BUS spotter to hang up camera after paedophile and terrorist accusations

[tigerimages]

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...ccusations/article-194852-detail/article.html

:thumbsdown:

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Whas so crazy is that 99% of people dont give a monkeys about having their photos taken its just the saddo's of the PC brigade,I take many shots of boats on my local Canals and I have never had anyone complain,some have even given me their e-mail addresses so that I can send them a copy

 

[-Paul-]

I think that some togs need to develope a thicker skin! (no offence to any body intended) So what if the police take your details? it takes about five mins then you can go back to doing what you want. If you want to take a picture of someones kid just ask and explain why. if you do it by accident and they dont like it or object just delete it, if they accuse you of being a paedophile argue most strongly that your not!!! dont just shy away.

 

[DollyBuster]

So what if the police take your details?

If on foot, unless the police have a legitimate (!) suspicion that you are committing a trespass or an actual crime, at that very moment, they have no right to stop you and to require you to identify yourself to them.
If they do regardless, and you submit, you are effectively living in a police state.

 

[Jelster]

If on foot, unless the police have a legitimate (!) suspicion that you are committing a trespass or an actual crime, at that very moment, they have no right to stop you and to require you to identify yourself to them.
If they do regardless, and you submit, you are effectively living in a police state.

Actually, under the powers of "stop & search", they may well take your details and obviously search you if they feel you are a risk to the public.

Now generally when PC Plod turns up and you have a reasonable discussion, it won't end up in a "search". Try and play the "you have no right" card and you could find that you've bitten off more than you can chew.

It's simple, don't act the arse and the police (in general) will be civil about it. They can't stop you photographing anything unless it's a threat to national security or they believe you're doing it for an illegal purpose (kids for instance).

It's like being stopped in your car - stay relaxed and everything goes OK, get defensive and they think you've got something to hide.

See here: http://www.stopandsearch.com/

Steve

 

[Marc]

 

[theMusicMan]

I too have been stopped once or twice by Police and asked what I am doing... which to be honest is a rather stupid question to be asking when it is quite obvious what I am doing!

What I find objectionable, is why... just because I have a black camera with lens attached, am I considered more of a terrorist suspect than someone with a phone cam taking a shot of the same thing? Neither are suspected terrorists, neither are doing harm, and neither are breaking the law. Why should we as photographers, peacefully exercising our right to photograph in public, be the ones who attract the suspicions of police who quite possibly think they have nothing better to be getting on with.

Each time I have been stopped (both in BR Stations - but with a clear 'Official Visitor' badge on display on my lapel) I have no objections to chatting to the PC's and even offering to show them the shots I have, but why is it that am I considered suspicious in the first place - just because I have a camera...? It's wrong, plain and simple and we shouldn't just sit back and accept it.

 

[minky_monkey]

"Rob, from Robinswood, Gloucester, claims he has been forced to suffer the humiliation of police taking his details and checking his camera twice in the past 12 months, after innocently snapping buses on public highways."

Twice? Is that all? Blimey, stop being such a wuss. I thought it was a case of constant harrassment!

 

[AliB]

What I found interesting was the spokesperson from Gloucestershire Police who stated that the Police have the power under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to arrest a tog and seize the camera if they have not identified the content of the pics.

Utter rubbish!

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives Police the authority to search you and your property or location ON ARREST. That means you have to be committing an arrestable offence in order to trigger PACE. Last time I checked togging buses was not an arrestable offence!

There may have been a case under the new terrorism legislation for a check of those images in order to protect a transport route (hence you often get stopped at stations) but there is no power of arrest that I can see in those circumstances.

 

[Jamougha]

Terrorism Act 2008

58.—(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to
be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of
that kind.
(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic
record.
(3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this
section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or
possession.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory
maximum or to both.

Note that it doesn't say you have to be collecting material for a terrorist purpose, just that you have to lack a reasonable excuse in the view of the court.

