Man Detained As Terror Suspect For Photographing Police Car

rob.e

rob.e

Suspended / Banned
Messages
165
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.infowars.com/man-detained-as-terror-suspect-for-photographing-police-car/

Hope this isn't a repost but I did search and couldn't see anything.

It's a real shame reading things like this and the other thread about the police forcing a tourist to delete their photos. If they carry on like this then nobody is going to have any respect for them any more. Although it already seems that not many people do as it is...:thumbsdown:
 
I respect the police and if this man was a terrorist what would you say then?
 
I respect the police and if this man was a terrorist what would you say then?
Click to expand...

id ask why he wasnt picked up before taking photos
 
jolsterj said:
I respect the police and if this man was a terrorist what would you say then?
Click to expand...

"we believe that you may have been about to carry out a terrorist act....please come to the police station next week so that we can arrest you and have you deported" :shrug:
 
the comments on that page are amusing, it seems that a few yanks think that its an article about the US police!!

In all seriousness though, when the revolution cometh, well, ill probably be backing the goverment up with an SA80.

Damn needing cash for sunglasses ;)
 
I believe the terrorists were driving the police car ;)
 
rob.e said:
http://www.infowars.com/man-detained-as-terror-suspect-for-photographing-police-car/

Hope this isn't a repost but I did search and couldn't see anything.

It's a real shame reading things like this and the other thread about the police forcing a tourist to delete their photos. If they carry on like this then nobody is going to have any respect for them any more. Although it already seems that not many people do as it is...:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

It always seems to be in London. If the article is to be believed then it was intimidation no doubt. Good old met:lol:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
"we believe that you may have been about to carry out a terrorist act....please come to the police station next week so that we can arrest you and have you deported" :shrug:
Click to expand...

Its the good old home office immigration who can't be bothered to deport people not the Police, Howay give them a break.:D
 
jolsterj said:
I respect the police and if this man was a terrorist what would you say then?
Click to expand...

If he turned out to be a terrorist, I'd be very surprised that the police can determine that someone is a terrorist by the fact that they are taking a photo documenting police misconduct. It's not very likely that a 62-year-old chairman of a local park society is going to be taking photos because he was intending to blow up the footpath which a police car just happened to be driving along at the time he took the photos.

Don't get me wrong, I do still respect the police generally, but things like this don't exactly portray them in a positive light.
 
jolsterj said:
I respect the police and if this man was a terrorist what would you say then?
Click to expand...

62-year-old Malcolm Sleath, who is chairman of his local park society, saw a police car driving erratically down a North London park footpath, despite the fact that by law police are supposed to investigate on foot in such circumstances.

Some terrorist eh! i would suggest you read the article or has your respect for the police clouded your judgement.

Ron.
 
The story in that link is rather one sided. It doesn't cover, in any way, what 62-year-old Malcolm Sleath's response to being asked why he was filming them was.

If he was obstructive, abusive, truculent or basically awkward in any way, the bobby on the ground may have had grounds to be suspicious. I work in a civilian role for the police service, and we simply cannot win in the eyes of the media and a large proportion of the general public. The police are castigated whenever a person is spoken to for taking photographs, but, if one day a terrorist was out doing a recce on potential targets, and nothing was done, there would be public outcry directed at the police for not acting on the information they had about someone taking photos of security arrangements at an army barracks, for example.
 
RichardC27 said:
The story in that link is rather one sided. It doesn't cover, in any way, what 62-year-old Malcolm Sleath's response to being asked why he was filming them was.

