Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fred Dawson

Fred Dawson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
231
Name
Fred Dawson LRPS
Edit My Images
Yes
Video on todays Guardian online

An Italian student has described how she was stopped by police under anti-terrorist legislation while filming buildings, and later arrested, held in a police cell for five hours and given a fixed penalty notice.
 
On the otherhand, they've been keen to also publish this story:

A terrorist attack on London was averted because two beat patrol officers stopped a man who was acting suspiciously while filming with a mobile phone, police claimed yesterday.

The Algerian man said that he was a tourist, but when his phone was examined it yielded 90 minutes of footage of stations, security cameras and shopping centres.

Police took the unprecedented step of releasing the “hostile reconnaissance” video to counter criticism that they are using anti-terrorism powers to question tourists and photographers. “I’d much rather justify what we did do in stopping someone than having to justify why we didn’t do it against the backdrop of a burning building and a terrorist atrocity,” Detective Superintendent Chris Greany, of City of London Police, said.

He admitted that his officers did “get it wrong sometimes” but said that they were acting in the public interest in stopping people. He added: “We don’t just stop people for a laugh - we’re trying to make London safer.

More at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6957646.ece
 
I wonder how much of this could of been avoided if she just simply answered the PCSO's questions in the first place.

Sorry I think this is just another person trying to get some attention and have their 15 minutes. Her attitude got her banged up not her camera.
 
The powers that be are really getting desperate to find some kind of justification for these ridiculous laws after a barrage of criticism from law abiding citizens who are basically being harassed at the states bequest.

The quote below from the Times article sums up this pathetic attempt to justify this ridiculous law and to give credibility to those deluded individuals who enforce it :-

“Although held under the Terrorism Act for 14 days the brothers were charged with fraud offences”

So they weren’t terrorists then, just plain old thieves………………………………..:bonk:

Source http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6957646.ece
 
Rolyratman said:
I wonder how much of this could of been avoided if she just simply answered the PCSO's questions in the first place.

Sorry I think this is just another person trying to get some attention and have their 15 minutes. Her attitude got her banged up not her camera.
Click to expand...

its ok to say that - but why should the PCSO have stopped her in the first place. Just to be clear - a legal activity, openly in a public place and a PCSO who has no right to either ask for ID, or to see your pictures and video? Being polite is one thing, but that doesn't mean doing everything you're asked
 
Being 'cocky' is now an arrestable offence is it..

Welcome to Starlenist Britain
 
Simmotino said:
Serves her right frankly.
Click to expand...

Why's that then - for not answering questions which where hilariously pointless?

Are we living in a police state now, where we meekly defer to anyone in a uniform? Note it was a PCSO as well.
 
boyfalldown said:
why?
Click to expand...

Because her attitude got her arrested. Answer the questions, show them the film, get on with your day. It takes two minutes and everyone's happy.

Holden Caulfield said:
Being 'cocky' is now an arrestable offence is it..

Welcome to Starlenist Britain
Click to expand...

No, but being suspected of terrorist activity is, as much as you hate to admit it.
 
Byker28i said:
On the otherhand, they've been keen to also publish this story:

A terrorist attack on London was averted because two beat patrol officers stopped a man who was acting suspiciously while filming with a mobile phone, police claimed yesterday.

The Algerian man said that he was a tourist, but when his phone was examined it yielded 90 minutes of footage of stations, security cameras and shopping centres.

Police took the unprecedented step of releasing the “hostile reconnaissance” video to counter criticism that they are using anti-terrorism powers to question tourists and photographers. “I’d much rather justify what we did do in stopping someone than having to justify why we didn’t do it against the backdrop of a burning building and a terrorist atrocity,” Detective Superintendent Chris Greany, of City of London Police, said.

He admitted that his officers did “get it wrong sometimes” but said that they were acting in the public interest in stopping people. He added: “We don’t just stop people for a laugh - we’re trying to make London safer.

More at:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6957646.ece
Click to expand...

So involved where they in terrorism that they were charged with fraud.

Interesting that the CPS have said they charged with fraud because of insufficient evidence for a terror charge - slightly different from the police line.

They've clearly trawled the archives for any sort of footage that appears to justify their behaviour. It's failed.
 
Radiohead said:
Why's that then - for not answering questions which where hilariously pointless?

Are we living in a police state now, where we meekly defer to anyone in a uniform? Note it was a PCSO as well.
Click to expand...

Pointless? She was walking round major London buildings filming the security cameras and CCTV equipment!
 
No - that's the Algerian 'terrorists'. The ones charged with fraud.

She was taking photos of iconic London buildings. You know, the ones that you can see from above and at street level on Google right now.
 
Simmotino said:
Pointless? She was walking round major London buildings filming the security cameras and CCTV equipment!
Click to expand...

