Can someone explain the law to me

[big soft moose]

Scenario: If I was a terrorist would I be making myself stand out with a big "Pro Camera" Or would I be using a decent Mp Mobile phone camera which I could automatically send the pictures to whoever I wanted at a touch of a button to anyone anywhere in the world via Multimedia messaging.

.

you are of course right but this policy almost certainly has nothing to do with terrorism or security , it is purely a comercial motivation. In common with many other private landowners the centre mK/Escape probably derive an income stream by charging a fee for proffesional/comercial photography on their premises - in order to protect this they prohibit such photography without a licence.

since proffesionals don't (usually) use compacts or camera phones they arent bothered about the use of such devices. QED

 

[gramps]

No I am saying that being deliberately uncooperative, obstructive and antagonistic is a good way to get yourself arrested

Leaving out the legal definition of 'obstructing', which I don't think is at issue here, on what grounds would an arrest be justified in law?

 

[big soft moose]

Leaving out the legal definition of 'obstructing', which I don't think is at issue here, on what grounds would an arrest be justified in law?

if we are talking about the hypothetical scenario

obstructing an officer in the course of his duties :bang:

or as i said previously obstructing a highway (if you are stationary or using a tripod on a pavment or street)

or if you get all mouthy and shouty one of the breach of the peace offences

if we are talking about hoogles case - he wasnt arrested so the question is moot.

 

[Southdowns]

Gramps, while I actually agree with everything you're saying, I think you're missing the point that Pete's making a little. I don't think he's saying that being uncooperative etc are legal grounds for arrest, just that police men and women are people, and so more likely to feel an arrest is appropriate if you wind them up.

We might all like the police to be perfect robots applying the letter of the law and not letting emotions sway them, but they're not. The more professional an officer is, the more it'll take to stop him seeing things objectively, but it WILL happen to all of them if pushed far enough.

I think pushing the police to the limit, then crying "no right" when they snap, is unreasonable.

So really you're both right. They have no right to arrest you just for giving yes/no answers, but it WILL sway their judgement to some degree, and make an arrest more likely.

I think my approach is, be as nice and as cooperative as possible so long as it's not causing you a problem, even going as far as to help the officer take shortcuts that may not be strictly by the rules if it'll help resolve the matter, in the hope that it's reciprocated, but if you come up against an officer who's being unreasonable, THEN try to nudge him towards actions he has to be accountable for. In other words, give him enough rope…..

That's kind of what I suggested earlier; once the officer starts asking you to destroy your property and threaten you with powers he doesn't have, then the goal changes from trying to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of everyone, to trying to expose him.

 

[gramps]

if we are talking about the hypothetical scenario

obstructing an officer in the course of his duties :bang:

or as i said previously obstructing a highway (if you are stationary or using a tripod on a pavment or street)

or if you get all mouthy and shouty one of the breach of the peace offences

if we are talking about hoogles case - he wasnt arrested so the question is moot.

Yes clearly obstructing the highway can be an offence, (though it isn't obstructing a police officer), and being mouthy can be a breach of the peace, (though it isn't of itself obstructing a police officer).

However you were saying:-

I am saying that being deliberately uncooperative, obstructive and antagonistic is a good way to get yourself arrested

I am saying that taking photos and then answering only 'yes' or 'no' to questions asked by a police officer does not constitute a lawful reason for arrest. In general terms a reasonably polite but non-committal response to questions, in the absence of a reasonable suspicion of an arrestable offence, (i.e. taking photos in a shopping centre does not constitute an arrestable offence in the eyes of any reasonable person) does not give a valid reason for arrest ... which is what your comments seem to be suggesting.

The 'roll-over' attitude toward police abuse of authority is what leads to things like the experience of the o/p ... really, all that for taking photos ... in a free country!

The police in this country exercise authority by consent, heavy-handedness leads to a withdrawal of consent and respect and leads to some of the sorry scenes that we have experienced on our streets in recent times.

