Lay off the police!

[King_Boru]

I was stopped in Calgary by a couple of RCMP officers. They were asking me questions, the usual. They were extremely polite beginning with Good morning and asking how my day was going. Following this they asked about my photography and what I was photographing. I was polite and answered their questions and offered to show them my images. Of course they wanted to see, out of curiosity more than suspicion I believe. We ended up chatting for quite some time. I asked them if there were any locations in Calgary that may cause issues photographing, any government buildings which were not allowed to be photographed and whether or not there were any laws against street photography. They explained everything. They even used their radio to fetch answers if they didn't know. When all was done and finished with they pointed out some locations which might be worthwhile photographing, wished me the best and left me be. I gave them my business card which lead to an actual job.

The outcome of these situations depends solely on your own capability to handle them. I could of started bartering my rights as a photographer but that would have made the officers defensive and to be honest, it would have offended them. They know outright that I already know my rights but its the fact that I didn't patronize them or try and educate them in their job that made the encounter a pleasant one. They didn't know the answers to everything and we all felt that we came away with a bit of extra knowledge than before.

I did get a warning about not having my ID on me though no fine, no ticket, just a "you should always have that with you".

EDIT

So, reading the stories online I find it hard to believe both sides of the story. Who knows how it played out. Who knows what the tone of conversation was. Who knows if the photographer was bartering his rights acting like a know it all little prick. Who knows if the police officer was being offensive, all mighty and god like. As a photography forum the trend seems to be that the photographer is right (as we are all togs). If there wasn't so much poor attitude in this world these situations wouldn't exist.

 

[Spuff]

....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.....

....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.....

And that is another part of the problem with Section 44 - your partner doesn't even have to have reasonable grounds for suspicion - she can stop and search anyone in a specific area.

But perhaps the real problem here is another example of poorly drafted legislation. It is worded in such a way in that parts of it are open to too much interpretation (remember local authorities using anti-terrorist legislation for surveillance against littering) and unfortunately the police will use that flexibility for their own benefit and interests.

And now, the police, having effectively abused that legislation, have now had the legality of their actions condemned by the ECHR. Much better if it had been in black and white in the first place.

 

[waspjunior]

So, reading the stories online I find it hard to believe both sides of the story. Who knows how it played out. Who knows what the tone of conversation was. Who knows if the photographer was bartering his rights acting like a know it all little prick. Who knows if the police officer was being offensive, all mighty and god like. As a photography forum the trend seems to be that the photographer is right (as we are all togs). If there wasn't so much poor attitude in this world these situations wouldn't exist.

Brilliant post, the last sentence says it all.

 

[King_Boru]

Brilliant post, the last sentence says it all.

Thanks.

 

[jamesb84]

...Who knows if the photographer was bartering his rights acting like a know it all little prick. Who knows if the police officer was being offensive, all mighty and god like. As a photography forum the trend seems to be that the photographer is right (as we are all togs). If there wasn't so much poor attitude in this world these situations wouldn't exist.

Unfortunately, sometimes we are "know it all" since we (as photographers - and some could consider experts) tend to know the legality of photography and the perceived (note the word "perceived") futility of stop-and-seach.

I agree with your attitude statement...I've got plenty of jobs from police forces from being out at events that they're at...particularly rememberance parades. I've done portrait shoots for them, and a whole raft of stuff for websites and some stock stuff...all paid for and all very pleasant customers.

However, much as I'd hate to open the worms, it does seem that the latest raft of problems have come from PCSO's. Admittedly, both my S&S came from PCs/Sgt's and both times I felt that they were "abusing" the powers under s.44 given that neither of the events could reasonably be considered at-risk of terrorism.

 

[goldenlight]

Oh dear, the heated exchanges from both sides in this thread are symptomatic of the complete mess we (and by "we" I mean both photographers and police) are in due to shoddy legislation and inexcusable policy.

Given that the whole of Greater London has been designated a Stop and Search without suspicion zone since February 2001, the authorization continuously renewed by the Government on a rolling 28 day cycle, no wonder the police on the ground feel obliged to conduct these searches. The implication of the automatic renewal of this power is that officers are expected to apply it out on the street as a matter of routine.