And you know this for a fact? Or are you just repeating what the papers are telling you? Because they always tell it exactly how it happened...lol

Maybe just taking photos in which CCTV cameras happen to appear isn't quite the same as photographing CCTV cameras themselves...
 
I've watched it all the way though. The PCSO describes the buildings as iconic. Just about every building in London is covered by CCTV now - so that's the arbiter is it?

Or are you making the distinction between video and stills footage.

How many terrorists do you think would be so obvious? And the point about Google? Not answering that one?
 
No, but being suspected of terrorist activity is
Click to expand...

How complient are you ?

Having a camera and fiming a building is not a terrorist activety
 
Simmotino said:
Because her attitude got her arrested. Answer the questions, show them the film, get on with your day. It takes two minutes and everyone's happy.



No, but being suspected of terrorist activity is, as much as you hate to admit it.
Click to expand...

hmmmm love the grounds for being suspected - filiming buildings and riding your bike the wrong way down a one way street.:shrug:

Her attitude didn't get her arrested at all - she did answer his questions 'she was doing it for fun' and 'for a college project' as odd a concept as it seems to you, you are not required to show your film without a court order - there's lots of good reasons for that, not least if it is genuinely evidence of terrorist activity is a PCSO compentent to handle it - at that leaves aside the questions of her civil liberties.

I would of reacted in the same way as her - by doing nothing wrong whatsoever - and if you'd like to live in a society ruled by fear then that is exactly the way to go about it
 
Holden Caulfield said:
How complient are you ?

Having a camera and fiming a building is not a terrorist activety
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Not all the time though and not all camera-wielding people. Hence the problem.

Arthur

PS - yes, I know it's a bit like saying walking is not a terrorist activity...
 
Essentially a PCSO didn't believe people might film or photo for enjoyment and this classed her as a terrorist.
 
If I am doing nothing wrong, why should I be made to show my pics to a PCSO or a Police Officer? Why should I show respect to them, when they accuse me of being a terrorist?

It is not about being argumentative, it is about standing up for what you believe.

I have encountered several similar things over the years as a skateboarder (which I am sure some of you automatically think of so I sould etc.)

This whole thing makes me think of this for some reason

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tM8LZdDzs-8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tM8LZdDzs-8&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
Radiohead said:
Essentially a PCSO didn't believe people might film or photo for enjoyment and this classed her as a terrorist.
Click to expand...

Basically calling her a liar - doing that to me would have had a quite spectacular outcome...
 
Because her attitude got her arrested.
Click to expand...

Having a 'bad' attitute is the sort of thing one might be detained for in the former Soviet Union. not in a free and democtratic country (sic).

If having a 'bad'attitude was a inditeble offence lots of police officers. politions and footbal managers wouls be locked up :)

Basically the 'mistake' this woman made was to beleive that she was visiting a free country.:shrug:
 
Arkady said:
And you know this for a fact? Or are you just repeating what the papers are telling you? Because they always tell it exactly how it happened...lol

Maybe just taking photos in which CCTV cameras happen to appear isn't quite the same as photographing CCTV cameras themselves...
Click to expand...

Errrm, yes, I do. It's in the footage from the video!

Radiohead said:
I've watched it all the way though. The PCSO describes the buildings as iconic. Just about every building in London is covered by CCTV now - so that's the arbiter is it?

Or are you making the distinction between video and stills footage.

How many terrorists do you think would be so obvious? And the point about Google? Not answering that one?
Click to expand...

Google has still images taken from main roads (she appears to be in a pedestrianised area) and yes, I agree, could be used for a certain level of recon. by those who wished to. There, that gets rid of the irrelevant Google point pertaining to this thread.

This lady however, was walking around actively filming CCTV and security cameras. Completely different. Her attitude is what got her arrested, not her actions.

Holden Caulfield said:
How complient are you ?

Having a camera and fiming a building is not a terrorist activety
Click to expand...

Complient? Is there some sort of test? Having a camera isn't a terrorist activity, no, but could be construde as recon. dependent on what you are filming and where, which is why Section 44 exists.

As I say, it was her attitude that got her arrested and, as such, she deserved what she got IMO.
 
Holden Caulfield said:
Basically the 'mistake' this woman made was to beleive that she was visiting a free country.:shrug:
Click to expand...


She's a Student here, so is probably on a Student Visa...
The college project may have had something to do with 'Big Brother Britain' - the widespread use of CCTV in the UK is fascinating to other Europeans as I've discovered from talking to out NATO colleagues...
 
Round Two!!!

Can the threads not be merged? I think we have to accept, this is one of those debates that will go round in circles forever and ever...

My take (again?) :D You should be free to film without question, you should have a right to not give your name, and you should be allowed to "be cocky" without fear of people in uniform. The alternative is far, far scarier.

Gary.
 
