Photograper arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holden Caulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PsiFox said:
Stopped and searched only once. Understandable though as was about to photograph Princess Anne.;)
Click to expand...

What is it about princess anne?! I was S&S'd for her as well!

Was a very quick one as CO19 had obviously trained their officers that UK Press Card = Acceptable form of ID.

Saw that, took one look at it and said "oops...sorry, carry on".
 
Quaker said:
the problems always stem from some stroppy photographer wanting to prove a point.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with wanting to prove a point? Our laws are made up of the results of people wanting to prove a point. Our history is filled with those who fought and died, for what are now considered basic human rights.

That many, for no particular reason apparently, seem happy to have our tolerant and free society chipped away at without complaint is even more depressing to me than the actions of some ignorant police officers.
 
grum said:
Ah great so it's casual racism and police picking on people because of what they wear that you support, not just harassing innocent photographers. Marvellous.
Click to expand...

Don't be so negative, its attitude that sticks out and yours doesn't come across as great.

Dunc
 
Duncan.F said:
Don't be so negative, its attitude that sticks out and yours doesn't come across as great.

Dunc
Click to expand...

Sorry for being so negative about racism and unlawful harassment, how unkind of me.

That many, for no particular reason apparently, seem happy to have our tolerant and free society chipped away at without complaint is even more depressing to me than the actions of some ignorant police officers.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
Lets try a different poll:

If I as a member of the public came up to you and asked for your details as I suspected you of being suspicious, so that I could call the police and check that you were who you say you are, would you do so?

If not would you be happy with me making a citizens arrest?

Look forward to seeing how many would. Please do put yes or no with your next post.

I have as much right as a police officer to do this!
 
Well, even though the numbers in that poll are going up still...the percentage seems to be roughly.

20% - YES I've been stopped

80% - NO I've not

Funnily enough when you get a group of togs together who have been stopped, then tend to share the opinion of "I'm going to follow the law to the letter, even if the copper doesnt".

When you get a group of togs who haven't been stopped, you seem to get the opinion "I'll just give them what they want, and have my civil liberties eroded because it's just easier".

This sort of conversation is sort of similar to a bunch of 18yr olds in a pub talking about Ferrari's...none of them have driven one, and they're getting all their info from random sources that may or may not be accurate.

Carl, in answer to your question...No I would not, Yes I would be happy with you making a "citizens arrest". I know i'd be in the right and I accept this hassle as part and parcel of my job/life
 
He was entirely right and correct to withhold his details as there was no legal basis for him to give them over. What the police were doing to him was harassment which should be fought every step of the way - it's a drip drip erosion of our civil liberties. We must fight to keep what rights we have.
 
grum said:
Sorry for being so negative about racism and unlawful harassment, how unkind of me.



Rather than your emotive and negative the point I was trying to make is that we do not live in a perfect society, I did not intend to infer racism or any other ism. What I was trying to get across was that if you stick out from the crowd, by definition, you attract attention. That may be from the Police or a member of the public. The Police do a difficult job which is sometimes made unneccessarily difficult by arkward ****s looking for trouble.
Photographers do stick out from the crowd, they do attract attention particularly if there are more than one.
It is not 'harrassement' to ask a member of the public what he is up to in many circumstances nor is it unlawful. For that to be true a Police Officer would have to be certain a crime had been committed or was about to be before he could speak to someone. Clearly that would be a ludicrous situation. The Police have been rightly criticised for distancing themselves from the public are are trying I believe to address this with a more community based approach. That means they put themselves about on foot, its not rocket science they just try and interact more at street level. Apologies for the cliches!

We need to keep these situations in proportion, yes we live in a free society but we all have responsbilties, moral and legal. If we as phtographers put ourselves in the public eye [which I often do] then I am prepared for interaction with others including the Police or members of the public.

Dunc
Click to expand...
 
inkiboo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lack of insight, hmmmmm, ain't we blowing this out of all proportion, it's a copper asking someone for their name and address. Not wanting to typecast you but I think your life experiences dictate how you react to this subject. I have worked in a service related industry and some of the people I have encountered over the years make me have no objection to the police asking me my name and address any time they want. Will even show them my drivers licence if they want to see it.

grum said:
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? :|
Click to expand...

