Photograper arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holden Caulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
grum said:
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?
Click to expand...
Probably not. I suspect that their diet of Daily Prole drivel has turned their brains to mush and they can't reason any more. ;)
 
Denyerec said:
Remember folks, we have never been at war with Oceana.
Click to expand...
Or....
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
Click to expand...
 
ki_user said:
Nah it's OK I like where I live, however I do feel freedom is over rated, as in the amount of people who have it that don't deserve it.
Click to expand...

It's amazing the lack of insight you have. The people of Yugoslavia probably thought exactly the same way you did; that was less than 20 years ago.
 
[start of my 2p]

....sounds like the actions of a film user !! ;)

would have taken him 3 seconds to speel out his name and address and he'd then be free to take more pictures if he liked.

sounds like he was spoiling for an argument to be honest.

i've been hassled at tube stations by police, just tell them what im doing and where im going and they leave me alone, usually with a polite "thank you"

yes, some plod can be a bit over zealous, but hey, look at some of the scum they have to deal with ona daily basis !! - i dont let them rattle me and you never know, i might need their help one day (ying and yang etc) :)

[end of my 2p]
 
ki_user said:
If this was over a serious matter I could understand. I really think people are getting too hung up on "It's against my rights".
Click to expand...

Ever heard of the expression 'thin end of the wedge'?

Perhaps you think it's fine to use the terrorism act to arrest a man for shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw at a Labour Party conference too?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm

After all, if he'd just kept his mouth shut, everything would have been fine eh? :|
 
barrypriddis said:
Looks 50/50 to me. Police were too officious, and togs were intent on winding them up.
Click to expand...
:whs: although this section 2 is a new one on me.... I guess they've got a bit wise.

Personally I would have given the details but discussed in a civil manor what exactly the issue is.

That been said ( and ok we shouldnt have to ) what about some kind of tog register like proof of identity ?

Basically I do take photos but I try and avoid subjects ( like children ) where this could be an issue and may be the issue imho as I know even still I could be wary of photos of my kids.

Terran

Mmmmm Photographing CCTV in London - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/15/police-terrorism - Yep a good way to get stopped.
 
ccsnet said:
That been said ( and ok we shouldnt have to ) what about some kind of tog register like proof of identity ?
Click to expand...

Do you not realise the madness of what you are saying? Having to register before you can take photographs in a public place?
 
See.. buy a Leica and look what it gets you!

I wonder what the outcome would have been if he wasn't filming. Let to go on his way maybe? I guess if the police know you are recording them they have to follow it through or to be seen weak and plastered across the web?
 
These two photograpers were aware of the law, and were intent in widing the officers up, trying to prove a point text book stuff. It was almost as if it was staged at some points.
If the offender had given his details then i suspect that would have been the end of it, but because he did not give his details then he WAS breaking the law, and to a certain point making his self suspicous.

It was made clear that some people were un happy with the way he was taken his photographs. We only saw a few images of what he had taken, but was it a case of him photographing young children or placing the camera in some ones face that got these people to make a complaint, is this what the police observed, If a complaint is made to the police they are obliged to follow it up, nothing wrong in there proceedure.

We only see this take on it, lets see some of the publics views, especially those that made the complaint..

Two sides to a story...

Although i have to say if this is the case, then surly paps should be held to account.....
 
We need to keep this kind of thing in the full glare of public attention, if you give up one right without a fight, pretty soon you'll have given up all your rights.

For those posting "these threads get old" type comments... The thread title is pretty clear about it's content, you chose to click on the link, you chose to read it and type your reply, you could just have ignored it and gone on your merry way.
 
gazza2168 said:
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:
Click to expand...


nope but then because of the media and web forums people think they can just be rude and obnoxious to the police and expect not to get a hard time. I personally don't see this as news and its only inthe papers to get attention which it has done.
 
The photographers were not doing anything wrong, apart from pointing their cameras in an anti social way!!! (what a load of crap). It`s time this sort of harrassment was stopped once and for all. :cuckoo:
 
As for giving your name and address, "unless the police officer is reporting you for a suspected crime, you don't have to give them these details". You are I think at liberty to ask what crime you are suspected of in this situation if you don't want to give your details.
 
Steep said:
We need to keep this kind of thing in the full glare of public attention, if you give up one right without a fight, pretty soon you'll have given up all your rights.

