Photograper arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holden Caulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Should have just gave his details, IMHO
 
bootsy said:
what joke this country is becoming
Click to expand...

What a joke this guy is! people who actively go out of their way to waste the Police and tax payer time should get fined, just a publicity stunt trying to make himself look hard done by. I would much rather have Police who were trying to keep this country safe than have someone film the aftermath of an event with someone saying why didn't the Police do more to protect the public.
 
he should have given her his details but on the other hand the police were just plain stupid. so now we have to watch out for section 2 as well.

but yes he should have just given his details imho.
 
sbowler579 said:
Should have just gave his details, IMHO
Click to expand...
The police should not have continued to make a stupid request for a name and address and claiming that taking photographs in a public place is somehow 'anti-social behaviour'.

Well done to Bob Patefield and the Guardian for this small attempt at highlighting the pathetic way in which our freedoms are being slowly erased by an increasingly intrusive police state. IMO.
 
maybe more should take a stand when this happens, what a waste of taxpayers money and police man hours, maybe the officer just wanted a tea break.
 
Looks 50/50 to me. Police were too officious, and togs were intent on winding them up.
 
as i am pretty new to this photography lark, i myself would have just said "i didn't mean to look suspicious, i am just taking photo's of the festivities, i am so and so, of so and so address" job done, or am i wrong?. :shrug:
 
seashaker said:
What a joke this guy is! people who actively go out of their way to waste the Police and tax payer time should get fined, just a publicity stunt trying to make himself look hard done by. I would much rather have Police who were trying to keep this country safe than have someone film the aftermath of an event with someone saying why didn't the Police do more to protect the public.
Click to expand...

its people like you who give any freedom we have away ,,,its the two police officers who were the joke . taking photos is now anti social behaviour ,,,i dont suppose you'll be happy until its against the law to take photos in a public place ,,,then in the home ,,,then a ten year prison sentance just for owning a camera . i would like to think this man put an official complaint in against the two ,,but its not until officers start getting reprimanded that they might start getting bouts of common sense .
 
This forum plays out like a season of LOST at times. Flashbacks galore, how many times are these threads going to arise....and what's the outcome going to be?

They come...they argue, they ****, they moan....it always ends the same ;)
 
Why would he not give his details, also it must have been a slow news weekend as this all happened back at the begining on November, why wait 3 months to bring it up!!!
 
I guess when they requested his details under section 2 he was then oblidged to give them and as he refused they had no choice but to arrest him, although be it that there was some very vague reason for him being orignally stopped.

However, it is concering that the taking a photograph in a Public Place could be perviced as "antisocial behaviour"

taken from home office website:

"Anti-social behaviour is virtually any intimidating or threatening activity that scares you or damages your quality of life."

I just can't see how photography in a Public place of a public event be remotely considered antisocial :(
 
EdinburghGary said:
This forum plays out like a season of LOST at times. Flashbacks galore, how many times are these threads going to arise....and what's the outcome going to be?

They come...they argue, they ****, they moan....it always ends the same ;)
Click to expand...

It does.............zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........thud!
 
He was acting within the law (whether it was being awkward or not) and so was well within his rights to refuse to give his details.

I think sometimes the police just need to check these things out and use their common sense about whether it really requires the persons details or not. Surely by now the police know about the uproar of harrassing photographers.
 
I find the Police officers behaviour and actions to be indefensible. The man was taking photo's, most likely so were many others. He was initially approached under section 44 which the P.C.S.O. could not articulate the grounds for - I thought the Police had a responsibility to know the law that they claim to be upholding. The P.C.S.O. had failed in this responsibility.

So they changed tack and detained him under Section 2 which, last time I looked, required there to be a complainant. The Acting Police Sargent stated that there was no complaint, so why was he detained and arrested?

I see the statements above to the effect that thw photographer should have just capitulated and given his details - why? He has the right to go about his lawful business unimpeded, the Police were violating that right and eventually the Police arresyed him without reasonable grounds and imprisoned him for 8 hours. All because he dared to question the P.C.S.O.'s authority.

Ego. That was the reason. The P.C.S.O. could not substantiate her claim against the photographer, he made her look the fool that she is. She did not like it, it dented her ego so she went off to get her "mates" to back her up.

Her failure to substantiate her claim under Section 44 was further evidenced by the later change of tack and subsequent arrest under Section2. If the P.C.S.O. had known the law that she was wrongly trying to invoke, this arrest would never have happened because the initial approach would not have happened.

Because a pretend copper tried to be clever, a man was imprisoned against his will for 8 hours.

You find that to be defensible? He was within his rights, the P.C.S.O. was acting outside of the law.

Please feel free to educated me as to where it was that the Police have acted properly in this case - or do you think that we should bow down to others when they unlawfully impede our progress, just because they wear a uniform?
 
These threads acutally IMO get a bit old

They are all the same. Police not fully aware of their guidelines and lacking a few people skills - but then photographers being antagonistic and uncooprative. 50/50 blame but bring it up here and it's a horror story. I saw no evidence of how the first encounter went but I would hazard a guess that it set the scene for the next two.
 
Personally I think its perfectly OK for the police to make sure that I'm not engaging in a spot of Boudoir photography with a 800mm lens! :D

Its stupid idea that its "impossable to break the law with a camera!"

Stuart
 
Interesting that later in the video the officers refer to both their suspicions of anti social behaviour and that it had been brought to their attention by members of the public. Are the officers not then dealing with the concerns of members of the public ? If a concern or complaint is made by the public, the police have a duty to act - which they appear to have done.

