My Turn Today ....

odd jim said:
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.
Click to expand...

So if they can refuse to give their details unless a crime is suspected how does a random stop help? If there was ground to suspect them in the first place then they should have delt with it differently.
 
I thought my post would barely grab anyone's attention as there had been so many similar posts on the subject - how wrong I was!!

For the record, the two PCSOs were at all times polite and friendly and not the slightest bit threatening, even when I was being mischievous over providing my details.

I asked if anyone had reported me but no, they had seen me and decided to stop. The Male PCSO said he thought I might be about to jump off the bridge - I was sitting alongside the bridge so it would have been more of a ‘leap’ than a ‘jump’, and then only a drop of six foot into six inches of water! I gave him a ‘you cannot be serious’ look so he quickly moved on to his “can I ask what you’re doing” question – clearly not the sharpest tool in the box, scoring two out of two for ‘dumb-assed questions’!

I wouldn’t use the word ‘accosted’, nor did they stop me from continuing my watch for that illusive little b****r of a Kingfisher. Throughout the exchange I kept my stare very intently on the river, and commented that it would be typical if I missed the photo opp while I was talking to them – they shared the humour.

The only real surprise was the request for my details – having established I was not about to hurl myself into the depths of the river I thought they would be off, but maybe they were bored at 8:30am on a Saturday morning! Maybe he (it was only him, not her) wanted to throw his weight around (he wasn’t that fat by the way – at least not compared to me!) and assert his authority, but this was quickly rebuffed by being very friendly (it’s hard to get heavy with someone being really nice!) and by confidently asserting my rights (about the only time I established real eye contact with the guy).

I was left feeling more disappointed than victimised. As I say in my original post, it hardly warranted more than a jovial greeting.

And just to be clear, I chose to give my details voluntarily knowing I did not have to, but not wishing to waste any further time in any debate or discussion with the PCSO, or 'proper' Policeman if he called for support, no matter what the rights or wrongs; I have nothing to fear and don’t see it as the thin end of the wedge as others do (but I respect those views). I can also see situations where it could be to my advantage (“Police are seeking a fat, ugly, balding guy in a black jacket, last seen carrying a large camera, following a series of thefts from the Kingshurst area of Birmingham this morning” – at least I could be quickly eliminated from police enquiries!)

Having written to my (Conservative) MP last year about the Section 44 situation, I thought I would use this opportunity to remind her that these situations are still occurring. I concluded my letter by saying … “I don't take issue with the officers themselves, rather the culture we now live in where the threshold when our law enforcement authorities feel it appropriate to intervene is so low.”

I hope this addresses the points raised. If you disagree with any of the above that’s your right, but please respect I have my rights too!!

Andy

ps - I have more fear of being confronted by an ill-informed member of the public who may choose to take the law into their own hands! Even my Wife was accused of being a paedophile carrying a camera while out walking with our young sons (start of a new debate*!!)

Edit: * Just beaten to it - must type faster!
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
So if they can refuse to give their details unless a crime is suspected how does a random stop help? If there was ground to suspect them in the first place then they should have delt with it differently.
Click to expand...

Surely any "stop" on a registered sex offender should be encouraged? Any disruption to sex offenders activities is surely a good thing in a civilised society, even if it doesn't result in an arrest.

I'm not saying they confused the op with a sex offender, I'm just using it as a real world example.

This has gone a bit surreal now...
 
Last edited:
n1blo said:
But that's descrimination! ;)
Click to expand...

Positive discrimination, lol!
 
odd jim said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered why sex offenders are treated differently from other criminals - surely if they are still deemed to be a danger to the public then they should not be released!
 
Last edited:
boliston said:
I've always wondered why sex offenders are treated differently from other criminals - surely if they are still deemed to be a danger to the public then then should not be released!
Click to expand...

You'd think so wouldn't you?! Sad as it is, pretty much all criminals, even dangerous ones, are let out of prison on licence after serving only half their custodial sentence. And that's if the courts give them a custodial sentence in the first place!
 
odd jim said:
Surely any "stop" on a registered sex offender should be encouraged? Any disruption to sex offenders activities is surely a good thing in a civilised society, even if it doesn't result in an arrest.

I'm not saying they confused the op with a sex offender, I'm just using it as a real world example.

This has gone a bit surreal now...
Click to expand...

