- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How many of those are DSLR`s? With tripods and all the gubbings attached?
Get real, it is a minority past time.
I tried to take photos near the airport today.
- Thread starter jeffrobjent
- Start date
How many of those are DSLR`s? With tripods and all the gubbings attached?
Get real, it is a minority past time.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, having a camera does not make photography your pastime! People taking photographs in these sort of situations are definitely in a minority. The rest are just taking holiday snaps or occasionally dust off the compact for the odd family photo. Police also deal with far more important things on a day to day basis so their top priority is not to know all the legal ins and outs of photography.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Whether you think its a minority pastime or not, I think they should know what they are talking about before tackling the subject.
It doesn't have to be your pastime, anyone who owns a camera could get themselves into this situation whether they use it everyday or once a year.
Its their job to know, its what they do, if other things were that important why are they kicking so many arses, surely it would be easier to just......not.
Can't have it both ways..
Everytime this type of thread rears its ugly head, its the same old crap, you either support everything the police do and justify it with all sorts of rubbish, or you turn into an anarchist, two extremes, never any middle ground.
And here I am arguing the popularity of photography and whether tripods/dslrs/gubbins, snail racing and squash rackets are relevant :shrug:
wtf
It doesn't have to be your pastime, anyone who owns a camera could get themselves into this situation whether they use it everyday or once a year.
Its their job to know, its what they do, if other things were that important why are they kicking so many arses, surely it would be easier to just......not.
Can't have it both ways..
Everytime this type of thread rears its ugly head, its the same old crap, you either support everything the police do and justify it with all sorts of rubbish, or you turn into an anarchist, two extremes, never any middle ground.
And here I am arguing the popularity of photography and whether tripods/dslrs/gubbins, snail racing and squash rackets are relevant :shrug:
wtf
- Messages
- 7,625
- Name
- Colin
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Spot on guys! I've kept quiet on this for a number of reasons but feel it is time to step in with a couple of quick comments. Most people have the right idea about how to react to being questioned i.e. act civilly and don't be a smart arse but there are always a few who will spout off about this, that and the other. The officers you are dealing with will undoubtedly have heard every lame excuse, lie and piece of bull***** imagineable everyday of their working lives, so you bear that in mind when responding to them.
What people seem to forget is that the police officers have a multitude of laws to learn and more importantly how to apply them. Any fool can quote the Theft Act but do you know the ins and outs of all the differing sections (theft, deception, burglary, robbery, etc etc) and all the related laws? Then look at Offences Against the Persons Act which deals with the various form of assault. Multiply that by God knows how many statutes, regulations and Codes of Practice and you might get an idea as to why the laws on photography are probably way down the list of required reading for police officers never mind a hobby bobby like the PCSO.
As to the original OP saying 'Of course, I'm planning to blow up the runway' what sort of treatment would you expect to receive after that? I see from your later posts that you realise it probably wasn't the best thing to say but you were asking for trouble.
As to complaining about treatment received after waving around a "toy gun" I think the poster got off lightly. For a grown adult to behave like that in public is stupid beyond belief. What if a passing member of the public had called the police to say there was a man armed with a gun (the call would have been made in good faith)? Had they turned up to see someone pointing a gun at passing traffic that "prank" could have ended up with tragic consequences for everyone involved. And for those that harp on about toy guns let me show you a few examples....(just put in toy gun to Google Images and see what you get)
Put yourself in the officers position, you receive a call saying that there is a man armed with a gun. You are going into an unknown situation with the real possibility that you will be facing an armed suspect. The andrenaline is pumping and you turn up to see someone with one of the above, what would you do? Ask him if wants a cup of tea? No, of course not. You are going to deal with the situation aggressively to try and ensure no-one gets shot. If the 'suspect' get shouted at and called a pratt or a few other names then boo-*******-hoo. Maybe you will think before acting next time.
If you are going to photograph what could be construed as sensitive areas such as airport make a quick call to the local cop-shop to let them know what you are doing - it could save you some hassle.
[/rant off]
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Spot on guys! I've kept quiet on this for a number of reasons but feel it is time to step in with a couple of quick comments. Most people have the right idea about how to react to being questioned i.e. act civilly and don't be a smart arse but there are always a few who will spout off about this, that and the other. The officers you are dealing with will undoubtedly have heard every lame excuse, lie and piece of bull***** imagineable everyday of their working lives, so you bear that in mind when responding to them.