This is further compounded by the clear evidence that has emerged that police officers have been encouraged to stop a larger quota of white people purely to alter the percentages of members of ethnic communities that are recorded in Stop and Search statistics. This has nothing to do with terrorism but everything to do with targets and manipulation of the truth.

That is not effective, responsible or fair policing. It stinks and is the thin end of a very long wedge of police being used for political purposes. In short, it is outrageous. But don't blame the individual officers on the ground, it is not their fault and in truth they probably resent it even more than we do. However, they unfortunately must accept that as a consequence it will cause friction, resentment and a breakdown of trust between the police and the general public and, in particular, specifically targeted groups such as photographers.

As I say, it is not the fault of the police man or women on the street. The real culprits reside in ivory towers much higher up the chain. It is for this reason that yesterday I wrote to both the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Home Secretary expressing my alarm at this situation and confronting them with the issues. I urge everyone to do the same - bombard these culpable mandarins with the facts until they get the message.

In the meantime be polite and cooperative if challenged by police officers. Give them the information they require and answer their questions but in return make sure they fulfil their obligations to you. They must provide you with a written summary of the Stop and Search. They are obliged to produce their warrant card so that you can identify them. Make sure you register a formal complaint as soon as possible as it's the only way to get the message across that we do not accept the policy and demand that it is changed.

In my letters to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson I offered to meet them to discuss the issues more fully. I doubt that either of them will have the decency to respond but it is clear to me that these are the people to whom we should be directiong our ire, rather than the police officers who have been placed in an impossible situation.

Finally, do please consider the sensibility of people like Wonderer who must feel sickened to hear their loved ones constantly vilified when it isn't their fault.

 

[wonderer]

I was stopped in Calgary by a couple of RCMP officers. They were asking me questions, the usual. They were extremely polite beginning with Good morning and asking how my day was going. Following this they asked about my photography and what I was photographing. I was polite and answered their questions and offered to show them my images. Of course they wanted to see, out of curiosity more than suspicion I believe. We ended up chatting for quite some time. I asked them if there were any locations in Calgary that may cause issues photographing, any government buildings which were not allowed to be photographed and whether or not there were any laws against street photography. They explained everything. They even used their radio to fetch answers if they didn't know. When all was done and finished with they pointed out some locations which might be worthwhile photographing, wished me the best and left me be. I gave them my business card which lead to an actual job.

The outcome of these situations depends solely on your own capability to handle them. I could of started bartering my rights as a photographer but that would have made the officers defensive and to be honest, it would have offended them. They know outright that I already know my rights but its the fact that I didn't patronize them or try and educate them in their job that made the encounter a pleasant one. They didn't know the answers to everything and we all felt that we came away with a bit of extra knowledge than before.

I did get a warning about not having my ID on me though no fine, no ticket, just a "you should always have that with you".

EDIT

So, reading the stories online I find it hard to believe both sides of the story. Who knows how it played out. Who knows what the tone of conversation was. Who knows if the photographer was bartering his rights acting like a know it all little prick. Who knows if the police officer was being offensive, all mighty and god like. As a photography forum the trend seems to be that the photographer is right (as we are all togs). If there wasn't so much poor attitude in this world these situations wouldn't exist.

100% this

Its just common sense.If a police officer has an attitude from the off and is acting the bully it is unjustifiable and should be complained about.
It works both ways though and i wonder how many togs are standoffish from the get go?
Bit of mutual respect does go a long way

 

[wonderer]

And that is another part of the problem with Section 44 - your partner doesn't even have to have reasonable grounds for suspicion - she can stop and search anyone in a specific area.

But perhaps the real problem here is another example of poorly drafted legislation. It is worded in such a way in that parts of it are open to too much interpretation (remember local authorities using anti-terrorist legislation for surveillance against littering) and unfortunately the police will use that flexibility for their own benefit and interests.