Yes of course, if they know it's a sex offender then they have a reason to stop him, if they don't know it's a sex offender then he can simply refuse to give his detail (same as anybody else) and they wouldn't be any the wiser to him being an offender, so pointless doing random stops. Thats the problem.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Yes of course, if they know it's a sex offender then they have a reason to stop him, if they don't know it's a sex offender then he can simply refuse to give his detail (same as anybody else) and they wouldn't be any the wiser to him being an offender, so pointless doing random stops. Thats the problem.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's called offender disruption and can prevent things from happening by the mere thought of being looked at by the police, whether they know who he (or she) is.

That's particularly relevant to sex offenders who are a cowardly bunch.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Not really, it's called offender disruption and can prevent things from happening by the mere thought of being looked at by the police, whether they know who he (or she) is.

That's particularly relevant to sex offenders who are a cowardly bunch.
Click to expand...

Should anyone have an illegal or immoral intent the likelihood is that they would be using a discreet camera not a large pro style one.
It is possible to make a bomb from materials obtained from the local supermarket .
So with the logic of disrupting offenders would mean that shopper should be stopped far more than photographers with “big” cameras
 
The attitude of some on here is terrible....

When things happen everybody says the police don't do enough, but when an officer politely asks what you are doing and if you mind him taking details you think it's over the top. You can't have you're cake and eat it.....

I have always taken the attitude that if stopped or approached by an officer, be polite and co-operative, as long as they are the same. Being anything else wastes your time as much as theirs. This has seen me get out of a number of potential speeding/vehicle offences, and I just can't understand why people take an aggressive, arrogant stance, it's just not worth the bother.

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
Last edited:
paulminus273 said:
Should anyone have an illegal or immoral intent the likelihood is that they would be using a discreet camera not a large pro style one.
It is possible to make a bomb from materials obtained from the local supermarket .
So with the logic of disrupting offenders would mean that shopper should be stopped far more than photographers with “big” cameras
Click to expand...

No, because common sense is applied.

This type if criminal psychology has gone on for years, it didn't start with the advent of dslr's.

This is way off topic now!
 
odd jim said:
No, because common sense is applied.

This type if criminal psychology has gone on for years, it didn't start with the advent of dslr's.

This is way off topic now!
Click to expand...

If common sense applied police would not be stopping photographers with pro type kit they are the least likely to be up to no good so bang on topic
 
A1 to n1blo and Jelster who have posted a very sensible approach to the situation. Some of the other advice, if followed, could have unfortunate circumstances.
 
I wqas not so much stopped as approached by an officer a year or so ago whilst in a country lane with camera and large lens in hand, I was looking for a woodpecker that I could hear but not see. A polite conversation ensued and it turned out that he was the officer in charge of wildlife matters. We chatted about various things, I didn't feel my civil rights had been infringed and as far as I was concerned it was reassuring that the police take wildlife matters seriously and not shoved to the 'if I've got time' slot.
 
.
 
Last edited:
Triple post, damn iPhone app!
 
Last edited:
paulminus273 said:
If common sense applied police would not be stopping photographers with pro type kit they are the least likely to be up to no good so bang on topic
Click to expand...

They use all sorts of cameras, which does include dslr's.
 
odd jim said:
Not really, it's called offender disruption and can prevent things from happening by the mere thought of being looked at by the police, whether they know who he (or she) is.

That's particularly relevant to sex offenders who are a cowardly bunch.
Click to expand...

What about the 77 bombers? maybe we should close all the tubes and busses then.
Lets be honest here this was nothing more than a wammabee copper trying to throw his weight about.
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
.............nothing more than a wammabee copper trying to throw his weight about.
Click to expand...

Why? The whole conversation was polite and amicable according to the OP. If anything, it sounds like the PCSO was not quite sure of himself and asked for his details as he wasn't sure what to do.

A lot of assumptions in this thread.
 
fabs said:
Why? The whole conversation was polite and amicable according to the OP. If anything, it sounds like the PCSO was not quite sure of himself and asked for his details as he wasn't sure what to do.

A lot of assumptions in this thread.
Click to expand...