If he was obstructive, abusive, truculent or basically awkward in any way, the bobby on the ground may have had grounds to be suspicious. I work in a civilian role for the police service, and we simply cannot win in the eyes of the media and a large proportion of the general public. The police are castigated whenever a person is spoken to for taking photographs, but, if one day a terrorist was out doing a recce on potential targets, and nothing was done, there would be public outcry directed at the police for not acting on the information they had about someone taking photos of security arrangements at an army barracks, for example.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'd expect if he was acting obstructive or causing problems then he'd be even less likely to be a terrorist as that'd be drawing attention to himself, and he wouldn't do that if he had something to hide. I suppose you are right that it's going to be impossible to make everyone happy, but I do feel that the terrorism act is open to abuse. The law was implemented to help in the prevention of future terror attacks, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. Although as you say it is a one sided account so there may be more to it.
 
rob.e said:
To be honest, I'd expect if he was acting obstructive or causing problems then he'd be even less likely to be a terrorist as that'd be drawing attention to himself, and he wouldn't do that if he had something to hide. I suppose you are right that it's going to be impossible to make everyone happy, but I do feel that the terrorism act is open to abuse. The law was implemented to help in the prevention of future terror attacks, which certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. Although as you say it is a one sided account so there may be more to it.
Click to expand...

I have to agree that the terrorism act, section 44 and all the rest of it is open to abuse, and in London it does seem that officers will jump on just about anything. I would hope here oop north that the response would be a little more considered and common sense from most of our bobbies
 
48thEagle said:
Bet you wouldn't say that if you was a Brazilian electrician.
Click to expand...

Who was wearing a big jacket on a warm July day, who ran from police and vaulted ticket barriers when challenged, and when those police were confused, out of the communications loop and acting on incomplete and poorly relayed intelligence? Put yourself in the position of one of those armed officers that day, given what had happened in the days previous to the Menezes incident, taking into account all of the above, and ask yourself what you would have done, when you genuinely thought he was about to detonate himself on a crowded train, killing you and everyone around you.

The officers on the ground acted perfectly correctly that day. As I said above, if he had actually been a suicide bomber and the police hadn't shot him, there would have been public outcry that the police had stood by and done nothing.
 
RichardC27 said:
The officers on the ground acted perfectly correctly that day. As I said above, if he had actually been a suicide bomber and the police hadn't shot him, there would have been public outcry that the police had stood by and done nothing.
Click to expand...

god help anybody wearing the wrong jacket, avoiding paying for a ticket and ignoring sombody chasing them.
 
RichardC27 said:
Who was wearing a big jacket on a warm July day, who ran from police and vaulted ticket barriers when challenged,
Click to expand...

In fact he wasn't wearing a heavy jacket, he neither ran from the police nor vaulted the barriers and used his card to go through the turnstyle. Nor did the police officers identify themselves as such when they apprehended him.

According to witnesses they just ran onto the train, restrained him and then shot him....repeatedly. In the head.
 
RichardC27 said:
Who was wearing a big jacket on a warm July day, who ran from police and vaulted ticket barriers when challenged...
Click to expand...
Citation needed.

Wikipedia states that Menezes "used his Oyster card to pay the fare, walked through the barriers, and descended the escalator slowly".

IIRC it transpires that the reports on the day of someone "vaulting the barriers" was one of the police in pursuit.

I'm trying to be very restrained in my response. It would probably just be better if this sort of stuff was kept off the forum.

Stroller.
 
RichardC27 said:
Who was wearing a big jacket on a warm July day, who ran from police and vaulted ticket barriers when challenged, and when those police were confused, out of the communications loop and acting on incomplete and poorly relayed intelligence? Put yourself in the position of one of those armed officers that day, given what had happened in the days previous to the Menezes incident, taking into account all of the above, and ask yourself what you would have done, when you genuinely thought he was about to detonate himself on a crowded train, killing you and everyone around you.

The officers on the ground acted perfectly correctly that day. As I said above, if he had actually been a suicide bomber and the police hadn't shot him, there would have been public outcry that the police had stood by and done nothing.
Click to expand...


Rubbish.... You've been reading fantasy stories released by those that murdered an innocent man... What you quote is the original police claims that were proven to be complete lies.... FFS some kid trashes your car and you give him a slap and get arrested, but these idiots shoot someone in the head for being foreign and get let off and praised as heroes.....:nuts:
 
If that's the case then I need to read around the incident a bit more and probably change that post then, so I apologise.

