someone else to do it.
I thought the whole idea of the card is that IT is the authority, you are just acting on it's behalf.

 

[Craig_B]

My understanding is, and it could be wrong, was that you had to have a warrant card in order to arrest.
Therefore, if you are in uniform, then you must have it.
If you are plain clothes, then you could be used as a competent witness, but not perform an actual arrest. You had to call on someone else to do it.
I thought the whole idea of the card is that IT is the authority, you are just acting on it's behalf.

Nope it's wrong and again thats my whole point!

 

[coldpenguin]

So what form of official identification can we expect a policeman to have to have, and to be confirmable?

 

[coldpenguin]

Just out of curiosity, I performed a quick google. Came up with this, it might be different with other forces.
http://www.kent.police.uk/About Kent Police/policies/l/l083.html

4.5. Police Officers are required to carry their warrant cards at all times. If they fail to do so and are called upon to exercise police powers, they may be in breach of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and could be subject to discipline.

Also, many sites (ok so wikipeadia isn't always right), claim that a policeman in the act must produce a warrant card if requested by the public

 

[CT]

You and I both, in fact I'm looking at one now.

So is it yours? Do pray tell, or are you going to remain the TP man of mystery? We have plenty of serving offiicers on TP so don't be shy about coming out.

You've made the point that laws differ considerably between England and Scotland, which is true. Since we're discussing an incident in London perhaps you'd be better advised to contain your advice to incidents North of the border?

 

[Craig_B]

So what form of official identification can we expect a policeman to have to have, and to be confirmable?

Confirm it by contacting a station.

I've seen so many mis truths on this thread that it highlights the point perfectly. Everything from they must have a warrant card signed by themselves to plain clothes officers can't make an arrest!
The problem arises when you, as an officer, are faced with someone who "knows" their rights and will argue the toss when in fact they have obviously been fed quite ridiculous information.
In Scotland the only time that it must be a Police Officer in uniform that arrests you is for a drink driving offence, similarly in Scotland if you get arrested you are getting charged, unlike down South where arrest is a means to question.

The best advice I would give anyone when stopped in circumstances such as this is to be polite, non confrontational and most of all observant of what is being said to you. That way, after the event you can, if you belive it neccessary, make an official complaint.

An important thing to note is this

Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enable uniformed police officers to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles will be found.

Police officers can stop and search someone taking photographs within an authorised area just as they can stop and search any other member of the public in the proper exercise of their discretion, but the powers should be used proportionally and not specifically target photographers.

By the legislation that is only applicable in areas where section 44 is in force AND only able to be carried out by uniformed officers. As far as I'm aware, with the exception of some railway stations governed by the BRITISH Transport Police and a short time after the Glasgow airport attack, there are no areas in Scotland designated under this section.

Perhaps you want to read the Home Office Circular 012/2009 in relation to Photography and Counter Terrorism legislation. As it was sent to ALL chief Constables in the UK it is perhaps a better document than even the Mets guidelines.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/publications/home-office-circulars/circulars-2009/012-2009/

 

[aberal]

You've made the point that laws differ considerably between England and Scotland, which is true. Since we're discussing an incident in London perhaps you'd be better advised to contain your advice to incidents North of the border?

Why? Regardless of where this particular incident occurred, his points are pertinent to those of us who live north of the border and are pertinent to those who live south of the border who are likely to visit Scotland.

 

[Craig_B]

So is it yours? Do pray tell, or are you going to remain the TP man of mystery? We have plenty of serving offiicers on TP so don't be shy about coming out.

You've made the point that laws differ considerably between England and Scotland, which is true. Since we're discussing an incident in London perhaps you'd be better advised to contain your advice to incidents North of the border?

Oooohhhhhh......

Actually yes it is mine. I have no need to be a man of mystery and your tone is a bit condescending however like you no doubt I've been used to that over the years so its water of a ducks back.

Is it not important to highlight that there are legal differences and that photographers may not just photograph in one area? There were a few English togs at the recent SDL / UAF demo in Glasgow?
The advice being given regarding warrant cards and ability to arrest and asking for names is stuff that can get people in trouble for doggedly standing up for what they believe is their right.

........I didnt notice that this site was a South of the Border only concern. Did I miss that bit?

 

[Craig_B]

Aberal you beat me to it!