What I do find interesting is that the subject,when he is detained, says that he does not consent to his fingerprints,photograph or DNA being taken - I have watched the video over and at no stage did I hear the officer mention this - which leads me to think that the subject has set out to stage manage a confrontation.
 
david700 said:
Interesting that later in the video the officers refer to both their suspicions of anti social behaviour and that it had been brought to their attention by members of the public. Are the officers not then dealing with the concerns of members of the public ? If a concern or complaint is made by the public, the police have a duty to act - which they appear to have done.

What I do find interesting is that the subject,when he is detained, says that he does not consent to his fingerprints,photograph or DNA being taken - I have watched the video over and at no stage did I hear the officer mention this - which leads me to think that the subject has set out to stage manage a confrontation.
Click to expand...

The chap then asked the Officer if anyone had made a complaint to which the Officer answered "no"

So run it past me again, how were the Police acting lawfully?
 
Can be quite clearly heard that members of the public had raised a concern - which they have acted on - and surely the police officer is also a member of the public - are they entitled to act on concerns as well ?

On another point - the subject was quite happy to film/show the face of the first PCSO yet interestingly on the Guardian video he is either in shade or back to camera !!
 
sbowler579 said:
Should have just gave his details, IMHO
Click to expand...

Why should he his behaviour if the story is accurate was totally legal and this was yet again some copper and PCSO with a Hitler complex picking on photographers for no apparent reason.I got stopped the other day for a minor motoring offence that I was guilty of and the copper gave me a stern warning scared the wits out of me and sent me on my way,not once did he ask for my name,its called proper policing
 
EdinburghGary said:
This forum plays out like a season of LOST at times. Flashbacks galore, how many times are these threads going to arise....and what's the outcome going to be?

They come...they argue, they ****, they moan....it always ends the same ;)
Click to expand...
I suspect that various sections of the press are keeping this story in the public conciousness in an attempt to get the authorities to behave in a more reasonable manner.

Sure, if you are dressed in camouflage gear and behaving furtively with a long lens near an airport be ready to explain your actions - but the police do need to learn not to act like authoritarian, delusional and paranoid freaks simply because they can't have their own way.
 
We have an old saying ....

If your an egg, don't pick a quarrel with a rock!

In this instance, I wonder who's the egg & who's the rock?!
 
Hindsight is a great thing. Now imagine the story another way:-

100 people died yesterday watching the Christmas lights. Police had approached the terrorist and asked for his details. The terrorist claimed to be just taking photographs and refused to give his details. The police officer accepted this and walked off with his tail between his legs!!!!!!!
 
artona said:
Hindsight is a great thing. Now imagine the story another way:-

100 people died yesterday watching the Christmas lights. Police had approached the terrorist and asked for his details. The terrorist claimed to be just taking photographs and refused to give his details. The police officer accepted this and walked off with his tail between his legs!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Only they didn't. :cuckoo:
 
Voyager said:
Only they didn't. :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

No...exactly! But that is what people wanted them to do.. and if they had then that is what could have happened. That is what artona meant.
 
Only a matter of time before someone is found shopping or eating their lunch in a suspicious or antisocial way. I'm sure they must be getting so bored with real crime preformed by total morons that they have to take a break and pick on normal folk for a change and a challenge, I expect there is a lot less paperwork involved in arresting someone that hasn't done anything wrong. I do wonder if it has taken some special training to be able to pick out a terrorist or antisocial person in a crowd of people that are probably doing the same thing except with a different camera in their hand.
 
artona said:
Hindsight is a great thing. Now imagine the story another way:-

100 people died yesterday watching the Christmas lights. Police had approached the terrorist and asked for his details. The terrorist claimed to be just taking photographs and refused to give his details. The police officer accepted this and walked off with his tail between his legs!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Imagine this then, police wasted time in arresting a photographer while the real bomber had a 50lb bomb strapped under his jumper and just walked into the crowd and blew the scene to the ground, people need to get real, terrorists don't flaunt it about and draw attention to themselves by taking photographs, they from what I can see are in it to destroy normal life.
 
EVERYONE IN THIS COUNTRY HAS TO LIVE BY THE LAW.

From what can be seen here the photographer broke no laws - and he was wrongfully arrested. I hope he brings a private prosecution against the police who were not acting in anyone's best interests.
 
I have watched this twice now and I can't see it....... I've looked really close and I just can't spot the chip on that guys shoulder. What a 2@, I don't understand what the biggy is about not giving your detail. Whoop, it's not like they are gonna come around and rob his house while he's taking photos.
 
The biggy about not giving your details is that you don't have to in a free country. With so many people happy just to roll over it's obvious the terrorists have won already!
 
or how about " Police are now appealing for anyone who was taking photographs of the event to please contact them team as they may have taken photographs which may help the investigation "

Which way do they want it?

T
 
ki_user said:
I have watched this twice now and I can't see it....... I've looked really close and I just can't spot the chip on that guys shoulder. What a 2@, I don't understand what the biggy is about not giving your detail. Whoop, it's not like they are gonna come around and rob his house while he's taking photos.
Click to expand...

Can't you see why it's quite an important point that the police can't just make you do whatever they tell you, even if they have no legal justification?
 
stu_the_flat said:
What a prat! deservies everything that is coming to him.

Stuart
Click to expand...

Yes, what a prat for standing up to our right not to be hassled by the police.

The police were clearly idiots. This is the phrase that confirms their stupidity:

"Because of the Terrorism Act and everything in the country, we need to get everyone's details who is taking pictures of the town."

What a load of nonsense.

I also don't buy this "It makes the police's job easier" line that some posters have mentioned. It would make their life easier if we told them where we were going to be every minute of the day but wouldn't do much to our freedoms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top