At the end of the day an innocent bloke was shot dead, rightly or wrongly, and nothing will bring him back. TBH some of the tactics used by the Met do worry me a bit. Not all police forces are like that, trust me.
 
The Met have got a shocking track record when it comes to either gung-ho tactics or just plain dishonesty
 
Don't be a dip, Rozzy, it's well known that de Menezes didn't jump the barrier. The only reason I looked it up was to double-check after I was astounded by some of the statements here.

Can we just keep this topic off the forum, please? I fail to see how the de Menezes killing is relevant to photography, and it's just seems like trolling that you want to keep making some point.

For the sake of clarity, Rozzy, does your nickname indicate you're a "rozzer", i.e. a police officer?

Stroller.
 
Strolls said:
Don't be a dip, Rozzy, it's well known that de Menezes didn't jump the barrier. The only reason I looked it up was to double-check after I was astounded by some of the statements here.

Can we just keep this topic off the forum, please? I fail to see how the de Menezes killing is relevant to photography, and it's just seems like trolling that you want to keep making some point.

For the sake of clarity, Rozzy, does your nickname indicate you're a "rozzer", i.e. a police officer?

Stroller.
Click to expand...


nope, my nickname is thanks to my surname, Rosbottom. and the reason that i get so ****ed off with this topic, is that the critics dont take into account the officers on the ground. are we really to believe that those lads were just out for a shoot'em up? give me a break, in the same situation, anyone would have carried out the same action, they believed he was a bomber. end of. you can look back in anger all you want, but thats it. A good job was done by those officers. maybe not a good job by the Met, but by the guys pulling the trigger, outstanding work. after all, dont you remember the questioning of the security forces after 7/7??

and for the sake of clarity, it wasn't me who brought it up ;)
 
Rozzy said:
nope, my nickname is thanks to my surname, Rosbottom. and the reason that i get so ****ed off with this topic, is that the critics dont take into account the officers on the ground. are we really to believe that those lads were just out for a shoot'em up? give me a break, in the same situation, anyone would have carried out the same action, they believed he was a bomber. end of. you can look back in anger all you want, but thats it. A good job was done by those officers. maybe not a good job by the Met, but by the guys pulling the trigger, outstanding work. after all, dont you remember the questioning of the security forces after 7/7??

and for the sake of clarity, it wasn't me who brought it up ;)
Click to expand...

Rozzy - I don't want to start an arguement, but the inquest verdict was pretty damming on those officers - it found they (and the Met) lied throughout. Heres an article which quotes part of it

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/12/de-menezes-verdict

and a second

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5333443.ece

Cheers

Hugh
 
Rozzy said:
nope, my nickname is thanks to my surname, Rosbottom. and the reason that i get so ****ed off with this topic, is that the critics dont take into account the officers on the ground. are we really to believe that those lads were just out for a shoot'em up? give me a break, in the same situation, anyone would have carried out the same action, they believed he was a bomber. end of. you can look back in anger all you want, but thats it. A good job was done by those officers. maybe not a good job by the Met, but by the guys pulling the trigger, outstanding work. after all, dont you remember the questioning of the security forces after 7/7??

and for the sake of clarity, it wasn't me who brought it up ;)
Click to expand...

A 'good job' done by a police officer shooting an innocent civilian? Whose copy of the Little Book of Police Propaganda did you swallow?

I suggest you inform yourself of the facts of this case.
 
RichardC27 said:
The story in that link is rather one sided. It doesn't cover, in any way, what 62-year-old Malcolm Sleath's response to being asked why he was filming them was.

If he was obstructive, abusive, truculent or basically awkward in any way, the bobby on the ground may have had grounds to be suspicious. I work in a civilian role for the police service, and we simply cannot win in the eyes of the media and a large proportion of the general public. The police are castigated whenever a person is spoken to for taking photographs, but, if one day a terrorist was out doing a recce on potential targets, and nothing was done, there would be public outcry directed at the police for not acting on the information they had about someone taking photos of security arrangements at an army barracks, for example.
Click to expand...