What people seem to forget is that the police officers have a multitude of laws to learn and more importantly how to apply them. Any fool can quote the Theft Act but do you know the ins and outs of all the differing sections (theft, deception, burglary, robbery, etc etc) and all the related laws? Then look at Offences Against the Persons Act which deals with the various form of assault. Multiply that by God knows how many statutes, regulations and Codes of Practice and you might get an idea as to why the laws on photography are probably way down the list of required reading for police officers never mind a hobby bobby like the PCSO.
As to the original OP saying 'Of course, I'm planning to blow up the runway' what sort of treatment would you expect to receive after that? I see from your later posts that you realise it probably wasn't the best thing to say but you were asking for trouble.
As to complaining about treatment received after waving around a "toy gun" I think the poster got off lightly. For a grown adult to behave like that in public is stupid beyond belief. What if a passing member of the public had called the police to say there was a man armed with a gun (the call would have been made in good faith)? Had they turned up to see someone pointing a gun at passing traffic that "prank" could have ended up with tragic consequences for everyone involved. And for those that harp on about toy guns let me show you a few examples....(just put in toy gun to Google Images and see what you get)
Put yourself in the officers position, you receive a call saying that there is a man armed with a gun. You are going into an unknown situation with the real possibility that you will be facing an armed suspect. The andrenaline is pumping and you turn up to see someone with one of the above, what would you do? Ask him if wants a cup of tea? No, of course not. You are going to deal with the situation aggressively to try and ensure no-one gets shot. If the 'suspect' get shouted at and called a pratt or a few other names then boo-*******-hoo. Maybe you will think before acting next time.
If you are going to photograph what could be construed as sensitive areas such as airport make a quick call to the local cop-shop to let them know what you are doing - it could save you some hassle.
[/rant off]
seriousrikk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
<LONG POST WITH GOOD CONTENT SNIPPED AS QUOTED ALREADY>
[/rant off]
[/THREAD]
I agree with you, even more so about the toy gun bit.
This would be a fine place to let this thread die
I think you will find that places like airports etc are classed as sensitive areas these days, it is not just a case of being able to take photos, and waving a piece of paper around saying i am allowed won't help.
Unfortunately, due to the current climate we are in with certain members of this country wanting to get their own way and hope that all follow their religion, this is how it will be for a while.
Yes, the police should have acted in a more respectful manner, they probably thought you were ignoring them or worse, planning what your next move is.They would have spoken to you(issued a verbal warning) to which you didn't react (headphones in), this would have given them a heightened attitude, to which they reacted badly.
Seeing it from their side, they have been given a job to protect or sensitive areas, they turn up and see you, get out the car, ask you what you are doing, No response, their thoughts would be why no reaction to their question, probably didn't see the headphones. You never know, the next person they could ask, may just have some explosive in the bag.
Comes after ask, you just have to make the right noises and pass the attitde test!
Eric Mc
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 722
- Name
- Eric...oddly enough
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I know where it's supposed to fit in but it would seem that a minority of officers can't quite squeeze it in there. They arrive on the scene having already made the decision that because they are the ones in uniform and carrying a warrant card that they are right.......and the small matter of English law is not going to change that. example I'm afraid that no matter how good your "attitude" you have very little chance of passing the "test" because that one little word "listen" has not been inserted. If you then try to point out (no matter how calmly) that you are quite within your rights to be there taking photos you are deemed to have and attitude problem and are treated as such.
Please don't see this as an attack on all police officers....it's not. I'm lucky enough to have some very good friends in the force and they will all admit that for some officers pulling on the uniform changes their perception of the public for the worse. They will also concede that for the minority it means only having to follow two rules!
1 Because I'm the one in uniform I am always right.
2 In the event that I'm wrong...refer to rule one!
H
Holden Caulfield
Guest
Not a according to the testimony of the police officers who killed De Menezes, they all swore blind in court that a warning had been given.
Mind you all the other witnesses stated that no warning had been given, the Jury believed the witnesses over the police officers who were obviously telling lies.
And for the record the murder of an innocent man by the security forces is not a minor point its a catastrophe.
Read all about it here
seriousrikk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,881
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Mike Hoyer
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 764
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah, why have I been messing about with Photoshop all this time...?
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm really not interested in discussing that here. It's so off topic it's ridiculous!
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Well you asked for it, he's quoting you, responding to your post.
