I tried to take photos near the airport today.

fabs said:
I certainly wouldn't feel like I'd done anything wrong if I was.
Click to expand...

I would expect most regulars on TP would be aware of their rights and that they'd done nothing wrong but, as collection of keen/pro photographers, they don't really represent a cross-section of Mr & Mrs Public.

fabs said:
As far as the paedophile angle is concerened, that is something in the minds of those people who invest too much in the preachings of certain aspects of the media, *cough* Daily Mail *cough*!
Click to expand...

What worries me is that it all adds up. Two old dears getting stopped for taking photos of an empty paddling pool in the local park, something that was news worthy because it was so stupid. What it, and the PSCO above reflect is that those who have, or think they have, the "authority" to stop us aren't best trained to do so. So perhaps the real answer is that better training is needed which includes a more reasonable approach that helps break down the them and us attitude? Old fashioned bobby's on the beat with a friendly smile and a sense of community rather than moron's like the PSCO who spends his spare time designing sharks with fricking lasers :lol:
 
pxl8 said:
What worries me is that it all adds up. Two old dears getting stopped for taking photos of an empty paddling pool in the local park, something that was news worthy because it was so stupid. What it, and the PSCO above reflect is that those who have, or think they have, the "authority" to stop us aren't best trained to do so. So perhaps the real answer is that better training is needed which includes a more reasonable approach that helps break down the them and us attitude? Old fashioned bobby's on the beat with a friendly smile and a sense of community rather than moron's like the PSCO who spends his spare time designing sharks with fricking lasers :lol:
Click to expand...

Now I do agree with everything you said there! :thumbs:
 
most uk airports and surrounding areas are currently subject to section 44 of the terrorism act 2000
in which most normal rights are over ridden and allow the security forces to throw a blanket over most activities under the guise of terrorism for example here is one of the offence you can commit in a section 44 area
Offences (1) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) fails to stop a vehicle when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1);
(b) fails to stop when required to do so by a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(2);
(c) wilfully obstructs a constable in the exercise of the power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1)
and then when you read the powers
45 Exercise of power (1) The power conferred by an authorisation under section 44(1) or (2)—
(a) may be exercised only for the purpose of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and
(b) may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
(2) A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.
(3) A constable exercising the power conferred by an authorisation may not require a person to remove any clothing in public except for headgear, footwear, an outer coat, a jacket or gloves.
(4) Where a constable proposes to search a person or vehicle by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) he may detain the person or vehicle for such time as is reasonably required to permit the search to be carried out at or near the place where the person or vehicle is stopped.
(5) Where—
(a) a vehicle or pedestrian is stopped by virtue of section 44(1) or (2), and
(b) the driver of the vehicle or the pedestrian applies for a written statement that the vehicle was stopped, or that he was stopped, by virtue of section 44(1) or (2),
the written statement shall be provided.
(6) An application under subsection (5) must be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the vehicle or pedestrian was stopped.

and as camera equipment can be construed as in use for terroism and whilst logic suggests that terroists will not visit and openly research and gather intelligence the police on the ground run no risks and approach and the cycle of above dicontent commences
 
jakedog uk said:
and as camera equipment can be construed as in use for terroism and whilst logic suggests that terroists will not visit and openly research and gather intelligence the police on the ground run no risks and approach and the cycle of above dicontent commences
Click to expand...

But as long as people understand this, there is no need for the cycle of discontent to continue. :shrug:
 
I've been to Bristol Airport to take photos but my camera was always aimed at the aircraft taking off, not of the runways or the layout of the airport. I've never been approached by anyone even though on one occasion there was about 10 of us from a camera club.

With all the problems going on these days surely it is suspicious if someone is photographing not the aircraft but the perimiter of the airport and the runways

Agree or disagree the airport police have a job to do, after all they have a lot of responsibility to ensure the publics safety. At least in this country there are not the restriction which there are abroad.

If in doubt about taking photographs anywhere why not just give them a quick phone call and check what the limitations are as regards taking photographs in a certain place.
 
I agree but surely that cuts both ways suggesting " i am about to blow up the runway" is as unhelpful to the guy that tells the check in desk "yes i packed the bags myself and yes of course i packed a bomb" and no matter hwo much sarcasm or humour intended he will be wisked away for a lenghty search and a charge of wasting time etc....

after the stanstead invasion the security forces were critised for having no one out on constant patrol so with low key policing comes self policing and once that trust goes you end up with state controlled everything
 
jakedog uk said:
I agree but surely that cuts both ways suggesting " i am about to blow up the runway" is as unhelpful to the guy that tells the check in desk "yes i packed the bags myself and yes of course i packed a bomb" and no matter hwo much sarcasm or humour intended he will be wisked away for a lenghty search and a charge of wasting time etc....

after the stanstead invasion the security forces were critised for having no one out on constant patrol so with low key policing comes self policing and once that trust goes you end up with state controlled everything
Click to expand...