The story is one sided but it comes down to one thing - the police officer was in the wrong (for driving the car where he was) and he new it.

He then must have talked to Malcolm to assertain if there was any reason to be suspicious.

Why did he need to talk to Malcolm at all? The only reason I can think of is to try to intimidate him into not showing the footage to cover his own backside.

Filming a car driving somewhere it shouldn't is not quite the same as filming barracks :nono: I can't see how this case is disimilar to the case of the person taking a photo of a police car reversing the wrong way up a one way street to go to a chippy (albeit not to get food but to talk to the owner).

Some police officers are plain lazy at times, they often think they can break the rules and no one will mind and then they get defensive and often aggresive when people do object.
 
it's alive said:
Aren't we straying somewhat off-topic?
Click to expand...
What was the topic again?
Oh yes, abuse of power by the police. Our local force would never abuse the so called anti-terror laws. Oh no. They're far too busy hiding behind trees nicking folks for doing 31mph in a 30mph speed limit.
OK so according to the rozzers
dibble from stirling said:
"While one of the photos shows a hand-held radar, the officers are not carrying out speed detection at that particular moment.

"The photos also do not show officers enforcing hand-held radar detection."
Click to expand...
So what were they doing? Skiving? Eating do'nuts? One of my colleagues was convicted recently, caught by radar trap hidden in bushes by the side of the A84. The reply from the Chief Constable was, "Whether the officers were or were not in plain sight, the fact remains you broke the law."
It's a fair cop guv.
 
My late husband and my father were both policemen and I was a police cadet for 2 years so my inclination is to support the police as I understand the difficulties they face. However there do seem to be a number of officers that give the police a bad name and nowadays there is often someone around with a camera to film them.The recent film of a man being attacked by a policeman at the G20 protests was horrific and I hope that justice will be done if his actions were as bad as they appeared to be.If the law means we can never take photos of police then that is wrong.They have to be accountable for their actions. Hopefully the press will give positive coverage of the police too as most do a great job and are all that stands between us and total breakdown of society.

I remember. many years ago,a photograph on the front page of a Chelmsford newspaper of a male and a female police officer in uniform, walking through a park, apparently holding hands.The caption underneath said that it was a trick of the camera and they werent holding hands. Just as well otherwise I think I would have been in trouble with my sergeant. ( yes I was that female officer:) We had a laugh at the station. Nowadays the photograher could have been arrested on terrorist charges.

The police need strong powers to protect us against terrorism but they must never be misused. The same applies to councils who misuse powers, meant to protect us from terrorism, to prosecute people for minor offences like putting the wrong stuff in our bins.
 
Staying on topic, did I read correctly in one of the links that the two officers in question were PCSO's, which I believe is the new term for Special Constables, this could explain their misunderstanding of the law.
 
Martyn... said:
Staying on topic, did I read correctly in one of the links that the two officers in question were PCSO's, which I believe is the new term for Special Constables, this could explain their misunderstanding of the law.
Click to expand...

Indeed that could be the case, but PCSOs are not the same as special constables. Special constables are volunteers and are not paid, PCSOs are paid a salary.
 
ladysue said:
Nowadays the photograher could have been arrested on terrorist charges.
Click to expand...

It could happen but he would have to be released and an apology given as has happened with all recent reported cases.



Steve.
 
Martyn... said:
Staying on topic, did I read correctly in one of the links that the two officers in question were PCSO's, which I believe is the new term for Special Constables, this could explain their misunderstanding of the law.
Click to expand...

I don't think they are the same thing.


Steve.
 
fabs said:
Indeed that could be the case, but PCSOs are not the same as special constables. Special constables are volunteers and are not paid, PCSOs are paid a salary.
Click to expand...

Thanks, just Googled it and it would appear that Special Constables are still used, and that PCSO's have less power than Special Constables, primarily they are used to tackle anti social behaviour, dog fouling, riding on footpaths, and youth crimes.

Reinforces my point that they would not have the same level of training as a full time Police Officer, which would go some way to explain the error of their ways in this instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top