 

[coldpenguin]

But what constitutes an authorised area? How do we as the public know where these are? Do the policemen actually know where they are?

(BTW. The comment I made about plain clothes, was meant to be that if they do not have their warrant card on them, they cannot make the arrest. Otherwise, they could be anyone). Perhaps this isn't true, perhaps there is a 'citizens arrest'.
However, I am not going to give my name and details to someone without identification. And I do not see, how a plain clothes policeman, without a warrant card, can demand it (phoning a police station and asking whether joe bloggs, ID XXXX works there wouldn't work. I could chat with a policeman, get their name and memorise their number, anyone could. If they do not have a photographic ID, there is little they can do to prove who they are).

I would be courteous if stopped by a policeman in uniform, but I would want to know the reason why before giving too much information. If I am in an area where I occasionally do work, taking photographs, I would expect to get stopped. There are places, the AWE for example, where common sense rules. However, taking photographs in the country's capitol pointed over the river, they are having a bit of a laugh.

I have read through the link you provided, thank you. It clears one item up, the authorised areas, but as I said, these should be common sense.
However the term I have a problem with, is the reasonably suspect.
1) They should state what it is that they suspect
2) If (as in this instance) they have stopped and requested the details of several people in one area, then they cannot reasonably be suspecting all of these people to be in the process of collecting 'information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'

 

[coldpenguin]

I stand corrected, from Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24 (4)-(7)

- Arrest without warrant for arrestable offences

(4) Any person may arrest without a warrant -

(a) anyone who is in the act of committing an arrestable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing such an offence.


(5) Where an arrestable offence has been committed, any person may arrest without a warrant -

(a) anyone who is guilty of the offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it.


(6) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of the offence.

(7) A constable may arrest without a warrant -

(a) anyone who is about to commit an arrestable offence;
(b) anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence.

But still, before I were to give details to someone in plain clothes, I would want to see their ID.
Before I gave details to a uniformed policeman, I would want to know their reasonable grounds for suspicion. Being in a public area, I do not think is unreasonable.

 

[Craig_B]

But what constitutes an authorised area? How do we as the public know where these are? Do the policemen actually know where they are?

As far as I'm aware areas are designated by Chief Constables with consultation with the Home Office and they need to have a reason for it. The areas are not published as far as I'm aware but officers should no and be made aware simply because it allows them powers which they otherwise would not have.

(BTW. The comment I made about plain clothes, was meant to be that if they do not have their warrant card on them, they cannot make the arrest. Otherwise, they could be anyone). Perhaps this isn't true, perhaps there is a 'citizens arrest'.

It's hardly best practice as a police officer working in plain clothes and not having a warrant card however, think about it, how often does a police officer have the chance to show a warrant card before making an arrest. Not many. Mostly id is made by shouting out who you are!!

However, I am not going to give my name and details to someone without identification. And I do not see, how a plain clothes policeman, without a warrant card, can demand it (phoning a police station and asking whether joe bloggs, ID XXXX works there wouldn't work. I could chat with a policeman, get their name and memorise their number, anyone could. If they do not have a photographic ID, there is little they can do to prove who they are).

Agreed, you would get them to confirm their identity by other means and thats not the least bit difficult to do.

I would be courteous if stopped by a policeman in uniform, but I would want to know the reason why before giving too much information. If I am in an area where I occasionally do work, taking photographs, I would expect to get stopped. There are places, the AWE for example, where common sense rules. However, taking photographs in the country's capitol pointed over the river, they are having a bit of a laugh.

I have read through the link you provided, thank you. It clears one item up, the authorised areas, but as I said, these should be common sense.
However the term I have a problem with, is the reasonably suspect.
1) They should state what it is that they suspect
2) If (as in this instance) they have stopped and requested the details of several people in one area, then they cannot reasonably be suspecting all of these people to be in the process of collecting 'information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'

Point One is correct. Point Two is your grounds for complaint.

 

[Splog]

I stand corrected, from Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24 (4)-(7)

.

I suspect that is referring to something different to if a Police Officer should be carrying ID but could be wrong and usually am

 

[coldpenguin]

To me, I thought the 'warrant card' was effectively their ID. This is provided to them by the operating force, and whilst in 'possesion' they have the responsibility of being a police officer. However, as in the quote, unlike what I thought, they do not require the card to be in their actual possesion in order to make the arrest.
I am seeing it as a different item to a magistrate signed warrant.