 

[gramps]

Gramps, while I actually agree with everything you're saying, I think you're missing the point that Pete's making a little. I don't think he's saying that being uncooperative etc are legal grounds for arrest, just that police men and women are people, and so more likely to feel an arrest is appropriate if you wind them up.

We might all like the police to be perfect robots applying the letter of the law and not letting emotions sway them, but they're not. The more professional an officer is, the more it'll take to stop him seeing things objectively, but it WILL happen to all of them if pushed far enough.

I think pushing the police to the limit, then crying "no right" when they snap, is unreasonable.

So really you're both right. They have no right to arrest you just for giving yes/no answers, but it WILL sway their judgement to some degree, and make an arrest more likely.

I think my approach is, be as nice and as cooperative as possible so long as it's not causing you a problem, even going as far as to help the officer take shortcuts that may not be strictly by the rules if it'll help resolve the matter, in the hope that it's reciprocated, but if you come up against an officer who's being unreasonable, THEN try to nudge him towards actions he has to be accountable for. In other words, give him enough rope…..

That's kind of what I suggested earlier; once the officer starts asking you to destroy your property and threaten you with powers he doesn't have, then the goal changes from trying to resolve the matter to the satisfaction of everyone, to trying to expose him.

Yes I realise that Mark, my problem is with the acceptance of this 'I don't like the way you're speaking to me so I'm going to make life difficult for you' attitude as being something we have to put up with.
Of course any sensible person will be reasonable but IMO there is a limit to 'reasonable', we are not a police state ... and I say this as an ex-Police Officer.

 

[big soft moose]

being a 'free countty' doesnt give anyone the right to do anything they like on private land, landowners have rights as well

and i'm not suggesting rolling over to police abuse - i'm suggesting not creating a confrontation or argument when one isnt necessary (and i'm not saying that the OP did , this was refference a different posters assertion that we should never cooperate with the police)

and while i agree that taking photos of a shopping centre isnt an arrestable offence, as 'may' have been mentioned more than once the OP wasnt arrested

 

[Southdowns]

I am saying that taking photos and then answering only 'yes' or 'no' to questions asked by a police officer does not constitute a lawful reason for arrest.

No it isn't, but if you've done nothing wrong, why would you do that? Why not simply explain what you've been doing and why, in order to try and resolve the matter as quickly as possible?

Noncommittal answers can make you look like you're trying to hide something, which you'd only do if you've done something wrong, and so CAN make an arrest more likely. It's not grounds for an arrest on it's own, but it can make one more likely, which is all that Pete said.

The police do exercise authority by consent, but they are also most effective with cooperation from law abiding citizens, so why deny them that?

 

[gramps]

and while i agree that taking photos of a shopping centre isnt an arrestable offence, as 'may' have been mentioned more than once the OP wasnt arrested

No he wasn't but he was coerced into going to the police station, coerced by reason of 'fear of authority' - in my book it was an abuse of authority.

No it isn't, but if you've done nothing wrong, why would you do that? Why not simply explain what you've been doing and why, in order to try and resolve the matter as quickly as possible?

Noncommittal answers can make you look like you're trying to hide something, which you'd only do if you've done something wrong, and so CAN make an arrest more likely. It's not grounds for an arrest on it's own, but it can make one more likely, which is all that Pete said.

The police do exercise authority by consent, but they are also most effective with cooperation from law abiding citizens, so why deny them that?

I don't disagree with anything you say and indeed that would be my stance personally, however my point is that if you choose not to be ever so polite and ever so helpful that in itself should not and does not constitute a justifiable reason for arrest ... which is what was being suggested.

 

[Southdowns]

?...if you choose not to be ever so polite and ever so helpful that in itself should not and does not constitute a justifiable reason for arrest ... which is what was being suggested.

No it wasn't! All that was being suggested was that not cooperating makes an arrest more likely, which is NOT the same thing and which is self evidently true!

 

[big soft moose]

No he wasn't but he was coerced into going to the police station, coerced by reason of 'fear of authority' - in my book it was an abuse of authority.
.

to be fair though the OPs fear of authority isnt really (or entirely) the police's fault - especially as we are going entirely from the OPs account and havent heard the otherside

If they ask him to accompany them and he voluntarily says yes that isnt coercion by any reasonable definition of the word.

