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

There are so many public domain images of that area, a terrorist would need no more than google images, google maps etc. etc.

When I have been challenged, I just hand them a business card, and they soon poddle off
 
They are damned either way. If they are too lenient then they are accused of not caring, too strict then they are over zealous and we live in a Police State.If the Police stopping a few photographers helps stop just one terrorist attack,is that not sufficient justification for these actions?

How many of us take our DSLr`s out and are not stopped by the Police? I would imagine the vast majority,so we only hear about the ones who are stopped,so it is hardly representative,is it?

I am no great lover of our current Police ,but society gets the Police force it deserves, there is no hidden factory where they are produced,they are taken from society,from the public,from us. So perhaps we are all too blame a little.
 
I personally ,would prefer if the constabulary were properly instructed !,rather than hassling! people enjoying there hobby ,wouldn't it be much more productive to concentrate their efforts to the real crimes in hand ,which i'm sure is more than enough to keep them occupied JMOP
 
Richard Peters said:
A fact according to who?

Is there a sub forum where terrorists discuss what gear they use, I must have missed that.
Click to expand...

See post no. 22 on this thread.

And anyway, use your common sense. Why would they?


I have said it before , but I'll say it again. Give the police an inch and they will take a mile.

It has recently been reported that they are arresting people PURELY to get hold of their DNA samples!
 
jerry12953 said:
See post no. 22 on this thread.

And anyway, use your common sense. Why would they?
Click to expand...
Yep, you are right. That post proves without doubt that no terrorist anywhere in the world has taken a photo of anything with a DSLR, ever.

Why would they use them? Erm, common sense suggests it is very plausable that someone wishing to take a high res still of something might opt to use a DSLR, it is a camera after all :suspect:

Anyhow, I really thinkg there are two subejcts being discussed here. As I said there is the one issue of being asked to stop doing something when you are well within your right to carry on doing it.

The other is a simple request for your details.

Ah hell with it, I'm not a terrorist so next time I go through the airport I'm going to refuse to have my bags x-rayed too. Why should I have to prove there are no explosives or sharp items in there when I know there are not because I packed the bag and all I'm trying to do is go on holiday? I shouldn't have to prove I'm not trying to cause harm by having my bags searched or scanned...right...?
 
All police officers whether in uniform or plain clothes carry a warrant card and MUST produce it on request to a member of the public, unless it's impractical in the circumstances.

It will contain a photo of the officer and his/her name, rank and number, be signed by the officer and his/her Chief Constable and must be carried at all times.

You shouldn't expect the officer to hand over the card for inspection but he/she is obliged to let you examine it sufficiently to ascertain the details from it.

I've never known a case of two officers in the same force having identical numbers - the whole point is that the number is unique to that officer.
 
Google Earth (street level) is the terrorist's friend.
Who needs to use a camera when most targets can be viewed from anywhere on earth.
 
This is about the state promoting paranoia to justify an illegal war that is costing British lives and British tax payers billions of pounds.
This muppetry which masquerades as anti terrorist policing is useless against well educated an motivated terrorists.

For example_

From my home I can obtain up to date images of St Pauls from Google Bling and Flicr , the floor plans of the building can be obtained from the land registry.

If I put my mind to it I could blow the place up tomorrow or at least do some serious damage, all this nonsense about stopping photographers is so that the press will report the police are vigilant and the plebeian public and deluded tourists will feel safe ,thus propping up the tourist trade.

We have seen the devastating results of terrorism and I can bet the house non of the perpetrators were carrying a camera !!!
 
Richard Peters said:
To be clear again, I'm not talking about being asked to stop taking pictures when you are within your right to do so. I'm talking about just being asked to prove who you are - to make sure there is nothing suspect going on, perfectly reasonable. And exactly what was going on in this story.
Click to expand...

And why should you be asked to prove who you are when all you are doing is taking pictures? The issue being there is nothing suspect about taking pictures of a sunset behind St. Paul's. The police have no right to question people who are innocently out doing their daily business or pursuing their hobby. The police have every right to put under surveillance people who they have genuine reason to believe are undertaking terrorist activities and taking photographs is not one of them. That is why it is an issue in the press and why it is an issue on this forum. Personally I sympathise hugely with the difficulties the police have but they are out of order here.
 
Richard Peters said:
It's not anyone, it's the police. It's not like a random stranger is asking you who you are. Being asked to give details by the police, and nothing more, is not something that should get anyones back up and I can't see why it does.

To be clear again, I'm not talking about being asked to stop taking pictures when you are within your right to do so. I'm talking about just being asked to prove who you are - to make sure there is nothing suspect going on, perfectly reasonable. And exactly what was going on in this story.

