Can someone explain the law to me

[Byker28i]

There's a worrying trend starting on this forum these days. We are supposed to be the friendliest forum, yet again members have launched into a full internet trial of this person and found him guilty.

I should probably added and found the police guilty also.

 

[Byker28i]

Interestingly, a google search turns up:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...urity_chiefs_issue_statement_news_305808.html

 

[simonblue]

Interestingly, a google search turns up:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...urity_chiefs_issue_statement_news_305808.html

Now very confused

 

[DemiLion]

Interestingly, a google search turns up:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/arrested_photographer_security_chiefs_issue_statement_news_305808.html

That's exactly the occasion that I was thinking about when I said that MK had previous form on this!

 

[neil_g]

Interestingly, a google search turns up:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...urity_chiefs_issue_statement_news_305808.html

"The policy, published on the centre's website, reads: 'The venue is private property, owned by Xscape Milton Keynes Partnership. For purposes of security, data protection, customer safety and brand protection, the security team at the venue reserve the right to approach any person engaged in photographic activity.'"

dear lord.. :bang:

 

[gramps]

Confusing indeed!

 

[odd jim]

That's exactly the occasion that I was thinking about when I said that MK had previous form on this!

MK maybe but clearly not the police, hense my scepticism.

 

[Donnie]

Oh lord, can someone point me to the yawning smiley!!

 

[Pegasus2]

Like i said earlier none of the land arround the centre mk is publicly owned (apart from the actual road which i assume you werent standing on) - so you are on a hiding to nothing there as they are within their rights to ask the poice to remove you from private land,

Actually i'm fairly sure they are not. Police cannot arrest for trespass, as it is a civil matter and not a criminal one. Police can only remove you if you are directly asked to leave by the owners and you refuse.

I spent a lot of time researching trespass laws, so I would be surprised if I am wrong.

 

[ernesto]

Police can only remove you if you are directly asked to leave by the owners and you refuse.

If you are correct then maybe that was the part of the story that was missing...

 

[odd jim]

If you are correct then maybe that was the part of the story that was missing...

No, again that's improbable. You wouldn't be arrested at all, though the police could escort you off the premises. The only time under these circs you'd be arrested would be to prevent a breach of the peace, and then it's likely you'd be released away from the scene. You certainly wouldn't be interviewed at the police station for either civil trespass (not a police matter) or breach of the peace (which doesn't require an interview) as described by the OP.

The fact the OP hasn't returned to explain the obvious holes leads me to conclude one thing...

 

[Triggaaar]

The fact the OP hasn't returned to explain the obvious holes leads me to conclude one thing...

They shot him?

 

[odd jim]

They shot him?

Ok, maybe two things...

 

[EOS_JD]

They shot him?

With his Nikon camera

 

[Donnie]

... that he can't be bothered to post as so many people were already querying the truth of his post and he feels like he's been effectively called a liar?

 

[Bernie174]

that he can't be bothered to post as so many people were already querying the truth of his post and he feels like he's been effectively called a liar?

Or perhaps he is. There's nothing hard about the questions he's been asked, they are simply there to verify and try and work out why, if what he said is true, what happened.

Anyway, Old Jim is right, you can't be arrested for trespass unless it's aggravated trespass, which this is not. And these days BofP is only detain until the BofP is over. Arrest for it can cost a lot in police overtime.

 

[pmaccyd]

I've just been sucked into a hour of watching the "love police" on YouTube and its interesting how when you know the law, and talk rationally the police soon see common sense and are generally very good. Though I don't agree with goading the authorities i found it very interesting, especially the tower of London escape from section 44 clip.

 

[Splog]

... that he can't be bothered to post as so many people were already querying the truth of his post and he feels like he's been effectively called a liar?

 

[odd jim]

... that he can't be bothered to post as so many people were already querying the truth of his post and he feels like he's been effectively called a liar?