 

[big soft moose]

No it wasn't! All that was being suggested was that not cooperating makes an arrest more likely, which is NOT the same thing and which is self evidently true!

 

[Bernie174]

DemiLion

If you were an officer involved in the case, that's a truly astonishing statement, and comes close to perverting the course of justice!

It means no such thing!
What it means is, that a Police Officer very rarely has the evidence of offence. For example, a shop lifter, seen by store detective, no cctv. As arresting officer all I'd have is evidence of arrest and interview, nothing else.
I may or may not believe the evidence from a witness, but if it's credible, and there's nothing to contradict it, then in most cases charge follows.
So, there's my suspect, having been told by his solicitor not to say anything, but knowing something that's going to get him off, all he has to do is tell me, but oh no, a solicitor who has either a groundless opinion of police, or wants to make sure he gets the max out of legal aid is actually causing his client more problems. I am not a mind reader, and he's stupid and assumes wrongly a solicitor is always right. I think he's innocent, but there's sufficient evidence to support a charge.
I was not interested in banging up people who were innocent, nor do most police officers, so had he told me all, he'd be out with no further action. But I need something to work with!
So he gets charged and makes his defence in court. Even under the old system where no inference could be taken from a refusal to answer questions, human nature is what it is, and inferences were drawn. Result? Chummy goes down, end of story. So is it a good idea to say nothing? No, not if you've done nothing wrong. If you're guilty, then yes, probably a good idea and take your chances.
I'll accept your apology now.

 

[Bernie174]

Gramps

While you're correct obstructing police only applies in the execution of the duties powers and privileges of constable, you don't know the full facts here.
It was in an attempt to get those that I asked for the stop slip, minus any personal information to be put on here. You see, that tells some of us a lot.

As for your comments about Police, someone made the point earlier, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that applies equally to police. They may have been acting lawfully, they may not, but one thing is certain, you have no idea either way.

 

[DemiLion]

DemiLion

It means no such thing!
What it means is, that a Police Officer very rarely has the evidence of offence. For example, a shop lifter, seen by store detective, no cctv. As arresting officer all I'd have is evidence of arrest and interview, nothing else.
I may or may not believe the evidence from a witness, but if it's credible, and there's nothing to contradict it, then in most cases charge follows.
So, there's my suspect, having been told by his solicitor not to say anything, but knowing something that's going to get him off, all he has to do is tell me, but oh no, a solicitor who has either a groundless opinion of police, or wants to make sure he gets the max out of legal aid is actually causing his client more problems. I am not a mind reader, and he's stupid and assumes wrongly a solicitor is always right. I think he's innocent, but there's sufficient evidence to support a charge.
I was not interested in banging up people who were innocent, nor do most police officers, so had he told me all, he'd be out with no further action. But I need something to work with!
So he gets charged and makes his defence in court. Even under the old system where no inference could be taken from a refusal to answer questions, human nature is what it is, and inferences were drawn. Result? Chummy goes down, end of story. So is it a good idea to say nothing? No, not if you've done nothing wrong. If you're guilty, then yes, probably a good idea and take your chances.
I'll accept your apology now.

Erm, I don't think so somehow. You're exact words were:

few of those I knew dammed well were innocent, but they found themselves convicted.

Nothing about lack of evidence, believing a witness or the solicitor's actions. You stated categorically that you knew them to be innocent. If that is the case and you let a trial take place and an innocent party get convicted without speaking up, then you are corrupt. Full stop.

