Lay off the police!

[wilmorh]

It's a bit more than section 44 though isn't it. This is just another symptom of the general public's loss of confidence in the police force. I think it started with speed cameras, excessive paperwork meaning less coppers on the beat and the move to response teams rather than beat officers.

It's just been a steady loss of confidence in the police over the last say ten years rather than one incident.

The met haven't exactly helped themselves recently with a number of negative cases. Institutionalised racism, protests march kettling and assaults, shooting innocent people in tube trains and walthemstow houses, just to name a few off the top of my head.

The IPCC themselves stated there was a significant rise of something like 25% against the Met Police last year. As the biggest (or most public) police force, these do tend to have a knock on effect.

The media have a lot to answer for with regards to public opinion, Police are generally in the news (which is were the vast majority of us get our information) for two reasons. Either to discredit them....'they arrested a photographer'....or to gain public sympathy and outrage when a policeman gets killed in the line duty. Very rare do stories emerge where the police are the heros of the story. And before the cynics among you say it, the police do more good than harm, they are fighting a battle of epic proportions in the UK, whether it be terrorism or crime, or simple old public relations.

 

[jamesb84]

...Also people forget that when someone is arrested it involves a stupid amount of paperwork and the officer involved actually has to give a REASON why they made the arrest.Going back to the statin and saying "they were taking photos in a funny way" will not work. A valid reason is nessasary...

However, the argument with s.44 stops is that the reason for making a stop is "suspicion of terrorist activity or carrying out a task which may aid terrorst acts" (that's taken from one of mine - I'm debating getting a tattoo!)

In addition, the process for authorising a s.44 order seems to have been flawed in my experiences.

To quote "the Act":

S.44 (4): An authorisation may be given -

(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;

(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;

(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;

(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a [member of the Police Service of Northern Ireland] who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.

(5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable.

Now, both my S&S have been in areas (a) - ie. outside of London - I will not name them directly though. In both these cases, where I have been significantly prevented from carrying out MY JOB (not my hobby in either case) I have written to the force in question and asked if I can see the authorisation laid out in (5) above. In both cases I have been denied this opportunity and so I don't even know who or why there was a s.44 order in place. To my mind, that is a flaw that is far too open to abuse.

What I also find annoying is that s.44 has been (unofficially) deemed to supercede sections of PACE (Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984) which cover "Special Procedure Material". Formerly the police would have to apply to a judge to look at your photos, now s.43 states that:

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

Which the ACPO went on to say that "film and memory cards may be viewed but not deleted". End of Special Procedure Material?

People are in general saying it is wrong to ASSUME someone taking photos is a terrorist but is not also wrong to assume they are not?

Unfortunately that is the world we live in

Now, this may be true for someone who is a candid street tog, but I'm still eyed with suspiscion when holding my 1D quite clearly and displaying (not hiding it at all) my Press Card. Still get exactly the same treatment. It is unfortunately a flawed system.

 

[foggy4ever]

My only regret is that I'm off to work soon and won't get the chance to see this thread deteriorate and locked.

Nobody is attacking the Police in general, just a minority that choose for what ever reason to abuse their position and harass inoccent people.

 

[wonderer]

What people dont realise as well is that the law is not made by police officers on the street.They are following laws and regulations themselves.But its the officer on the street that gets the abuse.

I just find it hard to believe on such a human level that for example my partner will spend ten years dealing with sick violent people on a daily basis and putting herself in harms way to protect you and me on the streets but she is a stupid,non sensical bully if she asks a tog to move on for whatever reason.

 

[Nikon Ken]

My only regret is that I'm off to work soon and won't get the chance to see this thread deteriorate and locked.

Nobody is attacking the Police in general, just a minority that choose for what ever reason to abuse their position and harass inoccent people.

Well said and so true.

Ken

 

[fracster]

And i`m damned sure that the Police did not ask for the 3,000 new laws to be passed by the shower of idiots who currently "govern" us.

 

[wonderer]

My only regret is that I'm off to work soon and won't get the chance to see this thread deteriorate and locked.

Nobody is attacking the Police in general, just a minority that choose for what ever reason to abuse their position and harass inoccent people.

I agree.My fight lies with the tendency to say "police force" or some other generalization.