The whole point was they had no reason to approach the op in the first place, there was no report of him doing anything wrong (they told him that) he was just sitting quietly minding his own business.
Why should they go around asking law abiding citizens for their name and address? Do we live in a police state? No we dont. He was sitting by a river drinking tea hardly acting suspiciously. It's this sort of behaviour and the section 44 nonsense thats caused a lot of loss of faith in our police service.
 
swanseamale47 said:
The whole point was they had no reason to approach the op in the first place, there was no report of him doing anything wrong (they told him that) he was just sitting quietly minding his own business.
Why should they go around asking law abiding citizens for their name and address? Do we live in a police state? No we dont. He was sitting by a river drinking tea hardly acting suspiciously. It's this sort of behaviour and the section 44 nonsense thats caused a lot of loss of faith in our police service.
Click to expand...

Don't need to have suspicion to approach and talk to someone. Yes, he didn't really have any reason to ask for his details but I already conceded that point. A lot more is being made of this than there actually was. As I said, he wasn't throwing his weight around, which was your statement and what I was responding to. That and the use of words like "accosted" which the OP said wasn't the case.
 
andybeach said:
I thought my post would barely grab anyone's attention as there had been so many similar posts on the subject - how wrong I was!!

For the record, the two PCSOs were at all times polite and friendly and not the slightest bit threatening, even when I was being mischievous over providing my details.

I asked if anyone had reported me but no, they had seen me and decided to stop. The Male PCSO said he thought I might be about to jump off the bridge - I was sitting alongside the bridge so it would have been more of a ‘leap’ than a ‘jump’, and then only a drop of six foot into six inches of water! I gave him a ‘you cannot be serious’ look so he quickly moved on to his “can I ask what you’re doing” question – clearly not the sharpest tool in the box, scoring two out of two for ‘dumb-assed questions’!

I wouldn’t use the word ‘accosted’, nor did they stop me from continuing my watch for that illusive little b****r of a Kingfisher. Throughout the exchange I kept my stare very intently on the river, and commented that it would be typical if I missed the photo opp while I was talking to them – they shared the humour.

The only real surprise was the request for my details – having established I was not about to hurl myself into the depths of the river I thought they would be off, but maybe they were bored at 8:30am on a Saturday morning! Maybe he (it was only him, not her) wanted to throw his weight around (he wasn’t that fat by the way – at least not compared to me!) and assert his authority, but this was quickly rebuffed by being very friendly (it’s hard to get heavy with someone being really nice!) and by confidently asserting my rights (about the only time I established real eye contact with the guy).

I was left feeling more disappointed than victimised. As I say in my original post, it hardly warranted more than a jovial greeting.

And just to be clear, I chose to give my details voluntarily knowing I did not have to, but not wishing to waste any further time in any debate or discussion with the PCSO, or 'proper' Policeman if he called for support, no matter what the rights or wrongs; I have nothing to fear and don’t see it as the thin end of the wedge as others do (but I respect those views). I can also see situations where it could be to my advantage (“Police are seeking a fat, ugly, balding guy in a black jacket, last seen carrying a large camera, following a series of thefts from the Kingshurst area of Birmingham this morning” – at least I could be quickly eliminated from police enquiries!)

Having written to my (Conservative) MP last year about the Section 44 situation, I thought I would use this opportunity to remind her that these situations are still occurring. I concluded my letter by saying … “I don't take issue with the officers themselves, rather the culture we now live in where the threshold when our law enforcement authorities feel it appropriate to intervene is so low.”

I hope this addresses the points raised. If you disagree with any of the above that’s your right, but please respect I have my rights too!!

Andy

ps - I have more fear of being confronted by an ill-informed member of the public who may choose to take the law into their own hands! Even my Wife was accused of being a paedophile carrying a camera while out walking with our young sons (start of a new debate*!!)

Edit: * Just beaten to it - must type faster!
Click to expand...

off topic - Andy - you have a great way with words.. i like your style. If you had a blog i would read it.... DOH :bonk:

on topic - why didn't you just smash the PCSO in the face and make a run for it?
But seriously... the plastic cop was going through the motions.. it was like he was playing 'police' with his ladyfriend. Sounds to me like he really didn't know what to do and by asking for your details - it would draw the 'meeting' to a conclusion and we can all go our merry way. No biggy
 
fabs said:
Don't need to have suspicion to approach and talk to someone. Yes, he didn't really have any reason to ask for his details but I already conceded that point. A lot more is being made of this than there actually was. As I said, he wasn't throwing his weight around, which was your statement and what I was responding to. That and the use of words like "accosted" which the OP said wasn't the case.
Click to expand...