 

[Bernie174]

Wrong again.
1. In court, I can only give evidence, thats things I know by virtue of having something to support it. If I don't have that, then I can't say it. That deals with what I believe. If I give an opinion, in Crown Court a Judge would have to direct the Jury to ignore it. In Magistrates, they would be directed to by the Clerk.
2. A Police Officer collects evidence. So, real example, theft of bag from courting couple on Clapham Common. 10 minutes later man is stopped by me, after I saw him look at me, and chuck the bag away. The man is shall we say a bit simple. I actually know him, and he's a good lad.
I stopped him, and asked a few questions about the bag. Now, I believe his story, he's just found it. But not in his favour is chucking it away when he sees me. Anyway, he needs interviewing so he gets nicked. No problem there. In the meantime, I get someone to go and disturb the the others on the Common near where the courting couple were to see if anyone saw anything.
One of these other couples had seen a white man walking away from the direction where the couple where with a bag. Couldn't say it was a handbag, or the colour. But could say he was white. Chummy I have in custody is black. But, the male part of the couple, is married, to someone other than the woman he was with, and declines all details, wont make a statement.
The CPS had just arrived in the world, so after interview, where solicitor had told him to say nothing, I submit a case file to the CPS, The reply is charge, in spite of me including the reported words of the witness.
Now, I can sort of see their point, on the evidence they have that can be admitted there is evidence to support the charge. I didn't agree with it, but from the onset of the CPS I am just a witness, and can only give evidence i have. Hearsay evidence isn't admissible.
Result in court, he's found guilty. Yes, I laid it on very thick about what a good lad he was, but thats all I could do. I can only answer questions on matters of fact. I do remain firmly convinced, and yes, I'd say I know dammed well he was innocent though. It doesn't mean I am happy about it, but justice like everything is imperfect.
So, as I said, I'll accept your apology, and I'd appreciate you not making false accusations of serious criminal offences against me please.

 

[simonblue]

What ever way we look at it,things seem to be changeing for photgrapher and the law,where we all stand is getting more & more difficult to understand,with everyday.
The only thing I know I am going to keep on doing what I have been doing,for a long time,and try to keep the right side of the law.

And if we feel our rights not just as photographer,are being eroded away, it up to us all,how much we are willing to stand up for them

)

 

[odd jim]

Wrong again.
1. In court, I can only give evidence, thats things I know by virtue of having something to support it. If I don't have that, then I can't say it. That deals with what I believe. If I give an opinion, in Crown Court a Judge would have to direct the Jury to ignore it. In Magistrates, they would be directed to by the Clerk.
2. A Police Officer collects evidence. So, real example, theft of bag from courting couple on Clapham Common. 10 minutes later man is stopped by me, after I saw him look at me, and chuck the bag away. The man is shall we say a bit simple. I actually know him, and he's a good lad.
I stopped him, and asked a few questions about the bag. Now, I believe his story, he's just found it. But not in his favour is chucking it away when he sees me. Anyway, he needs interviewing so he gets nicked. No problem there. In the meantime, I get someone to go and disturb the the others on the Common near where the courting couple were to see if anyone saw anything.
One of these other couples had seen a white man walking away from the direction where the couple where with a bag. Couldn't say it was a handbag, or the colour. But could say he was white. Chummy I have in custody is black. But, the male part of the couple, is married, to someone other than the woman he was with, and declines all details, wont make a statement.
The CPS had just arrived in the world, so after interview, where solicitor had told him to say nothing, I submit a case file to the CPS, The reply is charge, in spite of me including the reported words of the witness.
Now, I can sort of see their point, on the evidence they have that can be admitted there is evidence to support the charge. I didn't agree with it, but from the onset of the CPS I am just a witness, and can only give evidence i have. Hearsay evidence isn't admissible.
Result in court, he's found guilty. Yes, I laid it on very thick about what a good lad he was, but thats all I could do. I can only answer questions on matters of fact. I do remain firmly convinced, and yes, I'd say I know dammed well he was innocent though. It doesn't mean I am happy about it, but justice like everything is imperfect.
So, as I said, I'll accept your apology, and I'd appreciate you not making false accusations of serious criminal offences against me please.

Amen to that. The doubting on here is almost as if people thought our criminal justice system is perfect

 

[gramps]

Gramps

While you're correct obstructing police only applies in the execution of the duties powers and privileges of constable, you don't know the full facts here.
It was in an attempt to get those that I asked for the stop slip, minus any personal information to be put on here. You see, that tells some of us a lot.