However, the quote from the Kent police website would suggest that when making an arrest there may be a requirement for the warrant card to be at least present, in accordance with the 1984 act. However, I have found nothing in that act so far that requires it (apart from traffic offences maybe).
It is all a bit confused.

A quick perusal of the policespecial forums suggests that many of them are recommended to always carry the card, even when off duty, it saves the possibility of it not being there if required.
its too late.

 

[Matt]

as far as Im aware (having looked into this before) a Police Officer on duty MUST have a warrent card that he can produce on request.

A Warrant Card is a proof of identification and authority
carried by police officers or special constables to perform
the functions of the office held. These are usually
displayed alongside a badge showing the service to which
the officer belongs. Police officers in plain-clothes are
required to identify themselves and produce their warrant
card when they are performing their police duties and
exercising their police powers. Normally, police officers in
uniform are not required to produce their warrant card,
however, they should do so upon the request of a
member of the public unless the circumstances do not
allow or the request is unreasonable.
The Warrant Card features a personal photograph of the
person, as well as holder's name and warrant number.
The warrant number is the officer’s Force identity
number. It also identifies the holder as either a ‘police
officer’ or ‘special constable’.

I dont know about scotland, but the police in London are far more strict and vigilant to what could be perceived as a problem

Anti-terrorism Stop and Search often happens in train/tube stations, crowded public places or near important landmarks such as Parliament in central London.
Across London you may encounter three different police forces, the Metropolitan Police Service, City of London Police and the British Transport Police. Officers from these three forces, at various times, work together on specific crime and terrorist operations.

its highly likely that 'south of the border' policing is different to that in scotland, especially in London

 

[somethingbeside]

As a met copper (runs for cover!) I have see many people photographing and never stopped any of them. If something else caused concern maybe I would but not just merely photographing something. I honestly know of no colleagues who have stopped any photographers but have heard of people photographing CCTV cameras etc finding themselves in difficulties but I accept even this can be innocent.

Hope that put some minds at ease. Feel free to direct questions to me and if I can help with policy etc I will.

Coldpenguin, I always have my warrant card with me. It doubles for most of us as a wallet.

I can't see any on-duty plain clothes officer not having their warrant card.

The specified areas for the purposes of the terrorism act would be known by officers working that borough. I'm not sure I can post exactly where they are but it wouldn't take much guess work to tell where any areas we may feel are vulnerable are.

Can I add what I always tell people. If you get a rude / obnoxious PC or PCSO then don't get into a row with them. Get a stop slip or their shoulder number and make a complaint afterwards. I'm quite proud to have done the job for 7 years and never had a complaint and thats simply by talking to people correctly.

Anyway I wait for the questions I probably cant answer lol.

 

[Craig_B]

As a met copper (runs for cover!) I have see many people photographing and never stopped any of them. If something else caused concern maybe I would but not just merely photographing something. I honestly know of no colleagues who have stopped any photographers but have heard of people photographing CCTV cameras etc finding themselves in difficulties but I accept even this can be innocent.

Hope that put some minds at ease. Feel free to direct questions to me and if I can help with policy etc I will.

Coldpenguin, I always have my warrant card with me. It doubles for most of us as a wallet.

I can't see any on-duty plain clothes officer not having their warrant card.

The specified areas for the purposes of the terrorism act would be known by officers working that borough. I'm not sure I can post exactly where they are but it wouldn't take much guess work to tell where any areas we may feel are vulnerable are.

Can I add what I always tell people. If you get a rude / obnoxious PC or PCSO then don't get into a row with them. Get a stop slip or their shoulder number and make a complaint afterwards. I'm quite proud to have done the job for 7 years and never had a complaint and thats simply by talking to people correctly.

Anyway I wait for the questions I probably cant answer lol.

 

[somethingbeside]

My understanding is, and it could be wrong, was that you had to have a warrant card in order to arrest.
Therefore, if you are in uniform, then you must have it.
If you are plain clothes, then you could be used as a competent witness, but not perform an actual arrest. You had to call on someone else to do it.
I thought the whole idea of the card is that IT is the authority, you are just acting on it's behalf.