Perspective is what is needed. These stories you hear in the scheme of things are very few and far between and to bump it up to them vs us is just non sensical.But that is what happens.

 

[Ambermile]

First sentence in my quote from OP



Phototographers mentioned in other parts of the post too. I don't see any mention of naked ramblers and trainspotters, and, last time I looked this was a photography forum

Well, to get pedantic, there's a full stop there. Never mind.

 

[stephenrapoport]

with respect, as the husband of a bobby, you're not impartial either! I was threatened with confiscation of equipment and arrest for photographing a London bus. Bloody joke. I think the police, and government as a whole, need a reminder that we are not their property.

 

[Byker28i]

The media have a lot to answer for with regards to public opinion, Police are generally in the news (which is were the vast majority of us get our information) for two reasons. Either to discredit them....'they arrested a photographer'....or to gain public sympathy and outrage when a policeman gets killed in the line duty. Very rare do stories emerge where the police are the heros of the story. And before the cynics among you say it, the police do more good than harm, they are fighting a battle of epic proportions in the UK, whether it be terrorism or crime, or simple old public relations.

I think that's probably true for the press such as the sun/mirror (otherwise you wouldn't find them full of celebrity show gossip) and dare I say it, a certain part of the population have always had a low opinion of the police, but they've now generally lost the support of joe public which were always brought up to respect the police. Certainly the quality papers don't just harangue the police for no reason.

Just a change in policing from the Dixon of Dock green image. Lets face it, in my neck of the woods, a scamera (sorry safety camera) van sat partially hidden on a motorway bridge or moving the police station 30 mins away the other side of town increasing the response time from "maybe" to "no resources available in the area" is always going to attract the story/negative image.

 

[PsiFox]

I just find it hard to believe on such a human level that for example my partner will spend ten years dealing with sick violent people on a daily basis and putting herself in harms way to protect you and me on the streets but she is a stupid,non sensical bully if she asks a tog to move on for whatever reason.

I completely support te Police in the difficult job they do and know several personally.

I think some of the response to your posts is possibly due to your phrasing e.g. If they are not causing an obstruction photographing a protected installation etc. there is no reason to ask them to move on.

 

[foggy4ever]

I agree.My fight lies with the tendency to say "police force" or some other generalization.

Perspective is what is needed. These stories you hear in the scheme of things are very few and far between and to bump it up to them vs us is just non sensical.But that is what happens.

 

[jamesb84]

What people dont realise as well is that the law is not made by police officers on the street.They are following laws and regulations themselves.But its the officer on the street that gets the abuse.

I just find it hard to believe on such a human level that for example my partner will spend ten years dealing with sick violent people on a daily basis and putting herself in harms way to protect you and me on the streets but she is a stupid,non sensical bully if she asks a tog to move on for whatever reason.

I fully appreciate this, but I'm getting more concerned that you're taking this too personally.

Yes, it is the law-makers that sit in Westminster and don't deal with it. Yes, your partner is taking the flak. However, it is an unjust law. And just the same as people have a go at traffic wardens not the people who paint the yellow lines...the police will cop it (pardon the pun:bonk as they're on the frontline.

What we keep coming back to is why would/should she or any other police officer move a tog on? What reason is there?

Other than being on private property or in an area of prohibition (ie. Passport Control, Customs or Security areas at the airport, or areas where the Official Secrets Act is in force) there is no legal basis for moving a tog. That should be the basis for the attitude towards photography and togs, not the Terrorism Act.

 

[Nikon Ken]

I agree.My fight lies with the tendency to say "police force" or some other generalization.

Perspective is what is needed. These stories you hear in the scheme of things are very few and far between and to bump it up to them vs us is just non sensical.But that is what happens.

Well said.

That's what I was trying to get to in my early posting.

There is always two sides to a story and there are always the idiots on both sides who take an extreme view. Those are normally the one's we all hear about and focus on.

I agree with fracster's view - too many laws implemented by a Government that cannot themselves abide by what is morally right, and sometimes legally right. They have passed too many laws that potentially erode rights we have fought for years to achieve.

Let's all find the middle ground.

Ken

 

[Byker28i]

What people dont realise as well is that the law is not made by police officers on the street.They are following laws and regulations themselves.But its the officer on the street that gets the abuse.

