My Turn Today ....

[andybeach]

So there I was, quietly sitting by the river, sipping my cup of tea, when two PCSOs deemed it necessary to enquire as to the nature of my activities!

"Apart from the bleedin' obvious?" I replied with big disarming smile and open, friendly body language! Before he can take his line of questioning any further Female PCSO sees my camera and exclaims “My, what a big one!” to which I respond “size isn’t everything – it’s how you use it that counts!” (well, it’s true!).

Male PCSO than asks if he can take my details for ‘his records’ – “you don’t have to have my details do you?” I said, still with the big smile – “can I have your details?” he asks again – “but you don’t have to have my details do you?” I reassert – “No” he says, clearly a little crestfallen, and stops taking his little notepad out – “OK then, I’ll give them to you voluntarily” says I (not really wanting to risk any escalation) upon which eager PCSO struggles to get his notepad out and find a blank page, by which time I have had to repeat my name three times!

Honours at least even, they go on their way and I sit and wait for that bloody Kingfisher my wife has seen all week, but obviously has a weekend residence somewhere in the country!!


Seriously, I have a lot of respect for the police, I grew up next door to a police house and have many cousins in the force up to Superintendant, and I know they have a difficult job to do at times sifting out the ‘bad guys’ from the rest of us, but how can sitting by the river be the slightest bit worthy of anything beyond a “Good morning – any luck yet?”?!!

Hey ho ... :shrug:

 

[wippers]

Totally agree Andy. There's always going to be the do-gooders who have no common sense (something that's not so common anymore funnily!).

 

[WP-UK]

It is a shame but I have always felt that to a certain extent compliance is the best way in those situations. Due to being young when I'm out with the kit I can grab the attention of the police sometimes it seems but it's normally no more than a 'what you shooting?'

 

[swanseamale47]

I find the PCSP's far worse than the police.

 

[andybeach]

It is a shame but I have always felt that to a certain extent compliance is the best way in those situations.

I agree - a bit of mischief as I did is one thing, but a full on confrontation is a waste of your time and theirs and achieves very little IMHO. There are better ways to make your views heard.

Andy

 

[hepburn]

but how can sitting by the river be the slightest bit worthy of anything beyond a “Good morning – any luck yet?”?!!

Hey ho ... :shrug:

Perhaps they considered you a terrorist risk planning to contaminate the water supply :shrug:

 

[swanseamale47]

Perhaps they considered you a terrorist risk planning to contaminate the water supply :shrug:

Contaminate a river? blimey the ones around here are contminated enough already, no self respecting terrorist would go near one for fear of catching something

 

[Lindsay D]

Andy, you were not obliged to pass on 'your details' and I would have told that ignorant, inadequate little c*ck to take a hike.

Compliance is fine, where compliance is due. This was not one of those occasions. Their powers of arrest and detention are no different from yours or mine. They may: "Require name and address where they have reason to believe a person has committed a road traffic offence, a 'relevant offence', a licencing offence, an act of anti-social behaviour or is in possession of a controlled drug". Therefore a PCSO can only insist on obtaining your details if any of those situations prevail.

I presume you intend to make a complaint? Or perhaps not, we're known for rolling over and eating ***** in this country.

Sorry, but it really upsets me when individuals who are in what they believe to be 'positions of authority' abuse the job they're tasked and paid to do, often due to ignorance (no excuse for that) or the need to throw their weight around (unacceptable). Time we all started standing up for ourselves - inconvenient as that may seem at times.

 

[Tony J]

Andy, you were not obliged to pass on 'your details' and I would have told that ignorant, inadequate little c*ck to take a hike.

Compliance is fine, where compliance is due. This was not one of those occasions. Their powers of arrest and detention are no different from yours or mine. They may: "Require name and address where they have reason to believe a person has committed a road traffic offence, a 'relevant offence', a licencing offence, an act of anti-social behaviour or is in possession of a controlled drug". Therefore a PCSO can only insist on obtaining your details if any of those situations prevail.

I presume you intend to make a complaint? Or perhaps not, we're known for rolling over and eating ***** in this country.

Sorry, but it really upsets me when individuals who are in what they believe to be 'positions of authority' abuse the job they're tasked and paid to do, often due to ignorance (no excuse for that) or the need to throw their weight around (unacceptable). Time we all started standing up for ourselves - inconvenient as that may seem at times.

