legal rights as a photographer help pls

4087662376_21c2f783d1.jpg

apparently taking photos in private residences at 4am in glasgow can even be classed as a violation of human rights. according to strathclyde's finest.
 
gus tries to ski said:
apparently taking photos in private residences at 4am in glasgow can even be classed as a violation of human rights. according to strathclyde's finest.
Click to expand...

I've been on the other side of your coin, Gus. Believe me if you get called to deal with some pishy complaint at 4am, or to help someone who has called you, the last thing you would want is some wideo sticking a camera in your face taking pictures of you when you're merely trying to do your job. Particularly if it's decent folk, you expect it more from the neddier clientelle.

But since you find that acceptable, why don't you tell us all what you do for a living, and how you would like it if someone you do not know from Adam walked into your workplace, or a close relative of yours workplace and started to take photos without permission, which you know fine well can be distributed on the internet. I'm guessing you would likely give them a 2 worded reply and the second word would be OFF.

In my personal opinion, taking a picture of a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) where it is practical to obtain their consent beforehand may not be a violation of the HRA, but it is just plain bad manners. Something which is sadly lacking in society today. People just think they can do whatever they like with no regard for how it affects others.

This is my outlook on the subject

Photographing the police for creative/journalistic reasons = acceptable
Photographing the police to document genuine wrongdoing by them or criminals they are dealing with at the time = acceptable
Photographing the police to get a reaction and wind them up cause you've overdosed on brave pills = unacceptable
Photographing the police because they're bringing your loud or drunken night to an end = unacceptable
Photographing the police while threatening to complain about them just because you are not happy with their course of action = unacceptable

I'd have to say that I have been in all of those situations. In my opinion any of the bottom 3 could probably be argued as a breach of the peace if you refused to desist when required to do so and you were causing annoyance to the individual officer.

In those circumstances, if you are asked to desist my advice to anyone would be to cooperate without question, and if you're unhappy with the way a situation is dealt with politely request the shoulder number and contact the supervisor for a fuller explanation.
 
Last edited:
JackSparrow said:
This is my outlook on the subject
Click to expand...

Why don't you focus on the law instead of your 'outlook'?

the bottom 3 could probably be argued as a breach of the peace if you refused to desist when required to do so and you were causing annoyance to the individual officer.
Click to expand...

So annoying a police officer by taking photographs (which is perfectly legal) 'could be argued' as a crime? I don't think stretching the law to fit your 'outlook' is very good policing.

:thumbsdown:
 
grum said:
Why don't you focus on the law instead of your 'outlook'?



So annoying a police officer by taking photographs (which is perfectly legal) 'could be argued' as a crime? I don't think stretching the law to fit your 'outlook' is very good policing.

:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

1. Because I too have rights to express my thought and opinion.

2. You obviously have little or no knowledge of the crime of Breach of the Peace in Scots Law. Any course of action which causes annoyance to others and has a public element (doesn't have to take place in a public place, just able to be discovered by a person) can be argued as BOP, particularly if you fail to desist when required to do so by a constable. Taking photographs is, as we all know perfectly legal. Doing it with the sole intention of causing alarm or annoyance to another, even a police officer who already has to deal with all the ***** of the day from the public never mind decent photographers, as I said, could well be seen as a Breach of the Peace.

And even if it wasn't, you cannot argue that it's just plain bad manners to photograph someone who does not wish to be photographed without good reason.
 
Last edited:
so we need good reason to photograph someone now do we ?

well m'lud ,,,i nicked him for having bad manners ,,,,he's a very naughty boy .
 
JackSparrow said:
I've been on the other side of your coin, Gus. Believe me if you get called to deal with some pishy complaint at 4am, or to help someone who has called you, the last thing you would want is some wideo sticking a camera in your face taking pictures of you when you're merely trying to do your job. Particularly if it's decent folk, you expect it more from the neddier clientelle.

But since you find that acceptable, why don't you tell us all what you do for a living, and how you would like it if someone you do not know from Adam walked into your workplace, or a close relative of yours workplace and started to take photos without permission, which you know fine well can be distributed on the internet. I'm guessing you would likely give them a 2 worded reply and the second word would be OFF.