I just find it hard to believe on such a human level that for example my partner will spend ten years dealing with sick violent people on a daily basis and putting herself in harms way to protect you and me on the streets

and I think the figures for days lost to sickness for the police forces reflect this, something like 3x that of a private firm overall. Add to that the administrative overload and it's no wonder that there is a large rise in stress related sickness.

but she is a stupid,non sensical bully if she asks a tog to move on for whatever reason.

But it depends on how this is done, with humour, politely then not a problem, however there's been several cases filmed where the police have immediately overreacted and inflamed the situation rather than calming it. Ok these may be a small percentage of officers, but it reflects badly on the organisation as a whole.

Your partner may well be walking the beat in a nice rural village, knows everyone etc, but they'll alaways be fighting against images such as:

or

which is how a lot of people see modern policing

 

[fracster]

Let's all find the middle ground.

Ken

Thank God for that, I thought I was alone............

 

[fracster]

Your partner may well be walking the beat in a nice rural village, knows everyone etc, but they'll alaways be fighting against images such as:

or

which is how a lot of people see modern policing

Image 2, yes, unfortunately that is all too common.The Police carrying out thier duties as laid down by the politicians.Easy money target and God knows the goverment needs the money,they sure as hell waste it fast enough.

Image 1, you were there right and know the full circumstances? You know about Police riot training and are fully up to speed with how they do it? Perhaps he was shouting at people to back off? Perhaps he was being an asshole? Who knows.

Or perhaps you are being led astray by our wonderfully truthful,unbiased and honest media,who would never spice anything up to sell thier wares?.........

 

[Byker28i]

Image 1, you were there right and know the full circumstances? You know about Police riot training and are fully up to speed with how they do it? Perhaps he was shouting at people to back off? Perhaps he was being an asshole? Who knows.

Or perhaps you are being led astray by our wonderfully truthful,unbiased and honest media,who would never spice anything up to sell thier wares?.........

Nope not there, just commenting on how some/many people perceive the police currently.

And for the record, I have an interest as a family member is a serving policeman and I have previously sat on the local police liaison committee.

 

[Radiohead]

People are in general saying it is wrong to ASSUME someone taking photos is a terrorist but is not also wrong to assume they are not?

Unfortunately that is the world we live in.

I just wonder how many nay sayers would look over there shoulder,see a man photographing their kids in the street and happily assume they are just candid street togs?

People are naturally suspicious.I was in London the other day and realised i was checking people out on the tube thinking "whats in your bag" ?

Like i said.World we live in now.

The world you live in. Don't include us in it.

 

[jamesoliverstone]

Acutally, I've never used a newspaper story to back up my claims of s.44 stops...since i've had 2 stops personally. Both pointless, both time-wasting, both "illegal" and both rude, accusing police officers who ignored my perfectly polite offer to show my UK Press Card which is supposedly recognised as a form of ID by the Association of Chief Police Officers.



And if she wasnt doing that, then i'd ask if she was doing her job properly...however...WHY does she suspect a photographer in the first place?

I would agree that if someone suspicious is snooping around, then at the very least a PC should be asking why they're there...but to me photography is not a suspicious activity...and when did it become one for the Police?



Exactly...people should be encouraged to do their own research. I'm not suggesting everyone goes out and tries to experience a s.44 Stop and Search for themselves, but the police in general are extremely helpful IF you deal with them correctly. It's unfortunate though, that our hobby/profession seems to have been tarred by those in authority just as much as the media has tarred the Police.

I'm immediately eyed with suspicion for having a camera out in the street...either accusing stares from parents if i'm anywhere near children, or questions from police officers if i'm a public place (ie. covering a news story).

Unfortunately, the more you slap restrictions (either actual or perceived) on someone, the more they will resent and rebel. Your partner will probably be able to tell you numerous stories of people who have repeatedly been arrested/caught/stopped doing something naughty, and the more you do it, the more they get peeved.

There are times when the s.44 and s.76 stuff, as well as "kettling" and other public controls, the suggestion that "you lot should all go away for 20mins or else" (The Riot Act - given to togs -including colleagues and myself at the G20 protests in April/May) seems incessant, and naturally those of us who come up against it day after day do get quite tired of it.