To be fair, he didn't set the gun ball rolling in this thread, so however far the angry mob thinks its off topic, for recent posts....it isn't unfortunately.
Its off the op's, but so is half the damn thread.
To be fair, he didn't set the gun ball rolling in this thread, so however far the angry mob thinks its off topic, for recent posts....it isn't unfortunately.
Its off the op's, but so is half the damn thread.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, my original response was to state that there wasn't a comparison of the two events, not to start a discussion about it!
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Maybe you should put "not up for discussion" after the bits you don't want to be discussed then.
Personally, I don't agree with either of you, you're too far one way and he's too far the other, no amount of clapping smileys, angry mob members or police state warnings is gonna change my or anybody else's opinion, because that's all it is, an opinion, not to be confused with fact.
I certainly don't think the de Menezes thing has much to do with the op getting shifted on for photographing a bit of crappy field near an airport, but neither are guns and a whole load of other fog.
The police don't know, they have better things to do, now run along nicely and do as your told, isn't cutting any ice with me either, my world revolves around rules and regulations, and if I don't know them I'm in **** street, we all have difficult jobs to do, you'll have to forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the police when they can't manage a simple paragraph of rights, or apply them correctly like they do impeccably in many other situations.
Its a simple scenario, they're not running round a council estate cuffing chavs trying to find out who did what to who while **** heads pelt them with bricks.
My opinion, not to be confused with fact.
Personally, I don't agree with either of you, you're too far one way and he's too far the other, no amount of clapping smileys, angry mob members or police state warnings is gonna change my or anybody else's opinion, because that's all it is, an opinion, not to be confused with fact.
I certainly don't think the de Menezes thing has much to do with the op getting shifted on for photographing a bit of crappy field near an airport, but neither are guns and a whole load of other fog.
The police don't know, they have better things to do, now run along nicely and do as your told, isn't cutting any ice with me either, my world revolves around rules and regulations, and if I don't know them I'm in **** street, we all have difficult jobs to do, you'll have to forgive me if I don't shed a tear for the police when they can't manage a simple paragraph of rights, or apply them correctly like they do impeccably in many other situations.
Its a simple scenario, they're not running round a council estate cuffing chavs trying to find out who did what to who while **** heads pelt them with bricks.
My opinion, not to be confused with fact.
- Messages
- 29,411
- Name
- Marcel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree that the police can't be expected to know and understand every single law.
However, I DO expect them to know a particular law before they try and apply it.
PC's have 'further up's' which they can defer to if they are unsure about something.
However, I DO expect them to know a particular law before they try and apply it.
PC's have 'further up's' which they can defer to if they are unsure about something.
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I didn't bring the subject up and the only point I made about it was that it wasn't a reasonable comparison. I don't think I'm too far one way or the other, my whole argument was that we are not in possession of all the facts yet there are people screaming "police state" etc. I am well aware that they may be police officers that get it wrong, but they are human like everyone else and personalities will always come into play. What annoys me is that every time one of these stories is told, there is always a section which starts jumping up and down having only heard one side of the story.
On the approach to a scenario, whats to stop an officer radioing back to base to get clarification?
At any point during the conversation with the person to be approached, the radio can be used.
If they are 100% certain, then they should back it up, if they are unsure (and I agree, they arent to know every rule) then use the help at their disposal - if they dont know something, they should know where and how to find it.
H
Holden Caulfield
Guest
Most forum posts when discussing photograpers interactions from the police are one sided.
Even if the officers involved came on to post their point of view, it would still represent another 'one side of the story' as no other forum members were there to witness the interaction.
Fact of the matter is that photographers, taking part in an entirely legal hobby are being challenged and hassled more and more by police officers and PCSO’S who make up the law to suit their own ends.
One poster reflects that ‘Police officers’ should not know all the laws of the land, quite true, however how complicated is ‘ It is not illegal to take picture in a public place’ ?
So worried and enraged are the photographic community that this site is supporting a mass write in to MP’s demanding action.
As for the so called security and photography issue raised by the police speaking with OP. A quick view of Google Earth tells me all I need to know about how to disrupt Bristol airport and how to have a good chance of making a getaway even if air support was deployed,and I have never been to Bristol in my life
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Strange, I don't recall anyone say that the police officers claimed that it WAS illegal to take pictures in a public place.:shrug:
H
Holden Caulfield
Guest
No, they made the assumption that the OP was a 'protestor' or a terrorist, effectively 'frightening' off an innocent citizen from carrying out a lawfull activety visa vie photography.:shrug:
The OP makes this quite clear here
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, they asked questions and pointed out the possibilities and don't forget the flippant remark made by the OP, a silly thing to to by his own admission.