As for your comments about Police, someone made the point earlier, innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, that applies equally to police. They may have been acting lawfully, they may not, but one thing is certain, you have no idea either way.

Sorry but I do have an idea, you may defend your colleagues as much as you wish but I've been there and know how it works ... equally they may have been acting unlawfully.
You and I both know that many sail close to the wind and whilst neither of us have the full facts, the information presented gives all the evidence of another sailing.

 

[Bernie174]

I only wish it were.
The problem is people will procrastinate on here and the Old Bill being the visible face of the CJS get the blame for everything. Of course much of the blame lays elsewhere in legislation, the CPS and the Courts, not to mention Silly polices from Government. Thats not to say the old bill are always innocent, they do make mistakes, but to blame all societies ills on them is grossly unfair.
It's very easy for some to view things from their own narrow viewpoint, and ignore anything they don't like, or know nothing about.

Gramps

If reading one side is sufficient evidence for you to convict, and thats what you have done, then so be it. I'd prefer both sides before I make that judgment. At the moment, I have one persons side, and nothing from the other. I'd prefer make my decision based on both sides. You comment about police sailing close to the wind is actually exactly what you're doing, which is a tad hypocritical.

 

[gramps]

Thats not to say the old bill are always innocent, they do make mistakes, but to blame all societies ills on them is grossly unfair.

Of course it's unfair to blame all societies ills on the police ... yes they make mistakes as do all human beings. Some also abuse their authority, some falsify evidence, some use opportunities to act violently ... some are caught and prosecuted ... some aren't.
The majority of police officers are good people doing a good job and a valuable service to society but unfortunately the uniform/authority can lead some to do wrong.

 

[Sam Brown]

The other Day I took my Camera to Milton Keynes....

Firstly you committed no illegal act. If the shopping centre at MK is private land and not public and the "owners" of that land wish to prohibit photography, then it becomes a civil matter when it comes to enforcement and the police have absolutely no powers at all.

As an Ex-police officer, I am struggling to see any Reasonable grounds to suspect any arrestable offence has taken place or indeed any offence for which you may be arrested and therefore am struggling to see what grounds the custody Sergeant found for authorising your detention.

Oh I know only too well that "suspicion" can be "invented" but that does not mean it's reasonable. Any competent officer would have in your situation, merely asked to to show him all the photos you've been taking to rule out any suggestion of impropriety or suggestion that you were photographing children.
Indeed should they have even suspected that you were for some reason photographing infrastructure and communication / travel hubs as a "suspected" terrorist (and that's a big leap of into fantasy land if you ask me based on what you have said) then simply taking and confirming you identity and submitting an intelligence report would have been all that was required.

I make the assumption that you waived you rights at custody to free and independent legal advice / representation, because if you hadn't I can't see where you were at the police station for more than 30 minutes and you CERTAINLY did not have to delete your images, they had absolutely no legal rights or grounds to insist you did that. (something your legal representation would have informed you).

Personally I would say you have grounds for a complaint. Put it in writing to the Chief Constable of your local force and then if you don't receive satisfaction take it to the IPCC, as on the face of it, it would seem to me you were unlawfully arrested, unlawfully detained and forced to destroy your own property (the photos).

In the mean time don't overwrite your memory card and use one of many free data recovery programs available on the Internet to recover your images

 

[big soft moose]

did you actually bother reading the thread sam - if so you'll find most of those points have been discussed to a fare the well already

you'd also have seen that the OP wasnt arrested, went to the police station voluntarily , and likewise voluntarily deleted his images.

 

[Sam Brown]

did you actually bother reading the thread sam....

All 7 pages? nope, started but mostly it seemed to have either gone off the OP's point or were full of misinformed "opinions"

Whether the guy was arrested or not has no baring on his legal rights. A "voluntary" attendance has the same protections built in as an "arrest" including rights to free and independent legal advice.
Secondly, if he was interviewed (layman's terms questioned) about any suspected offence, PACE (the Police And Criminal Evidence act) states you must be "arrested and cautioned" for that offence unless it's a "reportable" offence (somehow I don't think that applies). If it was the latter a caution is only required unless prosecution is being considered, which then requires a NIP (Notice of intended prosecution)

Did you actually read the OP's original post? He states:-

"Did they really have the right to make me delete the photos "

Doesn't really come across as he "volunteered" does it.