As citizens we pay the police to do a job, that is to keep her majesties peace and allow her citizens to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance .
If a photographer is being paid to produce images of sea cliffs and he spends his time photographing bikini clad ladies s/he is not doing what s/he is paid for.
If a police officer spends his/her time chatting to people who are not doing anything that should logically arouse suspicion they are not doing what they are paid for
 
paulminus273 said:
As citizens we pay the police to do a job, that is to keep her majesties peace and allow her citizens to go about their lawful business without let or hindrance .
If a photographer is being paid to produce images of sea cliffs and he spends his time photographing bikini clad ladies s/he is not doing what s/he is paid for.
If a police officer spends his/her time chatting to people who are not doing anything that should logically arouse suspicion they are not doing what they are paid for
Click to expand...

What an odd comparison. If the police/PCSOs are on patrol, they are perfectly entitled to chat to people.
 
fabs said:
What an odd comparison. If the police/PCSOs are on patrol, they are perfectly entitled to chat to people.
Click to expand...

Only if it is relevant to the job they are being paid to do, not when is a hindrance to Citizens going about their lawful business. For instance trying to photograph a Kingfisher
 
paulminus273 said:
Only if it is relevant to the job they are being paid to do, not when is a hindrance to Citizens going about their lawful business. For instance trying to photograph a Kingfisher
Click to expand...

The OP has already said that it was a friendly conversation, no hindrance. He even said he was keeping an eye out for the Kingfisher whilst they were talking. Police/PCSOs are also paid to communicate with the public, not just potential criminals.

Why are you trying to make out this is something it's not?
 
Don't you consider that part of their job is to get to know the locals, the area, and what goes on around them ? Surely that striking up a conversation with the general population is what they should be doing, you'll never break down barriers if your only interaction with the general public is for bad reasons.....

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
Jelster said:
Don't you consider that part of their job is to get to know the locals, the area, and what goes on around them ? Surely that striking up a conversation with the general population is what they should be doing, you'll never break down barriers if your only interaction with the general public is for bad reasons.....

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
Click to expand...

What like stopping innocent people and asking for their details, funny way to make friends.
 
swanseamale47 said:
What like stopping innocent people and asking for their details, funny way to make friends.
Click to expand...

They had a friendly conversation.

paulminus273 said:
you see my point
Click to expand...

Not really. I agree that it was odd the PCSO asked for his details but it still went amicably. As the OP said, he could have refused but decided not to.
 
swanseamale47 said:
What like stopping innocent people and asking for their details, funny way to make friends.
Click to expand...

Personally I have no issue with a copper asking me a few questions if it benefits the Country as a whole. Remember, more murders & thieves are caught during car offences than at any other time, so it makes sense to "talk" to your locals.

I have undergone S&S a few times at Aldgate East station on the way home from the office. I'm glad they do it, maybe it could prevent another 7/7. Some people need to stop wittering on about their "Civil Rights". When you live in a Country like China or Burma you may find out what a restriction of Civil Rights is really about. A few years ago a copper could give a youngster a clip round the ear for being cheeky, not much chance of that now is there, and look at the state we're in.....
 
Jelster said:
Personally I have no issue with a copper asking me a few questions if it benefits the Country as a whole. Remember, more murders & thieves are caught during car offences than at any other time, so it makes sense to "talk" to your locals.

I have undergone S&S a few times at Aldgate East station on the way home from the office. I'm glad they do it, maybe it could prevent another 7/7. Some people need to stop wittering on about their "Civil Rights". When you live in a Country like China or Burma you may find out what a restriction of Civil Rights is really about. A few years ago a copper could give a youngster a clip round the ear for being cheeky, not much chance of that now is there, and look at the state we're in.....
Click to expand...

Do you have any details to support that claim?
 
Jelster and Marc, we are losing sight of one simple thing here: the PCSOs acted outside of the bounds of their job, they acted inappropriately and without ANY justifiable cause. We pay them to fulfil a role, not to abuse it. Chatting to and getting to know members of the community is one thing (and I'm sure we would all look on that very favourably if it were to ever happen) but asking for personal data which may be processed in a manner beyond our control is something else entirely. This demonstrates either very poor training or a knowing abuse of both the law and their position. Neither of which is OK.
 