H
Holden Caulfield
Guest
Oh, of course the 'grave offence' of the flippant remark, yes of course the police were justified , my mistake :bonk:
- Messages
- 34,670
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Justified in what, taking it seriously? For pity's sake, they came and asked him what he was doing, as they are entitled to do, and he gave a rather stupid remark and they told him to move on. The OP even said that it started off in good humour. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
It's quite obvious you have an anti police stance and will take every opportunity to have a go, no matter how trivial the incident. So I'm going to bow out f this thread now as no matter what anyone says you obviously have your own biased agenda and it's pointless going round in circles over and over again.
H
Holden Caulfield
Guest
It is quite obvious to me that you do not see how hard won rights as a Citizen can and are being erroded by the use of non relevent laws in certain situations being quoted by over zelous police officers.
And those Sir are my final words on this thread :|
pxl8
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 5,288
- Name
- Andy Jones
- Edit My Images
- Yes
:nono: you're mis-quoting the OP here. But, regardless, if we have to accept the possibility that the OP didn't behave very well then we also have to accept the possibility that neither did the coppers, otherwise that's taking a pro-police attitude isn't it?
Moadib
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,062
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You make a lot of good points, and most situations can be resolved by common sense - on both sides. We are propagandised to a large extent, a result of which is that police are to be expected to react a certain way in certain circumstances - such as waving a gun about, or talking about blowing up runways. That's kind of asking for trouble.
But I think too many people play down the points which are made on civil liberties. These are freedoms which are won, never given, over hundreds of years. We should not set them aside, or allow others to set them aside. We're far from Zimbabwe, but moving in the wrong direction.
So from your comment, I agree with almost everything you say, except the part quoted above. The day we need to phone ahead to the "cop shop" to avoid being hassled for doing something which is legal...
That will be time to emigrate!Well said though, the OP's situation sounded like some common sense and sense of what was appropriate was needed.
One of the common themes to a thread like this is that there are a lot of officers who don't know every word of every law, especially when it comes to photography, so how many people would make that phone call, only to be told that they arent allowed to take pictures there, and would then leave it at that?
desantnik
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 9,848
- Name
- Vlad
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you live in the UK you aren't a citizen, you are a subject.
Just a minor point :rules:
HuntingMartians
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,052
- Edit My Images
- No
Since when?
I don't know anything about law but when looking up the "British Nationality Act 1981" it mentions citzenship and how to become a British citizen. And I am pretty sure I have citizenship. So is this whole subject/citizen debate one of these urban myths?
GarynLea
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,084
- Name
- Gary
- Edit My Images
- Yes
A little point I'd like to make about these laminated cards that seem to be being banded about.
At what point during the conversation with a police officer are you going to reach into your bag for this? Bearing in mind that you are already under a certain amount of suspicion, hence the reason for the questioning. If a police officer is not fully aware of the law (and I wouldnt expect them to be), they are not going to take a laminated piece of card as the law. They should, and most do, take a brief from their control.
If I was in a PC's position and was asking a few routine questions, I would not expect the subject of my interrogation to suddenly reach into a pocket or bag for anything and if they did, I would react accordingly and disable them. Yes, disable them ... it may be a weapon they're reaching for.
Common sense .... if you're knowingly going to a sensitive area to take pictures, a phone call to police control giving your vehicle registration or description would help the officer get results when he checks up on you before he's even spoken to you.
At what point during the conversation with a police officer are you going to reach into your bag for this? Bearing in mind that you are already under a certain amount of suspicion, hence the reason for the questioning. If a police officer is not fully aware of the law (and I wouldnt expect them to be), they are not going to take a laminated piece of card as the law. They should, and most do, take a brief from their control.
If I was in a PC's position and was asking a few routine questions, I would not expect the subject of my interrogation to suddenly reach into a pocket or bag for anything and if they did, I would react accordingly and disable them. Yes, disable them ... it may be a weapon they're reaching for.
Common sense .... if you're knowingly going to a sensitive area to take pictures, a phone call to police control giving your vehicle registration or description would help the officer get results when he checks up on you before he's even spoken to you.