Hove town hall incident, civilian member of staff?

GerryS said:
Please explain your qualifications and experience in Police procedure and armed tactics, then I might listen to you.
Click to expand...

Ten years in the army and 18 months as a Force Photographer with the police.



And you know that how? FFS I keep saying, none of us were there, we don't know what happened! I for one certainly don't place any credence in one party's Tweet on the subject. I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.
Click to expand...

Because I asked Eddie directly.
 
DemiLion said:
Try reading the thread properly.
Click to expand...
Second rule of Facebook/Forums, if there's more than ten replies newcomers to a discussion won't have read any of them.
 
Byker28i said:
Well, it's in Pace for starters.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents
Click to expand...

If you are referring to "Journalistic Material"

1) That isn't an exemption, it's an exception - it can still be seized but on the direction of a Judge, not a Constable, and
2) It isn't specific to press photographers.

Would you like to try again or can you agree the Press Photographers cannot wave an NUJ card and be treated any differently to any other member of the public
 
DemiLion said:
Ten years in the army and 18 months as a Force Photographer with the police.
Click to expand...

So no relevant experience then. Army tactics are nothing like Police.





DemiLion said:
Because I asked Eddie directly.
Click to expand...

And of course he's got no axe to grind so it must be an unbiased view.

Byker28i said:
And as posted earlier, he gave a full interview which was in the Daily Wail, and his Twitter gives further details
Click to expand...

It must be true then if it was in the Daily Mail and Twitter.......
 
Last edited:
GerryS said:
If you are referring to "Journalistic Material"

1) That isn't an exemption, it's an exception - it can still be seized but on the direction of a Judge, not a Constable, and
2) It isn't specific to press photographers.

Would you like to try again or can you agree the Press Photographers cannot wave an NUJ card and be treated any differently to any other member of the public
Click to expand...

Are you being deliberately dense? PACE differentiates press photographers from members of the public.

A police officer cannot seize, search or inspect a press photographer's equipment without a court order.

The general public is not afforded such protection.

So, yes. I can show my UKPC and expect different treatment to a member of the general public.
 
DemiLion said:
Are you being deliberately dense? PACE differentiates press photographers from members of the public.
Click to expand...

Steady on buttercup, no need to get personal. I do not know of, nor can I find any mention of Press Photographers in PACE, I have invited you to quote the legislation to me but you have been unable to so I must assume there isn't any. I asked above if the reference was to "journalistic material" and pointed out that it isn't an exemption, it's an exception and it doesn't just refer to press photographers but includes the broader term 'journalism'. As previously, I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.
 
GerryS said:
Steady on buttercup, no need to get personal. I do not know of, nor can I find any mention of Press Photographers in PACE, I have invited you to quote the legislation to me but you have been unable to so I must assume there isn't any. I asked above if the reference was to "journalistic material" and pointed out that it isn't an exemption, it's an exception and it doesn't just refer to press photographers but includes the broader term 'journalism'. As previously, I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.
Click to expand...

You appear to be arguing semantics here.

A Press Photographer, by the nature of their work, may have "journalistic material" on their camera.
Because of this their camera is not covered by general rules, and requires a court order to allow a police office to seize, search or inspect it.

So there is a differentiation between the treatment of a press photographer and a general member of the public.
 
GerryS said:
Steady on buttercup, no need to get personal. I do not know of, nor can I find any mention of Press Photographers in PACE, I have invited you to quote the legislation to me but you have been unable to so I must assume there isn't any. I asked above if the reference was to "journalistic material" and pointed out that it isn't an exemption, it's an exception and it doesn't just refer to press photographers but includes the broader term 'journalism'. As previously, I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.
Click to expand...


Buttercup? Are you really that infantile?

As for press photographers, they are journalists. If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you.

You've asked for my qualifications, now I'd like yours. What places you with experience or knowledge to interpret the law?
 
GerryS said:
So no relevant experience then. Army tactics are nothing like Police.
Click to expand...

Yep, absolutely they are different.

How do I know? By working extensively with the armed officers of the force I was with, which included fixed point political protection, ARVs and a range of other skills.
 
DemiLion said:
You've asked for my qualifications, now I'd like yours. What places you with experience or knowledge to interpret the law?
Click to expand...

On second thoughts, let me guess...

Retired police dog handler with West Yorkshire Police. Shoulder number 5429?
 