I fully agree. If it was a (REAL) police officer then I would of happily gave my details, but a plastic cop, no way. I would of asked why he wanted my details, did he think I was a suspicious person and then with that information would of crippled him With words he didn't understand. I hate these pcso's the majority of them are either over weight but ugly want to be know it alls or young spotty little ***** that were probably bullied at school that can't get a real job.
I'm sure there are some nice ones somewhere just trying to get onto the police force but have to go the hard way, but until I meet one then my opinion won't change.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

 

[swanseamale47]

I fully agree. If it was a (REAL) police officer then I would of happily gave my details, but a plastic cop, no way. I would of asked why he wanted my details, did he think I was a suspicious person and then with that information would of crippled him With words he didn't understand. I hate these pcso's the majority of them are either over weight but ugly want to be know it alls or young spotty little ***** that were probably bullied at school that can't get a real job.
I'm sure there are some nice ones somewhere just trying to get onto the police force but have to go the hard way, but until I meet one then my opinion won't change.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

I wait to be convinced!

 

[andybeach]

Andy, you were not obliged to pass on 'your details' and I would have told that ignorant, inadequate little c*ck to take a hike.

Compliance is fine, where compliance is due. This was not one of those occasions. Their powers of arrest and detention are no different from yours or mine. They may: "Require name and address where they have reason to believe a person has committed a road traffic offence, a 'relevant offence', a licencing offence, an act of anti-social behaviour or is in possession of a controlled drug". Therefore a PCSO can only insist on obtaining your details if any of those situations prevail.

I presume you intend to make a complaint? Or perhaps not, we're known for rolling over and eating ***** in this country.

Sorry, but it really upsets me when individuals who are in what they believe to be 'positions of authority' abuse the job they're tasked and paid to do, often due to ignorance (no excuse for that) or the need to throw their weight around (unacceptable). Time we all started standing up for ourselves - inconvenient as that may seem at times.

Hi Lindsay

Firstly, I don't appreciate the tone of your response and the inferences it makes towards me - I'm not a sensitive chap (as I'm frequently reminded!) but I do take exception to the suggestion I was “rolling over and eating *****” which if you knew me you’d laugh at!

As I said, I knew I did not have to comply, and I made sure that he acknowledged this fact, but then made him feel a bit of a fool as he wasn’t ready when I did! Smug (and childish) satisfaction maybe, but I couldn’t be bothered to waste my time by arguing with the guy; I have nothing to fear from my details being ‘on file’ or run through the PNC.

I’m sure you feel you are entitled to respond to these situations as you feel is appropriate and not told what you should or should not do by others who were not present, so I’m sure I should be able to do the same.

You furthermore ‘presume’ that I intend to make a complaint! Well, you’re wrong – but not entirely!!

Again, the effort of making a formal complaint far outweighs the likely outcome (IMHO), so no I won’t be complaining to West Midlands Police (though I did consider it, noting time and details just in case – I’m sure the PCSO is wondering if he’s going to hear any more about it!). However, I have written to my MP with whom I have exchanged previous correspondence on this topic. You may view this as a waste of time – you’re entitled to your opinion and I wouldn’t argue with it – but if so it’s wasted a lot less time than making a complaint!

So, I may have taken the ‘convenient’ route, but I’m sitting here on the moral high ground, and I’m happy with that!

Andy

 

[Lindsay D]

I have to agree. It's years since I've met a decent police officer with half a brain.

Tony, as for giving details to a qualified officer - NO. Unless of course they could prove connection with a relevant offence, if you are in command of a vehicle, or that you were engaging in anti social behaviour. Under 'stop and account' you have no obligation to provide any information.

 

[andybeach]

AND ....

I've been back to that spot three times today and STILL no flippin' Kingfisher!! No further hassle from the law either!!

 

[Lindsay D]

Hi Lindsay

Firstly, I don't appreciate the tone of your response and the inferences it makes towards me - I'm not a sensitive chap (as I'm frequently reminded!) but I do take exception to the suggestion I was “rolling over and eating *****” which if you knew me you’d laugh at!

As I said, I knew I did not have to comply, and I made sure that he acknowledged this fact, but then made him feel a bit of a fool as he wasn’t ready when I did! Smug (and childish) satisfaction maybe, but I couldn’t be bothered to waste my time by arguing with the guy; I have nothing to fear from my details being ‘on file’ or run through the PNC.