Same reason police do random checks of motorists to make sure they are the owner of the car and driving legally etc. You may be insured and driving your own car but that doesn't mean the guy at the lights next to you is...so would you rather just run the risk of having more illegal drivers on the road to smash in to you or have something done about it?

It's not like the police can just hold up signs saying 'if you are doing something bad please stop', so spot checks have to be done - it's for your own safety.
Click to expand...

I choose to differ, mate. They need a 'reasonable suspicion' and merely taking photos is insufficient 'reason'. Just like stopping you in your car and asking for your details without 'sufficient reason'. I don't approve of spot checks just because you happen to be black or just because you happen to have a camera or just because they don't like your hairstyle. I'm not about to give my name or anything else to anyone, particularly the police just because they choose to demand it. Next thing you know its a DNA test and you're on some blasted database.
 
CT said:
All police officers whether in uniform or plain clothes carry a warrant card and MUST produce it on request to a member of the public, unless it's impractical in the circumstances.

It will contain a photo of the officer and his/her name, rank and number, be signed by the officer and his/her Chief Constable and must be carried at all times.

You shouldn't expect the officer to hand over the card for inspection but he/she is obliged to let you examine it sufficiently to ascertain the details from it.

I've never known a case of two officers in the same force having identical numbers - the whole point is that the number is unique to that officer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that confrim CT.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Thanks for that confrim CT.
Click to expand...
No probs Adam. Officers are identified by their collar number for everything from all operational matters to payroll listings. Duplicate numbers would cause untold problems. While you could obviously have several PC Smiths in a large force or division, each would have a unique collar number.
 
If you have nothing to hide then a simple my 'name is Joe Blogs and I live on Sesame Street' is only going to take up 10 seconds of your day. It's when you start giving them grief that it becomes a prolonged experience and all of a sudden they are the ones that are harassing you...(again, I'm talking about spot checks, being asked to stop taking photos when I am in my right to be taking them)

Anyway, seems it's all going round in circles in here still so I'm off. Everyone has their opinions and that's that, hopefully I'll live a nice long stress free life in a slightly safer world as spot checks don't wind me up at all. Anything is possible though and I just hope nobody here or anyone they know is ever victim of any kind of activity that spot checks are designed to help combat. A bomb, uninsured car that crashes in to you, stabbed for a fiver etc.

Be safe people :D
 
Richard Peters said:
It's not anyone, it's the police. It's not like a random stranger is asking you who you are. Being asked to give details by the police, and nothing more, is not something that should get anyones back up and I can't see why it does.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned this is a free country (apparently:suspect:) & unless I'm under arrest or have been asked to be a witness then I don't see why the Police or anyone else for that matter should know my details.

so spot checks have to be done - it's for your own safety.
Click to expand...
Sounds all a bit 'Eastern Bloc'/Police state to me, how much longer till we have to show our papers at checkpoints :nono:
 
CT said:
All police officers whether in uniform or plain clothes carry a warrant card and MUST produce it on request to a member of the public, unless it's impractical in the circumstances.

It will contain a photo of the officer and his/her name, rank and number, be signed by the officer and his/her Chief Constable and must be carried at all times.

You shouldn't expect the officer to hand over the card for inspection but he/she is obliged to let you examine it sufficiently to ascertain the details from it.

I've never known a case of two officers in the same force having identical numbers - the whole point is that the number is unique to that officer.
Click to expand...

Correct - but the big exception - which is relevent to this post, is that if the officer is undertaking counter terrorism activities, or has conducted a search under the terrorism act (no matter how trivial it might seem to the person stopped), the officer does not have to give their name, only their collar number and would not produce their warrant card.

Its a moot point though, as you said, their number is completely unique, whereas their name might not be (there might be more than one 'Joe Bloggs' in the force, but no one will have the same number).
 
If anyone was wishing to get photos for terrorist reason then it can be done very easy covertly
I have done covert work and know how easy it is to get full good quality video in colour and sound with out anyone knowing you are filming I have done it.
You would not stand with a SLR taking the photos.
 
RVF said:
As far as I'm concerned this is a free country (apparently:suspect:) & unless I'm under arrest or have been asked to be a witness then I don't see why the Police or anyone else for that matter should know my details.
Click to expand...

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
 
Chaz Photos said:
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
Click to expand...

Very true. But driving is a regulated activity in that you need to be licenced and insured and an officer can stop you to ensure you are documented and legal.

