Hove town hall incident, civilian member of staff?

shapeshifter said:
It looks like your well out of touch.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...n-legal-costs-acquittal-perjury-phone-hacking

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/30736...-was-cleared-of-shooting-burglar-in-the-foot/

You like many other people don't realise how things have changed. As you say "See how ridiculous it sounds" it does. But it is happening.

https://www.driving.co.uk/news/ministers-slam-brakes-costly-speed-awareness-courses/

Police far too much power. They have forgot they are public servants and become "the law" instead of inforcing it. Power corupts.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm out of touch. But those links have nothing to do with what we had discussed. What's the relevance? One is about the phone hacking trial and someone who was in court for shooting a burglar? The laws were complied with, procedure was followed and due process took place. They were acquitted as many are for various reasons. There's no evidence they were investigated, charged on clear evidence, spent months on trial, just so they ended up with legal bills so the local constabulary had more pennies for the Christmas do. Which is what you were implying in your previous post.

Are you really stating police and the CPS set up trials based on deliberate falsehoods at every step to fail, just so the defendant has to pay legal bills at the end, and that is an influencing factor in officers behaviour on the street so they make stuff up?

Again, see how ridiculous it sounds?

Also you know legal fees go directly to your solicitor / barrister for services rendered, not the police?

Why are you linking stories about speed awareness courses?
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Yes you did. You were responding to this



Or perhaps unlawful and illegal are different.

Are they?
Click to expand...
Illegal = what you do and the govt will punish you.
Unlawful = what the govt does and you can do nothing about it it*.

* Except of course The European Court but ...
 
boyfalldown said:
Errrrr

Illegal = specifically forbiden by statue. You can be arrested

Unlawful = not authorised in law. Normally civil matters like copyright infringement


It's only a semantic difference and way off topic
Click to expand...
Well, I meant it lightheartedly but though you may have a correct lawyers definition mine is political. There have been and are many thing the Govt** (of any party) have done which are contrary to law but there is no means to change their behaviour because Parliament is Sovereign and we are mere Subjects though many try to convince us we are Citizens*.

*We are of course Citizens of the EU but for how much longer?
** My spillchucker wants to change Govt to Goat but that would be an insult to goats.
 
OldCarlos said:
Dead bodies are dead bodies (not good) but why would it be worse if there were kids?

Taking pictures of & filming incidents, is what reporters do! (news?) It's a job.
Click to expand...

Back to the story of the drone - the image taken whilst flying from land adjacent for which he had permission. From the link I posted earlier
eddie_mitch_aerial.png

After finding a safe site near the caravan park to take off from, and obtaining the permission of the land owner, Mitchell said he told the police what he intended to do.

He said the officer he spoke to asked him to wait for ten minutes whilst he asked his sergeant. When the officer failed to return, Mitchell proceeded to fly his 1.2kg drone in order to get a general view picture of the caravan site (whilst staying some distance away from the scene of the actual fire).

The picture above shows the scene of the fire in the far distance. Mitchell said he did not fly his drone any closer to the scene of the tragedy than that.

Whilst the drone was airborne three police officers arrested Mitchell, placing him in handcuffs, and used the remote control to attempt to land the drone themselves – eventually managing to do so

Mitchell was held in a police cell for some five hours for breach of the peace and eventually freed after the intervention of a BBC lawyer.

Mitchell did not get his £1,000 drone back until the following day, meaning he lost two days of work. By that stage he said that the photos he took of the caravan site were worthless. He said that the drone was also damaged by police rendering it inoperable.
Incidently the incident was filmed by ITV
http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/up...-a-freelance-cameraman-is-arrested-by-police/

And remembering he sued and won against the police force for this.
 
sounds to me like the guy was just being a bit of a dick and carried on being a dick and hence got treated a bit like a dick.
end of.
 
Mr Bump said:
sounds to me like the guy was just being a bit of a dick and carried on being a dick and hence got treated a bit like a dick.
end of.
Click to expand...
But previously had been the subject of over zealous policing
Then according to the report, the Police admin worker didn't identify themselves correctly, leaving him to assume she was a police person. He also claims he showed his press pass and that this was ignored.
So yes I can imagine he was annoyed under the circumstances.