Who called him a liar? In fact, who did anything other than directly answer his original title question? In doing so, it unearthed some considerable legal and procedural errors apparently committed by numerous officers at every single phase of the incident and subsequent station procedures. Is it therefore right for those with professional knowledge to sit there and say nothing?

The improbabilities were pointed out and it's over to the OP to clarify? Isn't that how a discussion works? No one directly called him anything, and he still very much has a right to reply which it appears he's chosen not to do.

Do we always have to take everything at face value then spend pages and pages slating the police etc when it's totally unwarranted, and in this case further spreading the photographer/police paranoia?

But, as I said in an earlier post, I'd love to be proved wrong in my conclusions.

 

[jon ryan]

^^^ +1 ^^^

 

[DemiLion]

Do we always have to take everything at face value then spend pages and pages slating the police etc when it's totally unwarranted, and in this case further spreading the photographer/police paranoia?

Absolutely we do. Especially when it involves Bernie going off like a spinning top and getting all confuddled!

 

[ernesto]

Anyway, Old Jim is right, you can't be arrested for trespass unless it's aggravated trespass, which this is not.

That is the potentially missing bit I was referring to. If we are not armed with all the facts then you can not say what sort of trespass it is or isn't.

 

[neil_g]

well the OP has been online and posting in other topics in the last 24 hours. not sure why there isnt an update on this though.

 

[Donnie]

Yes he has and with luck he will come back on here at some point to answer some of the questions.

 

[Donnie]

Who called him a liar? In fact, who did anything other than directly answer his original title question? In doing so, it unearthed some considerable legal and procedural errors apparently committed by numerous officers at every single phase of the incident and subsequent station procedures. Is it therefore right for those with professional knowledge to sit there and say nothing?

Jim, I did say he may feel he's effectively been called a liar.

It's quite subjective so I'm just being clear.
As for answering the original question or unearthing errors etc yes there's a large proportion of that gone on which is good, but (as these threads tend to go) it took an evident turn where some feel it's either a wind up or they "smell a rat" I'm just surprised someones not posted yet that maybe he deliberately went out to intimidate security :shake:

The improbabilities were pointed out and it's over to the OP to clarify? Isn't that how a discussion works? No one directly called him anything, and he still very much has a right to reply which it appears he's chosen not to do.

He does have a right of reply indeed but not everyone uses forums as often as some of us, I mean I must be on this forum several times each 24 hours but others may only frequent it every other day and he may be one of those. He's a relatively new member of the forum, he may be a relatively new member to any forum?

Do we always have to take everything at face value then spend pages and pages slating the police etc when it's totally unwarranted, and in this case further spreading the photographer/police paranoia?

Innocent 'til proven guilty? :shrug:

Perhaps that's overly simplistic but to be fair it is valid. I mean it's not like it's a first post or obvious trolling? As for being totally unwarranted, thats only accurate if the op is in fact giving a completly innaccurate account surely?

But, as I said in an earlier post, I'd love to be proved wrong in my conclusions.

My intentions not to prove or disprove anything, that's up to the op if he feels like coming back to clarify his points and account.

My own point was more about the degeneration of threads such as this which seems more and more commonplace on TP lately.

 

[odd jim]

Jim, I did say he may feel he's effectively been called a liar.

It's quite subjective so I'm just being clear.
As for answering the original question or unearthing errors etc yes there's a large proportion of that gone on which is good, but (as these threads tend to go) it took an evident turn where some feel it's either a wind up or they "smell a rat" I'm just surprised someones not posted yet that maybe he deliberately went out to intimidate security :shake:

He does have a right of reply indeed but not everyone uses forums as often as some of us, I mean I must be on this forum several times each 24 hours but others may only frequent it every other day and he may be one of those. He's a relatively new member of the forum, he may be a relatively new member to any forum?

Innocent 'til proven guilty? :shrug:

Perhaps that's overly simplistic but to be fair it is valid. I mean it's not like it's a first post or obvious trolling? As for being totally unwarranted, thats only accurate if the op is in fact giving a completly innaccurate account surely?

My intentions not to prove or disprove anything, that's up to the op if he feels like coming back to clarify his points and account.