The confusion with stop and account in relation to the terrorist act and the way its sometimes used, (innocent) people dont feel they are undertaking any kind of regulated activity and this is where you get the conflict, and why the officer needs grounds to suspect. However, if the officer has grounds to suspect you do need to comply or face possible arrest.
 
Chaz Photos said:
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
Click to expand...

I haven't got a car :D
They have to have good reason to stop a vehicle in the 1st place & that doesn't apply to this thread ;)
They can ask for your details/ID but you are not obliged to tell them......& I for one would be asking a fair amount of Q's as to why they wanted my details if I was just wandering around with my camera.
 
RVF said:
I haven't got a car :D
They have to have good reason to stop a vehicle in the 1st place & that doesn't apply to this thread ;)
They can ask for your details/ID but you are not obliged to tell them......& I for one would be asking a fair amount of Q's as to why they wanted my details if I was just wandering around with my camera.
Click to expand...

They dont need a reason to stop you in a car. You need to be licenced and insured to drive so they can stop you simply to check that. If you refuse to provide your details you'll be arrested until your identity is ascertained!!

Whats to worry about though? Who cares if you are out with your camera and they ask who you are etc? Unless you have something to hide (ie you're wanted or actually ARE a terrorist) be polite, answer politely and they'll be on their way. Argue and you'll be there a lot longer and it could ruin your day!

Honestly, some of you should try spending time in other countries. You'd get hit with a baton in most places for not complying in the most minor way, we have it pretty good here!!
 
I'd have to agree in that if your details were asked for just give them. You have the right to ask for theirs, so why resist giving your own identity. As well as I wasn't asked to stop photographing I don't really care. They can get my name, look at my photos, then politely b****r off about their business!
 
odd jim said:
Whats to worry about though? Who cares if you are out with your camera and they ask who you are etc? Unless you have something to hide (ie you're wanted or actually ARE a terrorist) be polite, answer politely and they'll be on their way. Argue and you'll be there a lot longer and it could ruin your day!
Click to expand...

I have nothing to hide what so ever, I'm also a free man & that means I don't have to supply my details when asked without good reason.

Honestly, some of you should try spending time in other countries. You'd get hit with a baton in most places for not complying in the most minor way, we have it pretty good here!!
Click to expand...
I have, but that doesn't mean that I want this country or my freedom to be curtailed in the same way.

This is not a police state......yet!
 
Could someone please explaine to me what a terrorist looks like. The last i knew they didn't walk around with a mask on or a big sign saying i'm a terrorist stop me now. Just think to yourself how would you feel if you lost some of your family to a terrorist attack and it could have been avoided the week before for just simply asking a few questions. Dont forget when they are asking them they are not just recording what you say but how you say it. Everyone gives a slight indication when they are lieing this is an involentary thing the human body does.

As for the fact that there was never been photoes used for terrorist attacks where is the proof of this or is it just what someone read on a thread like this and what someone has just said, official proof on this would stop any arguments on this not just hearsay.

As for you would never give your name and address to anyone. I take it that you don't vote then as you give them details to the voters regestary and you won't have a bank account then as you need to give them for that. You trust the people behind a counter with all your money but not the people that look after you.

I have been stopped in the past and all i did was keep calm give them my details and offered to show them the pictures i had been taken. i would rather be stopped 100 times than to lose friends because nothing was been done.
 
CT said:
All police officers whether in uniform or plain clothes carry a warrant card and MUST produce it on request to a member of the public, unless it's impractical in the circumstances.

It will contain a photo of the officer and his/her name, rank and number, be signed by the officer and his/her Chief Constable and must be carried at all times.

You shouldn't expect the officer to hand over the card for inspection but he/she is obliged to let you examine it sufficiently to ascertain the details from it.

I've never known a case of two officers in the same force having identical numbers - the whole point is that the number is unique to that officer.
Click to expand...


Forbiddenbiker said:
Thanks for that confrim CT.
Click to expand...

A warrant card will not neccessarily be signed by an officer (they aren't in Scotland, I doubt they would be in England and Wales either but I haven't seen their warrant cards before) but everything else is correct although, not all uniformed officers may be in possession of their warrant card whilst on uniformed duty. It's not a legal requirement.
 
kapawayna said:
I have been stopped in the past and all i did was keep calm give them my details and offered to show them the pictures i had been taken. i would rather be stopped 100 times than to lose friends because nothing was been done.
Click to expand...