And now, the police, having effectively abused that legislation, have now had the legality of their actions condemned by the ECHR. Much better if it had been in black and white in the first place.

Another police generalisation. People need to realise we are talking about a small minority of officers acting the bully.NOT i repeat NOT the "police force"

Officers should be able to stop whoever they like whenever they like imo.Its the same as stopping teens in the street to check for knives or alcohol. No argument against that is there?

I personally think its the togs attitude at being asked a few questions that is the block of most of these cases not what they were up originally.

 

[wonderer]

Oh dear, the heated exchanges from both sides in this thread are symptomatic of the complete mess we (and by "we" I mean both photographers and police) are in due to shoddy legislation and inexcusable policy.

Given that the whole of Greater London has been designated a Stop and Search without suspicion zone since February 2001, the authorization continuously renewed by the Government on a rolling 28 day cycle, no wonder the police on the ground feel obliged to conduct these searches. The implication of the automatic renewal of this power is that officers are expected to apply it out on the street as a matter of routine.

This is further compounded by the clear evidence that has emerged that police officers have been encouraged to stop a larger quota of white people purely to alter the percentages of members of ethnic communities that are recorded in Stop and Search statistics. This has nothing to do with terrorism but everything to do with targets and manipulation of the truth.

That is not effective, responsible or fair policing. It stinks and is the thin end of a very long wedge of police being used for political purposes. In short, it is outrageous. But don't blame the individual officers on the ground, it is not their fault and in truth they probably resent it even more than we do. However, they unfortunately must accept that as a consequence it will cause friction, resentment and a breakdown of trust between the police and the general public and, in particular, specifically targeted groups such as photographers.

As I say, it is not the fault of the police man or women on the street. The real culprits reside in ivory towers much higher up the chain. It is for this reason that yesterday I wrote to both the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Home Secretary expressing my alarm at this situation and confronting them with the issues. I urge everyone to do the same - bombard these culpable mandarins with the facts until they get the message.

In the meantime be polite and cooperative if challenged by police officers. Give them the information they require and answer their questions but in return make sure they fulfil their obligations to you. They must provide you with a written summary of the Stop and Search. They are obliged to produce their warrant card so that you can identify them. Make sure you register a formal complaint as soon as possible as it's the only way to get the message across that we do not accept the policy and demand that it is changed.

In my letters to Sir Paul Stephenson and Alan Johnson I offered to meet them to discuss the issues more fully. I doubt that either of them will have the decency to respond but it is clear to me that these are the people to whom we should be directiong our ire, rather than the police officers who have been placed in an impossible situation.

Finally, do please consider the sensibility of people like Wonderer who must feel sickened to hear their loved ones constantly vilified when it isn't their fault.

Thank you Goldenlight.I completely agree with you on everything you said. I have never denied there is not an issue with a select few officers who are power hungry but my annoyance is due to police officers as a whole being labeled. My personal feelings toward some comments are very hard to control but trying to be rational falls on deaf ears for the most part.

 

[gingerjon]

Officers should be able to stop whoever they like whenever they like imo.

Should they arse.

And that is my considered opinion.

 

[Denyerec]

Until the Police openly admit to being more interested in playing the role of Corporate Enforcement Officer than they are in playing the role of Policeman and upholding the common law, I've not got a huge amount of sympathy, though I do firmly believe it's the policy/statute makers who need it in the neck and not the honest men and women who signed up to law, rather than the moneymaking web of statues the government shoved down their necks.

Only recently has policing been turned into a negative affair, 30 years ago it was a very different story.

 

[Trev Rich]

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.

Yes and I also explained about the leary officer at the carnival.
And I meant being asked to show the pix to prove what you are up to, not just cos they are interested in my work lol.

 

[jamesb84]

Right, aside from the big "love-in" for the police.

It is not legitimate to stop photographers purely on the basis that they are photographers.

If they want to stop me for no reason and are rude about it (as they have been to me on the two occasions I've been stopped) then I will decline to give my details.

Given that they have twice refused to accept my UK Press Card as ID (which it is perfectly suited to)...a Press Card that says...

