Hove town hall incident, civilian member of staff?

Alastair

Alastair

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9,818
Edit My Images
No
I don't see a thread on this story yet..
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...terror-law-for-taking-hove-town-hall-pictures

Police have been accused of abusing their powers by a professional photographer who was detained under anti-terror laws after he was seen taking pictures of Hove town hall on Thursday. Eddie Mitchell was held for about an hour while police checked his camera.
It was eventually decided that there was no reason to believe that the press photographer, who works for outlets including the BBC, was a terrorist.
“I respect wholeheartedly that the police have a job to do,” Mitchell said, “but there should be clarity on people taking pictures in a public place – it is not a crime … As far as I am concerned, it is a total misuse and abuse of power.”
Mitchell declined to explain who he was or what he was doing to a passing member of police staff on the grounds that he was not breaking any laws. Both he and Sussex police agreed that the conversation was not antagonistic.​

As I understand it the initial conversation was with a passing member of police civilian staff. Do civilian staff have the authority to request identification and make enquiries of a member of the public?
 
No, police civvies have no powers at all except where it's part of their job such as firearms licencing.
 
Well the photographer didn't help themselves by refusing to give their details to the police, that will have got their backs up enormously and is suspicious/wasting their time. This would have been easily and quickly resolved by the photographer not acting like a bit of a b*****d. He says he respects the police and the need to do their work but he deliberately obstructed them?
 
No, from what Alistair repeated, the photographer refused to give his details to a member of the police staff, not to a police officer. As I said, police civilian employees have no more powers than any other civilian and the photographer was well within his rights to withhold his details.
 
Last edited:
Snapsh0t said:
No, from what Alistair repeated, the photographer refused to give his details to a member of the police staff, not to a police officer. As I said, police civilian employees have no more powers than any other civilian and the photographer was well within his rights to withhold his details.
Click to expand...
I missed that bit, fare enough then.
If ever I'm approached by anyone who, from the outset, appears to have "Attitude issues" my first response is "I'm sorry, I don't think we've been introduced."
It took me a while to train myself, but it does tend to shift the balance of the ensuing conversation.
 
So the dude failed the attitude test, the police responded by inconveniencing him for a few hours, then he goes crying to the press.

and we wonder why this world is a mess..
 
That's the trouble with living on the south coast ,bit of sunshine and you look like Omar-bin-waggen . Perhaps he was wearing one of them black and white check scarves ,sounds like a jobsworth civvie was abusing her powers of being a f*****g nosey cow
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
This man was awkward, and arrogant to someone who in these severe terrorism levels simply asked what he was doing and why. She got uniformed police officers and he was just as awkward to them. If he gave his name and ID (he says he works for the BBC, Press, Fire and police on his twitter) it would have been over in no time. Instead he moaned and groaned, was (quite rightly) detained and then went (again) winging to the press... probably after another payout.
ohh, this is the same photographer who a couple of years back got arrested for allegedly trying to film the dead bodies coming out of a fire in Surrey http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-31/...ar-gatwick-then-struggle-to-land-his-vehicle/
He got 10 Grand for that he said yesterday on his twitter!!
If the video is still up you hear him refusing to land the drone.
Sounds like a horrid man.
 
Ann Robert said:
This man was awkward, and arrogant to someone who in these severe terrorism levels simply asked what he was doing and why. She got uniformed police officers and he was just as awkward to them. If he gave his name and ID (he says he works for the BBC, Press, Fire and police on his twitter) it would have been over in no time. Instead he moaned and groaned, was (quite rightly) detained and then went (again) winging to the press... probably after another payout.
ohh, this is the same photographer who a couple of years back got arrested for allegedly trying to film the dead bodies coming out of a fire in Surrey http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-31/...ar-gatwick-then-struggle-to-land-his-vehicle/
He got 10 Grand for that he said yesterday on his twitter!!
If the video is still up you hear him refusing to land the drone.
Sounds like a horrid man.
Click to expand...
An interesting first post.
Vested interests maybe?
 
Actually, he's a very decent, well balanced bloke. He was taking a picture of Hove Town Hall for heaven's sake - it's hardly on the ISIS bucket list of things to blow up!

