Lay off the police!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spuff said:
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
Click to expand...
That is SO 26 years ago ;)
 
jamesb84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

James, it's all very well robustly exercising your rights at the expense of a hapless PC who is only obeying orders but what else are you going to do? Where are you lodging your protest (apart from huffing and puffing on forums)? Who in authority are you attempting to contact about this disgraceful policy?

I don't pretend to have the answers but I am trying to raise the issues directly with the guilty parties (Home Secretary and Met Commissioner for starters) rather than the officers on the ground who have to cope with the consequences. I've also spent most the evening writing an article for the Amateur Photographer Backchat column designed to mobilise other photographers to voice their opinions where it matters.

So don't imply that I am rolling over and allowing our civil liberties to be destroyed.

BTW if individual officers are rude to you that is a matter for a formal complaint about their conduct, rather than a complaint against policy which is the big issue we are really facing.
 
sheddy said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is typical of the uneducated rhetoric that does our cause no good and actually undermines it. Rather than make moronic remarks on a forum where they will have no effect other than to make people like me pity you, why not get off your butt and complain to the people that matter. :bang:
 
Funny thing about these threads regarding the rights of toggers to go about their perfectly legal activity is that I rarely see any reference to black and Asian people who have been complaining for years that they are being singled out for 'just walking down the street' and stopped and searched :thinking: This type of Police behaviour is nothing new :shake:
neither is it that when a group of like minded people discuss something like this the general feeling will be that they are being persecuted for their beliefs, colour or pastimes, when in reality the vast majority of the British public don't really give a **** :cuckoo: and therein lies the problem :thumbsdown:
 
Squawk said:
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 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.
Click to expand...

I accept your point. However, the report is a little weasel worded as what does 'conviction of a terrorist offence' actually cover/not cover ? When you look at the appendices, there are some significant crimes not considered 'as terrorism related' including firearms and explosives offences. Whilst the section 44 approach may be considered blunt and unfairly targeted, some positive results are seemingly achieved from it (intended or otherwise).
 
the video shows how good a riot shield can be as a sledge. :)
 
Defiance said:
I accept your point. However, the report is a little weasel worded as what does 'conviction of a terrorist offence' actually cover/not cover ? When you look at the appendices, there are some significant crimes not considered 'as terrorism related' including firearms and explosives offences. Whilst the section 44 approach may be considered blunt and unfairly targeted, some positive results are seemingly achieved from it (intended or otherwise).
Click to expand...

Weasel worded? It's for politicians, the buggers specialise in that. Can be tough figuring out what it means, but I suppose it's an attempt to remove ambiguity, the problem being that it reads somewhat waffly.

As for which offenses are considered terrorism or not I do not know, I have not read the appendices or looked up statistics.

I will take up issue with the "intended or otherwise" statement, since it brings us back to a central point of my argument. I have no doubt that some positives have resulted, but given the statistics presented thus far (and here I am conscious of my ignorance on the point you raised), it is my contention that it was not worth the sacrifice of liberty for the public, nor the time wasted by the police in carrying out such a huge number of searches.

Compulsory searches for everyone twice per day would have huge benefits for security, but the payoff for doing so is enormous for liberty. It is the compromise of complete liberty and the need for security that is being discussed, and it is my contention that the line is being drawn in the wrong place and is then being pushed even further in the wrong direction. Lord Carlile seems to agree with me.
 
Squawk said:
I will take up issue with the "intended or otherwise" statement, since it brings us back to a central point of my argument. I have no doubt that some positives have resulted, but given the statistics presented thus far (and here I am conscious of my ignorance on the point you raised), it is my contention that it was not worth the sacrifice of liberty for the public, nor the time wasted by the police in carrying out such a huge number of searches.

Compulsory searches for everyone twice per day would have huge benefits for security, but the payoff for doing so is enormous for liberty. It is the compromise of complete liberty and the need for security that is being discussed, and it is my contention that the line is being drawn in the wrong place and is then being pushed even further in the wrong direction. Lord Carlile seems to agree with me.
Click to expand...

I agree it's a difficult balance to achieve. The answer, in my opinion, would be for the government to look at what they are doing under section 44 and determine what works and what doesn't work and refine/improve/overhaul/evolve this process (and others maybe) so that it (they) can be more effective with less searches. I don't think the answer is to stop all together and equally, I don't think the answer is excessive stop and search powers.
 
Defiance said:
I agree it's a difficult balance to achieve. The answer, in my opinion, would be for the government to look at what they are doing under section 44 and determine what works and what doesn't work and refine/improve/overhaul/evolve this process (and others maybe) so that it (they) can be more effective with less searches. I don't think the answer is to stop all together and equally, I don't think the answer is excessive stop and search powers.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Government should look again at Section 44 but so far they refuse to budge. Leverage needs to be applied to make them conceed that there is a problem and review it.

