Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually, I am being dragged down the road to which I refer by people from your side of the arguement, that was and is my point.
 
Ambermile said:
Wait a minute, you appear to have missed even the title of this thread, let alone the point of it.
Click to expand...

No, that comment was in regard to the government banning photography of tourist attractions.... my point being is that a GOVERNMENT ban (you know, legislation, law of the land etc as laid down by our legislature) would never happen.

No, what we are talking about here is a bunch of "lawmen" doing their own thing and not enforcing the rules they have been paid to enforce.

DIY law and order is bang out of order. This is one step away from giving a protester a kicking just because he's errrm protesting (or maybe somewhere near a protest perhaps)
 
boyfalldown said:
I don't think Guy has ever advocated being 'arsey'. I think the reason we are insisting we are doing nothing wrong is simple - we're not. It will be on your back if you find ourselves on the road to which you refer simply because youi allowed yourself to be led down it
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

It seems that standing up for yourself is now being arsey. Oh well.
 
She was in Paddington, that's where the Met have their high security terrorist unit. Additionally the Underground bombers hit that area.
I'm not surprised someone filming CCTV was stopped and questioned.
To say she didnt have any ID was ridiculous, my son as a Student was always pulling out his NUS card to get a discount, I'm betting she had ID but chose not to show it just because she wanted as said her 15 minutes.
She was just being obstructive and inflammatory.
Whilst I agree a lot of PCSO are tin Gods, that guy seemed ok, hand over your ID, show the shots, move on. Ok you dont 'have' to but we live in awful times where anyone could be a bomber, so we (the general public) need to help our security forces as much as possible.

I can just imagine what would be said if she had been a terrorist and the PCSO had ignored her, damned if you do, damned if you dont. Whilst they were wasting time with her they could have been doing something much more usefull.

Matt
 
Cameraman said:
The police seem to have a real paranoia about people filming buildings and photographers who "they think" look suspicious. Do they really think that stopping or trying to stop everyone from fiming "iconic" buildings will really stop some idiot from blowing them up?

are the terrosrist really going to say aggggghhhhh dam it we cant film it so therefore we cant blow it up"
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.

Blanket ban on photography in towns and cities = an end to terrorism. There's the solution.
 
Ambermile said:
You, I think, have had it too easy too long.
Click to expand...

That is a very unpleasant collection of words.

The facts here are that the PCSOs involved are not following the clear guidelines that come from the very top of the police force that have already been quoted in this thread. Instead, they are acting like little gestapos, demanding to see ID and photos when they have no right in law. That's what all the sensible people in this thread are quite rightly objecting to.

To all those who say "comply otherwise things will get worse" I say no. If it is necessary to change the law so PCSOs can demand ID without reasonable grounds, then I'd like to see the government try. There would, quite rightly, be an outcry.

We should all stand our ground and know our rights. If the PCSOs had the same level of knowledge, there wouldn't be any disagreement.
 
MatBin said:
Ok you dont 'have' to but we live in awful times where anyone could be a bomber
Click to expand...

I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I think that's the issue most of us have, isn't it? Anyone could be a bomber, so why are they only picking on photographers, and not people with backpacks, etc?
 
GrittyShaker said:
I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I think that's the issue most of us have, isn't it? Anyone could be a bomber, so why are they only picking on photographers, and not people with backpacks, etc?
Click to expand...

its not just that - although that is part of it. As said many times if you allow curtailment of normal everyday activities then the terrorists have suceeded in disrupting the society as was always the aim. You've allowed them to win by doing their job for them
 
boyfalldown said:
As said many times if you allow curtailment of normal everyday activities then the terrorists have suceeded in disrupting the society as was always the aim. You've allowed them to win by doing their job for them
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
Cameraman said:
The police seem to have a real paranoia about people filming buildings and photographers who "they think" look suspicious.
Click to expand...

If you replace the police with a small minority of the police then you could be right.

Most officers act within the law and do not abuse it or their power.


Steve.
 
GrittyShaker said:
I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but I think that's the issue most of us have, isn't it? Anyone could be a bomber, so why are they only picking on photographers, and not people with backpacks, etc?
Click to expand...
Probably because bombers have photographed/videoed sensitive areas before committing their crimes, therefore if the Police rule out innocent photographers they will be able to concentrate on those that are taking images for different purposes.
It really isnt too much trouble is it to show some ID, what you have been 'filming' and then go about taking more shots of whatever you want.
Why is it so difficult to spare a few moments being helpful in letting the Police get on with their workload and concentrating on what matters. My guess is if we all help the Police they will find none of us are bombers, they are getting zero results (and they are very result driven) and give up this practice very quickly when some Minister says they are missing their targets.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Ok you dont 'have' to but we live in awful times where anyone could be a bomber
Click to expand...