He was under no obligation whatsoever - morally or legally - to give his details to this jobsworth. For those of us who take photos on the streets for a living, being on any kind of police database is not a good thing and, believe me, this is the thin end of the wedge. It's based on unfounded paranoia and we mustn't let it happen.

The Met guys are very good with dealing with photographers - many other forces less so. The message needs driving home that taking pictures is not (normally) abnormal, suspicious or threatening and, as such, does not require the photographer to explain him/herself. If the bobby has genuine concerns and grounds for suspicion, that may be a different matter.
 
OldCarlos said:
The vid is here; http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/up...-a-freelance-cameraman-is-arrested-by-police/
He is a CAA Certified Fire Service/BBC UAV Pilot
(AerialNews 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/ )
Click to expand...


That is shocking. It is clear from that drone incident video that the police constable concerned deliberately interfered with the control of an aircraft in flight. If that drone had crashed in the wrong place as a result there could have been some serious harm done. Then to read that the copper tried to bring it in himself when a). he wasn't licenced to fly and b). he didn't know what he was doing anyway ... well, that's sheer bloody stupidity.

Goes to show how dangerous coppers can be when they're a bit too full of their own self importance.
 
Last edited:
Ann Robert said:
This man was awkward, and arrogant to someone who in these severe terrorism levels simply asked what he was doing and why. She got uniformed police officers and he was just as awkward to them. If he gave his name and ID (he says he works for the BBC, Press, Fire and police on his twitter) it would have been over in no time. Instead he moaned and groaned, was (quite rightly) detained and then went (again) winging to the press... probably after another payout.
ohh, this is the same photographer who a couple of years back got arrested for allegedly trying to film the dead bodies coming out of a fire in Surrey http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-31/...ar-gatwick-then-struggle-to-land-his-vehicle/
He got 10 Grand for that he said yesterday on his twitter!!
If the video is still up you hear him refusing to land the drone.
Sounds like a horrid man.
Click to expand...


Are you by any chance the civilian member of Sussex Police staff that misrepresented themselves as a warranted constable?
 
DemiLion said:
Are you by any chance the civilian member of Sussex Police staff that misrepresented themselves as a warranted constable?
Click to expand...
Surely that would be a criminal offence in its own right I.e impersonating a police officer and could and should be taken further. Someone on here should know we have several or more serving police members a lot of ex police and even at least one ex chief constable of a major city all members of this forum
 
the black fox said:
Surely that would be a criminal offence in its own right I.e impersonating a police officer and could and should be taken further. Someone on here should know we have several or more serving police members a lot of ex police and even at least one ex chief constable of a major city all members of this forum
Click to expand...


Correct. It is an offence, should lead to immediate suspension, followed by dismissal and potentially prosecution.

And it happened.
 
Ann Robert said:
This man was awkward, and arrogant to someone who in these severe terrorism levels simply asked what he was doing and why. She got uniformed police officers and he was just as awkward to them. If he gave his name and ID (he says he works for the BBC, Press, Fire and police on his twitter) it would have been over in no time. Instead he moaned and groaned, was (quite rightly) detained and then went (again) winging to the press... probably after another payout.
ohh, this is the same photographer who a couple of years back got arrested for allegedly trying to film the dead bodies coming out of a fire in Surrey http://www.itv.com/news/2014-12-31/...ar-gatwick-then-struggle-to-land-his-vehicle/
He got 10 Grand for that he said yesterday on his twitter!!
If the video is still up you hear him refusing to land the drone.
Sounds like a horrid man.
Click to expand...
Your on the wrong forum. Here you go. http://www.policeuk.com/forum/ :police:
 
Sorry but unless I have missed it I do not see in any of the news reports where it states the civilian member of staff misrepresented themselves as a constable, nor does the guy who was arrested say it anywhere either.
 
Keith W said:
Sorry but unless I have missed it I do not see in any of the news reports where it states the civilian member of staff misrepresented themselves as a constable, nor does the guy who was arrested say it anywhere either.
Click to expand...
Almost by definition a civilian member of police staff asking a member of the public to explain themselves is impersonation of a constable.

However this is interesting..
Ann Robert said:
This man was awkward, and arrogant to someone who in these severe terrorism levels simply asked what he was doing and why. She got uniformed police officers and he was just as awkward to them.
Click to expand...
.. as all accounts are along the lines "Both he and Sussex police agreed that the conversation was not antagonistic"


In terms of contact with police whilst pursuing my photography, I've had no problems with playing "show me yours (warrant card) and I'll show you mine (identification)". Although I have had run ins with persons impersonating security guards.
 