We have a detailed report from the photographer in the Daily Wail, and not much from the police side.
 
P
DemiLion said:
...and if he'd been called in as a custody wagon?
Click to expand...

Even less reason for driving at 40+ in a 20 putting pedestrians at risk and narrowly avoiding missing a car , it was in the middle of a very busy Friday afternoon, nobody was in handcuffs .
 
sphexx said:
The main problem here, as I see it, is that the bloke wasn't doing anything suspicious. It appears he was just stopped for using a (large?) camera. While the police and their staff were wasting time stopping him they may have found some real suspicious activity. Possibly more training needed in how to spot potential terrorists.

Edit for typo
Click to expand...

Really?! Do you really think it's so easy to spot a terrorist that a bit more training could fix it? Perhaps a bit more training for generation buttercup not to be dicks and help everyone to move along more quickly by using common sense and answering a couple of simple questions, instead of sticking to "I know my rights innit"

A month ago a police officer lost his life protecting democracy, since then numerous people have been arrested possibly some because someone was a bit suspicious. Yet here we are, not knowing anything about why it was thought appropriate to question the gentleman as to his ntentions, berating the Police for doing their job!
 
GerryS said:
Really?! Do you really think it's so easy to spot a terrorist that a bit more training could fix it? Perhaps a bit more training for generation buttercup not to be dicks and help everyone to move along more quickly by using common sense and answering a couple of simple questions, instead of sticking to "I know my rights innit"

A month ago a police officer lost his life protecting democracy, since then numerous people have been arrested possibly some because someone was a bit suspicious. Yet here we are, not knowing anything about why it was thought appropriate to question the gentleman as to his ntentions, berating the Police for doing their job!
Click to expand...

There has already been an explanation given as to why registered press photographers should not hand over their cameras to police, and this particular chap's experience was that the police could in fact get it badly wrong and abuse their powers. He had no reason to cooperate any more than was legally required and appeared to do so, but it seems they did not offer him the same.
 
GerryS said:
Really?! Do you really think it's so easy to spot a terrorist that a bit more training could fix it? Perhaps a bit more training for generation buttercup not to be dicks and help everyone to move along more quickly by using common sense and answering a couple of simple questions, instead of sticking to "I know my rights innit"

A month ago a police officer lost his life protecting democracy, since then numerous people have been arrested possibly some because someone was a bit suspicious. Yet here we are, not knowing anything about why it was thought appropriate to question the gentleman as to his ntentions, berating the Police for doing their job!
Click to expand...
No, I don't think it's easy to spot terrorists but I do think that thinking someone taking photographs is doing something suspicious is just plain daft and a waste of police time.
Linking this with the Parliament incident is also a bit daft. I hope, and believe, that people arrested subsequently were arrested on evidence grounds and not just "the usual suspects" as you seem to imply. It's completely off the subject here but that poor man's death would appear to be due to a failure by the police* (only going on what is in the press, obviously) whereas the deaths on the bridge were probably unavoidable.

* Not saying it was the fault of the police.
 
The amount of times I've been stopped in Cardiff and London is ridiculous. The minute I start spouting Section 43 and public way photography laws they start to get a bit unsure of themselves, then it's just plain fun toying with them until they crack.
 
twhite87 said:
The amount of times I've been stopped in Cardiff and London is ridiculous. The minute I start spouting Section 43 and public way photography laws they start to get a bit unsure of themselves, then it's just plain fun toying with them until they crack.
Click to expand...

Really?

That's a real sensible and mature attitude to take isn't it? Not!

It is exactly these kind of actions that give photographers all over a bad name.
 
Since I have really got in to my photography I have been asked many times what I am doing, so I always say what shot I am trying to get and that I love to try and take a better shot. Only once have the police stopped and asked me, so I just use my manners and explain what I am doing, and they are fine. To me at the end of the day, it does know harm to use Good Manners :)
 
Keith W said:
Really?