Spot on sir... spot on

 

[wonderer]

The world you live in. Don't include us in it.

Who is us?

The reason people are suspicious of everything these days is because crimes are commited by people who look normal and do not fit the stereotypical image of a terrorist,peodophile etc

Its why people are on edge about a lot of things.Before 9/11 and the london bombings this thread would not exist.Unfortunately we all live in that world including you!

 

[Radiohead]

Us is anyone who's not you.

Terrorists have always looked normal. They've never wandered around with terrorist badges on. Criminals have always looked normal. That's because there is no stereotype for either.

Those of us that lived through the IRA bombing campaigns know full well that none of this is new. I'll wager there was a far, far greater chance of being bombed in the 70's and 80's than today. It's a political bonus to a government for us to live in a climate of fear. 'We're in charge, you're ok, we can't tell you about it too much but it's bad. Trust us. Keep voting us in'.

Pretty basic stuff really.

Am I aware of a threat - yes. Do I wander around viewing every other person who 'looks normal' as suspicious - no. It's a reaction fostered by said climate of fear - it's lazy, tabloid-led suspicion that has little basis in reality. It's our job as mature adults with a government voted in to serve us to question those in authority and not bend over for their benefit.

So by all means live in that world. I won't do it.

 

[wonderer]

Us is anyone who's not you.

Terrorists have always looked normal. They've never wandered around with terrorist badges on. Criminals have always looked normal. That's because there is no stereotype for either.

Those of us that lived through the IRA bombing campaigns know full well that none of this is new. I'll wager there was a far, far greater chance of being bombed in the 70's and 80's than today. It's a political bonus to a government for us to live in a climate of fear. 'We're in charge, you're ok, we can't tell you about it too much but it's bad. Trust us. Keep voting us in'.

Pretty basic stuff really.

Am I aware of a threat - yes. Do I wander around viewing every other person who 'looks normal' as suspicious - no. It's a reaction fostered by said climate of fear - it's lazy, tabloid-led suspicion that has little basis in reality. It's our job as mature adults with a government voted in to serve us to question those in authority and not bend over for their benefit.

So by all means live in that world. I won't do it.

So i guess there should be absolutely no questioning by any police officer as its obvious that as long as you have a camera in your hand your are a 100% upstanding citizen right?

Live your life without fear,yes,but also use your head. Should we do away with airport security? Dont scan baggage and let people walk on through?
Of course not but you then have to check and scan EVERYONE,yes even the little old ladies.
Its no different on the streets.

 

[jamesb84]

So i guess there should be absolutely no questioning by any police officer as its obvious that as long as you have a camera in your hand your are a 100% upstanding citizen right?

If the only reason you're (by which i mean the police - not you or your partner personally - heaven forbid I'd upset a pedant in this thread) questioning someone is because they have a camera in their hand...then something has gone wrong...and as far as I see they are a 100% upstanding citizen...unless there is another issue aside from the "willful possesion of a camera in public, shock horror, won't somebody please think of the children".

Let me repeat again...Photography is not illegal unless you're in a prohibited area (like the airport) or on someone else's private property without their permission.

 

[-Rob-]

The reason people are suspicious of everything these days is because crimes are commited by people who look normal and do not fit the stereotypical image of a terrorist,peodophile etc

This is no different to any point in history though. Nothing has changed since 9/11 and 7/7. As has been mentioned before, terrorist attacks in the UK are nothing new, the IRA were doing it for years.

By your reasoning though, if terrorists and criminals are just normal people then surely the police should be stopping mothers taking their kids to school to question them, or window cleaners as they peer in to other peoples bedrooms, or hairdresses as they ask you about when you are going on holiday (and therefore finding out when your property will be empty). No they don't do they, they target the true danger of society the photographer because he is taking a photo of something that has been photographed hundreds of times before for years.

 

[Radiohead]

So i guess there should be absolutely no questioning by any police officer as its obvious that as long as you have a camera in your hand your are a 100% upstanding citizen right?

Live your life without fear,yes,but also use your head. Should we do away with airport security? Dont scan baggage and let people walk on through?
Of course not but you then have to check and scan EVERYONE,yes even the little old ladies.
Its no different on the streets.