The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland recognise the holder of this card as a bona-fide newsgatherer.

I will continue to do the minimum I have to, which is stand still and comply with their search...unless they want to see images, in which case they'll have to get a judge. Special Procedure Material still applies.

That's the end of it. I have described the background of the law and my views on the police in general...however, when people are advocating "police officers stopping whoever and whenever they like" and "comply with them, and let them go beyond what they are legally entitled to do" I will not contribute to this discussion further.

This is simply rolling over and allowing our civil liberties to be destroyed...something which has been important since the Magna Carta (you said that Goldenlight) and I will personally not do allow that to happen to me.

 

[OutLore]

I would be interested to see the ages of each poster in this thread. I wonder if there is a general proportional trend in opinions towards different ages?

 

[awp]

the OP is clearly biased towards the police without any reason to be except that he lives with a police! If some of them didn't go around making up the law as they went then there wouldn't be a problem. What is a shame is because of the police's irresponible and illegal actions in many cases - the terrorists get through -their actions are totally counter productive!! The police really need to know the law before they go butting in.

My father and grandfather were policemen so I was brought up to respect the law - sorry I don't today!

 

[nikon-nutter]

Should they arse.

And that is my considered opinion.

i'll second that...

 

[Spuff]

Officers should be able to stop whoever they like whenever they like imo.Its the same as stopping teens in the street to check for knives or alcohol. No argument against that is there?

I can't believe, that if you thought about this seriously and considered it's implications, that you would still hold this opinion.

A logical extension of your view would be:

1. Anyone can be stopped and searched anywhere at anytime
2. Everyone has their DNA profile on a central database from birth
3. Everyone has to carry full ID
4. Everyone's movements are monitored by GPS/CCTV so your whereabouts are known at all time - and recorded

And to all of those who say "nothing to fear, nothing to hide" then, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with the above. Until a mistake is made in the database. Or the data gets into the public domain.

Personally, I see the police force's (yes, the force as a whole - not some individuals) abuse of current legislation as part of a slippery slope. I think it's known as mission or function creep in some circles. It carries on until it becomes the norm and then we move to the next stage of liberty curtailment and so on.

 

[Trev Rich]

To be honest, at the start of this thread I was very lenient towards the police. I'm kinda on the middle of the fence now.

Oh and I'm 35 BTW Outlore

 

[Richard Peters]

I do believe the 'Police, good or bad?' debate is quickly becoming the new 'which is better, Nikon or Canon?'

 

[Briony]

This made me laught today when I heard it - good on them

Cops have 'riotous' time sledging in the snow

THESE Oxford officers enjoyed the snow by using a riot shield as a sledge!

Four Thames Valley Police officers were filmed by a member of public on Tuesday sledging down a slope off Berkeley Road, in Boars Hill, Oxford.



Oxford area commander Supt Andy Murray last night said the officers had been warned about using police equipment to go sledging while on duty.

The officers stopped in their police van at the hill to speak to people playing in the snow, then decided to use a riot shield as a sledge.

Supt Murray added: “The snow has a habit of bringing out the child in all of us.”

The 41-second video shows colleagues capturing footage on their mobile phones.

The member of public who filmed the sledging posted the footage on the You Tube website.

He said: “They were only there a few minutes.

“They had a couple of runs, were chatty and then went on their way.”

 

[Squawk]

i'll second that...

Thirded.

I did type out quite a long response, but then the forum died and I lost it, alas.

Meh, most people know my stance on this, it mirrors jamesb84's last post.

 

[Defiance]

http://db.riskwaters.com/global/bjp/notacrime/index_foi.html[/url]

That statistic alone shows how much some police forces are abusing this act.

That is a lot better than 0 searches and 0 arrests for terrorism I think !

Also, photography is legal, but so is buying fertilizer legal...work it out !

 

[sheddy]

<<<<<<< Finally, do please consider the sensibility of people like Wonderer who must feel sickened to hear their loved ones constantly vilified when it isn't their fault.