In my personal opinion, taking a picture of a police officer (or anyone else for that matter) where it is practical to obtain their consent beforehand may not be a violation of the HRA, but it is just plain bad manners. Something which is sadly lacking in society today. People just think they can do whatever they like with no regard for how it affects others.

This is my outlook on the subject

Photographing the police for creative/journalistic reasons = acceptable
Photographing the police to document genuine wrongdoing by them or criminals they are dealing with at the time = acceptable
Photographing the police to get a reaction and wind them up cause you've overdosed on brave pills = unacceptable
Photographing the police because they're bringing your loud or drunken night to an end = unacceptable
Photographing the police while threatening to complain about them just because you are not happy with their course of action = unacceptable

I'd have to say that I have been in all of those situations. In my opinion any of the bottom 3 could probably be argued as a breach of the peace if you refused to desist when required to do so and you were causing annoyance to the individual officer.

In those circumstances, if you are asked to desist my advice to anyone would be to cooperate without question, and if you're unhappy with the way a situation is dealt with politely request the shoulder number and contact the supervisor for a fuller explanation.
Click to expand...


Well it's an interesting point of view. Wrong in my opinion but an interesting point of view. If the photographer is out of the way and taking the photo then there's no problem. With the above shot I'd see that as a facebook "look at the trouble X got into" type shot, probably taken on a phone camera.


On the bright side I've learnt two new colloquialisms, wideo and neddier.
 
JackSparrow said:
1. Because I too have rights to express my thought and opinion.

2. You obviously have little or no knowledge of the crime of Breach of the Peace in Scots Law. Any course of action which causes annoyance to others and has a public element (doesn't have to take place in a public place, just able to be discovered by a person) can be argued as BOP, particularly if you fail to desist when required to do so by a constable. Taking photographs is, as we all know perfectly legal. Doing it with the sole intention of causing alarm or annoyance to another, even a police officer who already has to deal with all the ***** of the day from the public never mind decent photographers, as I said, could well be seen as a Breach of the Peace.
Click to expand...
You're right, you have a right to your opinion. As to taking photos of an officer causing an offence, or because he thinks is bad manners is a strange opinion. Fair enough if it's a wide angle lens poked in your face but other than that I can't see Breach of the Peace for someone taking a photo possibly standing up in court.


JackSparrow said:
And even if it wasn't, you cannot argue that it's just plain bad manners to photograph someone who does not wish to be photographed without good reason.
Click to expand...

Wow - and there goes street photography, journalism, and a huge market of celebrity shooters.
Tell me does this opinion also extend to the multitude of speed cameras and CCTV that the police have erected. Can I claim breach of the peace because I object to these and find them offensive?
 
Photo Plod said:
Guys - be careful, Breach of the Peace exists in English law as well, and is *very* different from Breach of the Peace under Scottish law.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Man fined for taking photograph

BBC said:
A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded "unchivalrous" by a sheriff.

The woman had been drinking with friends in an Omni Centre bar when she felt unwell and went outside for air.

Sebastian Przygodzki took a photograph with his camera, which upset Rebecca Smith and her friends called police.

He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace, and pleaded guilty to the offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.
Click to expand...

Although this guy did plead guilty, so it doesn't give us a definitive answer.

As it happens, another Pole, Maciej Dakowicz, doesn't seem to have the same trouble with his Cardiff after Dark series under English/Welsh law.
 
gus tries to ski said:
4087662376_21c2f783d1.jpg

apparently taking photos in private residences at 4am in glasgow can even be classed as a violation of human rights. according to strathclyde's finest.
Click to expand...

that looks remarkably like the Mar Student residences near Mount Florida.

i am guessing by the OP's signature, that he's an urbexer, in which case, you're gonna get caught sooner or later. Some people pack up the whole urbexing thing after that, others keep going. You just have to suck it up really.
 
JackSparrow said:
1. Because I too have rights to express my thought and opinion.

2. You obviously have little or no knowledge of the crime of Breach of the Peace in Scots Law. Any course of action which causes annoyance to others and has a public element (doesn't have to take place in a public place, just able to be discovered by a person) can be argued as BOP, particularly if you fail to desist when required to do so by a constable. Taking photographs is, as we all know perfectly legal. Doing it with the sole intention of causing alarm or annoyance to another, even a police officer who already has to deal with all the ***** of the day from the public never mind decent photographers, as I said, could well be seen as a Breach of the Peace.