In answer to your questions, yes I have heard that expression and prehaps I don't think it's OK but I think you are going off the subject a bit. This was about a guy being asked his name and address.

gingerjon said:
Yeah, it's a right pain.

Better just give them all up.

After all, the nice officers just want to make the bad man go away.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this was sarcastic, cant really tell when it's typed, if not :thumbs:
 
All this talk is very interesting but it all seems to boil down to one thing should Bob Patefield, or should he not have given the police his name and address? If you think about it he has no choice if he does't give them the information that they require then he will probably get arrested and end up giving his details. If he manages to not get arrested and and not give his details (whats the odds?) then puts a letter of complaint in I assume he will have to put his name and address on the letter of complaint.Now heres the good part...the police cant investigate his complaint because they hadn't got a name and address of the aggrieved party from that date and time! but they have now!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutagain
ah , so the pcso/police werent trying to use the terrorism issue then ? and when they realised it wouldnt wash , they came up with this mythical member of the public who had complained ,,,yeah right

I was refering to those been questioned....

i know who you were refering to ,,,,,but it looked to me it was the police playing the terrorism card more than the photographers ,,,,( until they realised it wasnt going to work ) and to all the posters who keep sayng the bolshy / gobby photographers got what they deserved ,,,,i must have missed those bits , because they seemed pretty calm to me ,not being bolshy ,just fed up like me ,and many others who have had enough of pcso's and police officers using section 44 when they havnt the slightest suspision of any wrong doing whatso ever
 
Not sure if this point has been made yet, but it's a bit of a tricky situation. If I had said , as a police officer, can I have your name and address, and someone said no, my 1st thought would be what are they trying to hide.

Now put yourself in this situation, if this person is trying to hide something would YOU say to them, "oh don't worry then mate" and just let them go?

In a society that is so keen, when the **** hits the fan, to point the finger at someone if they didn't do their job properly, would YOU be so keen to let them go?
 
ki_user said:
Not sure if this point has been made yet, but it's a bit of a tricky situation. If I had said , as a police officer, can I have your name and address, and someone said no, my 1st thought would be what are they trying to hide.

Now put yourself in this situation, if this person is trying to hide something would YOU say to them, "oh don't worry then mate" and just let them go?

In a society that is so keen, when the **** hits the fan, to point the finger at someone if they didn't do their job properly, would YOU be so keen to let them go?
Click to expand...

the implication behind your post is there was a good reason for stopping them in the first place, there wasn't
 
inkiboo said:
The mythical "You have to anything a police officer tells you" law.

I do wonder about the intelligent of some people on this forum.
Click to expand...

Irony, always ready to bite you on the ass :D
 
ki_user said:
Not sure if this point has been made yet, but it's a bit of a tricky situation. If I had said , as a police officer, can I have your name and address, and someone said no, my 1st thought would be what are they trying to hide.

Now put yourself in this situation, if this person is trying to hide something would YOU say to them, "oh don't worry then mate" and just let them go?

In a society that is so keen, when the **** hits the fan, to point the finger at someone if they didn't do their job properly, would YOU be so keen to let them go?
Click to expand...
You better have a word with the Met they seem to be addressing the issue in a more sensible fashion.
Freedom to photograph/ film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
Click to expand...
 
ccsnet said:
:whs: although this section 2 is a new one on me.... I guess they've got a bit wise.
Click to expand...

Or maybe not

Section 2 of the Violent Crimes Reduction Act 2006, referred to by the police Sergeant on multiple occasions in the video

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060038_en_2#pt1-ch1-pb1-l1g2