I've made it through this thread as far as your post so far and I although I sit on the side that has no respect for the Police, no time for the Police and have never found them capable of executing any more than the most basic of their assigned tasks with any degree of common sense, I have agreed with many points from both sides of the arguement.

However, your last line makes my blood boil. The Police are at fault, bith as a company and as individuals. They are at fault because it was they who chose to wear the uniform and it is they who choose to continue to wear the uniform. They do have the option of resigning from the punitive tax collection organisation they work for.

 

[Defiance]

They do have the option of resigning from the punitive tax collection organisation they work for.

Then let's hope that all the police officers in Southend resign...

...and hope you're not a victim of an increase in burglary, assault, rape etc.

 

[evotwo]

The sad thing is after reading the 4 pages of this thread is that terrorism has done exactly what it set out to do.

It's starting to stop "all" of us being able to enjoy the very freedom that was provided to us by previous generations.

The politicians are making us look like a nation of scared puppies. It should be business as normal with a vigilant public helping the police. Photographers should actually be looked upon as a means of surveillance for the country with the millions of shots being taken every day. How many times are photo's used to piece events together etc

Steps down off his box

 

[swanseamale47]

That is a lot better than 0 searches and 0 arrests for terrorism I think !

Also, photography is legal, but so is buying fertilizer legal...work it out !

65 arrests for terrorism doesn't actually mean 65 terrorists have been stopped, I suspect very few if any actually went to court on terror related offences.
It also means a 107.947 totally innocent people were stopped, questioned and searched for nothing, wasting their and the polices time.

 

[Chiggs]

Had good and bad experiences with Police. Im not a learned man, just a ordinary Joe who enjoys taking photo`s.
I wonder ? how can anything that can be viewed in the public domain be viewed as a possible terroism threat. If I walk past a building, a statue or anything that sets off a bell in my mind that says, "That will make a great picture". How can that be viewed as a possible threat ? If I can see see it then so can everyone else. The military have establishments that are guarded, its their business, as a citizen I respect that. I respect I cant take a picture of crown property or that taking a picture of children in a park could be misconstrewed as a threat and suspicious.
But simply walking through any town and snapping away at something that makes my mind flicker, makes me a threat, scares me.

I respect the law, I hold judges in high regard. I pay my tax and I vote for a representative in the house of commons. Then surely Im sensible enough to partake in my hobby and interest. If Im approached and spoken to politely by a Bobby, I will comply. If he gets in my face and treats me like dirt that will get my back up, its only human nature.
I/we are probably viewed on more cameras a day than we are aware of. I know we live in a world that is unbalanced and tense.
Maybe the Police, and I know Im generalising here, should learn to use bit more common sense and logic. I understand they have a job to do and they need to understand we, the public, have rights to carry out our interests and hobbies. I dont want news gatherer`s to be impeaded. I want be be informed and if the govenment can use the media to promote themselves then the said same media must be allowed to carry out their business in a free and open manner. Like others have said, "If you have nothing to hide" then that has to apply to the establishment also. I am sensible enough to form my own opinion and filter what stories I choose to absorb and trust. I have that right as a british citizen.
Im getting of my soap box now because the news is coming on the TV. Im curious to see what the news gatherer`s have to report on today. I have a desire for knowledge and information. Hey ! Im only human. Im a free citizen, not a criminal and I wish to harm no one. If I do, then the same system will deal with me accordingly, but hopefully once I have done something wrong. Till then, I just want to be a regular guy. If Mr Plod stops me tomorrow for a routine stop I will be as polite to him/her as as they to me.......

 

[Defiance]

65 arrests for terrorism doesn't actually mean 65 terrorists have been stopped, I suspect very few if any actually went to court on terror related offences.
It also means a 107.947 totally innocent people were stopped, questioned and searched for nothing, wasting their and the polices time.

Terrorists don't wear signs round their neck declaring who/what they are. I suspect they do everything possible to conceal what they are and what they are doing. I imagine it's extremely tough to find them and multiple approaches are required, some more unpopular than others.

I'm sure that in the process they are also able to search for drugs, knives, guns etc. Whilst almost all won't have them, again if one is found then lives are saved.