If they arrest you on this charge then they can keep you locked up for up to 28 days - soon to be 42 - providing that -

• there are reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of the person to whom the application relates is necessary to obtain relevant evidence whether by questioning him or otherwise or to preserve relevant evidence, and
• the investigation in connection with which the person is detained is being conducted diligently and expeditiously.

Effectively living in a police state? But for the Law Lords yes.

 

[scorpius]

It seem a minor thing but it could be very embarrassing if it happens to you and it does appear to be becoming more common, with increasing numbers of Police Officers and others, PCSOs etc., not understanding the law and your rights to take photographs.

As has been stated above the quote from Gloucestershire Police is incorrect, they can't seize your camera, film or data card without either arresting you or apparently a court order.

This interesting article appeared in The Register today on this very subject
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/

 

[Marc]

As has been stated above the quote from Gloucestershire Police is incorrect, they can't seize your camera, film or data card without either arresting you or apparently a court order.

"However, if the officer remains suspicious as to the content of the images or the photographers intentions they have the authority, under the Police and Criminal Evident Act, to seize the camera and arrest the individual"

As you can see, it states that the camera can be siezed AND the individual arrested.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

When was the last time that terrorists were known to have walked around with dslrs taking pictures of potential targets? Never, as far as I'm aware, it's certainly never been brought up any any recent terrorist court case that I can think of. I'd imagine most potential bombers will simply use Google Earth to locate targets, but I don't hear any cries that that should be banned

 

[AliB]

"However, if the officer remains suspicious as to the content of the images or the photographers intentions they have the authority, under the Police and Criminal Evident Act, to seize the camera and arrest the individual"

As you can see, it states that the camera can be siezed AND the individual arrested.

No, my point is that you have to be committing an arrestable offence in order to be arrested in the first place. Taking pics in a public place is not in itself an arrestable offence.

It's the same with identity, if a Police Officer cannot ascertain your identity you can be arrrested under PACE but you have to have something wrong in the first place.

 

[Roofer]

Im sorry, what was his concern, was it being called a paedophile, terrorist or bus spotter:shrug:

 

[Flash In The Pan]

No, my point is that you have to be committing an arrestable offence in order to be arrested in the first place. Taking pics in a public place is not in itself an arrestable offence.

It's the same with identity, if a Police Officer cannot ascertain your identity you can be arrrested under PACE but you have to have (done) something wrong in the first place.

That would usually be the one-size-fits-all Breach of the Peace charge in the absence of any real charges

 

[AliB]

Ahhhh, yes Scots Law!

I'm sure you only have the one offence up there!

No hang on there are two, the other is deep frying mars bars, or that should be an offence! lol

 

[Marc]

No, my point is that you have to be committing an arrestable offence in order to be arrested in the first place. Taking pics in a public place is not in itself an arrestable offence.

It's the same with identity, if a Police Officer cannot ascertain your identity you can be arrrested under PACE but you have to have something wrong in the first place.

Failing to cooperate in a legal stop and search is an offence. As Jelster said, if you don't give them grief then there won't be a problem. If a member of the public raises concerns then they are duty bound to investigate. If you're stopped, answer their questions and, if necessary, show them your pics and everyone will be able to move on. You never know, the copper may start up a conversation about f-stops and shutter speeds.

 

[baldwyn]

I apologise for any offence caused here but I've put it harshly to make my point.

For Christs sake, so a plane crashes into a building by certain muslims and the whole world has to suffer. I know that's put harshly, but that's how it is and is annoying that everyone has to suffer as a result. Even in the two movies I've watched recently a disaster occurs and the first thing that the actors are told to say is " You think it's terrorists"

It's everywhere and people are overreacting and "they" are winning because our lives have changed for the worse as a result of their actions.
Again, Apologies for any offence caused.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Ahhhh, yes Scots Law!

I'm sure you only have the one offence up there!

Aye....

"Being in possesion of an English accent in a public place"

 

[Flash In The Pan]

I apologise for any offence caused here but I've put it harshly to make my point.

For Christs sake, so a plane crashes into a building by some prick in a turban

Turbans = Sikh

9/11 bombers = Muslims

Big difference.......