Simmotino said:
Complient? Is there some sort of test? Having a camera isn't a terrorist activity, no, but could be construde as recon. dependent on what you are filming and where, which is why Section 44 exists.
Click to expand...

so how do you know she was in an s44 area? - we aren't actually told where they are.

If you watch the video the PCSO's grounds for asking for her name and addreess related to he cycling the wrong way down a one way street - new terrorist activity there then:shrug:.
 
Simmotino said:
Google has still images taken from main roads (she appears to be in a pedestrianised area) and yes, I agree, could be used for a certain level of recon. by those who wished to. There, that gets rid of the irrelevant Google point pertaining to this thread.
Click to expand...

It's very relevant.

Simmotino said:
This lady however, was walking around actively filming CCTV and security cameras. Completely different. Her attitude is what got her arrested, not her actions.
Click to expand...

She was filming buildings that happened to have CCTV cameras on. Those cameras that film US every day.

Simmotino said:
Complient? Is there some sort of test? Having a camera isn't a terrorist activity, no, but could be construde as recon. dependent on what you are filming and where, which is why Section 44 exists.

As I say, it was her attitude that got her arrested and, as such, she deserved what she got IMO.
Click to expand...

Yet we're not allowed to know where a s44 order is in place (pretty much the whole of London).

Now perhaps you should read this - I've highlighted the relevant bits:

The Met's Assistant Commissioner John Yates has re-released guidance that already appears on the Met's website, to 'all 32 borough commanders'.

Yates said the Met risks losing public support if officers use their powers in situations that 'most reasonable people would consider inappropriate'.

However, for the first time the guidance will be distributed via the Met's internal 'Intranet' website which is accessible to 55,000 officers and staff.

The guidance will also be relayed to officers directly via an 'internal briefing' prior to them patrolling London's streets, according to a spokesman for the force.

The spokesman said the Met hopes that by 'bullet pointing' the guidance (see below), it will be clearer to officers who are unsure of their powers under the Terrorism Act when it comes to photography.

Yates, assistant commissioner of Specialist Operations said: 'People have complained that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. Those stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of the TACT [Terrorism Act].

'The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs of buildings is, itself, suspicious.'

While Yates said staff must remain 'vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour,' he stressed staff must also be clear that:

• There is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
• There is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff
• The act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop

Yates added: 'Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped.'

Yates told the Met's officers and staff: 'An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters. You will find below what I hope is clear and unequivocal guidance on what you can and cannot do in respect of these sections. This complements and reinforces previous guidance that has been issued.

'You are reminded that in any instance where you do have reasonable suspicion then you should use your power under Section 42 TACT 2000 and account for it in the normal way.

These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense.

'We risk losing support when they are used in circumstances that most people would consider inappropriate.'


And again, if this was a s44 stop (and as soon as he used the word 'terrorist' it was) he was not permitted to carry out that search without a police officer present.
 
ding76uk said:
Are you really believing that? Photography is not a terrorist activity in any sense.
Click to expand...

It's a terrorist activity in the same way as looking, writing, listening, walking, driving, eating and breathing are.

Lets restrict all of those activities too.



Steve.
 
ding76uk said:
All those complaining about the CCTV filimg, do you know the title and reasoning of her project? If not, you cannot comment on why she was filming what she was? As much as people are trying to make you believe it, filming a cctv camera is not an arrestable offence in this country!
Click to expand...

No one has said it is! Sadly, too many people round here are blinkered by the alleged nanny state in which we are all forced to live and that all law enforcement officers are Stalinist dictators just itching to get the thumb screws on people.

If a few more realised that they had a job to do and that, with a little bit of cooperation and good humour, everyone would get on a lot easier and we wouldn't spend endless days going round in circles over the same points again and again.

Let them do their job, help them when you are asked to, and get on withy our day. It's not rocket science!

I'm out.
 
Steve Smith said:
It's a terrorist activity in the same way as looking, writing, listening, walking, driving, eating and breathing are.

Lets restrict all of those activities too.
Click to expand...

Actually from memory, I know where a camera is in my local cities. I can be arrested for being a terrorist. Only solution is a full frontal labotomy to take any sense of resoning out of my brain and replace it with the inability to question anyone in uniform and believe everything I read in the Daily Fail.:lol:
 
Thi is a very thin line people, do you agree the terrorist threat is a real threat? This question is, I think, at the heart of this issue, and depending on your answer you place yourself in different camps.

To me yes, the threat is real and current, so no, getting stopped if I do something that right now I know damned well is likely to incur at least a few questions if spotted is something I accept.

If, on the other hand, you think the threat is a non-starter, then apart from the obvious point of asking you to explain why to any number of bereaved and injured people, please don't argue with those of us that see it as a real threat and want to do something about it.

I realise that yes, this may well be seen as drawing a line in the sand but that looks like the way it already is... the elected government is ultimately responsible here, and we all have a choice there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top