I remember when there were a large number of forged bank notes around, a guy handed a crisp new twenty pound note to a cashier and said "I just printed that" and was promptly arrested. I didn't have much sympathy for him either! ;)
 
joryannee said:
Agree or disagree the airport police have a job to do, after all they have a lot of responsibility to ensure the publics safety. At least in this country there are not the restriction which there are abroad.QUOTE]

I couldn't agree more. I think the problem lies in the fact that the Police men/women do not know enough about the law to enforce it correctly all the time and many lack any manners. They seem to know a few key laws that allow them to detain people in the majority of situations and incorrectly employ them in other situations and refuse to admit when they have it wrong.

They should have an in depth knowledge of criminal law and how it works. This is more than likely not their fault but the fault of their training system. These guys and gals need educating.
Click to expand...
 
the police are not escused from being stupid. no matter who askes me a stupid question they are going to get a sarcasic reply. The police have to act properly and not treat everyone like a chav. A police woman called me mate once and she was politely informed thats not the correct why to talk to a member of the public she did not know.


Duncan.F said:
Sorry I'm with the Police on this one. Taking photos around airports is going to raise attention and toggers need to be more prepared and more diplomatic! We do have all sorts of rights but they can change and vary according to circumstances. My advice if asked what you are doing by a Police Officer then respond politely and positively [with no wisecracks]. Show the pictures you are taking [and any others you have] offer ID. If that desn't work and you are told to move on, just move on.
If you think the Officer has behaved improperly then take his number and complain afterwards. Don't take the pi**, don't argue, don't get stroppy because you WILL come second! THe general ramp is ask, tell, warn, arrest!!
They are doing a difficult job, Officers in the front line don't always get it right but if they make the call.......

Dunc
Click to expand...
 
Cameras are now as dangerous as AK's. :lol:

But seriously, as pxl8 has said already, the example on this thread is fair enough. Man with a camera on his own at an airfield, could raise suspicion in their eyes, since they have to be on the look out for anything that could be 'bad'. Doing their job, I suppose.

However, taking pictures of the London Eye and being asked to move on? Not cool, especially when people are doing the same with P&S and phones. No need for it, and the whole 'photography=terrorism' thing is just pathetic.

Recent thing happened to me with the police, with good and bad points to it.

Basically, for my media coursework, I had to make a storyboard for a trailer for a British thriller film. In one of the frames, a hired gun was taking pot-shot's at my protagonist in his car. So, as my friend drove past, I got my other friend to stand there holding a toy gun pointed at his car. *snap*. Done.

But! Oh... ****... coppers.
They pulled into the petrol station, jumped out "what you up to tonight then lads?"
"oh, just taking some photos for my media project"
"what were you holding?"
"uhh... a toy gun."

so we hand over the toy gun, and one of the police officers goes off on one.
this is the jist of his rant:

"This is a completely stupid idea and you're both idiots. I'm an armed police officer, and if I saw you with that, and I had my weapon with me, I would not have hesitated to shoot you. The situation would be a lot different, since you would probably be dead on the floor. The only reason I didn't call the armed response unit was because I saw the camera. Next time you might not be so lucky, and I might have my gun, and then that would be it. You'd be dead."

No lie, those were his words (from memory) and no exaggerations whatsoever.

So, me and my friend retorted in a similar way to this:

"We understand that brandishing a toy gun in public wasn't the best idea ever, and we understand that we should have used our brains when thinking of this idea, and we understand that we're pretty stupid for doing this. However, what if I was a 9 year old boy pointing a toy gun at you. Considering we're not reduced to gang violence in the quiet town of Yateley, would you still have shot him dead without thinking before hand "Perhaps this is a toy gun and I should ask him to put the gun down before killing him?". Also, you said you would have called the Armed response unit but you saw the camera so you didn't. So why stop at all? You saw the camera, your immediate reaction was "oh they're just taking pictures and it must be a toy gun"."

We were very apologetic, and admittedly, waving a toy gun around in public is never a good idea, despite how obviously 'toy' it is.
But the fact the armed police officer was so rude and so contradicting in what he was saying just wound me and my friend up. Totally unnecessary.

I completely agree with stopping and questionning us, and I think we deserved to be arrested and taken in, but there is no need for the police to be rude and impolite when their arrestees are so polite and willing to help the police get what they need.
I know it's not 100% of the police, since the other 2 coppers were very nice and friendly.

one of them said to us "nice one guys, should have photoshopped the gun in haha", having a bit of banter with me and my mate when the armed copper was in the car.
 
foodpoison said:
Of course he wouldn't, but why say it? It's just unnecessary. We weren't scared, we just thought he was a ****.
Click to expand...