That's a real sensible and mature attitude to take isn't it? Not!

It is exactly these kind of actions that give photographers all over a bad name.
Click to expand...

Don't be so ridiculous. It's not like I go looking for a fight, I simply go about my business and when I get asked nicely what I am doing, I simply respond nicely. It's when I get ordered to move on or I will be removed by force, that's when I stand my ground and put them straight (All politely and above board obviously). It's because some photographers just take it and move on that security guards think they can push us around.
 
twhite87 said:
The amount of times I've been stopped in Cardiff and London is ridiculous. The minute I start spouting Section 43 and public way photography laws they start to get a bit unsure of themselves, then it's just plain fun toying with them until they crack.
Click to expand...

I've never been stopped in Cardiff or London. I've photographed for years in London and never had so much as a sideways look!

Why would you start spouting s43 though (presumably you mean TA 2000)?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've never been stopped in Cardiff or London. I've photographed for years in London and never had so much as a sideways look!

Why would you start spouting s43 though (presumably you mean TA 2000)?
Click to expand...
Because they always come up with the 'stop & search' powers from section 43 & section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That's point when I know they're clutching at straws and then simply inform them that they need to have 'reasonable suspicion' that I am a terrorist in order to stop and search me under Section 43 as the stop and search powers from Section 43 are no longer available. I then ask under what information do they have reasonable suspicion, as according to Alun Michael's statement, "simply taking photographs of building or persons with no suspicious actions cannot be regarded as reasonable suspicion".
 
twhite87 said:
Because they always come up with the 'stop & search' powers from section 43 & section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. That's point when I know they're clutching at straws and then simply inform them that they need to have 'reasonable suspicion' that I am a terrorist in order to stop and search me under Section 43 as the stop and search powers from Section 43 are no longer available. I then ask under what information do they have reasonable suspicion, as according to Alun Michael's statement, "simply taking photographs of building or persons with no suspicious actions cannot be regarded as reasonable suspicion".
Click to expand...

I see. I wouldn't personally mention it unless they mentioned it first. But still, I've never had this issue, guess I'm lucky!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've never been stopped in Cardiff or London. I've photographed for years in London and never had so much as a sideways look!

Why would you start spouting s43 though (presumably you mean TA 2000)?
Click to expand...

Try the South Bank. The number of times I've seen a photographer challenged there, and I don't live in London...
142505337.jpg

142505338.jpg
 
Interesting on the photographers twitter
https://BANNED/RTMike1970/status/860474768251912192

"She was basically impersonating a Police officer,she asked me to follow her in to make a formal statement,I told her twice what I was doing"

and an interesting response by Sussex Police on twitter
https://BANNED/dogdaysarerover/status/860479653617840129

also
https://BANNED/brightonsnapper/status/860523878338187264
 
Byker28i said:
Try the South Bank. The number of times I've seen a photographer challenged there, and I don't live in London...
142505337.jpg

142505338.jpg
Click to expand...

Ah, but the South Bank is a different matter, as technically the area is privately owned, in which case they are well within their right to ask you to move on. Who 'they' are, is something I am still not sure of, but I think when it comes to South Bank, it's best to just not argue.
 
odd jim said:
I see. I wouldn't personally mention it unless they mentioned it first. But still, I've never had this issue, guess I'm lucky!
Click to expand...
Oh God no. I just mind my own business, unless someone interferes in a way that I would call border line harassment. That's when I get down to the real letter of the law.
 
twhite87 said:
Ah, but the South Bank is a different matter, as technically the area is privately owned, in which case they are well within their right to ask you to move on. Who 'they' are, is something I am still not sure of, but I think when it comes to South Bank, it's best to just not argue.
Click to expand...