In short unless he was advised that he was under no legal obligation to delete his photographs the police officer concerned was abusing his position and power.

I stand by my original post. :bonk:

 

[Sam Brown]

yeah i thought that too - if you aren't under arrest you are free to leave at any time - and if you aren't arrested then you can't be cautioned (and yeah i know about street cautions for delinquent youth etc - I'm assuming that isn't relevant here)

Incorrect, a police officer has to caution you as soon as he / she suspects a criminal offence has been committed either arrestable or reportable

Like i said earlier none of the land around the centre mk is publicly owned (apart from the actual road which i assume you weren't standing on) - so you are on a hiding to nothing there as they are within their rights to ask the police to remove you from private land,

They,re in their rights to ask the police but that's where it ends. The police have no direct powers to remove you unless it's a school or school grounds. This is a civil trespass as the ground is privately owned, the best the police could do is request your details from you and pass them on to the land owner so they can seek a civil order baring you from their land.

I find it very hard to believe that the MK police have suddenly decided to throw pace out of the window and started detaining people without arrest or charge.

Wrong.. The police have the right to detain you for the purpose of a stop search under PACE and you and your vehicle in the course of their duty as long as the time taken for the detention is reasonable ...and yes that includes detaining and taking to a police station if the circumstances dictate without "arrest or charge". Indeed even the PCSO's have a right to detain you for up to I think 20 or 30 minutes and by force if required on the street whilst awaiting a PC / WPC with further powers.

....but the latter point (rule 1) is bonkers and quite frankly one of the better ways to get arrested by antagonising officers by being an uncooperative twit

Wrong... can't be arrested for being an "uncooperative twit" not on the statue book I'm afraid. For sure be polite, but I think you'll find the first line of the caution sums it up..."you don't have to say anything..." and as soon as any police officer want you to "accompany him down to the police station" or cautions you, that's exactly what you should do until you have consulted with your free and independent legal advice.

and finally...

This guy has it about right in ALL of his posts.

...
I would suggest that 'being cooperative' led the o/p to a great deal of inconvenience, including being detained at a police station, being subjected to coercion and losing the images he had lawfully obtained through his photography.
There is no obligation to assist a police officer to carry out an act that in itself he/she has no authority to carry out or to comply with a request that he/she has no authority to make.

so now I have read all 7 pages and spell checked your quoted responses

 

[Donnie]

And if we feel our rights not just as photographer,are being eroded away, it up to us all,how much we are willing to stand up for them

)

 

[HMansfield]

so now I have read all 7 pages and spell checked your quoted responses

The land owner would use a civil order for barring you from their land.

I'm not sure what a "statue book" is either, unless you mean the one in Liberty's left hand.

 

[Donnie]

I only wish it were.
The problem is people will procrastinate on here and the Old Bill being the visible face of the CJS get the blame for everything.

Whoa! The visible face of the CJS! LOL, good one!

Of course much of the blame lays elsewhere in legislation, the CPS and the Courts, not to mention Silly polices from Government.

Never a truer word.

Thats not to say the old bill are always innocent, they do make mistakes,

Indeed.

but to blame all societies ills on them is grossly unfair.

No one is blaming all the ill's, I thought we were discussing photography / public places / landowners places / etc etc?

It's very easy for some to view things from their own narrow viewpoint, and ignore anything they don't like, or know nothing about.

Umm but the discussion on here is focussed on a particular viewpoint surely? And I don't think there's any ignoring of points, I thought this was healthy debate surely and you don't need to have specialist knowledge to have a viewpoint as far as I know?