My own point was more about the degeneration of threads such as this which seems more and more commonplace on TP lately.

I don't think it degenerated per se as as it's all been civil, and the questions asked, not just by me, are valid and well put IMO.

And as has been pointed out, the OP has posted several things on TP in the last 24 hours but curiously not back on this thread.

It's an emotive subject of course, which, if this is a ruse, it really doesn't help our cause.

I'll simply sign off from this thread now until the OP posts back.

 

[simonblue]

Yes he has and with luck he will come back on here at some point to answer some of the questions.

I think that would be a good idea,i am not calling the OP a liar,but i do think it would good to tie all the loose end up

 

[Donnie]

I don't think it degenerated per se as as it's all been civil, and the questions asked, not just by me, are valid and well put IMO.

And as has been pointed out, the OP has posted several things on TP in the last 24 hours but curiously not back on this thread.

It's an emotive subject of course, which, if this is a ruse, it really doesn't help our cause.

I'll simply sign off from this thread now until the OP posts back.

Certainly is emotive and I agree with you that if it is a ruse it doesn't help photographers at all.

Id like to say that I wasn't singling you out Jim, I just replied to your's as you brought up particular points about what I said and I didn't want them to be misconstrued.

 

[Donnie]

I think that would be a good idea,i am not calling the OP a liar,but i do think it would good to tie all the loose end up

agreed

 

[odd jim]

Certainly is emotive and I agree with you that if it is a ruse it doesn't help photographers at all.

Id like to say that I wasn't singling you out Jim, I just replied to your's as you brought up particular points about what I said and I didn't want them to be misconstrued.

No worries!

 

[Hoogle]

Ok I posted This thread a while ago and couldnt find it again Dont understand the sorting of this forum.

Briefly read through the comments and seem to be accused of things etc So I am posting an update.

I volounteered to cooperate and answer any questions they had for me at the same time though I Felt Pressured and felt to be made to feel like a criminal.

Just Like I volounteered to delete the photos and let them search them otherwise I would have been held longer due to further investigation.

When you look back on it yes If I stood up for myself more and questioned it at the time maybe it would not of esculated into anything. I am a law abiding Citizen and honestly did not believe I was doing anything wrong so was more than happy to help out and answer questions.

However I did not realise that being so co operative would have made things worse. I have passed the detailsonto a family friend who is a solicitor and has confirmed that If I had just said Are you detaining me or even am I free to go then I would have been able to go as they had nothing to hold me on.

So yes a lot of it is my own fault for volounteering however as I did Volounteer and cooperated with them fully I should have been treated better.

I have never had a brush with the Law before and I admit I got a bit scared and cooperated fully


I would also Like to say I believe the police do a good job and I support them fully and I wont let this 1 incident get me down In fact Today I was out and about in my home town and I got chatting to some police officers I told them my story and they agreed it all seemed over the top and a lot of the Thames Valley police could be from the london area and they are on the look out for suspicious behaviour with digital equipment for the lead up to the olympics. and I may have just bee caught in the cross fire. Infact they were such good sports they let me photograph them and which I will be sending the pics to the station for them to keep.

I had 1 bad experience mainly due to the fact I did not know my rights and yes before my interview had started I was offered representation but yet again I still believed I had done nothing wrong so felt like I did not need it. In hein sight maybe I should have done it may have taken longer but at least I would have had some support.

I reccomend If you plan on going to a strange location other than your regular shooting grounds look up to see if you need permission etc and learn some basic rights I did not know these and as I was probably so nervous I probably looked guilty of something.

And I would reccomend you co operate with the police if asked however if it gets to the point of asking you to come down to the station then ask clearly am I being Detained and am I free to go.

If they have nothing on you then they have to let you go.

This is a lesson learnt I understand police have to put pressure onto people to get answers but this time I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and had some bad luck with some over zealous officers.

I am putting in an official complaint through a solicitor but not to action against them or make a claim but more for the grounds of awareness and hoping some proper guidelines are set as I understand there are to many grey areas when it comes to photography and I hope ths gets sorted.

