legal rights as a photographer help pls

trencheel303 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is fine because IF he has reasonable grounds for believing that the camera is stolen then he will just arrest you instead :D

The officer might just have been fishing :suspect:
 
cowasaki said:
That is fine because IF he has reasonable grounds for believing that the camera is stolen then he will just arrest you instead :D:
Click to expand...

That's my point . The policeman decides that you are "XYZ" and have done "XYZ" and all they need to do is arrest you for "ABC" and you become their puppet. You can refuse to show them your photos but it doesn't matter - because they can just arrest you anyway!
 
I've had a quite a few run ins with the police in the course of taking photos here and there, in the main I haven't had a problem with them as they have been doing their jobs properly. In the odd time when I have had an issue I think my good attitude and not getting in their faces about knowing my rights etc has been a successful damage/inconvenience limitation exercise, some people seem to just want to inflame the situation and then seem to feel hard done to when the police bite back and either inconvenience you or arrest you.
 
trencheel303 said:
That's my point . The policeman decides that you are "XYZ" and have done "XYZ" and all they need to do is arrest you for "ABC" and you become their puppet. You can refuse to show them your photos but it doesn't matter - because they can just arrest you anyway!
Click to expand...

What point? IF the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe you have stolen the camera then he will arrest you, that IS the law. What POINT do you think you have made?
 
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.


A part of a policemans job is the prevention of crime.To do this they may have to tell people to do things to avoid a dangerous or angry situation, even before it becomes a criminal offence.


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

We are so lucky in this country. Our police are still some of the softest, most reasonable police in the world. This is a democracy. In a Police state I promise you it would be much worse.


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.
Click to expand...

Maybe he has experience of working with them. As long as you do not behave in a prejudiced way no-one can control your thoughts and opinions thank goodness.There are such a lot of rules in the Police Force preventing prejudice that it becomes difficult for them to do their job. Again you should compare them with police in other countries. As others have said there will always be a few bad apples who are predjudiced but, if found out, their behaviour would not be tolerated.

As I said before you can always make a complaint if you feel you have been badly treated by a policeman.
 
Last edited:
That's my point . The policeman decides that you are "XYZ" and have done "XYZ" and all they need to do is arrest you for "ABC" and you become their puppet. You can refuse to show them your photos but it doesn't matter - because they can just arrest you anyway!
Click to expand...

Sorry Kris, 'total bullcrap' again I'm afraid:rules:

He is liable to be sued for false imprisonment and/or be subject to Police disciplinary proceedings if he can't justify his actions and show reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence. It doesn't matter if you think it is reasonable or not it's a matter of legal interpretation.
 
SparkUK said:
I've had a quite a few run ins with the police in the course of taking photos here and there, in the main I haven't had a problem with them as they have been doing their jobs properly. In the odd time when I have had an issue I think my good attitude and not getting in their faces about knowing my rights etc has been a successful damage/inconvenience limitation exercise, some people seem to just want to inflame the situation and then seem to feel hard done to when the police bite back and either inconvenience you or arrest you.
Click to expand...

it *shouldn't* be a damage limitation excersise though. I understand that the police don't and can't have knowledge of every legal issue, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation that they have a good knowledge of information passed as guidlines from there home force or APCO does it?
 
boyfalldown said:
it *shouldn't* be a damage limitation excersise though. I understand that the police don't and can't have knowledge of every legal issue, but it doesn't seem an unreasonable expectation that they have a good knowledge of information passed as guidlines from there home force or APCO does it?
Click to expand...


No, in an ideal world I'd agree, however this isn't an ideal world and the police have a difficult job to do, 99% of the time if you help them then you'll be on your way with thte minimum of fuss.... every single video of people being 'persecuted' that I've seen has largely been due to people who 'know their rights' inflaming situations that could have been defused in minutes with good attitude and proper people skills on the part of the photographer.
 
SparkUK said:
No, in an ideal world I'd agree, however this isn't an ideal world and the police have a difficult job to do, 99% of the time if you help them then you'll be on your way with thte minimum of fuss.... every single video of people being 'persecuted' that I've seen has largely been due to people who 'know their rights' inflaming situations that could have been defused in minutes with good attitude and proper people skills on the part of the photographer.
Click to expand...

we'll disagree on it being the photographer 99% of the time :thumbs:

I know the police have a difficult job to do, but they ain't the only people that has a difficult and potentially dangerous job, and for the most part, those other professions mange it and manage to read and understand the guidlines needed to do the job atleast day to day. Why does that seem to difficult for somepolice officers, and why can it only be expected in an ideal world? It seems like the excuse 'well in an ideal world' is becoming the norm and not the exception
 
boyfalldown said:
we'll disagree on it being the photographer 99% of the time :thumbs:

I know the police have a difficult job to do, but they ain't the only people that has a difficult and potentially dangerous job, and for the most part, those other professions mange it and manage to read and understand the guidlines needed to do the job atleast day to day. Why does that seem to difficult for somepolice officers, and why can it only be expected in an ideal world? It seems like the excuse 'well in an ideal world' is becoming the norm and not the exception
Click to expand...