 

[sheddy]

Then let's hope that all the police officers in Southend resign...

...and hope you're not a victim of an increase in burglary, assault, rape etc.

I cannot remember reading of one instance where a Police officer in Southend has provably thwarted a burglary, rape or assault. Can you evidence your claim?

I have however heard a Police sargent and a Police Constable boast about how the witnessed a drunk guy "winding up" a "monster of a bloke" outside of Talk nightclub. So when it looked like it was about to kick off, what did they do? They took a drive round the block and came back to pick up the pieces of the drunk guy. The closing comment?: "I reckon he learned to drink less and go home earlier that night"
Quality Police work. I think we are as safe without them as we are with them .... unless you can prove differently?

 

[Defiance]

I cannot remember reading of one instance where a Police officer in Southend has provably thwarted a burglary, rape or assault. Can you evidence your claim?

I have however heard a Police sargent and a Police Constable boast about how the witnessed a drunk guy "winding up" a "monster of a bloke" outside of Talk nightclub. So when it looked like it was about to kick off, what did they do? They took a drive round the block and came back to pick up the pieces of the drunk guy. The closing comment?: "I reckon he learned to drink less and go home earlier that night"
Quality Police work. I think we are as safe without them as we are with them .... unless you can prove differently?

As was said earlier in the thread, most people don't hear about the good things the police do. A lot of people remember the one bad story they heard in the pub or from their mates.

Remember the police serve as a deterent as well as means of catching criminals.

They are also not perfect, but then again shop assistants can be rude, train drivers can crash trains, taxi drivers can rape passengers...

 

[Foggy]

Terrorists don't wear signs round their neck declaring who/what they are. I suspect they do everything possible to conceal what they are and what they are doing. I imagine it's extremely tough to find them and multiple approaches are required, some more unpopular than others.

I'm sure that in the process they are also able to search for drugs, knives, guns etc. Whilst almost all won't have them, again if one is found then lives are saved.

If you are going to take that stance then what they should do is have 'search points', randomly on streets where every person that goes past is stopped and searched to make sure they aren't carrying anything they shouldn't do. I bet they would catch more people carrying stuff than by stopping and searching random photographers.

 

[Squawk]

That is a lot better than 0 searches and 0 arrests for terrorism I think !

Also, photography is legal, but so is buying fertilizer legal...work it out !

65 arrests. Convictions, 0.

 

[Defiance]

If you are going to take that stance then what they should do is have 'search points', randomly on streets where every person that goes past is stopped and searched to make sure they aren't carrying anything they shouldn't do. I bet they would catch more people carrying stuff than by stopping and searching random photographers.

Maybe that is an answer, although it would be equally unpopular. I'm sure, however, that poor photographers are not the only people stopped and searched by the police and have not been singled out as a group for it.

I would also point out the established link between rucksacks / back packs and terrorist bombs. If i'm not mistaken, photographers do sometimes wear rucksack type bags too...

 

[Defiance]

65 arrests. Convictions, 0.

Where does it say that ? Also what happened with the 1011 other non terrorist arrests (which were not quoted in the post but in the attachment) ?

 

[PsiFox]

Officers should be able to stop whoever they like whenever they like imo.Its the same as stopping teens in the street to check for knives or alcohol. No argument against that is there?

That is a very orwellian statement and would suggest we live in a police state.

Additionally it is not the same as teens with knives or alcohol. The threat of teens with knives is not perceived it is real. The under age drink problem exists too.

There is only a perception fuelled by the scare mongering media and bad policing that photographers are a threat to both children and the state.

 

[sheddy]

As was said earlier in the thread, most people don't hear about the good things the police do. A lot of people remember the one bad story they heard in the pub or from their mates.

Remember the police serve as a deterent as well as means of catching criminals.

They are also not perfect, but then again shop assistants can be rude, train drivers can crash trains, taxi drivers can rape passengers...