I’m sure you feel you are entitled to respond to these situations as you feel is appropriate and not told what you should or should not do by others who were not present, so I’m sure I should be able to do the same.

You furthermore ‘presume’ that I intend to make a complaint! Well, you’re wrong – but not entirely!!

Again, the effort of making a formal complaint far outweighs the likely outcome (IMHO), so no I won’t be complaining to West Midlands Police (though I did consider it, noting time and details just in case – I’m sure the PCSO is wondering if he’s going to hear any more about it!). However, I have written to my MP with whom I have exchanged previous correspondence on this topic. You may view this as a waste of time – you’re entitled to your opinion and I wouldn’t argue with it – but if so it’s wasted a lot less time than making a complaint!

So, I may have taken the ‘convenient’ route, but I’m sitting here on the moral high ground, and I’m happy with that!

Andy

Andy, I must apologise if my words came over as being overly strong, no offence was intended and my comments were general ones, very much a reminder to the casual reader that we do have certain rights - and the PCSO who harrassed you gave no consideration to that. I too have written to MPs on this subject and I agree it often does feel like a waste of time, but nevertheless I would not have given over my details, confidential information to which they have no right whatsoever. I'm just sorry you were put through that scene with the PCSO, it should never have happened. It makes me feel that we're seen as easy targets when there's so much real crime, petty or otherwise, which should be addressed. I hope you can see where I was coming from, please be assured no insult was intended.

 

[Lindsay D]

AND ....

I've been back to that spot three times today and STILL no flippin' Kingfisher!! No further hassle from the law either!!

You MUST get that picture - I've never got a shot of a Kingfisher ....

 

[andybeach]

Andy, I must apologise if my words came over as being overly strong, no offence was intended and my comments were general ones, very much a reminder to the casual reader that we do have certain rights - and the PCSO who harrassed you gave no consideration to that. I too have written to MPs on this subject and I agree it often does feel like a waste of time, but nevertheless I would not have given over my details, confidential information to which they have no right whatsoever. I'm just sorry you were put through that scene with the PCSO, it should never have happened. It makes me feel that we're seen as easy targets when there's so much real crime, petty or otherwise, which should be addressed. I hope you can see where I was coming from, please be assured no insult was intended.

All is well

And I WILL get than damn picture even if it kills me!!

Andy

 

[PaulF]

I fully agree. If it was a (REAL) police officer then I would of happily gave my details, but a plastic cop, no way. I would of asked why he wanted my details, did he think I was a suspicious person and then with that information would of crippled him With words he didn't understand. I hate these pcso's the majority of them are either over weight but ugly want to be know it alls or young spotty little ***** that were probably bullied at school that can't get a real job.
I'm sure there are some nice ones somewhere just trying to get onto the police force but have to go the hard way, but until I meet one then my opinion won't change.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

There's a well thought out argument if ever I saw one........

So, you would happily give your details to a, in your words, REAL police officer but not a PCSO even though in the given situation neither would have a legal right to demand them, interesting, sounds like discrimination to me.
Lots of generalisations and personal attacks in there also. Reading between the lines I would guess you have had one or two bad experiences.

Personally, I have never had a problem with the police or PCSO's, the closest I have come to any interference was when taking shots of a pub at night, a lady came out of the pub to see what I was doing, turns out she was a crime scene photographer and gave me lots of advice on settings to use

Paul.

 

[WP-UK]

I hate these pcso's the majority of them are either over weight but ugly want to be know it alls or young spotty little ***** that were probably bullied at school that can't get a real job.

I have respect for your point of view and I'm fully aware that there are various cases of police (more so PCSO's as it seems) generally harassing photographers etc. however I feel that PCSO's do a real job also.

You can compare it to any area of work, even shop workers. You get good ones and bad ones

 

[paulminus273]

You can tell any police officer that ”I am going about my lawful business and wish to do so without let or hindrance” if they are not satisfied with that you can then ask them if they have any reason to suspect otherwise if so what .
This is fine for plastic police but experienced officers know how to bend the rules and be a pain in the backside

 

[posiview]

It's years since I've met a decent police officer with half a brain.
.

Strangely enough, I feel the exact opposite.

There's a well thought out argument if ever I saw one........

So, you would happily give your details to a, in your words, REAL police officer but not a PCSO even though in the given situation neither would have a legal right to demand them, interesting, sounds like discrimination to me.
Lots of generalisations and personal attacks in there also. Reading between the lines I would guess you have had one or two bad experiences.