Not enough information here. Did the police civvy identify themselves? Did the photographer assume they were just a nosy member of the public?
 
Snapsh0t said:
No, from what Alistair repeated, the photographer refused to give his details to a member of the police staff, not to a police officer. As I said, police civilian employees have no more powers than any other civilian and the photographer was well within his rights to withhold his details.
Click to expand...

Unless they're a PCSO, they are civilian staff with powers granted to them by the chief constable. It's not clear what role this 'civilian staff member' was undertaking. Possibly not though as "lanyards" were mentioned, a PCSO would be in uniform.
 
Last edited:
Not to muddy the waters too much, but civilian employees of the police and other organisations can have powers conferred upon them. My wife for example, now an employee of a private company, has the power to stop traffic, and failure to comply can result in points on licence. These powers are conferred by the Secretary of State for Transport in her case, and they are many restrictions, but I would not assume that civilian employees are always without the power to act.
 
Furtim said:
Not to muddy the waters too much, but civilian employees of the police and other organisations can have powers conferred upon them. My wife for example, now an employee of a private company, has the power to stop traffic, and failure to comply can result in points on licence. These powers are conferred by the Secretary of State for Transport in her case, and they are many restrictions, but I would not assume that civilian employees are always without the power to act.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I understood only a Police Officer in uniform has this power.

More information please. If someone who does not appear to be a Police Officer in uniform tries to interfere with traffic they're surely heading for an accident, especially given the training some drivers in the private security industry have these days in order to protect their clients from kidnap, etc.
 
Last edited:
JohnX said:
Interesting. I understood only a Police Officer in uniform has this power.

More information please. If someone who does not appear to be a Police Officer in uniform tries to interfere with traffic they're surely heading for an accident, especially given the training some drivers in the private security industry have these days in order to protect their clients from kidnap, etc.
Click to expand...



Civilians with "powers" are given them under the Community Safety Accreditation Schemes by the relevant chief constable, and as per the name the powers relate to assisting only with matters of community safety.

See here;

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi.../community-safety-accreditation-scheme-powers

Most of the wider ranging powers are those given to PCSOs who of course aren't warranted officers, but the law was changed so this could be spread out across non police organisations (mainly other government agencies and councils). Non police employees will not have such a range of powers, the non police organisations will be those such as the AA for example, who have event teams conducting traffic direction at large events such as festivals, issued specific powers for that role in behalf of the local authority. Civilians cannot issue traffic fixed penalties though or enforce any offences that might arise there and then. Only a police officer in uniform can do this.

Not many non police organisations outside of local government are given these devolved powers, those that are are generally local authorities, other government agencies and councils, and they need to be easily identified and carry identification of a prescribed size and make up.

Private security companies are rarely given devolved powers (unless they are contracted by a local authority or police) for a number of reasons and generally rely on Common Law.

By the way, private security drivers / bodyguards cannot drive outside of the Road Traffic Act anyway, they have no exemptions at all. Again, they'd have to rely on common law for a defence if they drive outside of the Road Traffic Act.
 
Last edited:
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
 
Last edited:
Even if the photographer was using a plate camera on a large wooden tripod ,dressed in a Arab garment and wearing a burka ,common sense says that Brighton and hove town hall is hardly likely to be on either a Isis or Kim Jong oinks hit list .
So forgetting all the b******t techy complex answers ,common sense says this was most likely a over officious jobsworth civviey employee being a nosey cow ,who when told to do one ,used her employment as a excuse to cause a fuss ,in this case I really hope she gets her cards .
 
the black fox said:
Someone on here should know we have several or more serving police members a lot of ex police and even at least one ex chief constable of a major city all members of this forum
Click to expand...
Are they the ones who can never understand humorous posts?. :D
 
the black fox said:
Even if the photographer was using a plate camera on a large wooden tripod ,dressed in a Arab garment and wearing a burka ,common sense says that Brighton and hove town hall is hardly likely to be on either a Isis or Kim Jong oinks hit list .
So forgetting all the b******t techy complex answers ,common sense says this was most likely a over officious jobsworth civviey employee being a nosey cow ,who when told to do one ,used her employment as a excuse to cause a fuss ,in this case I really hope she gets her cards .
Click to expand...