But the basis of my complaint will be relying on the fact I was not clearly told at any time That I was free to go and from what I gather I was free to go at any time I wanted.

 

[Hoogle]

Oh I should also Add I later found out not buy the police that later that day there were some high priority guest visiting the centre of the royal nature So That could have been a factor.

and clearing up some of the questions to make it easier for you to judge me

I was not arrested as in hand cuffed and had my rights read to me as I was asked if I could come down to the station so yes in heinsight I could have said no but what would that achieve other than me looking guilty. So no I was not quoted I am arresting you under suspicion of etc etc.

I was held in a waiting area but not a prison cell and when I was finally interviewed I was read a caution saying that anything I said could be used as evidence as far as I know this is not me being arrested but rather they are warning me that anything I say can be used against me.

When I left I did ask If I had anything pernament on my record and they said no However I have recently been told all though I have no criminal record there will be certain things that will show up in some kind of advanced searches.

I hope that clears up the questions you have and when I get an outcome from my complaint I will update you all.

what happened I must stressed was partly my fault why I posted the thread was because I was so Angry afterwards (and yet relieved at the same time) Because I was stupid and did not stand up for my rights and more Angry that the way I was spoken to and the fact that all though I volounteered everything I felt like I had no choice. And was pressured with commens like Police officer: will you delete your photos
Me: Do I have to
Officer: If you dont then we will hold you further unil a proper invsigation has been processed and run it by xxxx which could be a couple of hours
Me: Just delete them

What would have happened if I said no I do not know and nor Did I want to find out


I would ike to say I was just unlucky but no innocent person should have to feel like they are not and that Is what my problem is.

I do not mind having security or police questioning my motives when it comes to me shooting in public places But there was no need for me to even have to volounteer to come to the station I would like to think even an untrained photographer could see I was not causing any harm nor plotting anything with my photos as I had a mixed bag of pictures yes some architectural but Ladybirds flowers and trees dont seem to be highly listed on top priorities for terrorists.

 

[odd jim]

Nice one Hoogle, that does clarify it somewhat and I hope you wernt offended by my questioning this (it's certainly in my nature to be suspicious if things appear on face value not to add up!), and I apologise for insinuating that this thread may have been disingenuous. But Now that we know a bit more I can offer you some advice!

The fact you wern't arrested and this was wholly voluntary puts this in a different light.

It would appear everything that happened was on a purely voluntary basis, I take it they did specifically inform you that you were not under arrest and were free to leave at any time? (EDIT - I see that they did not inform you of this, you would know why I asked it then!)

The "holding area". Was this a locked room or simply a waiting room? If it was locked it changes things completely!

Unfortunately, although you may feel your treatment was unfair, a complaint will only go so far. The only aspects I can see being an issue is the request for you to delete the photos and the fact you were not informed you could leave at any time. The photographs - Did they not go through each one as they could have chimped through the images in a few minutes!

Don't pay a solicitor to make a complaint on your behalf, a complete waste of money. You can do this yourself and TBH there are no pure law aspects to this that a solicitor can even aid you with, and my feelings are although you may feel aggrieved, as the whole thing was voluntary, apart from the two main issues there's not much to really complain about bar your actual treatment which you deem to be unfair.

I'd still like to know why they deemed it necessary to be dealt with via an interview under caution and why it couldn't simply be dealt with there and then by looking at your images?

The interview - Was it taped or did they hand write your answers?

 

[gramps]

Police officer: will you delete your photos
Me: Do I have to
Officer: If you dont then we will hold you further unil a proper invsigation has been processed and run it by xxxx which could be a couple of hours

I think that puts a completely different angle on it if those are the exact words!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I am putting in an official complaint through a solicitor but not to action against them or make a claim but more for the grounds of awareness and hoping some proper guidelines are set as I understand there are to many grey areas when it comes to photography and I hope ths gets sorted.

