Photograper arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holden Caulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh that simple! I thought maybe she had had a red alert that there were terrorists taking photos in the town centre in preperation for a later attack and she did not want to tell him in case he was one. Silly me not to realise that she was cold and wanted to win the competition for a meal for 2 in Mc Donalds
 
chilliz said:
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:
Click to expand...

How do you know he didn't look dodgy? How do you know he wasn't probing for hassle? You dont.
 
ki_user said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree entirely...those of us who work in the media...ie. Photographers, come across this almost every day. Yes, it probably clouds my view of the thing but still....

The law is:
1. They are entitled to ask you your address and name, if they wish to prove your identity and they feel it necessary to do so.

2. You don't HAVE to give them your name and address. If they still have reasonable grounds to arrest you (and the photographers positioning of the camera IS NOT reasonable grounds, unless he's blocking a road, a police officer from doing their job etc.) then they will do so. When you are booked in by the custody sergeant, THEN you must give your name and address, or they may search you/fingerprint etc. until they find out.

3. The police officer/PCSO was not correct in attempting to use s.44 in this instance. When questioned on the authorising officer/circumstances of the authorisation, they backed down. At any time when the officer realises that a search under terrorism legislation is false (ie. when they're made to look stupid, or when they realise there's no terrorist threat) then they revert to PACE powers...which they did.

Whether or not this person was being deliberately obstructive or difficult is entirely their decision, just as it's a joyrider's decision to run from the police or give themselves up when they wrap a car round a lamppost.

The point is, that legally the officers failed to act in the correct manner in this instance. What I still feel is unnecessary is people bleating about it on the internet afterwards. Guess what, it happens every day. It's probably happening right now.

You know when the burger jockey in McDonalds forgets to ask if you'd like to "go large"...that's failing to act in the correct manner...do you post a video on the internet afterwards?! No. You get on with it, possibly laughing or saying "oooh, look how stupid he was".

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!
 
Trev Rich said:
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?
Click to expand...

Utter b**** ... how do you look cocky? The guy was out persuing his hobby for Christ`s sake......
 
i personally think its disgusting how we live in a big brother country and we cant even express creativity. almost reminds of the film equilibrium where its a world where no emotions can be shown as it creates the earths troubles, good film though.
 
mastertrinity said:
i personally think its disgusting how we live in a big brother country and we cant even express creativity. almost reminds of the film equilibrium where its a world where no emotions can be shown as it creates the earths troubles, good film though.
Click to expand...

They didn't ask him to stop taking photos. They simply asked for his address.
 
chilliz said:
Utter b**** ... how do you look cocky? The guy was out persuing his hobby for Christ`s sake......
Click to expand...
Clearly the police know who 'looks cocky' or not..... and it is a good job they are never wrong - or people would end up getting shot in the head on underground trains for no reason. :(
 
Correct me if I am wrong here. But I dont think there has ever been a case of a police officer asking a photographer for there address... then mysteriously that same night the photographer gets his house robbed?

Just give em yer address.. most of em can be trusted :)
 
Just watched through the video, interesting to see how the Police changed tactics in the middle of that to get their details, which I found utterly appalling. If they did not have a good enough reason to detain them in the first place, they should not have pursued it.

Saying that, the photographers could have gotten away easily, I can understand that they might not have wanted to give their details over, but it would have probably saved a lot of time in the long run.

I believe that in this case the problem yet again lies with the Police, they shouldn't have pursued the men for their details and should have let them go without let or hindrance. It is quite clear that in this case, as the photographers had refused initially to provide their details which is perfectly legal under our law, that the officers wanted to assert their power and didn't like the fact that they were refused.
 
Lol Kipax.

Why are people jumping on me for expressing an opinion.
I haven't said who is in the wrong...
Just expressing that no-one knows how the guy was acting before being questioned.
 
Trev Rich said:
How do you know that?
And there's a need for a reply like that? :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Even if he did look "cocky" that's still no reason to stop him is it?! Looking "cocky" wasn't illegal last time I checked.