Personally, I have never had a problem with the police or PCSO's, the closest I have come to any interference was when taking shots of a pub at night, a lady came out of the pub to see what I was doing, turns out she was a crime scene photographer and gave me lots of advice on settings to use

Paul.

 

[boliston]

They were way out of order asking for personal details as even a "real" police officer can only request details if you have actually contravened a law in some way, such as running a red light etc.

The more people willingly give their name and address without reason or cause, the closer we become to being a police state (which it seems like is almost the case anyway).

 

[Lindsay D]

The more people willingly give their name and address without reason or cause, the closer we become to being a police state (which it seems like is almost the case anyway).

Precisely. But things have improved since Teresa May's announcement last summer. It's going to take a while though, but hopefully we'll never go back to the police state which existed under New Labour. Dreadful and beyond the comprehension of much of the (rest of) the free world.

To posiview, I'm pleased your contact with the police has been positive. Mine has not unfortunately, in fact my experiences have been very damaging and will stay with my indefinitely. There may well be some decent officers in the force, but I think many of them are weeded out early on, and leave. Just my opinion of course.

 

[mastertrinity]

Remember people that while Police have got authority they are just the same as us!

We hate getting accused of being terrorists/paedophiles etc and get asked by police for details and even old biddies try and get in on the authority share however the way we portray our experience with certain police officers is exactly the same as us photographers being stereotyped.

We are both stereotypical minorities the only difference is that if we got called a P**** or terrorist then we'd be interrogated but if a police officer was called a pig then it's classed as offensive and an arrest is made. They have authority on their side and that's it. I agree that you should only obey what the police tell you when they are right but if you know they are wrong in what they are doing then fight for it

 

[andybeach]

The more people willingly give their name and address without reason or cause, the closer we become to being a police state (which it seems like is almost the case anyway).

I'll continue to make my own decision on these matters if it's all the same to you, after all, you wouldn't want to dictate to others how they should behave would you?!!

 

[Photo Plod]

They were way out of order asking for personal details as even a "real" police officer can only request details if you have actually contravened a law in some way, such as running a red light etc.

Police officers can always ask for your details, the same as anybody else can ask anyone; you just don't have to give them. There's a significant difference in that, over your barrack-room legal preaching. If you've committed an offence, you still don't have to give details; just bear in mind that it provides grounds for an arrest, as summonses and tickets can't be given to anonymous people with no address.

 

[andybeach]

Police officers can always ask for your details, the same as anybody else can ask anyone; you just don't have to give them. There's a significant difference in that, over your barrack-room legal preaching. If you've committed an offence, you still don't have to give details; just bear in mind that it provides grounds for an arrest, as summonses and tickets can't be given to anonymous people with no address.

And if something has happened in the local area you just might be able to help by providing some information if the police know you were there, just as long as you don't end up 'assisting with enquiries' if you know what I mean

 

[Tony J]

Andy
It seems like we all have our own opinions on this subject.
The only real advice I could give you would be to decide for yourself how the situation went and what you want to do about it. As long as you are happy with the end result, who cares what we all think.
Just do us all a favour, post that pic of the kingfisher when you get it.
Good luck.

Tony.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

 

[CJS]

the majority of them are either over weight but ugly want to be know it alls or young spotty little ***** that were probably bullied at school that can't get a real job.

I'm beginning to see these sort of descriptions as offencive: What wrong with ugly, over weight or young and spotty . . .

You might be skinny, arrogant and consider yourself superior to; ugly, over weigh and spotty, but I'm not putting that forward as a reason to despise you???? In this upside down world, that, maybe you have helped to create? lets have a little PC'ness . . . ?

CJS

 

[Tony J]

I'm beginning to see these sort of descriptions as offencive: What wrong with ugly, over weight or young and spotty . . .

You might be skinny, arrogant and consider yourself superior to; ugly, over weigh and spotty, but I'm not putting that forward as a reason to despise you???? In this upside down world, that, maybe you have helped to create? lets have a little PC'ness . . . ?