Lindsay D said:
Jelster and Marc, we are losing sight of one simple thing here: the PCSOs acted outside of the bounds of their job, they acted inappropriately and without ANY justifiable cause. We pay them to fulfil a role, not to abuse it. Chatting to and getting to know members of the community is one thing (and I'm sure we would all look on that very favourably if it were to ever happen) but asking for personal data which may be processed in a manner beyond our control is something else entirely. This demonstrates either very poor training or a knowing abuse of both the law and their position. Neither of which is OK.
Click to expand...

I already said that asking for details was odd but the OP could have refused and that might have been the end of it but as he gave them his details, we'll never know what the PCSO's reaction. Only if he had denied his right to refuse could he have been deemed to be abusing his powers. As it is, the conversation was amicable on both sides so words like "accosted" and "abuse" don't even come into it.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Do you have any details to support that claim?
Click to expand...

Well it's something often quoted within the media. IIRC, wasn't the Yorkshire Ripper caught by a traffic cop as he had a duff light or something similar ?

I'm just so surprised that people seem to take such an antagonistic attitude to a PC (or PCSO) doing their job, even if they may be a little over enthusiastic. In the OP's case the PCSO was in the wrong, but maybe he won't be so quick to ask for the details next time.

Also, ask yourself this. If you were in his shoes and you asked that question and the person responded with "No, I don't have to so I'm not going to." wouldn't you be interested to understand why they were taking such a stance? Surely it's much easier to simply ask why, and then as long as you're happy with the response, just comply ? :shrug:

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be giving my name to anybody that asks, but it seems that some people on here almost go out of their way to be obstructive.

I've said my piece so with that I'll not contribute further to the thread as I see that I am going to have to agree to disagree with some of you.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Well it's something often quoted within the media. IIRC, wasn't the Yorkshire Ripper caught by a traffic cop as he had a duff light or something similar ?

I'm just so surprised that people seem to take such an antagonistic attitude to a PC (or PCSO) doing their job, even if they may be a little over enthusiastic. In the OP's case the PCSO was in the wrong, but maybe he won't be so quick to ask for the details next time.

Also, ask yourself this. If you were in his shoes and you asked that question and the person responded with "No, I don't have to so I'm not going to." wouldn't you be interested to understand why they were taking such a stance? Surely it's much easier to simply ask why, and then as long as you're happy with the response, just comply ? :shrug:

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be giving my name to anybody that asks, but it seems that some people on here almost go out of their way to be obstructive.

I've said my piece so with that I'll not contribute further to the thread as I see that I am going to have to agree to disagree with some of you.

Steve
Click to expand...

Steve you are completely entitled to your opinion and differences are what makes for a lively and interesting debate. But please understand that when requests for our data are unlawful and made under the circumstances described by the OP, we are not being in any way 'obstructive' by declining to pass on that data - information to which the PCSO has no right whatsoever. However if we were in possession of a motor vehicle and a qualified officer asked for such information, that would be a very different matter. I'm sure you can see the difference.

Now I will go away and hope that next time I am approached by either a PCSO or a qualified officer that I am 'talked to' in a relevant way and not subjected to the abuse I have experienced in the past.
 
Lindsay hits the nail on the head - the issue is that the PCSOs acted inappropriately and outside the bounds of their job.

My last run in with the Police was a couple of years ago near Heathrow. I was photographing aircraft from a cemetery and after I had been there for a couple of hours a police car parks next to mine and the 'passenger' winds his window down, and asks me what I am doing.

It took me about 10 seconds to prove my bona fides, we spent a couple of minutes having a friendly chat, and then the police left. Throughout the conversation, I was treated with respect, and treated the policeman with equal respect.

I had absolutely no problem with what happened. I don't know if they were responding to a call from someone who had seen me or if they were just passing by, but as a regular passenger through Heathrow I was pleased to see that they were taking security seriously (after all, I was in a cemetery and clearly not 'mourning').

And the policeman (who was not a Heathrow policeman) got information on the locations away from the airport that photographers sometimes use. A win win situation.

However, he understood what his powers were and at no time did he ask me for my name and address. Why should he - I had done nothing wrong?

If all policemen operated in a manner similar to the one I met, then we wouldn't have these problems that are raised throughout this thread. But it is as a consequence of officers and PCSOs overstepping their powers that the police find that support for them amongst groups who would be expected to support them is falling.

And that is why, when they do get things wrong, it should be raised with the appropriate authorities to prevent these situations continuing to take place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top