Your right, we don't have to.

So by what your saying you could be a bomber, just for being alive? Or is it just Muslim people we need to fear? or foreign people? Or everyone? Or everything?

Do you think we a fighting a war just based on terror? Why then did we attack Iraq, rather than concentrate all efforts on Bin Laden?
 
Radiohead said:
Have they - there's no evidence of this at all. None.
Click to expand...
Common sense would seem to indicate that a person/s who wanted to perorm an act of terrorism (in say London) would gather as much info as possible and then destroy that info before performing said act.

A lack of evidence does not by itself indicate a lack of action.

Personally I am happy to give up my 'freedom' (on a temporary basis) to allow me the freedom to walk the streets without fear of being blown up. If I can go about my daily business but perhaps have to spend 3 minutes explaining why I'm photographing something as oposed to worrying about being blown up I think 'we' have won rather than the terrorist(s)

Matt
 
Steve Smith said:
I'm not at war. I don't want to kill anyone and I don't think anyone wants to kill me..
Click to expand...

Oh dear...How utterly wrong you are...

The people who wish us ill - and granted, they're NOT as prevalent as the Press would have us believe, but they are out there in such numbers that we have to take notice - regard each and every one of us as the enemy...
You might not want to kill them, but they couldn't care less about you - they'd skin your children alive in front of you and laugh while they did it...

That's Me, You, your friends, family - your children...all of us...we are nothing but infidels to them and by destroying us they guarantee a place for themselves in paradise...

The point is do we take such steps to safeguard ourselves that outr basic way of life becomes intolerable, or do we do the 'Stiff Upper Lip' thing and carry on as usual but with an extra bit of vigilance thrown in?

Personally I think a bit of old-fashioned Englishness goes a long way...remember I've seen these buggers up close...they ain't all that...the planners over in Pakistan and elsewhere, different story, but the footsoldiers? nahhh...
 
MatBin said:
Common sense would seem to indicate that a person/s who wanted to perorm an act of terrorism (in say London) would gather as much info as possible and then destroy that info before performing said act.

A lack of evidence does not by itself indicate a lack of action.

Personally I am happy to give up my 'freedom' (on a temporary basis) to allow me the freedom to walk the streets without fear of being blown up. If I can go about my daily business but perhaps have to spend 3 minutes explaining why I'm photographing something as oposed to worrying about being blown up I think 'we' have won rather than the terrorist(s)

Matt
Click to expand...


Common sense tells me they'd do it discreetly and not use a honking great SLR. A lack of evidence does, however, indicate a lack of guilt. Worth bearing in mind. We should stop people walking around with mobile phones then, and notepads, and pens, and eyes.

I don't know how old you are, but I've walked the streets for 40 years, and every one of those had been under a terror threat.

'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
 
Arkady said:
The point is do we take such steps to safeguard ourselves that outr basic way of life becomes intolerable, or do we do the 'Stiff Upper Lip' thing and carry on as usual but with an extra bit of vigilance thrown in?

Personally I think a bit of old-fashioned Englishness goes a long way...remember I've seen these buggers up close...they ain't all that...the planners over in Pakistan and elsewhere, different story, but the footsoldiers? nahhh...
Click to expand...

I'll take the carry on as usual please.
 
ding76uk said:
Your right, we don't have to.

So by what your saying you could be a bomber, just for being alive? Or is it just Muslim people we need to fear? or foreign people? Or everyone? Or everything?

Do you think we a fighting a war just based on terror? Why then did we attack Iraq, rather than concentrate all efforts on Bin Laden?
Click to expand...

That's the point 'anyone' could be a bomber, so how do the Police do their work, other than stopping what they consider a possible threat/suspect and asking a few minor questions.

Iraq - because we want their oil, we want the Middle East to be dis-jointed (divide and rule etc) and because we had a puppet PM (we still do).
That's another thread though I think.