CJS

Well this was not aimed at you or anyone on this site. You take what I wrote how you want. I could say I'm sorry for what I wrote, however I would not mean it. As for me being skinny, not likely, arrogant, maybe? Superior far from it. If you despise me, thats your choice and your opinion. Will i lose sleep over it? Errm no. As for the world we live in, well I can't change it and neither can you.
Enjoy the rest of your day.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

 

[CJS]

Well this was not aimed at you or anyone on this site. You take what I wrote how you want. I could say I'm sorry for what I wrote, however I would not mean it. As for me being skinny, not likely, arrogant, maybe? Superior far from it. If you despise me, thats your choice and your opinion. Will i lose sleep over it? Errm no. As for the world we live in, well I can't change it and neither can you.
Enjoy the rest of your day.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

There speaks an individual with attitude, sadly, a modern trait . . . who, it is unlikely, will not enjoy the rest of their day . . .

CJS

 

[Tony J]

There speaks an individual with attitude, sadly, a modern trait . . . who, it is unlikely, will not enjoy the rest of their day . . .

CJS

My day is going great actually and I'm more than sure the rest of it will be even better.

Sent from my iPhone using TP Forums

 

[n1blo]

Can I just ask what the problem is here?

An individual has been approached by two PCSC, he wasn't acosted, from the sounds of the OP he wasn't victomised in the slightest.. They asked for his details, and he gave them, despite being aware he didn't need to.

You do realise that you've most likely been reported by a passerby, and the Police have to be seen to act on this?

The best way to deal with this situation is be polite, accomodating, and confident.
Being generally neverous is a sure fire way to trigger suspicion, even if you are doing something completely within the law.

I've had my fair share of run-ins with authority and if you stick to above, know your rights and don't be a cocky a*** then you will be perfectly OK.

Don't worry though, doing anything out of the ordinary is a route to discrimination!

This trend isn't going to end soon, and part of me hopes it doesn't, I quite like the fact the Police are inquisitive. I've got nothing to worry about.

 

[Lindsay D]

Can I just ask what the problem is here?

An individual has been approached by two PCSC, he wasn't acosted, from the sounds of the OP he wasn't victomised in the slightest.. They asked for his details, and he gave them, despite being aware he didn't need to.

You do realise that you've most likely been reported by a passerby, and the Police have to be seen to act on this?

The best way to deal with this situation is be polite, accomodating, and confident.
Being generally neverous is a sure fire way to trigger suspicion, even if you are doing something completely within the law.

I've had my fair share of run-ins with authority and if you stick to above, know your rights and don't be a cocky a*** then you will be perfectly OK.

Don't worry though, doing anything out of the ordinary is a route to discrimination!

This trend isn't going to end soon, and part of me hopes it doesn't, I quite like the fact the Police are inquisitive. I've got nothing to worry about.

David, Andy most certainly was accosted, he was forced to suspend what he was doing whilst that numpty questioned him in a manner which was inappropriate and entirely counter to the job he was employed to do. All because he was carrying a 'large' camera and sitting by the river. Sorry, but that IS victimisation. The fact that Andy complied is immaterial. If reported by a passerby, that person would, I hope, be required to have justifiable cause when describing the situation to the police, but it appears this would be: 'there is a man sitting quietly by the riverbank but he's got a big camera so he must be extremely dangerous and should be questioned'. Come on!

I agree that it's best to be polite and confident with the police, however being 'inquisitive' and harrassing law abiding citizens are two entirely different things. The police seem to act without the benefit of common sense, without judgement, and without consideration to the individuals who are unnecessarily subjected to what is almost always a distressing experience. There is NO evidence to support any theory which links photography with crime. And the police wonder why public perception of them is so damned low.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Presumably these are the weekend warrior old bill who gave me a parking ticket when the end of my exhaust overhung the yellow line

Did ask if it was the power or dressing up which encouraged him to do it, no answer i'm afraid or to my suggestion that he found a girl/boyfriend.

Still if it wasn't for photography or footie it could be me, might be a tad old though

 

[n1blo]

David, Andy most certainly was accosted, he was forced to suspend what he was doing whilst that numpty questioned him in a manner which was inappropriate and entirely counter to the job he was employed to do. All because he was carrying a 'large' camera and sitting by the river. Sorry, but that IS victimisation. The fact that Andy complied is immaterial. If reported by a passerby, that person would, I hope, be required to have justifiable cause when describing the situation to the police, but it appears this would be: 'there is a man sitting quietly by the riverbank but he's got a big camera so he must be extremely dangerous and should be questioned'. Come on!

Well the only person who can judge if he was unfairly treated is the OP, judging by the fact he has spoke to his MP, I no doubt assume he was troubled with this.
From my point of view, reading what he has said, he joked with them and he was in no way accosted, which insinuates a level of aggression, both officers were in good humour and there was no mention of any harrasment. Andy, please prove me wrong.