But the basis of my complaint will be relying on the fact I was not clearly told at any time That I was free to go and from what I gather I was free to go at any time I wanted.

When I left I did ask If I had anything pernament on my record and they said no However I have recently been told all though I have no criminal record there will be certain things that will show up in some kind of advanced searches.

Id imagine, from my experiences, they'll simply say something about how cooperative you where, the why, and the compliant result ..and hopefully your complaint afterwards ...all decent citizen stuff that will actually go in your favour if your stopped again I'd guess.

what happened I must stressed was partly my fault why I posted the thread was because I was so Angry afterwards (and yet relieved at the same time) Because I was stupid and did not stand up for my rights and more Angry that the way I was spoken to and the fact that all though I volounteered everything I felt like I had no choice. And was pressured with commens like Police officer: will you delete your photos
Me: Do I have to
Officer: If you dont then we will hold you further unil a proper invsigation has been processed and run it by xxxx which could be a couple of hours
Me: Just delete them

Yes that is a threat isn't it, typical bullying tactics!! ...if you where an actual threat of some sort you could simply run recovery software and get all your shots back ... so the demand to delete them has nothing to do with good practice as its potentially pointless.

 

[odd jim]

I think that puts a completely different angle on it if those are the exact words!

Yes it does!

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I'm not surprised at all... unfortunately.

Dear excellent police force ...would someone get rid of the morally weak officers please.

 

[simonblue]

I'm not surprised at all... unfortunately.

Dear excellent police force ...would someone get rid of the morally weak officers please.

In adgreedment,sorry but our police force is their to uphold the law,they are not their to make morall judgement.
We will leave that to country like Iran.

Go ahead with your complained,and i hope it clear thing up for you

 

[Southdowns]

Not saying you should have done, because I understand the pressure you were under, but if this had been my conversation it'd have gone more like:

Police officer: will you delete your photos
Me: Do I have to
Officer: If you dont then we will hold you further unil a proper invsigation has been processed and run it by xxxx which could be a couple of hours
Me: OK, lets go through them one by one and see which ones you want me to delete.

I think that would either have got him to say he didn't care; all of them, at which point you'd know full well he had no genuine grounds for the request, or allowed you to get an explanation image by image; he'd have been forced to concede that they were OK, or explain why they weren't.

If he'd then gone on to request you delete specific ones, I'd have said "I'd prefer to keep that one unless you can explain why, legally, I shouldn't". Maybe agree to delete a couple of crap ones, just to show willing!

Either that or I'd have said "OK, I'm going now. If you want to "hold me further" you'll need to arrest me, and I'd welcome the proper investigation and review by your boss that that would generate." With a smile, obviously.

Plus, the fact he said "hold you further" suggests to me they were "holding" you in the first place; I thought you were free to go at any time?

This story makes me want to go to MK and start shooting as much as I can on public land!

 

[odd jim]

Not saying you should have done, because I understand the pressure you were under, but if this had been my conversation it'd have gone more like:

Police officer: will you delete your photos
Me: Do I have to
Officer: If you dont then we will hold you further unil a proper invsigation has been processed and run it by xxxx which could be a couple of hours
Me: OK, lets go through them one by one and see which ones you want me to delete.

I think that would either have got him to say he didn't care; all of them, at which point you'd know full well he had no genuine grounds for the request, or allowed you to get an explanation image by image; he'd have been forced to concede that they were OK, or explain why they weren't.

If he'd then gone on to request you delete specific ones, I'd have said "I'd prefer to keep that one unless you can explain why, legally, I shouldn't". Maybe agree to delete a couple of crap ones, just to show willing!

Either that or I'd have said "OK, I'm going now. If you want to "hold me further" you'll need to arrest me, and I'd welcome the proper investigation and review by your boss that that would generate." With a smile, obviously.

Plus, the fact he said "hold you further" suggests to me they were "holding" you in the first place; I thought you were free to go at any time?

********This story makes me want to go to MK and start shooting as much as I can on public land!

*********

And I'm sure if you did you'd be fine!