Usually some sort of private security. Don't like people with big lenses
 
Byker28i said:
Interesting on the photographers twitter
https://BANNED/RTMike1970/status/860474768251912192

"She was basically impersonating a Police officer,she asked me to follow her in to make a formal statement,I told her twice what I was doing"

and an interesting response by Sussex Police on twitter
https://BANNED/dogdaysarerover/status/860479653617840129

also
https://BANNED/brightonsnapper/status/860523878338187264
Click to expand...
I think Sussex police going on record switching their reason from S43 to stop and search is going to bite them in the bum when the IPCC get involved.

My take is that the jobsworth civvies pulled in a favour from a copper she's mates with, the CC should have taken a breather before jumping in. I can't see how defending a civvie impersonating a police officer is going to do him any favours.
 
twhite87 said:
Ah, but the South Bank is a different matter, as technically the area is privately owned, in which case they are well within their right to ask you to move on. Who 'they' are, is something I am still not sure of, but I think when it comes to South Bank, it's best to just not argue.
Click to expand...

Yes they're all privately owned and can request you to leave. But that's all they can do.
 
ancient_mariner said:
There has already been an explanation given as to why registered press photographers should not hand over their cameras to police, and this particular chap's experience was that the police could in fact get it badly wrong and abuse their powers. He had no reason to cooperate any more than was legally required and appeared to do so, but it seems they did not offer him the same.
Click to expand...

Where did I say anyone should hand over a camera? Being a registered press photographer gives no exemptions in law so lets just forget that aspect of it. As I said, we do not know what happened, we weren't there. 'Appeared' and 'seems' are pure supposition and speculation and are threfore meaningless in the argument.

sphexx said:
No, I don't think it's easy to spot terrorists but I do think that thinking someone taking photographs is doing something suspicious is just plain daft and a waste of police time.
Linking this with the Parliament incident is also a bit daft. I hope, and believe, that people arrested subsequently were arrested on evidence grounds and not just "the usual suspects" as you seem to imply. It's completely off the subject here but that poor man's death would appear to be due to a failure by the police* (only going on what is in the press, obviously) whereas the deaths on the bridge were probably unavoidable.

* Not saying it was the fault of the police.
Click to expand...

As above, we do not know what happened as we weren't there. The fact that he had a camera with him and/or was taking photographs maybe entirely incidental to them questioning him, it could be the ski mask he was wearing that aroused their suspicions - we just don't know.

It is a far from daft link, London turned out to be a terrorist incident with unfortunate consequences for many For whatever reason someone felt the need to question the guys actiions that person could have been entirely wrong or completely founded - WE DON'T KNOW, WE WEREN'T THERE. To even suggest London was the fault of the Police is clearly ridiculous and absolutely highlights the difficulties the Police face - everyone is an internet lawyer from Facebook University and wanting to challenge everything they disagree with (I know my rights innit) but then blame the Police for a terrorist attack and the subsequent deaths.
 
Hang on a minute a journalist being a b*****d, where there's a shock.

A member of the public banging on about rights instead of a sense of community or responsibility. Showing a total selfish attitude because it's my rights in it.

Well that is one reason the country is in the state it is in.
 
andyscott said:
Hang on a minute a journalist being a b*****d, where there's a shock.

A member of the public banging on about rights instead of a sense of community or responsibility. Showing a total selfish attitude because it's my rights in it.

Well that is one reason the country is in the state it is in.
Click to expand...
You mean the 'member of the public' who impersonated a police officer?
 
GerryS said:
Where did I say anyone should hand over a camera? Being a registered press photographer gives no exemptions in law so lets just forget that aspect of it. As I said, we do not know what happened, we weren't there. 'Appeared' and 'seems' are pure supposition and speculation and are threfore meaningless in the argument.



As above, we do not know what happened as we weren't there. The fact that he had a camera with him and/or was taking photographs maybe entirely incidental to them questioning him, it could be the ski mask he was wearing that aroused their suspicions - we just don't know.