I agree that Stop and Search can be a useful policing tool if used effectively and only in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. Carrying/using a DSLR does not, by itself constitute "reasonable grounds."

This issue is becoming emotive because photographers feel that they and their kind are being singled out. If that was the only consequence then I would be irritated but not so worried and alarmed as I am now.

Issues to consider:-

1) The Government has routinely and continuously rolled over the 28 day maximum period for S&S without grounds for suspicion since February 2001 in the Metropolitan Police district (i.e. the whole of Greater London). This was never Parliament's intention or a 28 day limit would not have been included in the legislation as a safeguard to begin with.

This amounts to a crude and cynical manipulation of the law.


2) The Independent Reviewer (of S&S) has noted, in his most recent report, that there has been a practice of stopping and searching white people purely to produce greater racial balance in the statistics.

This is particularly alarming and is tantamount to an admission that the Government has used both Section 44 and the Metropolitan Force as political tools to influence official statistics in their favour. That is nothing to do with terrorism but everything to do with political expediency.

When you view these two issues together it is no wonder that the Government is so loath to repeal or amend Section 44. They are using it for political purposes rather than for any justifiable reason of public safety or national security! The ECHR voiced concern that the provisions of Section 44 could too easily be used for purposes other than which they are supposedly designed, such as preventing demonstrations that are nothing to do with terrorism.

It doesn't take a quantum leap of imagination to see that at some point in the future this legislation, if left unchallenged, could be misused to prevent public gatherings of any sort, political meetings and even to delay or dispense altogether with General Elections. It is Pandora's box waiting to be opened.

These are the real issues, the ones we should be concerned about, and the ones we should be trying to do something about. Not a single prosecution for terrorist offences has resulted from S&S. I believe that Section 44 is being routinely abused and is potentially more damaging in the long term than a terrorist attack itself. I say that unless it is fundementally amended with rigorous, transparent and accountable safegaurds built in it should be scrapped completely.
 
I have only had to deal with the police a couple of times and both times I was left hoping that I had got the "minority" that are useless and all the rest were model policemen.

Yes if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear but that only works in the long term. In the few minutes (or hours in some peoples cases) that you are trying to prove your innocence, it would be nice to feel less threatened.

Just to note: by threatened, I don't mean physically or verbally but more the loom of potential custody with no explanation beyond suspicion and annoyance at having your time wasted in the first place.


You may have guessed I'm not a fan of the police (or at least some of their actions) and although they have a hard job... so does everyone. I'd rather be a policeman dealing with an aggresive drunk than a shop assistant with no powers to defend themselves (or at least none that wouldn't lead to the drunk getting compensation).
 
Defiance said:
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.
Click to expand...

No doubt but thats not the intention of s44, they are then using a law intended to stop terrorists as a general stop and search tool, and thats exactly the problem
s44 requires reasonable grounds and thats the issue most have with it, simply carrying a dslr camera is NOT reasonable grounds to suspect they are a terrorist.
 
I could be wrong but....

....for some reason I'm getting a feeling of deja vu, as if this has been debated here before...? Groundhog day on Talk Photography? Again? Come on, lets talk about something else.
 
256,000 people where stopped under section 44 last year according to Home office figures, I don't think that can be attributed to a few over zealous coppers more like a trend being driven from higher ups.

Even when confronted by the media or public reaction about this ill founded law the police still seem to increasingly find the need to enforce it.
 
Nikon Man said:
256,000 people where stopped under section 44 last year according to Home office figures, I don't think that can be attributed to a few over zealous coppers more like a trend being driven from higher ups.

Even when confronted by the media or public reaction about this ill founded law the police still seem to increasingly find the need to enforce it.
Click to expand...


mmmmmmmmmmmmm and the arrest figure - not the charged or convicted figure (for any offence) from those stops - 0.6%

hardly targeted searching and ignoring all the other issues - not really the most intelligent use of police time
 
As a former Police Officer myself I have the experience of being on both sides of this particular fence.

My own thoughts on it are simple. I do believe that there is a deliberate and calculated policy of stopping photographers. Why? Well it's quite simple really, it's the "Be seen to be doing something" policy. As has been discussed already, terrorists don't stand out, they don't walk about with a big arrow, but then that knowledge will possibly scare Joe Public even more. The simple admission that "We don't actually know who they are" is not one any politician is going to make and so it has been deemed that a "Seen to be doing something" policy is a much better way of keeping poor Joe Publics fears at bay. And if that means stopping a few poxy photographers, well, it's worth the price.

The unfortunate part is that having taken that decision they have left the front line officers in the firing line......again.
 
On a slightly different issue, I had a wonderful policeman come out and help me last night in East Grinstead.