I hear what you're saying and we'll have to agree to disagree for the most part... hopefully amicably ;)

I think the police's method of approaching the public has changed significantly as the amount of violence generally displayed in public has increased. I think they often feel that the softly softly approach to the public puts them at risk, whereas if they are a little more aggressive in how they deal with people it puts possible criminals on the back foot a little and less likely to end in a confrontational situation.
 
cowasaki said:
What point? IF the police officer has reasonable grounds to believe you have stolen the camera then he will arrest you, that IS the law. What POINT do you think you have made?
Click to expand...

Reasonable ground need to be substantiated.
an expensive camera
not looking like a photographer
Looking poor and scruffy
are not reasonable grounds.

Running away
Trying to hide the camera
or obviously not knowing how to use it

Might be reasonable grounds.
 
SparkUK said:
I hear what you're saying and we'll have to agree to disagree for the most part... hopefully amicably ;)
.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: sounds fauir to me, but certainly amicable ;)

SparkUK said:
I think the police's method of approaching the public has changed significantly as the amount of violence generally displayed in public has increased. I think they often feel that the softly softly approach to the public puts them at risk, whereas if they are a little more aggressive in how they deal with people it puts possible criminals on the back foot a little and less likely to end in a confrontational situation.
Click to expand...

I think you're right there, but I also think on both sides there is a large element of repaing what you sow
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Reasonable ground need to be substantiated.
an expensive camera
not looking like a photographer
Looking poor and scruffy
are not reasonable grounds.

Running away
Trying to hide the camera
or obviously not knowing how to use it

Might be reasonable grounds.
Click to expand...

Yes these points might be considered part of the reasonable grounds together with things like being in an area subject to recent breaks which happened during the night and this is 3am etc etc.....

Point is that that is what the law says and so the officer is working within the law. If someone is not happy about that then they need to speak to their MP about changing the law.
 
Parkmoy - you make some fair points, but....

Four police officers accused of taking part in a "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack on a British Muslim man are to face prosecution.

The high court was told last year that Babar Ahmad, a terrorism suspect, was punched, kicked and stamped on during his arrest by officers from one of the Metropolitan police's territorial support groups at his London home in December 2003.

Today the Crown Prosecution Service said that four officers would be charged with causing actual bodily harm.
Click to expand...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/12/babar-ahmad-police-abuse-verdict

OK you can say that the original police who assaulted him were a few 'bad apples' etc - but the truly shocking thing here is why did the initial met investigation conclude that no-one should even be disciplined and that no criminal charges should be brought?

To me it's an example of the 'look out for your own' and 'we are always right' attitude that seems to be fairly prevalent among the police.
 
OK you can say that the original police who assaulted him were a few 'bad apples' etc - but the truly shocking thing here is why did the initial met investigation conclude that no-one should even be disciplined and that no criminal charges should be brought?
Click to expand...

Probably because the officers did what most people in trouble do and lied, and there was insufficient other evidence at that time to make a prosecution likely to succeed. The CPS and not the Police would have made the prosecute/not prosecute decision based on the evidence placed before them.

The good thing is that it wasn't left at that in the long run.
 
cowasaki said:
Yes these points might be considered part of the reasonable grounds together with things like being in an area subject to recent breaks which happened during the night and this is 3am etc etc.....

Point is that that is what the law says and so the officer is working within the law. If someone is not happy about that then they need to speak to their MP about changing the law.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but being in an area with crime ( everywhere really) at night with a camera isn't reasonable grounds in my opinion. Photographers have to come and go and some even work nights. And not many burglers break in with a camera either, I would think a crowbar or screwdriver is a more lightly tool for the job. You might as well stop every expensive car driver using the same logic, they get stolen too.
 
boyfalldown said:
I think you're right there, but I also think on both sides there is a large element of repaing what you sow
Click to expand...


The reaping what you sow bit is probably true as well, neither 'side' (for want of a better word) in this is likely to extend an olive branch though. I think the plain fact is that in todays crime ridden society you are likely to be challenged about what you are doing sometimes. We all want a crime free society I'm sure but there is always going to be a price to pay in working towards that. That price currently stands at having to answer some questions now and then from the police, my biggest point is that you can really make this quick and painless if you don't be a pain in the ass with them.
 
I thank jacksparrow for his response and I don't deny that the police have a difficult job. I think most people on here agree that trying to wind the police up is wrong. But we do have rights, something the police are supposed to uphold.

I also accept that with rights come responsibilities. That must also apply to the police too.

In this country we have policing by consent, that I fear is fast disappearing.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'm sorry but being in an area with crime ( everywhere really) at night with a camera isn't reasonable grounds in my opinion. Photographers have to come and go and some even work nights. And not many burglers break in with a camera either, I would think a crowbar or screwdriver is a more lightly tool for the job. You might as well stop every expensive car driver using the same logic, they get stolen too.
Click to expand...