It is a far from daft link, London turned out to be a terrorist incident with unfortunate consequences for many For whatever reason someone felt the need to question the guys actiions that person could have been entirely wrong or completely founded - WE DON'T KNOW, WE WEREN'T THERE. To even suggest London was the fault of the Police is clearly ridiculous and absolutely highlights the difficulties the Police face - everyone is an internet lawyer from Facebook University and wanting to challenge everything they disagree with (I know my rights innit) but then blame the Police for a terrorist attack and the subsequent deaths.
Click to expand...
I think you are referring to the more recent London incident rather than the guy who mowed down people on the bridge and stabbed the policeman. In the latter case, it appears (again form the press etc) that the unarmed policeman was the first line of defence and that is why I think he was let down. But even though there may have been fault I am not alleging blame - that lies with the deranged murderer.
 
GerryS said:
To even suggest London was the fault of the Police is clearly ridiculous and absolutely highlights the difficulties the Police face - everyone is an internet lawyer from Facebook University and wanting to challenge everything they disagree with (I know my rights innit) but then blame the Police for a terrorist attack and the subsequent deaths.
Click to expand...

I'd quite happily say that PC Keith Palmer's death is potentially a fault of police procedure.

That entrance point is the only one that isn't routinely covered by an armed officer.

Whether an armed officer could have taken out the target quickly enough is another discussion entirely.
 
Just to go back to your original comment:

GerryS said:
A month ago a police officer lost his life protecting democracy, since then numerous people have been arrested possibly some because someone was a bit suspicious. Yet here we are, not knowing anything about why it was thought appropriate to question the gentleman as to his ntentions, berating the Police for doing their job!
Click to expand...

Initially this has absolutely nothing to do with the police doing their job. It is about an untrained civilian member of police staff who decided to try a bit of coppering.

The mistake that the constables made was in backing her up rather than giving her a massive bollocking.
 
DemiLion said:
I'd quite happily say that PC Keith Palmer's death is potentially a fault of police procedure.

That entrance point is the only one that isn't routinely covered by an armed officer.

Whether an armed officer could have taken out the target quickly enough is another discussion entirely.
Click to expand...

Please explain your qualifications and experience in Police procedure and armed tactics, then I might listen to you.

DemiLion said:
Just to go back to your original comment:



Initially this has absolutely nothing to do with the police doing their job. It is about an untrained civilian member of police staff who decided to try a bit of coppering.

The mistake that the constables made was in backing her up rather than giving her a massive bollocking.
Click to expand...

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.
 
andyscott said:
Hang on a minute a journalist being a b*****d, where there's a shock.

A member of the public banging on about rights instead of a sense of community or responsibility. Showing a total selfish attitude because it's my rights in it.

Well that is one reason the country is in the state it is in.
Click to expand...

Sorry - where's your source on this? Have you read the journalists account and the background?
 
Byker28i said:
Sorry - where's your source on this? Have you read the journalists account and the background?
Click to expand...

Why would you believe a journalists account, they're about as honest and credible as a politician - never let the truth get in the way of a good story!
 
Some facts aren't disputed by either side.
  • The photographer was taking a photo of a public building.
  • A civilian member of police staff challenged the photographer and instructed him to enter the police station.
  • On entering the police station the civilian non-warranted status of the employee became evident.
  • A civil exchange took place (neither sides statement disagrees with this).
  • The identity of the photographer was confirmed.
The point that's being made throughout this thread is that the civilian member of staff had no authority to instruct the photographer to report to the front desk of the police station. Their civilian status was not revealed until the photographer did so. This is misrepresentation, although the facts are insufficient to determine if it was criminal (impersonating a police officer, Police Reform Act 2002 s.46c "makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he has powers as a designated or accredited person or as an accredited inspector that exceed the powers he actually has").

I've only rarely been challenged to provide ID by a constable when out with a camera (twice that I can recall), but I always ask to see their warrant card before I provide any ID. As long as you're polite about it there's no issue. Likewise, if challenged by a security guard you should ask to see their SIA license. Even if they have one they still don't have the power to request your ID. If they don't have one, then by representing themselves as a security guard they're committing a criminal breach of the Security Industries Act. This isn't about being awkward, it's about establishing who you're talking to. Otherwise how do you know if someone is a genuine Police Officer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top