Matt

ps it's snowing here and it makes me think of the Michael McIntyre sketch, "you dont want to be snowed OUT". :)
 
MatBin said:
Common sense would seem to indicate that a person/s who wanted to perorm an act of terrorism (in say London) would gather as much info as possible and then destroy that info before performing said act.

A lack of evidence does not by itself indicate a lack of action.

Personally I am happy to give up my 'freedom' (on a temporary basis) to allow me the freedom to walk the streets without fear of being blown up. If I can go about my daily business but perhaps have to spend 3 minutes explaining why I'm photographing something as oposed to worrying about being blown up I think 'we' have won rather than the terrorist(s)

Matt
Click to expand...


of course they could get that info from the tfl website, google earth street map and any number of tourist websites - mind you if they were really clever they'd just go and have a look - no camera cause that would draw attention. Thats speculation as is your comment.

Which freedoms do you draw the line at giving up? am just curious. The 'fear of being blown up' is an interesting phrase - your currently scared to walk down the street because of terrorism then?, or becase a minority in out society would encourage a culture of fear?

Hugh
 
Radiohead said:
I'll take the carry on as usual please.
Click to expand...

Me too.

Whilst we may well be on a higher terror alert than would be normal (whatever normal is) I would be interested to see the statistics involved.

i.e. The number of people killed by terrorists compared to the number of people killed in road traffic accidents, violent attacks etc.

Also, I don't remember any of this nonesense when we were regularly being subjected to terror attacks by the IRA.


Steve.
 
I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't looked at the video. Partly because I'm at work and partly because I'm getting fed up with these sorts of threads, I will however add my 2 penneth.

There are lots of things we don't have to do everyday but we choose to because it aids the greater good. I don't have to be polite to people on here or say hello to the security chaps at work each morning, but I choose to because it can only have a positive effect.

With that reasoning, if the police have stopped me because they genuinely want to talk to me and have suspicions then I will be helpful and will treat them with respect, I may even give them information that I do not 'have to', purely because we have a common goal of looking out for fellow human beings.

If I'm treated harsly or without the degree of respect I'm entitled to then I'll let them know politely.

Each situation is different and both they and us have a fine line to tread. If their intentions are genuine then cut them some slack IMO. (Flame retardent coat on)
 
boyfalldown said:
mind you if they were really clever they'd just go and have a look - no camera cause that would draw attention.
Click to expand...

That's what I would do too. Actually looking at something will give you a lot more information than looking at a photograph.


Steve.
 
Radiohead said:
Common sense tells me they'd do it discreetly and not use a honking great SLR. A lack of evidence does, however, indicate a lack of guilt. Worth bearing in mind. We should stop people walking around with mobile phones then, and notepads, and pens, and eyes.

I don't know how old you are, but I've walked the streets for 40 years, and every one of those had been under a terror threat.

'Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Click to expand...

Nice quote, but its 250 years old, I'm 54, so walked the streets a while, London during the IRA bombings, London underground bombings etc.

If there is no evidence of what they used (and you say there is none) then perhaps they do use stonking great SLR's (who knows, not I).

A lack of evidence indicates a lack of 'proven/provable' guilt not a lack of guilt.
We could of course stop all the people you mention, at which point the Police would be totally overwhelmed, so that wont happen. I think its more a case of throwing available resources where they will do most effective work. As soon as it is seen stopping photographers brings zero results the Police will move onto someone else.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Nice quote, but its 250 years old, I'm 54, so walked the streets a while, London during the IRA bombings, London underground bombings etc.
Click to expand...

Even better then. You walked the streets of London under a far more likely threat than now (we were bombed more) and none of this nonsense was going on.
 
kalibre said:
I'm going to be honest and say that I haven't looked at the video. Partly because I'm at work and partly because I'm getting fed up with these sorts of threads, I will however add my 2 penneth.

There are lots of things we don't have to do everyday but we choose to because it aids the greater good. I don't have to be polite to people on here or say hello to the security chaps at work each morning, but I choose to because it can only have a positive effect.

With that reasoning, if the police have stopped me because they genuinely want to talk to me and have suspicions then I will be helpful and will treat them with respect, I may even give them information that I do not 'have to', purely because we have a common goal of looking out for fellow human beings.

If I'm treated harsly or without the degree of respect I'm entitled to then I'll let them know politely.

Each situation is different and both they and us have a fine line to tread. If their intentions are genuine then cut them some slack IMO. (Flame retardent coat on)
Click to expand...