I think someone resisting arrest would have a defence if not shown a warrant card but its not unlawful for us to arrest without it. As pointed out its often not practical to show it when you decide to arrest someone if its going off. You tend to shout to identify yourself and hope they understand. Yes I think any serving officer should have it with them and would face strong questions from management if they didnt and chose to dive in and nick someone.

 

[Keith W]

I stand corrected, from Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, s.24 (4)-(7)



But still, before I were to give details to someone in plain clothes, I would want to see their ID.
Before I gave details to a uniformed policeman, I would want to know their reasonable grounds for suspicion. Being in a public area, I do not think is unreasonable.

I think you will find that is in reference to what a police officer can do without a warrant needing to be issued by the courts.

I don't believe it is reference to a police officers warrant card

Of course this is just my take on things and I could be wrong, I am sure one of the boys in blue who are members here can put us straight on this.

 

[Cyprio]

As a met copper (runs for cover!) I have see many people photographing and never stopped any of them...

Anyway I wait for the questions I probably cant answer lol.

Only just started reading from the end of this thread so apologies if this has been answered.

Does a PC/Community support officer have the right to ask you to stop taking pics?

I was taking some long exposure shots (tripod, big lens etc) around Blackfriars one night last year and got asked to stop.

 

[somethingbeside]

I think you will find that is in reference to what a police officer can do without a warrant needing to be issued by the courts.

I don't believe it is reference to a police officers warrant card

Of course this is just my take on things and I could be wrong, I am sure one of the boys in blue who are members here can put us straight on this.

Yes it does mean a warrant issued by a court and not our warrant cards.

I totally understand someone not believing someone is a police officer without their warrant card. Would be a big error for the police officer not to have it really.

Oh and as a met police officer my warrant card is only signed by the serving commisioner at the time. My signatory has been replaced twice already lol.

 

[Steve Smith]

Does a PC/Community support officer have the right to ask you to stop taking pics?

I was taking some long exposure shots (tripod, big lens etc) around Blackfriars one night last year and got asked to stop.

He can ask but he can only demand it if you are causing an obstruction.


Steve.

 

[Keith W]

There is a saying - "If common sense is common then why isn't it so common"

And that is just it, we should use our common sense if stopped by the police.

If you get stopped be polite and courteous, explain your self and why you feel the officer may be wrong in a calm and polite manner - If you start getting all shirty and shouting about your rights then things can start to go down hill for you pretty fast.

If afterwards you feel strongly that you have been hard done by then make a complaint.

I mean is it really worth spending a night in a cell just to prove your point?

 

[somethingbeside]

Only just started reading from the end of this thread so apologies if this has been answered.

Does a PC/Community support officer have the right to ask you to stop taking pics?

I was taking some long exposure shots (tripod, big lens etc) around Blackfriars one night last year and got asked to stop.

I'd like to know what legal powers they are using to do that. I don't claim to know everything but as a serving police officer I cannot think of an occasion I could lawfully mak anyone to stop taking photographs let alone as a PCSO. Again it sometimes comes down to people doing the job not knowing where they stand. The obstruction thing I cant see happening. The law is so wide and vast I believe none of us know everything but I wouldn't act like that unless I was sure I was correct.

However I would accept what they ask, take their details and speak to someone at a police station. If you make a complaint you'd normally get an inspector at least.

 

[Cyprio]

Hmm, i was on the pavement... that was quite wide.

The reason he gave was about there being some "very important buildings in the area".

 

[Keith W]

Yes it does mean a warrant issued by a court and not our warrant cards.

I totally understand someone not believing someone is a police officer without their warrant card. Would be a big error for the police officer not to have it really.

Oh and as a met police officer my warrant card is only signed by the serving commisioner at the time. My signatory has been replaced twice already lol.

Thanks for clarifying that for us

 

[somethingbeside]

Hmm, i was on the pavement... that was quite wide.

The reason he gave was about there being some "very important buildings in the area".

No they can't do that for those reasons ever. Canary Wharf have a similar problem with their security trying that one. However, as thats private premises they can escort you off the site.

 

[CT]

If you want to know the identity of a police officer or are unsure if they are in fact police officers, whether they're in uniform or not, then ask to see their warrant card which you have every right to do, and no officer should have any reason whatsoever to refuse. If they refuse, or can't produce a warrant card you should at once be very suspicious. Certainly don't admit them to your home, and if you have access to a phone - call the local police station right away.