And even if it wasn't, you cannot argue that it's just plain bad manners to photograph someone who does not wish to be photographed without good reason.
Click to expand...

That would apply to a police officer stopping people legally taking photos then?
 
welll well ignorance being displayed by an "up holder of the law" not maker of law, taking the law and applying his own thoughts to it.

excellent.

as stated by said person "as we all know perfectly legal. doing it with the sole intention of causing alarm or annoyance to another............as said could be seen as a BOP" so unless said tog taker is standing shouting im going to annoy you with a photograph then dodgy ground to stand on.
 
jacksparrow I consider myself a law abiding citizen and I must say your comments scare me. As far as I was aware the police are there to uphold the law of the land not give there interpretation of it.

"Photographing the police while threatening to complain about them just because you are not happy with their course of action = unacceptable"

I think I have every right to complain about the police course of action just because I am doing something they don't like although perfectly legal.

Lets be honest the main reason things have been done and apologise issued by the police, is because citizens (photographers) have had actual evidence of the police acting against the citizen just because the police don't like what they are doing.



We can perhaps see now why a lot of people are losing faith in our police "service"
 
munch said:
We can perhaps see now why a lot of people are losing faith in our police "service"
Click to expand...

It was only renamed a service by some politically correct type person all was well when it was a police force.

A lot of the things being argued here are over subtle meanings but doing something SPECIFICALLY to annoy someone is different from doing something which annoys someone etc etc.

When all said and done it is for a court to decide, simple as that. If you don't like it then click the RTM button complain!
 
gus tries to ski said:
4087662376_21c2f783d1.jpg

apparently taking photos in private residences at 4am in glasgow can even be classed as a violation of human rights. according to strathclyde's finest.
Click to expand...

Scott Campbell wrote:-

Woah. Can you post a thread about that with more information?!.

That's the question that came into my head. Where is the explanation that the police in the pic were doing anything untoward?
 
cowasaki said:
A lot of the things being argued here are over subtle meanings but doing something SPECIFICALLY to annoy someone is different from doing something which annoys someone etc etc.
Click to expand...

Well, quite.

It's a bit of a straw man argument if the intention of putting a camera in someone's face is to annoy.
 
I agree with Jacksparrow to an extent. There are lots of things out there in the big wide world that are not strictly illegal but are morally wrong or just plain rude and inconsiderate.

YES you can go on about your rights and how they have no legal standing etc. but if you are seen to be doing this on a regular basis and as a form of winding the police up purposely, then it will come back to bite you eventually. Whenever discretion could have been used by a police officer, He too will decide to get the rule book out and quote it verbatim.

All i'm saying is that I personally would not make a habit of winding up the police, because when the s*** hits the fan, I would like them on my side. What you decide to do is entirely up to you though.
 
munch said:
jacksparrow I consider myself a law abiding citizen and I must say your comments scare me. As far as I was aware the police are there to uphold the law of the land not give there interpretation of it.

"Photographing the police while threatening to complain about them just because you are not happy with their course of action = unacceptable"

I think I have every right to complain about the police course of action just because I am doing something they don't like although perfectly legal.

Lets be honest the main reason things have been done and apologise issued by the police, is because citizens (photographers) have had actual evidence of the police acting against the citizen just because the police don't like what they are doing.

We can perhaps see now why a lot of people are losing faith in our police "service"
Click to expand...


I can't reply to all the comments here otherwise I'd be here all night. Munch seems the most genuinely concerned and has posted one of the more reasoned responses so I will talk about this.

I was, in case you missed it, talking about Breach of the Peace in Scots Law (very important because it differs greatly as PhotoPlod pointed out) to the law in E+W where I guess a lot of the replies have come from. In this jurisdiction any action which a person percieves to be designed to cause annoyance is potentially a breach of the peace. If reported, which a lot of unusual scenarios are, it is for the PF (our version of the CPS) to decide if a prosecution is merited and then for the court to decide whether the particular set of circumstances meet the criteria to convict on that charge.