DemiLion said:
Buttercup? Are you really that infantile?

As for press photographers, they are journalists. If you can't understand that I feel sorry for you.

You've asked for my qualifications, now I'd like yours. What places you with experience or knowledge to interpret the law?
Click to expand...


Don't bother. Pigeon chess again
 
Faldrax said:
You appear to be arguing semantics here.

A Press Photographer, by the nature of their work, may have "journalistic material" on their camera.
Because of this their camera is not covered by general rules, and requires a court order to allow a police office to seize, search or inspect it.

So there is a differentiation between the treatment of a press photographer and a general member of the public.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for jumping in, and I'm not being argumentative deliberately but isn't there a bit of a circular argument here...

As I understand it, and I may have things wrong, he refused to show any ID. Now to be able to assert his rights as an official press photographer wouldn't he have to show a press card which would also be showing ID and would get him out of the reason for his "arrest" (inverted commas because I'm not sure if there was a formal arrest made). Instead he was dogmatic with his "I don't need to show ID I'm doing nothing wrong" position.

None of this of course excuses the fact that the civilian employee had no rights (beyond those of any passer by) to ask him what he was doing, nor require him to accompany them to a more formal situation.

Now don't get me wrong, the police civilian was in the wrong in the first case, but as soon as a "real" policeman asked him he could have avoided any inconvenience by showing his press card. Until he formally shows his press card he is just an ordinary civilian. He may have been right, but appears to have refused so he could make a belligerent point.
 
Eloise said:
Forgive me for jumping in, and I'm not being argumentative deliberately but isn't there a bit of a circular argument here...

As I understand it, and I may have things wrong, he refused to show any ID. Now to be able to assert his rights as an official press photographer wouldn't he have to show a press card which would also be showing ID and would get him out of the reason for his "arrest" (inverted commas because I'm not sure if there was a formal arrest made). Instead he was dogmatic with his "I don't need to show ID I'm doing nothing wrong" position.

None of this of course excuses the fact that the civilian employee had no rights (beyond those of any passer by) to ask him what he was doing, nor require him to accompany them to a more formal situation.

Now don't get me wrong, the police civilian was in the wrong in the first case, but as soon as a "real" policeman asked him he could have avoided any inconvenience by showing his press card. Until he formally shows his press card he is just an ordinary civilian. He may have been right, but appears to have refused so he could make a belligerent point.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression he'd flashed his press card. :thinking:
 
Keith W said:
Nope, he refused to identify himself

It wasn't until after he was arrested that his identity was established
Click to expand...
One of those TP circular arguments...
I never said 'he'd identified himself' I said I believed he'd flashed his press card in answer to what he was doing.
 
When I said he refused to identify himself I meant just that, press card and all

He declined to say who he was or what he was doing

Once he was arrested they found his press card and bank card by which they identified him
 
Keith W said:
When I said he refused to identify himself I meant just that, press card and all

He declined to say who he was or what he was doing

Once he was arrested they found his press card and bank card by which they identified him
Click to expand...

I don't believe he was arrested?
 
In at least one account I've read he stated that the female he initially interacted with ignored his press pass.
 
Phil V said:
I thought I'd read that too, but can't find it now.
Click to expand...

It was on his twitter feed https://BANNED/brightonsnapper?ref_...error-law-for-taking-photo-of-hove-town-hall/

However he's moved on, and it's now buried under yards of detritus in his feed.
 
ancient_mariner said:
In at least one account I've read he stated that the female he initially interacted with ignored his press pass.
Click to expand...

Phil V said:
I thought I'd read that too, but can't find it now.
Click to expand...

ancient_mariner said:
It was on his twitter feed https://BANNED/brightonsnapper?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2017/05/04/sussex-police-detain-bbc-cameraman-under-anti-terror-law-for-taking-photo-of-hove-town-hall/

However he's moved on, and it's now buried under yards of detritus in his feed.
Click to expand...

I don't remember seeing that in any of the reports on this or on his twitter feed

I took the time to go back through his twitter feed and read all the posts on this and Eddie Mitchell himself in one of the interactions says he did not show his press pass to her.

emittp1_zps7epo9z0b.jpg


Direct link to twitter thread
 
Why would he show his press pass to a member of the general public?

Once the uniformed officers made their intentions plain (to seize his gear) he identified himself as a journalist.
 
Not just their intentions, they did seize his gear

He did get it back though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top