For those posting "these threads get old" type comments... The thread title is pretty clear about it's content, you chose to click on the link, you chose to read it and type your reply, you could just have ignored it and gone on your merry way.
Click to expand...

Yes, I could.

But what is the point of a one sided debate? The topic of the news article is exactly the same as many others.

As photographers we can all stand up for our rights without infringing on the right of the police officers to do what they believe is their job - the photographers who make it to the news only do one part of that.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Just because a member of the public has a concern that does not mean that the Police can wade in and do as they please. They have to apply the law, as it is written, whether you, me or the Home Secretary likes it.

And the law says that photography in a public place is perfectly legal (for now) and that he should not have been stopped since he was doing nothing wrong in the first place.

That is what creates situations in the first place. The posession of a camera in a public is not a stoppable or arrestable offence and they had no right to stop him and were acting outwith their authority. When challenged they then change tack to try to find some piece of legislation they can use to keep him which again is wrong. So it's false arrest and false imprisonment according to the law.

And if he does file a complaint he will get a nice payout which we, the taxpayer will have to fund.

It's inadequate training on the part of the Police and trying to di it on the cheap with PCSO's who are not trained or have the authority to do the job properly in the first place.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Yes, I could.

But what is the point of a one sided debate?
Click to expand...

What does a comment along the lines of "these threads get old" add to the debate? debate is a good thing if it's constructive.
 
Steep said:
What does a comment along the lines of "these threads get old" add to the debate? debate is a good thing if it's constructive.
Click to expand...

About the same amount as the comment picking up on that point adds to the thread.
 
BouncyMelons said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Just because a member of the public has a concern that does not mean that the Police can wade in and do as they please. They have to apply the law, as it is written, whether you, me or the Home Secretary likes it.

And the law says that photography in a public place is perfectly legal (for now) and that he should not have been stopped since he was doing nothing wrong in the first place.

That is what creates situations in the first place. The posession of a camera in a public is not a stoppable or arrestable offence and they had no right to stop him and were acting outwith their authority. When challenged they then change tack to try to find some piece of legislation they can use to keep him which again is wrong. So it's false arrest and false imprisonment according to the law.

And if he does file a complaint he will get a nice payout which we, the taxpayer will have to fund.

It's inadequate training on the part of the Police and trying to di it on the cheap with PCSO's who are not trained or have the authority to do the job properly in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thank you, you have put into better and simpler words than I could have.
 
inkiboo said:
Do you not realise the madness of what you are saying? Having to register before you can take photographs in a public place?
Click to expand...
I do.... didnt say I was happy about it but in the first case I can sort of understand why ( although how you can be anti social with a camera I have no idea ).

gingerjon said:
Or how about everybody who want to take any picture any time ever has to submit to a full ISA check.

Might as well use the databases that are there.

The innocent have nothing to fear.
Click to expand...
Personally if there is REASONABLE doubt then I dont mind been asked but not when its just simple abuse of the law. In both the above cases those in question wound up the officers in question although technically not wrong by not answering made them selves look suss.

That been said any one who thinks photographing iconic London buildings and their security and is not going to get stopped... and more so thinks 'just for fun' will cut it as an excuse.... :cuckoo: ( even more so when she would not show the photos )

Terran
 
BouncyMelons said:
It's inadequate training on the part of the Police and trying to di it on the cheap with PCSO's who are not trained or have the authority to do the job properly in the first place.
Click to expand...

For me, this is a key problem.

So many of the incidents that make the news begin with the PCSO and then escalate from that point. However any photographer who knows their rights will also likley know that a PSCO or indeed many police officers will not know every word of the law inside out - if photographers in this situation showed some respect I expect the outcomes would be different.

Photographers get jaded towards the police - but police officers who have had such experiences probably get jaded towards photographers. That is the cycle that needs to be broken IMO
 
These two photograpers were aware of the law, and were intent in widing the officers up
Click to expand...

Yes they were aware of the law that says they do not have to give out their details.
So they broke no law

Perhpas they should have given their details to help matters but the law in this free country says they do not have to if they choose.
They were simply excercising their legal rights in a democracy.
 
Now I'm confused. Why are people talking about anti-terror laws? In this case they where not used.

They said they stopped him under suspect of being “anti social” while taking photos. Now I’m assuming that there would be laws against say photographing up women’s skirts. (I’m not for one minute saying that what he was doing, I’m just saying that such a law must exist)

Now when they suspect you, you are obligated to give your name and address. He refused thus he is on the wrong side of the law?