Since there are over 8000 officers in the force in question here, and about 10000 constables (who generally are first responders to incidents and on patrol) in Scotland, it is naive for anyone to think that any situation which is potentially a BOP would not be dealt with in different ways. People (particularly here for some reason) seem to forget that police officers are all human beings and are from many diverse backgrounds, from bus drivers to steel workers, to architects. Everyone has different ways of dealing with the public and inevitibly with so many different people doing the job, some will have differing views of what is or is not enough of a public nuisance or disorderly conduct that merits a person to be charged with Breach of the Peace.

As far as I am aware there is no national guidance issued to police (certainly in Scotland) on the legalities or acceptability (or otherwise) of photographing the police. I suspect any such guidance would be in conflict with my personal beliefs (as posted in my first post earlier) which are not based on my 8 years as a cop but what I would or would not do in my 23 years before I was a cop. If the police were called to my house or a friend's house I would not start photographing them for no reason, just because I could. Nor would I start whistling The Bill theme tune or making "oink oink" noises, just because I could.

Munch, you questioned my personal opinion that I think it's unacceptable standard of behaviour to start pointing a camera into a cop's face and threaten to complain about them because you are not happy with their course of action. As I said, again that is not something I think is right. Complain, by all means. Note a shoulder number, by all means. But doing something which you know is going to aggravate most cops, with the intention of aggravating them is unneccessary. As is indicating you're going to complain. It's a bit of attention seeking, or even dare I say trying to provoke a reaction. If you're going to complain, why make a song and dance about it? Just go and do it.

I note you (and everyone else for that matter) also omitted to mention or credit me for my opinion that photographing any wrongdoing by the police is perfectly acceptable in my book. Is that because that does not sit well with the particular image of the police service you and others are trying to paint and spread in forums like this?

I am sorry that there is a clear distrust between law abiding citizens like yourself and others here. I have put my neck on the chopping block here while actually trying to break down some barriers and help people understand why police act in a certain way or say certain things. I have offered advice on what to do if the police stop you photographing, which I know for a fact will stop anyone getting into trouble - see my last line of my first post.

I don't want there to be an anti-police attitude amongst the photography community. It exists in the underclass to an extent most people do not realise in this country. The last thing the police need is decent reasonable minded people holding a grudge against them over a misguided perception of opression they picked up on a forum like this. The anti-police attitudes seem to be dragging on from the old Section 44 confusion of what was or was not acceptable in terms of building/location photography, which I believe has now been resolved with guidance issued by the Met (it was never a great issue North of the border to be honest).

I just hope that the reasonable minded people of TP forum can understand that when you are in a job where you can quite easily be targeted by criminals you generally want to live a quiet, private life. That does, in a way, set police officers apart from Joe Public who is far less likely to be targeted. The mindset that goes along with the job is something that it would take far longer than I have already written to understand. If you know any, ask a cop's husband or wife what it's like, what effect little things like that have on them, the worry it can cause. My wife was stressed out her nut when photos of me arresting someone during a SDL/UAF demo and counter demo appeared on Flickr.

As I said, I mean no offence to those who think I am the stereotyped heavy handed cop. I merely tried to explain (with the Scottish perspective) how alarming/annoying actions can be perceived, bearing in mind how many individuals there are carrying out the same job. Mistakes will be made and opinions will always differ. Some kind of legislation or code of understanding between cops and photographers would definitely help. Until then I fear cops and photographers may well be singing from different hymn sheets.

I don't intend to post again in this thread so I hope I've covered everything and I hope I might have just done enough to help some folk see things in a different light.

Just for Byker... remember Wideo is pronounced Wide-O not rhyming with video, and Neddier just means chavvier :naughty:
 
JackSparrow said:
Nor would I start whistling The Bill theme tune or making "oink oink" noises, just because I could.
this wasnt mentioned in any earlier posts ,and no i wouldnt start whistling the bill theme either ,,,maybe dixon of dock green , but not the bill ;)

Munch, you questioned my personal opinion that I think it's unacceptable standard of behaviour to start pointing a camera into a cop's face and threaten to complain about them because you are not happy with their course of action. As I said, again that is not something I think is right. Complain, by all means. Note a shoulder number, by all means. But doing something which you know is going to aggravate most cops, with the intention of aggravating them is unneccessary. As is indicating you're going to complain. It's a bit of attention seeking, or even dare I say trying to provoke a reaction. If you're going to complain, why make a song and dance about it? Just go and do it.