1 Lodge
17 coppers, both serving and retired
So many tales of derring doo
one of the reasons I resigned from the funny handshake gang

 

[alexkidd]

You must of had quite a few experiences with the poli9ce to make up percentages.

my in-brain statistical analysis tool is ver ver advanced

 

[Squawk]

Where does it say that ? Also what happened with the 1011 other non terrorist arrests (which were not quoted in the post but in the attachment) ?

Simple, I didn't rely on the summary of a website, I went and read the report myself.

You can do the same, you can find it here along with the governments reply which I haven't yet read.

I now feel a sense of frustration that the Metropolitan Police still does not
limit their section 44 authorisations to some boroughs only, or parts of boroughs,
rather than to the entire force area. I cannot see a justification for the whole of the
Greater London area being covered permanently, and the intention of the section
was not to place London under permanent special search powers. However, a
pilot project is about to start in which the section is deployed in a different way. I
shall examine that project closely. The alarming numbers of usages of the power
(between 8,000 and 10,000 stops per month as we entered 2009) represent bad
news, and I hope for better in a year&#8217;s time. The figures, and a little analysis of
them, show that section 44 is being used as an instrument to aid non-terrorism
policing on some occasions, and this is unacceptable.

148. I am sure that safely it could be used far less. There is little or no evidence
that the use of section 44 has the potential to prevent an act of terrorism as
compared with other statutory powers of stop and search. Whilst arrests for other crime have followed searches under the section, none of the many thousands
of searches has ever resulted in conviction of a terrorism offence. Its utility has
been questioned publicly and privately

I have bolded the important bit.

For those not inclined to read the whole document, and I sympathise, I haven't read every section, I suggest starting on page 27, paragraph 137. The section quoted above is from paragraph 148 on page 31. Paragraph 137 onwards deals with section 44.


As for other arrests non terrorism based as a result of section 44 searches, that should be entirely irrelevant. Should we take on that kind of reasoning it is one very short step to compulsory searches for everyone.

 

[Kaouthia]

I am NOT saying that there are police officers out there who do not abuse the law

I would certainly hope "that there are police officers out there who do not abuse the law".

Funnily enough, I've yet to encounter a police officer, security guard or rent-a-cop in my photography adventures, but I was stopped a few times when I used to ride motorcycles a decade or so ago.

There'd been a bunch of bike thefts in the area and they were randomly checking bikers that fit a certain description and age. Some of the cops were great, fantastic guys, letting me know why I was stopped in a perfectly polite manner, checking my papers, having a good chat, and sending me off on my way. Some, however, were complete dicks.

Being a police officer doesn't make an idiot cease to be an idiot, same as in any other job. Unfortunately, in the case of the police, dealing with so many members of the public, it's the bad ones that give the overall reputation for the rest. People rarely commend for a good job (especially if it's what's expected of them in the course of their work anyway), but they'll tell everybody if somebody's done a bad job.

You must of had quite a few experiences with the poli9ce to make up percentages.

It's a common fact that 83% of all statistics are made up on the spot anyway.

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" ?

And were you questioned by the police for being a suspected purse snatcher? Or did you not have your camera with you?

 

[On the Huh]

Right, aside from the big "love-in" for the police.

It is not legitimate to stop photographers purely on the basis that they are photographers.

If they want to stop me for no reason and are rude about it (as they have been to me on the two occasions I've been stopped) then I will decline to give my details.

Given that they have twice refused to accept my UK Press Card as ID (which it is perfectly suited to)...a Press Card that says...



I will continue to do the minimum I have to, which is stand still and comply with their search...unless they want to see images, in which case they'll have to get a judge. Special Procedure Material still applies.

That's the end of it. I have described the background of the law and my views on the police in general...however, when people are advocating "police officers stopping whoever and whenever they like" and "comply with them, and let them go beyond what they are legally entitled to do" I will not contribute to this discussion further.

This is simply rolling over and allowing our civil liberties to be destroyed...something which has been important since the Magna Carta (you said that Goldenlight) and I will personally not do allow that to happen to me.

I agree.

I appreciate and respect the police generally, and I expect that they should have a general respect of the public, after all it's not a Police State (yet!)