Gramps

If reading one side is sufficient evidence for you to convict, and thats what you have done, then so be it. I'd prefer both sides before I make that judgment. At the moment, I have one persons side, and nothing from the other. I'd prefer make my decision based on both sides. You comment about police sailing close to the wind is actually exactly what you're doing, which is a tad hypocritical.

But you've just contraticted yourself surely?
I mean saying you'd prefer both sides before you make a judgment is inherently shown to be wrong as it's plainly evident you've taken the police's side by default :shrug:

 

[gramps]

Gramps

If reading one side is sufficient evidence for you to convict, and thats what you have done, then so be it. I'd prefer both sides before I make that judgment. At the moment, I have one persons side, and nothing from the other. I'd prefer make my decision based on both sides. You comment about police sailing close to the wind is actually exactly what you're doing, which is a tad hypocritical.

I have not convicted anyone, I have presented a view both of the reported events from the O/P and of my experience in general regarding this matter as a police officer, albeit in the past, hence my comment:-

You and I both know that many sail close to the wind and whilst neither of us have the full facts, the information presented gives all the evidence of another sailing.

 

[odd jim]

.

 

[big soft moose]

Did you actually read the OP's original post? He states:-

"Did they really have the right to make me delete the photos "

Doesn't really come across as he "volunteered" does it.

In short unless he was advised that he was under no legal obligation to delete his photographs the police officer concerned was abusing his position and power.

I stand by my original post. :bonk:

Yes - but having been here for the whole thread I also read page 4 when the Op said

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

So yes a lot of it is my own fault for volounteering however as I did Volounteer

typos are the OPs btw

I'm not getting into a further argument with you though I will say that its a bit sad that you chose to join up purely to troll this thread back into life (assuming of course that you arent gramps with a dual account)

 

[odd jim]

All 7 pages? nope, started but mostly it seemed to have either gone off the OP's point or were full of misinformed "opinions"

Whether the guy was arrested or not has no baring on his legal rights. A "voluntary" attendance has the same protections built in as an "arrest" including rights to free and independent legal advice.
Secondly, if he was interviewed (layman's terms questioned) about any suspected offence, PACE (the Police And Criminal Evidence act) states you must be "arrested and cautioned" for that offence unless it's a "reportable" offence (somehow I don't think that applies). If it was the latter a caution is only required unless prosecution is being considered, which then requires a NIP (Notice of intended prosecution)

Did you actually read the OP's original post? He states:-

"Did they really have the right to make me delete the photos "

Doesn't really come across as he "volunteered" does it.

In short unless he was advised that he was under no legal obligation to delete his photographs the police officer concerned was abusing his position and power.

I stand by my original post. :bonk:

Sorry, some errors here. A voluntary attendance does not carry the same rights as an arrest, not by a long shot, the key factor being you do NOT have the right to free legal advice (the duty solicitor). Sure you can bring a solicitor with you, or request the interview to be delayed until your solicitor arrives but it will be off your own back.

You do NOT need to be arrested for an offence to be interviewed about it. A police officer can conduct a formal interview at any time for ANY offence without arresting someone, as long as they have been read and understand the caution. An arrest will only occur if it is strictly necessary.

You do NOT need to issue an NIP. This only relates to (mostly) very minor traffic offences, such as red lights, speeding etc.

Any more advice?

 

[big soft moose]

Any more advice?

yep - don't feed the troll

 

[gramps]

I'm not getting into a further argument with you though I will say that its a bit sad that you chose to join up purely to troll this thread back into life (assuming of course that you arent gramps with a dual account)

I don't think the thread at any point died, so nobody brought it 'back into life' ... and I am sure that the mods can confirm to the extent possible that I do not have dual accounts ... frankly I don't need that to show the wrongs in this instance of over-policing.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Why would gramps need another account? ...he's already won the debate.

I agree with every word he said, ...a truly excellent point of view on the whole matter.

 

[simonblue]

Sorry, some errors here. A voluntary attendance does not carry the same rights as an arrest, not by a long shot, the key factor being you do NOT have the right to free legal advice (the duty solicitor). Sure you can bring a solicitor with you, or request the interview to be delayed until your solicitor arrives but it will be off your own back.