In exactly what way was he victimised? You perhaps mean he was descriminated against?

You do realise that the Police* have the ability to stop and speak to ANYBODY. They don't have to be remotely suspicious.

What's to say there hasn't been suspicious activity at that location over the previous weeks?
Do you know for certain that the lake wasn't close to a military compound, or similar restricted areas?
The fact is, you are not privy to the information that the Police are, and to assume that they are "numptys" is not only ridiculous but quite insulting.

Some people forget, Police have an extremely difficult job to do undertake, and they often don't get the co-operation that they should.

*Not just the Police, when you are out and about (with or without camera) anyone can talk to you... It's part and parcel of stepping outside your front door each morning.

 

[munch]

I think the reason the police don't get the respect they should is that policing has moved from how it used to be.
The fact that we are having this debate is perhaps proof of this.
There is now a greater perception that we are moving away from the consensual policing we used to have. The greater use of security companies and the move to using PCSO's has not helped.
The police have also suffered from some of the "silly" court cases of late.

 

[odd jim]

David, Andy most certainly was accosted, he was forced to suspend what he was doing whilst that numpty questioned him in a manner which was inappropriate and entirely counter to the job he was employed to do. All because he was carrying a 'large' camera and sitting by the river. Sorry, but that IS victimisation. The fact that Andy complied is immaterial. If reported by a passerby, that person would, I hope, be required to have justifiable cause when describing the situation to the police, but it appears this would be: 'there is a man sitting quietly by the riverbank but he's got a big camera so he must be extremely dangerous and should be questioned'. Come on!

I agree that it's best to be polite and confident with the police, however being 'inquisitive' and harrassing law abiding citizens are two entirely different things. The police seem to act without the benefit of common sense, without judgement, and without consideration to the individuals who are unnecessarily subjected to what is almost always a distressing experience. There is NO evidence to support any theory which links photography with crime. And the police wonder why public perception of them is so damned low.

Lindsey, you are wrong on so many levels when you state there is no link to "photography" and crime. And I wouldn't use the term "photography" but "cameras".

From experience, there are a great deal of criminals who use recording equipment in public for more sinister uses.

Not agreeing that everyone should be questioned, just pointing out the fact that your statements are, on the whole, fairly wrong and not made with any knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

 

[Lindsay D]

David, I believe Andy was victimised because the officers had no justifiable cause to ask for his details - if they did, they would/should have requested qualified officers to attend which I believe in this case would have been correct procedure (given the limited powers of PCSOs). A big camera is not reason enough. Of course the police can stop and talk to any individual, but they need specific reasons to request personal data in the situation described by Andy. So we could conclude nothing particularly suspicious had transpired in terms of what you describe. I'm sorry, but all things considered, in this instance the PCSO did in my opinion act like a bit of an idiot! They do have a difficult and unpleasant job to do at times, not helped by their treatment of individuals who are clearly innocent of any transgression. The PCSO was, I'm pretty sure, just trying to throw his weight around, buoyed up by his uniform. It does happen.

 

[Lindsay D]

Lindsey, you are wrong on so many levels when you state there is no link to "photography" and crime. And I wouldn't use the term "photography" but "cameras".

From experience, there are a great deal of criminals who use recording equipment in public for more sinister uses.

Not agreeing that everyone should be questioned, just pointing out the fact that your statements are, on the whole, fairly wrong and not made with any knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

Jim, nobody could dispute that criminals often use sophisticated recording devices, but if you look into the statistics of what we're discussing in this thread - we are of course talking about photographers and members of the public (tourists, hobbyists) who have been stopped, searched, questioned etc, whilst going about their normal business, I think you will find I am correct.

 

[odd jim]

Jim, nobody could dispute that criminals often use sophisticated recording devices, but if you look into the statistics of what we're discussing in this thread - we are of course talking about photographers and members of the public (tourists, hobbyists) who have been stopped, searched, questioned etc, whilst going about their normal business, I think you will find I am correct.

In that sense you are, but you said there is no link to "photography" and crime - but there is. It works both ways, it's used by everyone for good and for bad. And I'm not talking about sophisticated equipment. Sex offenders DO use cameras in public for their own means and a lot of registered sex offenders have bail or licence conditions not to possess cameras in public for this very reason.