Because the intention was to make you think. You already said that you now realise that it was silly to brandish a toy gun in public, so mission accomplished.
 
You have to be careful where you are going with your comparisons if you really want to make a sensible argument.... possession of an imitation firearm in a public place is something you are very likely to get you in serious trouble. If you are lucky that's just a strong ticking off, if you are unlucky thats an armed response unit pointing guns at you and if you are really stupid and shout back at them about a "police state" and "knowing my rights" and generally refusing to cooperate that could include you actually getting shot.

If you want to do stuff that might get you in trouble, why not just strike up a relationship with your local constabulary? Once you have that relationship a simple "I'm going to be doing XYZ on Saturday" is all it takes to ensure you'll be able to proceed without hassle.

Of course this would mean being sensible, pre-planning and having a bit of thought about what you are doing...
 
Toy gun != imitation firearm :nono:
 
he would not have really shot you without warning
Click to expand...

Of course, the police always issue a warning before they open fire, for example when engaging an innocent member of the puiblic, perhaps on the London Undergound :bonk:
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Of course, the police always issue a warning before they open fire, for example when engaging an innocent member of the puiblic, perhaps on the London Undergound :bonk:
Click to expand...

Now how did I know that would come up!

Just a minor point. A suspected suicide bomber would not be given a warning first, it would be counter productive. Someone with a gun is entirely different and would definitely be given a warning.
 
I'm not going to go into the ins and outs, but in that scenario about the toy gun, the copper was indeed correct.
If an armed response unit was called, how the hell are they to know that the gun is a toy gun?

They see gun. They have a duty to act, a split second to make the decision. He 'ranted' for your sake, not his. :)
 
fabs said:
Now how did I know that would come up!

Just a minor point. A suspected suicide bomber would not be given a warning first, it would be counter productive. Someone with a gun is entirely different and would definitely be given a warning.
Click to expand...


100% correct
 
Interesting perspective Marcel :thumbs:
 
fabs said:
Because the intention was to make you think. You already said that you now realise that it was silly to brandish a toy gun in public, so mission accomplished.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, children used to play with toy guns in the street - cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, Star Wars.

I don't recall them getting shot by the police.

The words "brandish" is very loaded with negative conations.
 
Wait.......they turned up at the side of a field by an airport, with guns in response to the use of a camera.
Just where exactly is the middle ground, on one hand a plastic gun in town no armed attendance, on the other, guns for a camera being used on the periphery of an airport, both resulting in the same level of verbal slappery.
The sooner we find some middle ground, away from the extremes of "Stalin now lives at number 10", and "mindless harassment is acceptable", the better..
 
puddleduck said:
When I was a kid, children used to play with toy guns in the street - cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, Star Wars.

I don't recall them getting shot by the police.

The words "brandish" is very loaded with negative conations.
Click to expand...

Indeed, so did I. Unfortunately times have changed. The word "brandish" was used by Foodpoison in this instance, I just paraphrased.
 
joxby said:
Wait.......they turned up at the side of a field by an airport, with guns in response to the use of a camera.
Just where exactly is the middle ground, on one hand a plastic gun in town no armed attendance, on the other, guns for a camera being used on the periphery of an airport, both resulting in the same level of verbal slappery.
The sooner we find some middle ground, away from the extremes of "Stalin now lives at number 10", and "mindless harassment is acceptable", the better..
Click to expand...

They didn't specifically carry guns in response to a photographer. Police on Airport duty are routinely armed, or are you suggesting they should have left the guns by the roadside whilst questioning the OP. :thinking:
 
I used to shoot tin cans in a field with an air rifle with a telescopic sight on it in the early 70s, I also bought a knife when I was 14 that Rambo would have been proud of from a shop, all by myself.

It was legal to transport an air rifle in public from the age of 14 as long as it was unloaded and in a case , I got stopped by a copper when I was 14, he just checked it wasn't loaded and let me go.

My oh my how things have changed, if a kid did that now air support and armed response would be called in.
 
Why are people talking about kids with toy guns? It's pretty obvious that a bunch of 7 year olds playing in the street with red tipped guns won't provoke an armed response.

There is a lot of "waving a piece of paper about won't help the situation..." I wasn't suggesting that anybody should be aggressive with this but being prepared for this situation is a good idea. Calmly explaining that you have researched your rights and have printed documentation to hand can only help.

Giving it "The Big I Am", "You're wrong because I say so", is not a level headed way to deal with anything.