because without any other evidence ,if it comes down to a police officers word against a non police officers word in court ,we know who a magistrate is going to believe
I don't want there to be an anti-police attitude amongst the photography community. It exists in the underclass to an extent most people do not realise in this country.
i assume by underclass you mean criminals and law breakers ,well no **** sherlock



If you know any, ask a cop's husband or wife what it's like, what effect little things like that have on them, the worry it can cause. My wife was stressed out her nut when photos of me arresting someone during a SDL/UAF demo and counter demo appeared on Flickr.
then dont arrest people or change jobs

Some kind of legislation or code of understanding between cops and photographers would definitely help. Until then I fear cops and photographers may well be singing from different hymn sheets.

we already have one ,its called the law ,but some police people dont seem to know much about it
:naughty
Click to expand...
 
JackSparrow - Thanks for the detailed response. It's always good to hear from the other side of the debate, even if you don't understand/agree with it.

It's also interesting to hear the different laws that apply in our country as that's something I wasn't aware of. Scotland's on my list of places to visit and I hadn't thought about the differences like I would when visiting abroad.

JackSparrow said:
If the police were called to my house or a friend's house I would not start photographing them for no reason, just because I could. Nor would I start whistling The Bill theme tune or making "oink oink" noises, just because I could.
Click to expand...

OK, the Bill, pig noises etc is just blatantly rude and is designed to annoy but as I said before, I bet if you turned up at a teenage party to ask them to turn the noise down then there would be a fair few camera phones pointed your way to record the facebook moment. As always it's the intent, not the action.

JackSparrow said:
I am sorry that there is a clear distrust between law abiding citizens like yourself and others here. I have put my neck on the chopping block here while actually trying to break down some barriers and help people understand why police act in a certain way or say certain things.
Click to expand...

Ok I chopped the rest to make this post shorter but some good vaild points from the police point of view, but I do get the feeling that the police don't understand why they've lost the support of the general public. Yes there's always been a group of society that see the police as the enemy, but it's surprising over the last few years how that group has grown to include more of the general public.


JackSparrow said:
Just for Byker... remember Wideo is pronounced Wide-O not rhyming with video, and Neddier just means chavvier :naughty:
Click to expand...

Some new colloquialisms learnt - Cheers :D
Did you know it's acceptable in Scrabble - neddy neddier neddiest like a ned, a hooligan

wide-o isn't though. Noun. An insensitive and objectionable person. [Scottish use]

TP - every day something new learnt.
 
Last edited:
I don't intend to post again in this thread so I hope I've covered everything and I hope I might have just done enough to help some folk see things in a different light.
Click to expand...

I think that is a wise decision. You will never convince some people who have fixed ideas and prejudices no matter how hard you try. The problem is they have never experienced life from the 'other side'.

Too much attention to rights and not enough to responsibilities.
 
parkmoy said:
I think that is a wise decision. You will never convince some people who have fixed ideas and prejudices no matter how hard you try. The problem is they have never experienced life from the 'other side'.

Too much attention to rights and not enough to responsibilities.
Click to expand...

How about the responsibility of the police to uphold the law, not try and tenuously bend it to fit their own grievances and prejudices? The police saying 'I don't like you doing that, stop' is not a good enough reason to have to stop doing something that's not illegal.

If more police could accept that rather than (sometimes) abusing their powers and bullying people (I have seen it first hand) then there would be more respect for the police all round.
 
Policemen are human. If some mouthy idiot winds them up, or someone rudely sticks a camera in their face they are not allowed to punch them in the face so they use the law, like Breach of the peace to shut the idiot up. Annoying policemen is stupid.

They dont usually mind having their photo taken. I have several photos of them in the street and they didnt mind. As the officers on here have said, you are within your rights to complain about the actions of any officer, and your complaint will be properly investigated.

I havent always been happy with my contacts with the police but I have found that they treated me with respect.They deserve the same- theirs is a stressful dangerous job nowadays- and saying that if they dont want stress they shouldnt arrest people is silly- that is part of their job.

Whatever people may say about the police we couldnt survive as a society without them.
 
ladysue said:
Policemen are human. If some mouthy idiot winds them up, or someone rudely sticks a camera in their face they are not allowed to punch them in the face so they use the law, like Breach of the peace to shut the idiot up. Annoying policemen is stupid.