Well, it depends what was going on at the town hall, having read the report it's not clear (or I've missed it). If it was being used as a polling station they'd be rightly concerned about security, otherwise I'd agree.

I'm not defending her actions by the way, she did come over officious from the side of the photographer, but the fact there were also uniformed officers present (another news report said the police had a "pop up station" set up in the town hall, which is where he met the warranted officers) suggests there was an ongoing security concern for whatever was happening there. Polling station would be my bet which are quite security vigilant, and where of course on a side note it's illegal to take photos *inside* but not outside.
 
Last edited:
oh i see perhaps some high ranking *removed* was placing his vote then :police::police::police:

STAFF EDIT : Offensive term removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@the black fox Why are you being homophobic and what does that have to do with it? Or high ranking, whatever that is?

Aside from the over officious actions of the person involved, take that aside for a second just to consider why polling stations are sensitive - security wise with regards to polling stations it's the hundreds of *members of the public* in one space and an attack on them and the British democratic process they'd be keen to prevent, and why they are a target for lone attackers and worse.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
@the black fox
Aside from the over officious actions of the person involved, take that aside for a second just to consider why polling stations are sensitive - security wise with regards to polling stations it's the hundreds of *members of the public* in one space and an attack on them and the British democratic process they'd be keen to prevent, and why they are target for lone attackers.
Click to expand...
YMMV but I've voted in nearly every election, national and local, for the past 60+ years and I've never seen "hundreds" of people at a polling station, more like 10 or so, if that.
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
YMMV but I've voted in nearly every election, national and local, for the past 60+ years and I've never seen "hundreds" of people there at a polling station, more like 10 or so, if that.
Click to expand...

Of course it varies, which is why the Policing at polling stations also varies, from none to significant levels.

In some places in the 2010 general election, you could swap the words "hundreds of people" with queues of up to 1200 people at one time in some cities (and things were very similar last time);

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31702994

Imagine something happening there. But surely people can see why busy polling stations are security sensitive?
 
Last edited:
Also remember that terrorists have stuck at Brighton & Hove before
 
In answer to question above, NO, I am not the police worker who stopped him.
What's being overlooked here is it wasn't him taking photos that caused the fuss, it was his attitude. If your doing no harm, why be so defensive when asked to provide ID and a name?
In these times of a severe terrorist alert we are in, police and staff are told to be more vigilant. WE are all told to be more vigilant - there are even adverts on the telly and internet about this! Yet when they (police) are, they are wrong, when something slips through, they are wrong again.
And what does a terrorist look like? Who do they have working for them? History has proved it is often people who look just like you and me.
Yes he was 100% innocent of any offences, but he has just made it a big issue by not simply showing his Press pass. I cant believe he works for the fire service - like to find out but doubt we will ever know that for sure...
Which brings me to that drone incident, yes the officer may have been wrong but I remember this very well.
In the video, the officer clearly says politely "SIR FOR THE THIRD TIME PLEASE LAND YOUR DRONE" FOR THE T H I R D TIME!!
Add that to the fact he was allegedly trying to film the dead bodies coming out of a fatal fire, possibly even of kids (to sell to media and make loads of money).
He was causing distress to the local residents it was the locals who asked police to help- after all, a family of 4 they knew had just been killed in a fire!
What was the police officer supposed to do? And this man walked away with 10 GRAND for basically being arrogant!
Have you seen his business website? How many businesses do not post an address? Why? I hear because he upsets so many people, he doesn't want people to know where he lives. DODGY.
 
OK. So who are you? And what is your connection here?
You appear to be heavily involved and appear to be very much on the side of "We are right because we say we are"
 
I can't get rid of the mental image of a fundamentalist terrorist filming, on his phone, a copper getting arsey with a bloke with a huge camera.

It's so funny it's not funny.

The photographer might be a t*** too, of course.

Who knows
 
odd jim said:
Unless they're a PCSO, they are civilian staff with powers granted to them by the chief constable. It's not clear what role this 'civilian staff member' was undertaking. Possibly not though as "lanyards" were mentioned, a PCSO would be in uniform.
Click to expand...
A PCSO is civilian staff in uniform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top