2 Duration of drinking banning orders

(1)A drinking banning order has effect for a period specified in the order (“the specified period”), which must be not less than two months and not more than two years.
(2)A drinking banning order may provide that different prohibitions contained in the order have effect for different periods; but, in each case, the period (“the prohibition period”) must be not less than two months and not more than two years.
(3)A drinking banning order may include provision for—
(a)the order, or
(b)a prohibition contained in it,to cease to have effect before the end of the specified period or the prohibition period if the subject satisfactorily completes the approved course specified in the order.
(4)Provision under subsection (3) must fix the time at which the order or the prohibition will cease to have effect if the subject satisfactorily completes the specified approved course as whichever is the later of—
(a)the time specified in the order in accordance with subsection (5); and
(b)the time when he does satisfactorily complete that course.
(5)The time specified for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) must be a time after the expiry of at least half the specified period or (as the case may be) the prohibition period.
(6)Provision under subsection (3) may be included in a drinking banning order only if—
(a)the court making the order is satisfied that a place on the specified approved course will be available for the subject; and
(b)the subject has agreed to the inclusion of the provision in question in the order.
(7)Before making provision under subsection (3), the court must inform the subject in ordinary language (whether in writing or otherwise) about—
(a)the effect of including the provision in the order;
(b)what, in general terms, attendance on the course will involve if he undertakes it;
(c)any fees he will be required to pay for the course if he undertakes it; and
(d)when he will have to pay any such fees.
(8)Where a court makes a drinking banning order which does not include provision under subsection (3), it must give its reasons for not including such provision in open court.
(9)The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (5) so as to modify the earliest time (after the completion of the specified approved course) when by virtue of that subsection—
(a)a drinking banning order, or
(b)a prohibition contained in such an order,may cease to have effect.
Click to expand...

No mention of a power to require disclosure of name and address.

Now, the police do have a power to require your name and address if they suspect you are behaving in an anti-social manner, but it is Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 1998 (which he does mention once in passing and only to the Act in general, not s50)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2002/ukpga_20020030_en_6#pt4-ch2-pb2-l1g50

50 Persons acting in an anti-social manner

(1)If a constable in uniform has reason to believe that a person has been acting, or is acting, in an anti-social manner (within the meaning of section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (anti-social behaviour orders)), he may require that person to give his name and address to the constable.
(2)Any person who—
(a)fails to give his name and address when required to do so under subsection (1), or
(b)gives a false or inaccurate name or address in response to a requirement under that subsection,is guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
Click to expand...

The initial approach by the PCSO was under the auspicies of 'terrorism'.

When she failed to get the information that she wanted, she and her colleague shifted their ground to 'anti social behaviour'.

:suspect:
 
boyfalldown said:
the implication behind your post is there was a good reason for stopping them in the first place, there wasn't
Click to expand...

Depends if you class paranoia as a good reason. I don't know, none of us do really we can only assume there was no reason.

Did I have a reason to approach a kid outside the shop I work in because he looked a bit shifty...... no. After I said hi to him did he run like Lindford across the car park and chuck a couple of hundred quids worth of stock on the ground...... yes. Who knows why we do things sometimes.

We can only guess.
 
IMO he did the right thing. There is NO reason that taking photos is antisocial behaviour and if we don't stand up to these numptys then it will just keep on happening.
 
I live in Accrington.If anyone is daft enough to brave the town centre with a few hundred quids worth of camera gear,then they shouldn`t be arrested,they should be sectioned..........:lol:

Seriously, this thread is exactly like the previous one on the same subject and the one before that and...well you know......;).......let it go.
 
kingbling11 said:
IMO he did the right thing. There is NO reason that taking photos is antisocial behaviour
Click to expand...

It wasn't the taking of photos, it was the 'positioning of his camera' that 'could have been construed as anti-social' according to Lancashire police.

Glad that's cleared up. :)

Now where's my Camera Sutra so I can work out which positions to avoid...
 
i think it's poor that the police changed their tack from section 44 to section 2 because they weren't getting their way, if they could resonably articulate why it was suspicious then i'd have no problem giving them my details however with just a "hunch" i'd be less likely to comply

in all honesty he was being a bit obtuse later on but i think he'd been harassed and it was only the third officer that spoke any discernable sense, the first two didn't seem to be able to justify realistically other than "a bit suspicious" why they were doing what they were doing.

and the 2nd got right on my wick because as he said he did ask a very simple question that she refused to answer

the fact is taking pics in a public place isn't illegal is it? and they didn't really justify why it was suspicious as far as i could tell other than "it's suspicious"

so i'd side with the photographer in this case

p.s - not sure why the people who've seen these threads before are bothered, if you don't like it don't read it/post in it....it's pretty clear from the title what the content is going to be, if no-one replied then these threads would die but obviously they still spark an interest in the general tp masses
 
inkiboo said:
Forgive my dyslexia (which is a ******* to spell); I don't think typos and intelligence are one in the same.
Click to expand...