Totally agree

They dont usually mind having their photo taken. I have several photos of them in the street and they didnt mind. As the officers on here have said, you are within your rights to complain about the actions of any officer, and your complaint will be properly investigated.

I always ask first and have never been refused

I havent always been happy with my contacts with the police but I have found that they treated me with respect.They deserve the same- theirs is a stressful dangerous job nowadays- and saying that if they dont want stress they shouldnt arrest people is silly- that is part of their job.

Whatever people may say about the police we couldnt survive as a society without them.
Click to expand...

Again, totally agree. We used to have a respect for the law and its representatives in this country (generally) which seems to have gone now. A selfish 'I matter you don't' attitude seems to have permeated society at every level and it seems to me that the police have re-acted to that rather than the other way round. I personally would get a tad annoyed to say the least if someone shoved a camera in my face at work so why don't we show some common courtesy to another human being and let them get on with the job. I think it is only right to record events, especially if there is wrongdoing on any side, but day to day it is unnecessary. Just my opinion, please feel free to disagree.

Andy
 
I think it is only right to record events, especially if there is wrongdoing on any side, but day to day it is unnecessary.
Click to expand...

So what about CCTV Andy? And the police also routinely video non-violent events, protests, demonstrations, or even music festivals etc.
 
One rule for them another for everyone else...
 
It seems quite a number of police feel that everyone should immediately do exactly as they say, just because they are the police and they say so - even if no crime is being committed.

To me it's a fairly important part of living in a democracy rather than a police state that that isn't the case.

I don't really think the comments about 'neds' etc are very encouraging from a police officer either - sounds a bit prejudiced to me. If you treat people like scum they are likely to act like it eventually.
 
How about the responsibility of the police to uphold the law, not try and tenuously bend it to fit their own grievances and prejudices? The police saying 'I don't like you doing that, stop' is not a good enough reason to have to stop doing something that's not illegal.

If more police could accept that rather than (sometimes) abusing their powers and bullying people (I have seen it first hand) then there would be more respect for the police all round.
Click to expand...

Graham I agree that some Police sometimes abuse their powers and that shouldn't happen, but there are rotten apples in every barrel. I don't know what your job is but I'd be amazed if there wasn't people who were lazy and got away with anything they could, people who pilfered, people who took sickies when they weren't ill etc. etc. Would the rest of the employees like to be judged by those standards?

What you must remember is that the person who wants to debate the rights and wrongs of a situation with a police officer and gets short shrift, is probably the 10th person that day to do so with an imperfect knowledge of the law and their 'rights'. Quite often they are influenced by drink or drugs and don't realize how stupid they sound or they are just anti authority generally and enjoy winding the Police up. Is it surprising that the Police take a firm no nonsense line with them which they then interpret as bullying?

A good rule of thumb is to treat Police officers as you would like to be treated, realize they have a job to do and can't always spend time giving explanations. After all, like all of us, the Police only want to get their job done in the easiest way possible and have nothing to gain by antagonizing people and making it more difficult for themselves. Equally they are not going to take a load of crap from some idiot when they have more important things to do - like protecting us, the public.

Just an afterthought ... Police officers come from all levels of society and are someone's son, daughter, husband, wife, boyfriend etc they don't join the Police and suddenly morph into an alien species.
 
grum said:
It seems quite a number of police feel that everyone should immediately do exactly as they say, just because they are the police and they say so - even if no crime is being committed.
Click to expand...

Amen - and from someone who has been in exactly that situation more than once, (both due to photography reasons) I can agree all the way.

What really takes the biscuit is, if you don't conform 100% (such as not letting them see the photographs on your camera, or go through your phone, which is your civil right as a human being), they can just pull any reason they like out of the air to arrest you, which then gives you no choice but to let them go through your personal belongings. It's total bullcrap, but there's no point resisting because no matter what, they win. In his own words: "we can and will pin anything we possibly can on you". Yeah sarge, and you wonder why I don't like the police?

What is even worse is people who have been arrested for offenses they didn't commit, which then lead to their DNA and whatnot being held indefinitely, despite being found completely innocent of what they were arrested for days/hours before. Because of "some policemans" (wrong) assumption, a person's privacy is now at mercy of "the system"???

yeah, our justice system really works doesn't it :cuckoo:



parkmoy said:
Would the rest of the employees like to be judged by those standards?.
Click to expand...