In 10 years of carrying a warrant card in uniform and 20 years in CID, it was amazing what a rarity it was to be asked to produce a card even on entry into people's houses. Don't be afraid to ask - no genuine officer will mind in the least.

The warrant card is literally the authority to execute the duties of the office of Constable - it's in fact one of the last things taken away from you when you retire and when you relinquish it you relinquish the powers of the office - not when you get the clock or the cut glass.

 

[dalex_257]

Confirm it by contacting a station.

I find it a bit hard to believe to be honest though I would not argue and say that it is not so for certain (I simply do not know).

The reason I am saying that is because there is little protection of the other side in this logic. If I am stopped, asked for certain personal info, forced to say give my photos away and left with nothing but "Confirm it by contacting a station" statement it does leave me wondering - "was it a real police officer I was talking to at all?". I mean with this logic how do you know you are talking to real police officer and not some scam trying to get hold of your personal details (say for identity fraud purpouses)? By the time as you say I can "confirm it by contacting a station" it will surely be too late.

 

[Daryl]

Hehehehe.. More tea Vicar?? I mean, Mr Crow.

(back to the thread)

What a crock... Police are just doing what they think they should.

80% of press togs I used to work with looked like tramps. The rest? Well go to Focus on a Sunday.. Rain coats and Horse shoe haircuts!!!! Heinz Wolf springs to mind.

When a copper comes upto you.. Have a natter and a laugh. Give them grief and they will **** you off big time.

Funny you all moan when you get pulled over and when a copper asks 'what you are doing with a camera? '

Yet when your Granny gets mugged or when some piece of trash breaks into your home who do call? Morse? Lewis? John Nettles? Oh yeah! Dan Ackroyd...

The way some talk you'd think we were in occupied France in 1942

'Vot are you doin over here by zer vire Heir Bartlet?'

 

[Steve Smith]

The reason he gave was about there being some "very important buildings in the area".

Then that is nonesense. Buildings can be seen in public using your eyes. That's a much better view than a photograph. If they are that sensitive, they should hide them behind a curtain.

If this happens again, ask him to call the station for clarification.

You can also ask "am I being detained?" and if the answer is no, you can move on with no further questioning needed (although you would rather stay).

Another question to ask when being told to stop is "on what authority?". If he can't tell you, then the aforementioned call to the station will be required and he will then probably realise he was wrong.

Above all, always be courteous and polite - even if you don't feel like it.


Steve.

 

[swanseamale47]

Hehehehe.. More tea Vicar?? I mean, Mr Crow.

(back to the thread)

What a crock... Police are just doing what they think they should.

80% of press togs I used to work with looked like tramps. The rest? Well go to Focus on a Sunday.. Rain coats and Horse shoe haircuts!!!! Heinz Wolf springs to mind.

When a copper comes upto you.. Have a natter and a laugh. Give them grief and they will **** you off big time.

Funny you all moan when you get pulled over and when a copper asks 'what you are doing with a camera? '

Yet when your Granny gets mugged or when some piece of trash breaks into your home who do call? Morse? Lewis? John Nettles? Oh yeah! Dan Ackroyd...

The way some talk you'd think we were in occupied France in 1942

'Vot are you doin over here by zer vire Heir Bartlet?'

I suspect you'd be better off calling John Nettles, at least he solves his cases.
Sadly our police seem to spend far too much time on anti drink driving campaigns, and stopping photographers doing what is legally allowed.
Maybe if they spent less time questioning togs they would be a little faster to the serious calls, a couple of days to respond to a burgalary isn't exactly speedy in my book..

 

[somethingbeside]

I suspect you'd be better off calling John Nettles, at least he solves his cases.
Sadly our police seem to spend far too much time on anti drink driving campaigns, and stopping photographers doing what is legally allowed.
Maybe if they spent less time questioning togs they would be a little faster to the serious calls, a couple of days to respond to a burgalary isn't exactly speedy in my book..

Ok as I stated previously I've been in the police for 7 years and I know of NO colleague stopping photographers.

As for a burglary being a serious call - sorry they wouldnt agree when they assign calls unless suspects are present. However they would be there quicker than two days as forensic opportunities may be missed. I have never heard of a burglary taking two days to report.