...except that the real issue here is that you could be stopped 1000 times and it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to whether you lost friends in a terrorist attack or not. Terrorists do not waste their time photographing sunsets and the police are wasting their time indulging in a pointless practice of stopping workaday photographers doing their job or hobbyists indulging their hobby.
 
kapawayna said:
Could someone please explaine to me what a terrorist looks like. The last i knew they didn't walk around with a mask on or a big sign saying i'm a terrorist stop me now. Just think to yourself how would you feel if you lost some of your family to a terrorist attack and it could have been avoided the week before for just simply asking a few questions. Dont forget when they are asking them they are not just recording what you say but how you say it. Everyone gives a slight indication when they are lieing this is an involentary thing the human body does.
Click to expand...
Bringing emotion into the discusion doesn't really further the debate. ID checks or cards haven't stopped a terroist attack yet.......NI, Spain, Afghan, Iraq?
Yes when someone is lying they do give off tell tale signs, but I believe that it takes time & a few more questions to uncover than a quick chat in the street.

As for you would never give your name and address to anyone. I take it that you don't vote then as you give them details to the voters regestary and you won't have a bank account then as you need to give them for that. You trust the people behind a counter with all your money but not the people that look after you.
Click to expand...
I presume that's aimed at me? I haven't said that I would never give my details, but that I don't have to.
I don't really trust either to be honest, but I have to give certain info if I want a bank acc.
 
RVF
no that wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at people in general saying they wouldn't give there details if asked. It was a point about people saying they wouldn't give there details to people they don't know but do it every day without giving it a second thought.
 
kapawayna said:
RVF
no that wasn't aimed at you it was aimed at people in general saying they wouldn't give there details if asked. It was a point about people saying they wouldn't give there details to people they don't know but do it every day without giving it a second thought.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, my appologies :beer:
 
No problem thats the thing we all have are own opinion on things. It's always better to keep things in general and not pick out any single person.

Oh yes that drink looks good i think i will joinn you with one of them.:beer:
 
This isn't a new issue. As long ago as 1990 whilst taking sunset photogrpahs standing on a grass verge at the side of a public road, an Escort Van pulled up alongside me and I was approached by two rent-a-cops from a private security company and asked what I was doing.

"Minding my own business" was my cheery reply. It didn't go down too well but I stuck to my guns.... Needless to say if it had been the real Police I would have been more polite but my essential point is that the view was completely open to public gaze so what was the problem with a photograph?

The reason for their interest? B.A. were at the time building a large repair hangar on the fringes of Cardiff airport and they 'were under instructions' to investigate any suspicious activity. I suggested that they go back to the BA site and investigate there, only not in such polite terms.....

By the way, the slides were a disaster.... Absolute rubbish!!!.... So perhaps that was fate punishing me for not being more polite.

Rob
 
Thanks. Printed and laminated and placed in camera bag

I have not come across any stop and searched but know of a few people who have (that are not yet on the forum)
 
Craig_B said:
A warrant card will not neccessarily be signed by an officer (they aren't in Scotland, I doubt they would be in England and Wales either but I haven't seen their warrant cards before) but everything else is correct although, not all uniformed officers may be in possession of their warrant card whilst on uniformed duty. It's not a legal requirement.
Click to expand...

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

All officers are required to carry a warrant card at all times - period. The card is your ultimate identification and authority for doing the job - it's not much use when it's at home in the drawer! Police officers are bound by an internal discipline code in addition to the laws of the land which we all have to observe. Not being in possession of a warrant card was a disciplinary offence in my force, and losing a warrant card was considered a very serious disciplinary matter.
 
RVF said:
Bringing emotion into the discusion doesn't really further the debate. ID checks or cards haven't stopped a terroist attack yet.......NI, Spain, Afghan, Iraq?
Yes when someone is lying they do give off tell tale signs, but I believe that it takes time & a few more questions to uncover than a quick chat in the street.


I presume that's aimed at me? I haven't said that I would never give my details, but that I don't have to.
I don't really trust either to be honest, but I have to give certain info if I want a bank acc.
Click to expand...

But thats just it - how do they know if they are lying or being evasive if they havnt even spoken to them on the street? The only way to get an in depth interview from them would be a straight arrest and a long chat over coffee at the station - no innocent person would want that!

On a different tangent, some people think its beyond their human rights for the police to ask for names and addresses (not aimed at anyone in particular!). How would any of you feel if the police were to stop one person on the street, hyperthetically, not actually committing any offences but acting a little odd. This person refuses details and off the police go, powerless to act any further. However, this person is a known and wanted burglar, who then goes off to burgle your nan's house a couple of days later.

Its about balancing rights and protecting the public and to be honest I think the UK has it about right in most aspects (which could be debated but not in this thread!). Its not like we are living in Hitler's Germany and we'd be shot for not carrying our ID cards is it?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top