Now that makes a bucket load of sense :D :thumbs:
 
MatBin said:
Personally I am happy to give up my 'freedom' (on a temporary basis) to allow me the freedom to walk the streets without fear of being blown up. If I can go about my daily business but perhaps have to spend 3 minutes explaining why I'm photographing something as oposed to worrying about being blown up I think 'we' have won rather than the terrorist(s)

Matt
Click to expand...

So because the police are now questioning a few photographers, that means there is no more terrorist threat? I don't think it's as cut and dry as that.

If there was somehow a complete guarantee that we would not "get blown up" whilst the police are hassling toggers, then we would probably be all for it. I know I would be. The fact remains though, that with or without photography, there is still just as much of a risk of it happening. The only thing that S44 seems to have proven so far, is that we are all a bit more miserable because of it. Terrorists - 1, General Public - Nil.

As I mentioned in another thread, I was "blown up" on a tourist coach with my family when I was 12. We were lucky enough to survive it. I don't think for one second that the banning/questioning of photographers in Egypt would have prevented our misery.
 
GrittyShaker said:
If there was somehow a complete guarantee that we would not "get blown up" whilst the police are hassling toggers, then we would probably be all for it. I know I would be.
Click to expand...

If that was an absolute guarantee then I would volunteer for a bit of hassling every now and then..... but it isn't even related..


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
Which freedoms do you draw the line at giving up? am just curious. The 'fear of being blown up' is an interesting phrase - your currently scared to walk down the street because of terrorism then?, or becase a minority in out society would encourage a culture of fear?

Hugh
Click to expand...

No I am not scared to walk down the streets (nor was I during the IRA campaign, despite, having our building evacuateed twice), nor was I frightened when I missed one of the London u/grnd bombs by minutes, nor indeed after hearing one of my colleagues had been killed (on the bus).

We do know (or we are informed) that there are people out there that mean us harm, and, asuming its true (for I am a believing/trusting sort of guy) I think it sensible to take 'reasonable' precautions that do not so interfere with normal life that they make us a little safer, it's a trade off.
In much the same way as I wear a crash helmet (even before it the was law) or put on a seat belt (before it was law) or use a pony when I go diving, each is a trade off and each person judges where that limit is.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
In much the same way as I wear a crash helmet (even before it the was law) or put on a seat belt (before it was law) or use a pony when I go diving, each is a trade off and each person judges where that limit is.
Click to expand...

Until the government makes that decision for us and changes the law.


Steve.
 
Can somebody update the score please, my last count I had

Radiohead 25 to MatBin 19.............................







Only kidding.
 
Seriously though all sides take this situation far to seriously imho.
 
MatBin said:
No I am not scared to walk down the streets (nor was I during the IRA campaign, despite, having our building evacuateed twice), nor was I frightened when I missed one of the London u/grnd bombs by minutes, nor indeed after hearing one of my colleagues had been killed (on the bus).

We do know (or we are informed) that there are people out there that mean us harm, and, asuming its true (for I am a believing/trusting sort of guy) I think it sensible to take 'reasonable' precautions that do not so interfere with normal life that they make us a little safer, it's a trade off.
In much the same way as I wear a crash helmet (even before it the was law) or put on a seat belt (before it was law) or use a pony when I go diving, each is a trade off and each person judges where that limit is.

Matt
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said (but I don't tend to use a Pony when I dive).
I think the fundemental points of our arguements are where we difer. If it is genuinly shown that photography has been used as part of attack planning, or that the current PCSO actions are sanctioned by senior officers, or bought in as part of well thought through legislation then I'll support them. I don't see how they make life safer or better though - so until such time as this is shown I'll carry on politly declining and supporting anyone who does so. That for me is the key

Am truely sorry to hear of your workmate.

Hugh
 
tiler65 said:
Seriously though all sides take this situation far to seriously imho.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't really know why I've joined in. It doesn't affect me in any way, as I've never done any street photography. Quite looking forward to trying it though, to see whether I get arrested. We could make it a sport. The togger detained for longest wins a prize.
 
Steve Smith said:
Until the government makes that decision for us and changes the law.

Steve.
Click to expand...

There you go Democracy in action, just dont get me started on what I think of Democracy.

I am happy to 'assist' because that is my choice, if however it was proposed to become a law that would be a different matter.

I'm buggered anyway - I wear glasses (although only for reading, it's me age)

Matt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top