My apologies and thanks for the sense of humour :lol:
 
The officer in the video says it has been brought to their attention that he was using the camera in a strange manner.. in it's positioning. When I first heard this, I thought it was the most stupid complaint ever. As in, someone had reported him for taking a tilted shot...

... but what we don't know is this. Was he purposely acting a bit suspicious in order to bring attention so he could take the video? Who here actually takes a video camera out with them whilst photographing anyway? Unless of course he was using a point and shoot.. but I doubt it.

Or maybe he was trying to take pictures up ladies skirts.

Without knowing this we cannot realistically comment on the situation.. it's always the same with these videos. I'm sure some are real.. but you have to question it sometimes..!
 
boyfalldown said:
its good to see you're happy to live in a functioning democracy, where you can be arrested and charged for anything. Soviet era secret policeman for you sir?
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic.

Listen, the bottom line is neither you or I know the full facts behind what happened unless of course you are one of these who believes everything they read in the press. For all we know this bloke could have been making a right old nuisance of himself and winding the coppers up trying to get a reaction out of them. My dealings with the police have been nothing but an informal Q&A and a smile a bit of friendly chit chat and on my way. If I stood defiant and purposely wound them up then I suspect the outcome would be different.

Some photographers seriously need to think about extracting their heads from their nether regions.
 
Quaker said:
I was being sarcastic.

Listen, the bottom line is neither you or I know the full facts behind what happened unless of course you are one of these who believes everything they read in the press. For all we know this bloke could have been making a right old nuisance of himself and winding the coppers up trying to get a reaction out of them. My dealings with the police have been nothing but an informal Q&A and a smile a bit of friendly chit chat and on my way. If I stood defiant and purposely wound them up then I suspect the outcome would be different.
Click to expand...

You're right in so many ways - he could of been making a right old nuisance of himself, or he could equally of been enjoying his day.........

I'm glad thats reflective of your dealing with the police, its not everybodies experience though. They may be only human, but they also police only with our consent and they need to be able to rise above a bit of a wind up


Quaker said:
Some photographers seriously need to think about extracting their heads from their nether regions.
Click to expand...

you'll be going first then? :D
 
purpleclouds said:
The officer in the video says it has been brought to their attention that he was using the camera in a strange manner.. in it's positioning. When I first heard this, I thought it was the most stupid complaint ever. As in, someone had reported him for taking a tilted shot...
Click to expand...

Ah it all becomes clear. someone noticed his horizon was not level, and didn't want him embarrassed if he posted an image on here.:nuts:
 
I'm a bit too lazy to read through all 6 pages, but imo both are in the wrong here. The photographer could have dealt with the situation a lot better and co-operated with the police and it would have saved all that bother.
 
Can someone please explain why she may have needed to take all the names of people taking photographs in the town centre?
 
the_doctor199 said:
I'm a bit too lazy to read through all 6 pages, but imo both are in the wrong here. The photographer could have dealt with the situation a lot better and co-operated with the police and it would have saved all that bother.
Click to expand...
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Shahid Malik) said:
I make it absolutely clear that, unless someone is engaged in criminal activity, they must be allowed to take photographs in public places and that the law should not be used to discourage or hamper that activity.
Click to expand...
From Hansard 1 April 2009. Photography (Public Places) - it's quite an interesting read - even if you are 'a bit too lazy'.
 
the_doctor199 said:
I'm a bit too lazy to read through all 6 pages, but imo both are in the wrong here. The photographer could have dealt with the situation a lot better and co-operated with the police and it would have saved all that bother.
Click to expand...

There shouldn`t have been a situation to start off with. Why should he have provided his details when doing nothing wrong? The PCSOs should do their jobs and that would have saved all the bother. Actually, no, PCSOs should be scrapped.... :annoyed:
 
I haven't read through all the posts.
But who knows how he was acting for the police to question him? I guarantee he wasn't the only photographer that day. And he was ready to be questioned.

My bet is that he did look suspicious and cocky.
Refusing to give his details to the law... but finds it fine to tell the world his name and how hard done by he was?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top