So far there's not one piece of evidence of ANY photographer stopped who ended up being a terrorist. Not one. What does that tell you? That perhaps someone wandering around with a honking great SLR might be a bit thick as to be so obvious?

The camera aspect is utterly arbitrary. Look at how many people have a rucksack. Are ramblers being stopped as the London bombers used rucksacks.

Planes are an entirely different thing and it's specious to use that as your example. They have long been a terrorist target. Why aren't we scanning everyone who gets on a train? Or a bus? Or who has a car, after all we can turn them into bombs. The list is endless.

Until you can show me that s44 stops when aimed at photographers are useful you can show me nothing but a government sponsored climate of fear. And like it or not, the police are increasingly being used as a political tool by a government who seem intent on stripping any civil liberty they can.

 

[Splog]

I agree we should stop giving them a hard time! They have a hard enough job as it is ...

Linky

 

[Graham004]

Working & residing in N Ireland for a few years where the terrorist threat is still high, the police service don't appear to bother so much, unless you are photographing a military/police location or restricted zone. I regulary take photographs in the city centre and rural areas, along with plenty of others. Most mobile phones have high quality photo features with zoom so anyone could take photos of anything without others being aware. I believe the stop & search should continue using common sense with revised police guidelines, otherwise stop anyone with a mobilephone,rucksack,DSLR, turban,pierced ears, tattoos, brown shoes, shoes without laces etc

 

[Trev Rich]

Criminals have always looked normal. That's because there is no stereotype for either.

Are You sure????

 

[Trev Rich]

On a more important note... If it became normal for the police not to question you, then terrorists would have an easy time as they would feel protected by doing surveillance with big DSLR's

 

[Squawk]

All the photographers that i have communcated with throwing accusations at the police base their entire opinions on these new stories that you hear or read about......and thats it!
Since when did we take the medias word as gospel?

Never, I distrust the media to report in an unbiased manner on pretty much any issue. Instead I base opinions on the videos presented, the statements of the accused and the statements of the police themselves.

I am NOT saying that there are police officers out there who do not abuse the law themselves and this is a problem which needs to be dealt with.However its at a point now where people are ignoring the fact that the police are their to do a job and MUST act on their own suspicians.

A policeman acting on suspicions is somethat that I advocate. What I argue against, vhemently, are the grounds for suspicion cited by the police as the reason for a search. Photography in a public place is entirely legal and yet some police officers view it as suspicious. Declining to provide your name and address is entirely legal and yet again it is treated as grounds for suspicion. It is for these reasons that I make my point forcefully.

I promise you the last thing she wants to do is arrest a photographer for taking a photo.She has vastly more important things to be doing.But if she suspects something,she will challenge it.It is what is expected of her.

A simple question, is carrying out a perfectly legal activity grounds for suspicion? Is refusal to answer the questions asked further grounds for suspicion? Unless we live in a police state the answer to both must be no.

 

[boyfalldown]

What people dont realise as well is that the law is not made by police officers on the street.They are following laws and regulations themselves.But its the officer on the street that gets the abuse.

- actually APCO have told police that the act of taking a photograph is not in itself grounds for a stop. Whilst the law is not made by the police a number of officers on the ground don't appear to understand that.

I just find it hard to believe on such a human level that for example my partner will spend ten years dealing with sick violent people on a daily basis and putting herself in harms way to protect you and me on the streets but she is a stupid,non sensical bully if she asks a tog to move on for whatever reason.

the police have a hard job to do - they know this. There are lots of other hard jobs too, they aren't unique but do have the luxury of making the odd mistake and people will generally forgive them. Its the ongoing apparent bullying by police that is starting to lose them respect. They do police with societies consent, remember?

 

[ding76uk]

People are in general saying it is wrong to ASSUME someone taking photos is a terrorist but is not also wrong to assume they are not?

Unfortunately that is the world we live in.

I just wonder how many nay sayers would look over there shoulder,see a man photographing their kids in the street and happily assume they are just candid street togs?

People are naturally suspicious.I was in London the other day and realised i was checking people out on the tube thinking "whats in your bag" ?

Like i said.World we live in now.

This is because you yourself are a victim of the media you tell us to be weary of. We were at way more threat of terrorism in the 80's yet you live in so much fear that you are on the tube thinking about which innocent person has a bomb?