I agree. Too many "what ifs", "oh but we'll nick 'im anyway sarge".
 
swanseamale47 said:
I'm sorry but being in an area with crime ( everywhere really) at night with a camera isn't reasonable grounds in my opinion. Photographers have to come and go and some even work nights. And not many burglers break in with a camera either, I would think a crowbar or screwdriver is a more lightly tool for the job. You might as well stop every expensive car driver using the same logic, they get stolen too.
Click to expand...

Nope maybe in your opinion it is not but it is a perfectly good reason for the CPS and then courts so your opinion does not actually matter in this situation but theirs does.

I was talking about an area subject to recent breaks that happened at that time of night just like my post said!! There is bending what someone has said and then there is what you did.

Plenty of burglars climb on a bin, reach in and nick a flash looking camera, or similar, through the open window.

SO someone in an area subject to recent night time breaks during the middle of the night who happens to be carrying something that is expensive is not grounds to stop and search them??? Good job you're not a police officer then, the criminals would have a field day.

Expensive cars are actually less likely to be stolen than older cheap cars due to lack of immobilisers so that one does not add up either. Big flash cars are usually stolen now as part of a burglary but the number is less than older cars.
 
trencheel303 said:
I agree. Too many "what ifs", "oh but we'll nick 'im anyway sarge".
Click to expand...

You might agree but you would be wrong too, his entire response is NOT based on what I actually said.

You didn't answer my last point where you were wrong again.
 
cowasaki said:
Nope maybe in your opinion it is not but it is a perfectly good reason for the CPS and then courts so your opinion does not actually matter in this situation but theirs does.

I was talking about an area subject to recent breaks that happened at that time of night just like my post said!! There is bending what someone has said and then there is what you did.

Plenty of burglars climb on a bin, reach in and nick a flash looking camera, or similar, through the open window.

SO someone in an area subject to recent night time breaks during the middle of the night who happens to be carrying something that is expensive is not grounds to stop and search them??? Good job you're not a police officer then, the criminals would have a field day.

Expensive cars are actually less likely to be stolen than older cheap cars due to lack of immobilisers so that one does not add up either. Big flash cars are usually stolen now as part of a burglary but the number is less than older cars.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that most burglaries actually happen during the day (while the householders are out) rather than at night, so again the logic is puzzling.
Big flash cars are stolen to order and are often not recovered while the older cheaper models are usually dumped locally (often on fire) They also tend to be stolen at night so the thieves have longer before the theft is discovered.
 
swanseamale47 said:
It's my understanding that most burglaries actually happen during the day (while the householders are out) rather than at night, so again the logic is puzzling.
Click to expand...

That was the point!! Most burglaries happen during the day then all of a sudden there is an increase in one particular area and during that time of night and someone is caught wondering the streets with an expensive camera in their hands in that area at that time of night.

Perfectly good reason for the person to be stopped and searched. If the person being stopped said "Oh I'm a photographer and I'm off to the train station as I have to get to London for a morning kick off" then the conversation stops.....

swanseamale47 said:
Big flash cars are stolen to order and are often not recovered while the older cheaper models are usually dumped locally (often on fire) They also tend to be stolen at night so the thieves have longer before the theft is discovered.
Click to expand...

Flash newer cars are often stolen during burglaries but MOST as in higher number are not flash newer cars. I was just answering your point.
 
swanseamale47 said:
It's my understanding that most burglaries actually happen during the day (while the householders are out) rather than at night, so again the logic is puzzling.
Big flash cars are stolen to order and are often not recovered while the older cheaper models are usually dumped locally (often on fire) They also tend to be stolen at night so the thieves have longer before the theft is discovered.
Click to expand...

While this thread has somewhat morphed away from its original purpose, I can speak with some authority on the subject of burglaries, as I am currently posted to one of the many Burglary Squads within the Met.

Many burglaries indeed do happen during the day, but a fair few still happen at night - unoccupied premises and businesses, mainly. There isn't much money in a residential burglary, unless the thief gets lucky - far more money to be made in stealing 20 Apple Macbooks from an office than just one from a house.

You'd be surprised at the range of vehicles stolen in burglaries. As you say, cheap vehicles tend to be used in further crime and then dumped (or crashed), but even quite modest vehicles get re-plated ("rung") and put in a shipping container bound for Eastern Europe or Africa - often within 24 hours. Very few cars are stolen from the street, but there are still plenty of people that leave car keys in the vehicle - even had one a few weeks ago where they'd not only left the keys to one vehicle in the glovebox, they even left the spare keys to their other car (parked right behind) in there as well. Both cars were stolen.

As for the rest of the thread, crack on. I have little to say about it - other than that I find a few members' open hostility and generalisations about officers quite upsetting. As those who know me on the forums have seen, I work damned hard at what I do (remember when I investigated Rolandtrade, anyone?), and usually try and contribute fairly and from my own direct experience as a "real" police officer. I note that even the excellent sticky thread about Terrorism & Photography has now turned into a debate over the death of Ian Tomlinson - an event that I find difficult to link to either terrorism or photography - with the resultant comments on officers, police state, etc. No matter what I say, I won't ever change the attitudes of many people here on TP, but I'll always try to engage in constructive debate - however, much of what I've read lately is just rude, ill-informed and reflects poorly on the intelligence of the poster.

PP Out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top