He was certainly acting strangely

Stuart
 
Would it not be easier if the old bill were given the right to look at the images that have been taken ( digital ) & then judge the intention of the photographer ? This was surely just a case of backing up their colleague who made the snap judgement in the first place.
 
stu_the_flat said:
Now I'm confused. Why are people talking about anti-terror laws? In this case they where not used.

They said they stopped him under suspect of being “anti social” while taking photos. Now I’m assuming that there would be laws against say photographing up women’s skirts. (I’m not for one minute saying that what he was doing, I’m just saying that such a law must exist)

Now when they suspect you, you are obligated to give your name and address. He refused thus he is on the wrong side of the law?

He was certainly acting strangely

Stuart
Click to expand...

They started with anti-terrorism and when they had no success they tried the anti social which required them by law to give their details.

We will get you! attitude by the Police. :(
 
I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the “them and us attitude”!

I was photographing the Glasgow Saturday night life a few weeks ago. I felt I look dodgy with my tripod! The place was swarming with Police. None of them disturbed me.

However if they did I would happily just show them the images even if they didn't ask. Then there happy that I'm not a terrorist or Perv and I can get on with my hobby with a 2 minute conversation.

To be honest they "picked" on him because he was acting like a man that has a camera filled will incriminating evidence. All he had to do was show them a couple of images of the pipe band and he would not have wasted there time.

I stand by my original statement “he is a prat!”

Stuart
 
Stu, the point is that there is a vast difference between what you would volunteer to do (in your case show them images) and what you legally HAVE to do. Being arrested when you have broken no law is not defensible.

But then in Scots law there is always good old fashioned "breach of the peace" ;)

In English law there is OF COURSE (thank you CT) the same offence and they could possibly have used it but didn't and so the Police in this case made a wrongful arrest.
 
stu_the_flat said:
I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the “them and us attitude”!

I was photographing the Glasgow Saturday night life a few weeks ago. I felt I look dodgy with my tripod! The place was swarming with Police. None of them disturbed me.

However if they did I would happily just show them the images even if they didn't ask. Then there happy that I'm not a terrorist or Perv and I can get on with my hobby with a 2 minute conversation.

To be honest they "picked" on him because he was acting like a man that has a camera filled will incriminating evidence. All he had to do was show them a couple of images of the pipe band and he would not have wasted there time.

I stand by my original statement “he is a prat!”

Stuart
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a them and us attitude :shrug:

I think the Police on a Saturday night in Glasgow have more important concerns than a photographer.

If the Police can't enter into a polite conversation without jumping straight to anti terrorism then they need re-training.

The photographers should have given their detail when given the reason behind the anti social complaint. Then they should have complained about harassment.

Thay all acted like prats at some point.
 
Actually Ali 'Breach OF The Peace' is a Common Law offence in England since Noah was a lad.;)
 
I can see that, but I'm thinking "what is the world coming to that innocent people are refusing to cooperate."

I mean think of it. A member of the public reports a suspicious character and when you speak to him he responds as he did… extremely suspiciously!

I think he wanted arrest. I know I do after one of photographers was awarded £5000. I would be running down to Calumet! :D
 
foggy4ever said:
Thay all acted like prats at some point.
Click to expand...

Just about sums it up for me. I think the guy got what he asked for. The only thing I find indefensible is that it took 8 hours at the nick to sort this out.
 
stu_the_flat said:
I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the “them and us attitude”!

I was photographing the Glasgow Saturday night life a few weeks ago. I felt I look dodgy with my tripod! The place was swarming with Police. None of them disturbed me.

However if they did I would happily just show them the images even if they didn't ask. Then there happy that I'm not a terrorist or Perv and I can get on with my hobby with a 2 minute conversation.

To be honest they "picked" on him because he was acting like a man that has a camera filled will incriminating evidence. All he had to do was show them a couple of images of the pipe band and he would not have wasted there time.

I stand by my original statement “he is a prat!”

Stuart
Click to expand...
Exactly......

Terran
 
foggy4ever said:
I think the Police on a Saturday night in Glasgow have more important concerns than a photographer.
Click to expand...

Aren't they a suspected terrorist though? Surely that's more important than a couple of Glasgow drunks knocking seven shades out of each other? :D

I don't really understand what there is to gain from the police/PCSOs asking what a photographer is doing. Terrorist or not, the answer will be "taking photos of that [points finger]".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top