Well, the company I work for doesn't pay for sick days - and I've a good idea why. Regardless, it penalises the rest of us who are genuinely ill and it means that I often come into the office when I am still ill so I don't lose pay at the end of the month, and then what ensues is everyone else in the office being ill. The actual result is productivity AND morale falling through the floor! Anyway...

...Back to the original subject - it works both ways regarding police vs. the world. They (the bad apples, we shall say) seem to tar all photographers with the same brush, so is it really any wonder we tar them with the same brush? I've known some mighty fine police officers in my time so far; but I'm hardly going to be thinking that a cop who has nicked me for "maybe stealing my own camera because it looks expensive" deserves utmost respect, am I?
 
Last edited:
but I'm hardly going to be thinking that a cop who has nicked me for "maybe stealing my own camera because it looks expensive" deserves utmost respect, am I?
Click to expand...

Come on Kris, to use your own words that's 'total bullcrap':nono::) Give us the whole story (unbiased:) ) if you're going to give examples.
 
I know, lets just get rid of the police and have complete anarchy.

If the police turn up to 4 people arguing in the street at 2am with several people looking out of their windows having been woken up they have lost already!!

Absolutely no matter what they do someone will feel that they have done the wrong thing...

Do they tell them to keep quiet and move along upsetting the householders who feel aggreived by having been woken up.

Do they listen to all four drunken and loud people then take sides and lock up 1,2 or 3 of them and send the other on his way upsettting the 1,2 or 3 people and probably some of the householders who want all four locking up.

Do they just lock all four up for drunk and disorderly and upset all four of them.

Do they stick them all in the van and take them to where they live so as to keep the noise down and avoid upsetting the four drunks only to be unable to deal with another incident because they took so long to deal with this one and upset some of the householders who complain about the drunks getting a free taxi service and why were they not locked up.

etc etc etc


Yes you will get some that do not know the law as fully as they should, have YOU seen how much British law there actually is. Could you remember all that? Barristers get paid hundreds of pounds an hour but they have access to all the books and databases after the event. The police usually have to deal with people and make decisions there and then in a matter of seconds.


Two neighbours having an argument about something that it totally civil one goes round to the others door in not too good a mood and the other chap swears at him and slams the door shut....

They both ring the police....

Do they lock them both up for section 4/4a/5 public order depending on what was said and done?

Do they sit there and talk through something that is a civil matter and magically come up with a solution despite the neighbours not being able to come up with a solution in several years?

Do they take sides and lock one up?



Photographer who is naffed off at being accosted by the police on several occasions is taking pictures in a public place as is his right. Complaint is made by member of the public saying that the photographer is taking pictures of her daughter who is 7. Officer approaches the photographer......


Does he immediately tell the photographer that he has been accused of being a pedophile and can he see the pics only for the tog to get very mouthy and accuse him of breaching his human rights?

Does he nicely ask what he is doing and then ask to see the pics only for the tog to get mouthy and accuse him of breaching his human rights?

Does he tell the woman that there is no evidence to suggest that the tog is taking photos of her kids and that it would not actually be an offence so she ends up kicking off and screaming at him in about the police protecting pedophiles and drawing lots of people's attention to the incident including people who know where the tog lives. Then the tog gets paint over his windows and gets accused of all manner of things.

Does he speak to the woman and ask the tog what he is taking pictures of. Tog happily shows the officer pictures taken of a typical street scene, old church and nice car. Officer reports back to woman that tog is just going about his life taking some picture (which is totally legal) and that there is nothing to worry about. Tog tells his togging friends who kick off about police harassing togs.

Does he ask the tog to move on and get a similar response from the woman.

Is the tog actually a terrorist (extremely unlikely) and the police officer sends him on his way.



This is the problem.... They CANNOT please everyone EVEN if they try to. Which of the above would you rather happen?
 
if a policeman civilly asks to see what is on my camera I would let them see like I would anyone else who engaged in conversation while I was taking photos. If a policeman tells me he thinks I nicked the camera because it looks expensive, and wants to see what's on the memory card, then he can think on. That's what I am meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top