 

[baldwyn]

Edited.

 

[KIPAX]

I feel so left out... I dream of being stopped by a policeman wanting to know what I am doing with my camera

 

[Marc]

I feel so left out... I dream of being stopped by a policeman wanting to know what I am doing with my camera

Me too, I've started stalking them!

 

[AliB]

Failing to cooperate in a legal stop and search is an offence.

Yes I agree it is but the stop and search has to be legal in the first place

The Gloucestershire spokesperson was incorrect in stating that you could be arrested under PACE. Other legislation yes but not PACE. Even Police spokespeople can't get it right!

 

[hepburn]

I feel so left out... I dream of being stopped by a policeman wanting to know what I am doing with my camera

You could always try stuffing it down your trousers with a big zoom lens attached...

 

[Jelster]

The Gloucestershire spokesperson was incorrect in stating that you could be arrested under PACE. Other legislation yes but not PACE. Even Police spokespeople can't get it right!

And therein lies the problem. The law is now so complex that even those that are paid to enforce it don't have a full understanding of it. So the poor PCSO's have no chance.

The terrorist attacks in the West have worked, everybody has a higher rate of suspicion of everybody else, and it's blown out of proportion even more by the media.

Steve

 

[allanm]

My, theres a lot of dissent about the Police and rumours and fairy tales about what they can and cannot do.! But PCSO`s are fair game, they are the product of a cheapskate Government and in my opinion a bad idea. (gets off soapbox but carries on with rant.......)

But, you dont have to commit an arrestable offence to be arrested. Being suspected of committing one is enough. AliB stated " The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 gives Police the authority to search you and your property or location ON ARREST" Maybe, but only if suspected of committing certain offences, ie, burglary or theft. PACE is very specific on this and leaves an extensive auditable paper trail.

Police have powers to stop and search anyone as long as they use the following legislation.
Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984
Section 1 of PACE is the most commonly used power and gives the police power to stop and search people and vehicles for stolen goods and offensive weapons on the basis of reasonable suspicion.

Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, gives police the right to search people in a specific area at a specific time when they believe, with good reason, that there is the possibility of serious violence or that a person is carrying a dangerous object or offensive weapon.
This law is used mainly to tackle football hooliganism and gang fights.

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search people for equipment that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so. It is under this law that police conduct random searches in train and tube stations.
These searches are an important tool in the ongoing fight against terrorism. Used as part of a structured anti-terrorist strategy, the powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a hostile environment for would-be terrorists – ensuring it is not easy for them to carry or use explosives. ( or, as many have found to their cost, use their cameras!)

This is the section togs and others are being stopped for. Again, there are strict guidelines covering this. If you think you have been treated incorrectly, complain to the Chief Officer at the local Police station. The more people complain, the better the chance that we stop getting harrassed. I do not condone photographers being stopped and searched under this power, unless they are in restricted places, or acting suspiciously, then they are fair game ( I believe even Trafalger Sq is classified as a restricted place!!)

Many Police use a tried and tested formula designed to give them guidance on how they deal with people they speak to after stopping them ( either in a car or on foot.)

Its commonly called " The Attitude Test" I used it all the time.

How YOU react generally denotes how you will be dealt with. Its not in any Police manual, but still used all the same. This happens in all walks of life too. Google BETARI`S BOX to get an idea. Now you know why a lot of people always have a hard time interacting with others, especially with any people in authority!

But, in relation to the bus spotter, it is sad that innocent people are hounded by these political correctness bullies.

I spend a lot of time working with and photographing people of all ages. I have an Enhanced CRB ( criminal records bureau check). Anybody can get one. If you are going to be photographing people where kids are likely to be, why not get one too?
Saves a lot of hassle.
Just imagine the face of the overbearing PC or PCSO when he( or she) challenges you for photographing members of the public and you shove that ( politely) in his ( or her) face.

Rant over, I feel much better now, time for a

Allan

 

[2blue4u]

I have an Enhanced CRB ( criminal records bureau check). Anybody can get one.