I had to call 999 for someone who fell on the ice and hit their head on the way down. It happened in the Car Park entrance so I requsted Police presence to help with traffic and also becuase I coudlnt get very much info on who the person was or lived.

The copper was fantastic, and was a credit to the police force.
 
Richard Peters said:
I do believe the 'Police, good or bad?' debate is quickly becoming the new 'which is better, Nikon or Canon?'
Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that, it's not an "either/or" issue. There are far more complex factors to consider, such as to what degree the police are simply following orders passed down from the Government through their policical puppets, The Met Commissioner and the Chief Constables.

BTW the answer to your question is "Olympus." :D
 
goldenlight said:
James, it's all very well robustly exercising your rights at the expense of a hapless PC who is only obeying orders but what else are you going to do? Where are you lodging your protest (apart from huffing and puffing on forums)? Who in authority are you attempting to contact about this disgraceful policy?

I don't pretend to have the answers but I am trying to raise the issues directly with the guilty parties (Home Secretary and Met Commissioner for starters) rather than the officers on the ground who have to cope with the consequences. I've also spent most the evening writing an article for the Amateur Photographer Backchat column designed to mobilise other photographers to voice their opinions where it matters.

So don't imply that I am rolling over and allowing our civil liberties to be destroyed.

BTW if individual officers are rude to you that is a matter for a formal complaint about their conduct, rather than a complaint against policy which is the big issue we are really facing.
Click to expand...

Actually I saw your other thread on the letter to Paul Stephens. I wrote to my local chief constable, the chief constable of the force(s) I was S&S'd under and my local MP with a very similarly worded letter to yours on Wednesday (the day after the ECHR decision), in fact, I went further and asked them to suspend the powers of s.44 until a review or replacement has been discussed. I've also asked my MP to raise it in parliament.

With regards to the 2 occasions I was stopped and searched, I again made a complaint regarding the two officers primarily conducting the searches (not the one stood next to them doing nothing), asked to see written confirmation of the s.44 area, and the reasons for its implementation. I was told that "for operational reasons we are unable to provide you with this information". I also complained that:
1. When they realised I had "no items connected to terrorism" they failed to revert to the PACE search powers (which they are instructed to do)
2. They failed to recognise the "Special Procedure Material" laid out in PACE to cover my photos.
3. They failed to allow the use of the UK Press Card as a valid form of ID, and when offered to called the verification line from my mobile to check, they again refused.

I received a very nicely worded letter apologising for the mishap and basically saying "it's a new law - we're still training our officers on how to use it".

Squawk said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Actually, s.44 states that at the point when it becomes obvious that there are no "items connected to terrorism" then the search should revert to the PACE stop and search powers. Therefore, if an individual were arrested then they should not have been arrested under s.44 even if they were initially stopped using those powers. Yet another reason to say that this is a flawed law...it's not being exercised correctly.
 
There are millions and millions of mobile phones with cameras out there. There are millions and millions of photos taken every day by all sorts of people in all sorts of places every day. Is the camera a major terrorist piece of equipment. If i were a terrorist, why would I go out and buy a DSLR and L glass when I can just as easily and more covertly use my 8megapixel mobile phone and send my pictures using mms messaging back to Osama Bin Laden or whoever else. I don't believe that stopping photographers is really having a significant impact on terrorism and I for one think it's a ridiculous policy.
 
Rob.Marsh said:
I had to call 999 for someone who fell on the ice and hit their head on the way down. It happened in the Car Park entrance so I requsted Police presence to help with traffic and also becuase I coudlnt get very much info on who the person was or lived.

The copper was fantastic, and was a credit to the police force.
Click to expand...

Rob - that is EXACTLY what we pay the Police for, to be public servants. Not to harrass the public.

BouncyMelons said: Well it's quite simple really, it's the "Be seen to be doing something" policy. As has been discussed already, terrorists don't stand out, they don't walk about with a big arrow, but then that knowledge will possibly scare Joe Public even more. The simple admission that "We don't actually know who they are" is not one any politician is going to make and so it has been deemed that a "Seen to be doing something" policy is a much better way of keeping poor Joe Publics fears at bay.

More like feed the fire of public fear, to justify the power wielding that is taking place. The Government, whoever they are, stay in power through feeding our fears:
fear of unemployment (employment policies)
fear of illness (NHS policies...MRSA? Old matrons would never had let it happen)
fear of poor education (school and university policies)
fear of terrorism (policing policies)
fear of foreign hostilities (defence policies)

Stand back and look at the news we are fed, it is all material that will feed a worry (a fear) or make us uncertain about something....knife crime for instance. The only way to deal with it, they say, is to criminilise everyone with a knife on their person. No sense about why they might be carrying one (I shoot deer, I NEED a big, sharp, locking knife to gralloch them once shot and prepare for transport) The problem is not the knife it is the CULTURE that has been allowed to develop in overcrowded urban areas. You don't get people in the countryside knifing each other, yet most countrymen will carry a knife on them at all times FOR USING. It is a very sensible and useful tool.