You see photographers taking photos where a child is around as a potential molester, when incidents of this were much higher in the 19th century.

It is wrong to assume anyone is a terrorist. As you have no actual grounds for this.

Do you not think the media has made you feel the way you do?

Fear sells papers, fear makes you easy to manipulate.

I base my experience of police on those I have had dealt with. I have to say my overall opinion is not good, but I take each one at face value until they give me a reason to believe other wise.

To quote Scroobius Pip "Thou shalt not think any male over the age of 30 that plays with a child that is not their own is a peadophile, some people are just nice."

 

[-Rob-]

On a more important note... If it became normal for the police not to question you, then terrorists would have an easy time as they would feel protected by doing surveillance with big DSLR's

But the terrorists already have an easy time in just walking the streets and doing surveillance. As has already been said, they look like normal people so they are impossible to spot. The hard part of terrorism (not that I have experience of it) is the fund raising and the gathering of arms. Surely that's the part of terrorist activity that the police and the government should be concentrating on.

Rather than the police stopping and asking "excuse me sir, why are you taking a photo of that field/building/vehicle" why not get them to start asking people "excuse me sir, why are you buying that bomb making equipment?"

 

[B3R]

but they'll alaways be fighting against images such as:
....

which is how a lot of people see modern policing

yep picture 1 adds a too difficult side debate into how some situations should be handled, but picture 2 i think strengthens my point about modern policing not helping its own image, we dont see the police helping us. when you get burgled, they dont come round yes there isnt much they can do but it kills a lot of confidence when they have given up on the matter, we just see more and more negative.

a police officer having a general chat with a photographer should cause no harm (yes there are always the select few awkward people) and be easy enough for an officer to satisfy any curiosity, but when it get to "i am filling out this paper work on you... official stop and search....because ..terrorist..." then people feel hard done to + time wasted (both theirs and the police) it doesnt build any confidence in the police. again no disrespect to the police, I believe we need to respect the police and build their image, I'm just explaining what i see.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Because of what has happened I now tend to look over my shoulder wondering if I am going to have my coller felt because I am an honest citizen carrying an SLR and that is enough to get concernede about the Police and PCSO's about

 

[boyfalldown]

Because of what has happened I now tend to look over my shoulder wondering if I am going to have my coller felt because I am an honest citizen carrying an SLR and that is enough to get concernede about the Police and PCSO's about

I think it says something about the state of the law enforcement when you are as worried about the police as the criminals

 

[Trev Rich]

But the terrorists already have an easy time in just walking the streets and doing surveillance. As has already been said, they look like normal people so they are impossible to spot. The hard part of terrorism (not that I have experience of it) is the fund raising and the gathering of arms. Surely that's the part of terrorist activity that the police and the government should be concentrating on.

Rather than the police stopping and asking "excuse me sir, why are you taking a photo of that field/building/vehicle" why not get them to start asking people "excuse me sir, why are you buying that bomb making equipment?"

Fair point.. Was just saying they'd be able to take thier time and take better photos lol.

I think that in certain areas, police should be able to politely ask to view your images, but not touch the cam. We have all said in all cases.. "and what are the police doing about it?"
I think they have a tough job to do.
I do also agree that a few coppers are over the top and it makes the others look bad.
I had community officer demanding i delete a photo of him.... He was marching in the carnival... and I am the official carnival tog.. go figure...
I smiled and told him where to find it on the web, and how much they cost
I would never be rude or refuse to show the images. Even if I did get a leary one off copper..
I would refuse to delete or have my cam taken off of me though.

 

[-Rob-]

Trev, if a copper just happens to be wandering by and curiously asks what you are up to then answering him and showing him some of your photos is the polite thing to do. If however they come marching up to you and instantly treat you as a criminal then they have to expect a more defensive photographer. It is up to both sides to cooperate with eachother.

 

[artyman]

I've was questioned when taking photographs in a country lane miles from anywhere when a patrol car went by. Turns out he was the officer in charge of wildlife protection. I had just heard a Woodpecker and was seeing if I could get a shot. We had a pleasant chat about egg stealers and suchlike and he happily went on his way. I'm glad that even wildlife are considered important under the law and they take its protection seriously.

I wonder how things would have gone if I had started out belligerantly.