A police car stopped near to a mate and myself doing light trails at a motorway junction, he got a bit worried and said "what are you going to say if they question you?". I said I'll tell them what we're doing and there won't be a problem. Actually nothing happened at all, they could see for themselves we were taking photo's, my car was parked in a sensible place away from traffic and they never even got out to speak to us.

I'd suggest that these intelligent police stopped to check us out, saw we were no harm and left to carry on with other business.
 
fabs said:
They didn't specifically carry guns in response to a photographer. Police on Airport duty are routinely armed, or are you suggesting they should have left the guns by the roadside whilst questioning the OP. :thinking:
Click to expand...

They should have sent the janitor round since the "threat" was equivalent to a blocked toilet, or at least approached the situation with that in mind.
They don't know who he is, or what he's doing, but they need to use a quids worth of common sense in these situations.

I've had quite a few police stops, never had a problem, they've always been polite and courteous and give acceptable reasons for their actions, never got the attitude that made me feel defensive, and I always felt happier and safer after discussing my business with them.
But they're not all like that, clearly.

Publicly carried guns however, are no joke..plastic or otherwise.
 
puddleduck said:
When I was a kid, children used to play with toy guns in the street - cowboys and indians, cops and robbers, Star Wars.

I don't recall them getting shot by the police.
Click to expand...

Thats because it never would have actually have been thought that the kids were carrying real guns, because they are kids.

Now this is not neccessarily true is it?
 
I think it's just not the biggest airport somebody could target to cause widespread disruption.
 
HAs anybody stopped to think why normal police don`t know the law on photography? Has anyone stopped to wonder how many laws are in place that govern "minority pastimes, of which photography is wether we like it or not. How many laws do you lot know off by heart? How many know the T&C act of 1824 that still governs us?

Not so many I would imagine.Expecting every police officer to know the law relating to photography is downright silly, I would bet money that hardly one, if any,judge knows the laws relating to photography or indeed any solicitor.

Society gets the police force it deserves, as police officers are drawn from society,they are not made at a factory.Judging from some of the " I know my rights" responses on here, one can understand why some people get to see the wrong side of the law.
 
fracster said:
HAs anybody stopped to think why normal police don`t know the law on photography? Has anyone stopped to wonder how many laws are in place that govern "minority pastimes, of which photography is wether we like it or not. How many laws do you lot know off by heart? How many know the T&C act of 1824 that still governs us?

Not so many I would imagine.Expecting every police officer to know the law relating to photography is downright silly, I would bet money that hardly one, if any,judge knows the laws relating to photography or indeed any solicitor.

Society gets the police force it deserves, as police officers are drawn from society,they are not made at a factory.Judging from some of the " I know my rights" responses on here, one can understand why some people get to see the wrong side of the law.
Click to expand...

Succinctly put. :thumbs:
 
fracster said:
HAs anybody stopped to think why normal police don`t know the law on photography? Has anyone stopped to wonder how many laws are in place that govern "minority pastimes, of which photography is wether we like it or not. How many laws do you lot know off by heart? How many know the T&C act of 1824 that still governs us?

Not so many I would imagine.Expecting every police officer to know the law relating to photography is downright silly, I would bet money that hardly one, if any,judge knows the laws relating to photography or indeed any solicitor.

Society gets the police force it deserves, as police officers are drawn from society,they are not made at a factory.Judging from some of the " I know my rights" responses on here, one can understand why some people get to see the wrong side of the law.
Click to expand...

Exactly the reason to research the laws and keep printed documentation in your camera bag. It's not about being a smart arse, it's about being helpful to the people asking the questions.
 
cyclone said:
Exactly the reason to research the laws and keep printed documentation in your camera bag. It's not about being a smart arse, it's about being helpful to the people asking the questions.
Click to expand...


Oh I agree, but some of the responses from people on here suggest that waving them around and shouting "I know my rights" will win the day.Perhaps trying to be civil to each other and speaking to people as one would wish to be spoken to one oneself would surely be better.
 
Spot on fracster. The amount of new legislation introduced under the current government alone would require a police office to have a memory of many terrabytes to hold it all!

Seems a lot of common sense has been lost when emotions run high and people feel challenged.

I'm not a particular supporter of our "boys in blue" but their job is difficult enough without having to worry about terrorists and the growing number of knife crimes committed by "kids".

A bit of civility goes a long way and the surest way to antagonise them is to be facetious.
 
fracster said:
HAs anybody stopped to think why normal police don`t know the law on photography?
Click to expand...

Perhaps the better question is why is the default view of the police that it is wrong?
 
Its hardly a minority pastime, snail racing maybe, not photography, everybody in the developed World has at least one camera.
Its a very common pastime, something the police come in to contact with every single day, and have done for years.
Too much to expect them to know the ins and outs of photography in and out of public places ?, I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top