Hammers are dangerous when swung at a skull. Look at those poor girls and mother a few years ago...was Jody someone who survived the hammer attack? Ban hammers.
Screwdrivers sharpened are a deadly weapon....ban all screwdrivers.

Years ago there was a man who rampaged through a crowd slaying dozens with the jawbone of an ass....ban ass jawbones then, they are just too dangerous.

The reactions are all designed to big things up to create another level of fear, so we all fall into line and ensure the power remains where it is. In reality, when did you last see any trouble. It is very small minority who cause trouble and if we all, everyone of us, would interact with each other a bit more trouble would be snuffed out long before a Policeman appeared on the scene. Community spirit is being eroded....the wade in and help attitude. In fact we are actively discouraged from doing so, to give more responsibility to the authorities.

Does nobody have any responsibility for themselves anymore? It MUST be somebody elses fault or responsibility.

The stop and search thing - just tell them to p*** off and mnd their own business. I do. They didn't like it at the airport the other day - but I won through by standing my ground. I even continued taking pictures while they were trying to question me....they didn't like that! I still have my pictures. I still have my cameras. I still caught my flight.

I dislike the modern Police with more passion than I can describe in words.
 
In the case of the recent attempt to blow up an airliner using exploding underpants, They were obviously so busy checking the guys camera they failed to notice the explosives in his boxers. The police will be stopping you next because you seem to be suspiciously wearing underwear.
 
wonderer said:
"Everyone hates the police until you need them".An officer told me that a while back and it could not be more true.
Click to expand...

No thats not true for the normal decent people.

I'd modify that to "Normal law abiding citizens love the police until you've had to deal with them repeatedly as a victim, then you realise your faith in law and order was somewhat misplaced".
 
:agree:
wonderer said:
And just suppose an officer did not follow up a suspician which resulted in the loss of life.The same people would be back on here attacking them for different reasons.

Like a poster in another forum stated.A terrorist is going to look like anyone of us.Get over the steriotypical image of a terrorist.

As for over 100,000 stops.Thatis truly nothing when you consider just how many people are out there taking photos everyday.

Personally im one of the 'if you do nothing wrong you got nothing to worry about ' brigade.'
:agree:
i have seen the police plenty of times whilst taking pictures, sometimes while using a tripod.
none of them have ever said a word to me.
on a positive note, i was semi stranded in newcastle one evening, with only scottish notes, and i needed change to use a payphone, so i asked a copper where i could get some and he gave me a quid to use the phone.
now i realise a quid aint all that much, but it saved me from being locked out of my own flat overnight.
my experience of the police is that they are individuals, and how you are with them will pretty much dictate how they are with you.
of course, i am saying this from the standpoint of someone who has never been to london, perhaps if i had i might feel differently.
Click to expand...
 
jamesb84 said:
1. When they realised I had "no items connected to terrorism" they failed to revert to the PACE search powers (which they are instructed to do)
2. They failed to recognise the "Special Procedure Material" laid out in PACE to cover my photos.
3. They failed to allow the use of the UK Press Card as a valid form of ID, and when offered to called the verification line from my mobile to check, they again refused.
Actually, s.44 states that at the point when it becomes obvious that there are no "items connected to terrorism" then the search should revert to the PACE stop and search powers.
Click to expand...

With James' points above, he's perfectly correct. If the officers were satisfied that he was a journalist, which was capable of being proven by his press card and verification phone line, then his material falls under Special Procedure material, which means that officers would require a warrant to seize it. It sounds like a cock-up.

I'm very limited on what I can post on the internet with regards to my personal feelings about s44. Generally, I don't like it any more than anyone else - I think it has been used far too commonly, and I'm glad to see that my own force has scaled its use back massively. However, I pick up on the point that someone made earlier about "Police - good or bad?" being the new "Nikon or Canon - which is best?". Many comments of late on this forum have been very aggressive and insulting towards police officers. Some members of this forum are both officers and photographers, and personally I'm finding it an increasingly unpleasant place to frequent.
 
wonderer said:
Officers should be able to stop whoever they like whenever they like imo.
Click to expand...

That's a very slippery slope - and I'm more than gobsmacked by that comment. Think about what you've just said.


wonderer said:
Its the same as stopping teens in the street to check for knives or alcohol. No argument against that is there?
Click to expand...

Actually yes there is. If they're doing nothing wrong and simply walking along having a chat what are the grounds for a stop and search. Being a teenager isn't enough. Being a photographer isn't enough.
 
After 5 pages of going round in circles, this thread has run it's course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top