It's my understanding that 'anyone' can get the basic CRB. But to acquire the Enhanced requires sponsorship from an authorised body - or whatever??

 

[Gary]

.

Love the username! Its been a long time since I've heard her name!

 

[KIPAX]

But, in relation to the bus spotter, it is sad that innocent people are hounded by these political correctness bullies.

Being stopped twice in one year is hardly being hounded.

 

[Gary]

Turbans = Sikh

9/11 bombers = Muslims

Big difference.......

Muslims and Hindus also where Turbans on special occasions. It could be the terrorists were on their way to a wedding

 

[Gary]

and now for a serious comment:

i take photos in the street every day. I've been stopped way more than this Busophile has and to be honest it doesnt bother me. I talk to the police/PCSO people in a friendly manner and they do the same to me and I go about my business and they do the same. Most of them are nice and friendly (after all its the PCSOs job to get to know the locals and community, and they cant do that by ****ing them off).
If a member of the public did ever accuse me of being a p*** I would gently point out to them how dumb they are and if they really think a p*** gets his kicks out of photos of kids with their clothes on.

 

[whiteflyer]

It's my understanding that 'anyone' can get the basic CRB. But to acquire the Enhanced requires sponsorship from an authorised body - or whatever??

That's not what is says on the cbr.gov.uk site

The current legislation does not allow the self-employed or individuals to apply for a CRB check on themselves. In addition, parents who employ a nanny/au pair/babysitter directly cannot apply for a CRB check; however, if an agency supplies the nanny/au pair/babysitter, the agency is entitled to carry out a CRB check.

 

[Les McLean]

It's my understanding that 'anyone' can get the basic CRB. But to acquire the Enhanced requires sponsorship from an authorised body - or whatever??

That was correct, an 'enhanced' clearance had to be made by a registered body, and only for posts that involve a far greater degree of contact with children or vulnerable adults.

The CRB laws have changed, and CRB checks can only be made by registered body, i.e. an individual cannot apply.

From the CRB website

The current legislation does not allow the self-employed or individuals to apply for a CRB check on themselves. In addition, parents who employ a nanny/au pair/babysitter directly cannot apply for a CRB check; however, if an agency supplies the nanny/au pair/babysitter, the agency is entitled to carry out a CRB check.

 

[2blue4u]

That was correct, an 'enhanced' clearance had to be made by a registered body, and only for posts that involve a far greater degree of contact with children or vulnerable adults.[/B]

Thanks for that.

The current legislation does not allow the self-employed or individuals to apply for a CRB check on themselves.

Standard and Enhanced, yes, but the rather pointless Basic can still be applied for by an individual.

 

[Jamougha]

These searches are an important tool in the ongoing fight against terrorism. Used as part of a structured anti-terrorist strategy, the powers help to deter terrorist activity by creating a hostile environment for would-be terrorists – ensuring it is not easy for them to carry or use explosives.

:bonk::bang:

 

[Les McLean]

Thanks for that.

Standard and Enhanced, yes, but the rather pointless Basic can still be applied for by an individual.

I don't think so? (but you could before the legislastion change)

from the CRB website

Levels of CRB Check

To provide this service, the CRB offers two types of check. These are Standard and Enhanced.

These checks cannot be obtained by members of the public directly but are only available to organisations and only for those professions, offices, employments, work and occupations listed in the Exceptions Order to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.

 

[Eau Rouge]

saddo's of the PC brigade,

As a fully paid up member of the 'PC Brigade', your talking rubbish.
People you don't like are not automatically the 'PC Brigade'.

Note that it doesn't say you have to be collecting material for a terrorist purpose, just that you have to lack a reasonable excuse in the view of the court.

The Courts, who are the only authority that get to decide what laws really mean, have established that just having material is not enough, there has to be intent to use it as a terrorist too.

 

[Jamougha]

The Courts, who are the only authority that get to decide what laws really mean, have established that just having material is not enough, there has to be intent to use it as a terrorist too.

I know; hence my comment about the Law Lords. It's clearly not the intent with which it was drafted, though, and this kind of thing should never have passed.