You do NOT need to be arrested for an offence to be interviewed about it. A police officer can conduct a formal interview at any time for ANY offence without arresting someone, as long as they have been read and understand the caution. An arrest will only occur if it is strictly necessary.

You do NOT need to issue an NIP. This only relates to (mostly) very minor traffic offences, such as red lights, speeding etc.

Any more advice?

Sorry,but I saw a program by the police,saying how many people are killed every year,by what you call,very minor traffic offences,speeding and red lights offences,its kind of strange that,it seem we don't care how many people are killed on ours roads every year,and yet we call them minor offences :shrug:

 

[odd jim]

Sorry,but I saw a program by the police,saying how many people are killed every year,by what you call,very minor traffic offences,speeding and red lights offences,its kind of strange that,it seem we don't care how many people are killed on ours roads every year,and yet we call them minor offences :shrug:

I'm just giving the facts about the law, what's your point??

Red lights and speeding ARE minor offences. That's why they are dealt with normally by means of a fixed penalty notice (ticket) and not by the courts.

Death by careless or dangerous driving, which I think you are actually referring to, are obviously serious and carry prison terms 99% of the time. Do think before you type

As for people being killed by "speeding" and "red lights" - in all my years (half of which was on a unit specialising in fatal road traffic collision investigation) I have never seen a fatality caused by speed alone, or someone jumping a red light. Fatal collisions are almost always caused by either inattention, misjudgement, or impairment, such as drugs or alcohol.

 

[simonblue]

I'm just giving the facts about the law, what's your point??

Red lights and speeding ARE minor offences. That's why they are dealt with normally by means of a fixed penalty notice (ticket) and not by the courts.

Death by careless or dangerous driving, which I think you are actually referring to, are obviously serious and carry prison terms 99% of the time. Do think before you type

As for people being killed by "speeding" and "red lights" - in all my years (half of which was on a unit specialising in fatal road traffic collision investigation) I have never seen a fatality caused by speed alone, or someone jumping a red light. Fatal collisions are almost always caused by either inattention, misjudgement, or impairment, such as drugs or alcohol.

It was from a police stastic,that up 1000 people are killed or seriously injured by speeding.

What i think i am trying to say,all this stuff that come up every time a photographer get stopped,if we complain we are by some treated like some sort of criminal,yet you call someone who speed,or jump lights minor,as those they are doing nothering wrong.
Yet at time you have come down hard sometime on photographer who want to stand up for their rights :shrug:

 

[Bambi72]

To Quote the Prodigy, F##k 'em and their Laws.
If you were on public property when you took the photos you have broken no laws. However as someone else stated, many car parks are not public land and they technically have you by the short and curlys. Write to a national photography mag like AP and shame 'The Centre MK', or wear a 'I'm a photographer not a terrorist' t-shirt next time.

It is good to see that our tax is going to good uses stopping potential terrorists blowing up the Centre MK. Personally I would pay more tax to get rid of the s##t hole.

 

[Dave *]

It was from a police stastic,that up 1000 people are killed or seriously injured by speeding.

That is actually incorrect, while inappropriate speed is a major problem, and causes around 500 killed in a year, speeding per se does not.

Doing 25mph in a 20 zone is unlikely to cause death or serious injury, but this is legally speediing.

Doing 50mph on a icy motorway in a blizzard is not speeding, but it is inappropriate speed which is very likely to cause death or serious injury.

Even ROSPA are beginning to see the difference between speeding (which is becoming a revenue generation exercise in many areas) and inappropriate speed (which can only be policed by humans, traffic cameras can't detect it).

Inappropriate speed contributes to around 14% of all injury collisions, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death and are recorded by the police.1 This includes both 'excessive speed', when the speed limit is exceeded but also driving or riding within the speed limit when this is too fast for the conditions at the time (for example, in poor weather, poor visibility or high pedestrian activity).

In 2010, 241 people were killed in crashes involving someone exceeding the speed limit and a further 180 people died when someone was travelling too fast for the conditions.1