Here's a serious of Steve Bell cartoons...now let's stop arguing shall we?! Let's all agree we'll do things the way we want and not post the consequences on the web!!

stevebellif1_071209.jpg


if1.jpg


Steve-Bells-If-...-09.12.-004.jpg


if1.jpg
 
Voyager said:
Clearly the police know who 'looks cocky' or not..... and it is a good job they are never wrong - or people would end up getting shot in the head on underground trains for no reason. :(
Click to expand...

Slightly uncalled for there; totally different set of circumstances there. You can't blame the shooting officer for being given the wrong information. It was a failure a very high level.
 
Trev Rich said:
They didn't ask him to stop taking photos. They simply asked for his address.
Click to expand...

what i mean is that on the film they said it looked suspicous the way he was angling the camera in order to get the shot, well composition is a key to creativity.

what i dont get is that if i was a terrorist or p**** then i would have common sense and get a P&S to blend in with the crowd:shrug:
 
also another thing is that the police couldnt think of a reason for the pursuit and you can here the police woman/man babbling on just because he was shooting differently, no one complained and most were probably not arsed, but i do agree that you should just give them your address and have done with it.
 
I think that guy's a prat for making the police's job so difficult. OK, so it's not nice to have to stand there and give a name check but at the end of the day if there were no police on the streets then someone like him would complain about it. The way he repeats himself over and over again "are we being detained officer". It's not a good way to talk to people who are trying to protect you.

If he had just given his name and address, they run a quick check, let him on his way , then he is free to take pictures with his new camera, safe in the knowledge that no smack addict will dare to mug him and take his gear while the boys in blue are within earshot.
 
jamesb84 said:
You know when the burger jockey in McDonalds forgets to ask if you'd like to "go large"...that's failing to act in the correct manner...do you post a video on the internet afterwards?! No. You get on with it, possibly laughing or saying "oooh, look how stupid he was".

Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?!
Click to expand...

LOL, nice point.

Just another point to add to the discussion, maybe he was questioned because he was taking pictures of other peoples children? I suppose "it's under prevention of terrorism" sounds better than "excuse me sir are you a paedophile?"

Oh dear there goes another can of worms :bang:

Like I said before we weren't there so there is no way of knowing how he was acting, or what he was doing.
 
Trev Rich said:
How do you know he didn't look dodgy? How do you know he wasn't probing for hassle? You dont.
Click to expand...

how do you know he did look dodgy then ?
i tend to believe his version rather than the police ,as they changed the reason for the stop part way through
and as to should it be shown ( the video ) to everyone? yes i think it should. everytime it happens people should know about it ,so that in the end the powers that be get the message and actually do something about it
 
I repeat this, as those who said the police were in the right have not answered.

ding76uk said:
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 citing anti social behaviour?

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!
Click to expand...
 
Trev Rich said:
Arrrrghhhhhhh...
I didn't say he did or didn't look dodgy. I haven't said I believe the police were in the wrong or right either.
Click to expand...

but your wording implied that he did look dodgy and if you havnt said the police are right or wrong ,,,your point is what ?
 
the police should have been charged themselves clearly they where lieing they knew full well there was no antisocial behaviour.

as soon as you argue with the police they find away to have a go at you and its so wrong.
 
Trev Rich said:
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?
Click to expand...

any other bets ?
 
ding76uk said:
I repeat this, as those who said the police were in the right have not answered.
Click to expand...

that's all very well but add common sense into the equation and the situation changes. since you seem to be devoid of compassion (for the police) it surprises me how you can get so emotional over a giving people who are there to protect you a few details.

maybe you don't want police on the streets? but then again you would probably complain about that when someone mugs you and steals your camera:shrug:
 
My point is why the secrecy? Why refuse to give his name?
But then give his name etc to the Guardian for the world to see?
To protect his identity... we now all know who his name. his website address
And from that it wouldn't be hard to get his address.
 
bomberman said:
that's all very well but add common sense into the equation and the situation changes. since you seem to be devoid of compassion (for the police) it surprises me how you can get so emotional over a giving people who are there to protect you a few details.

maybe you don't want police on the streets? but then again you would probably complain about that when someone mugs you and steals your camera:shrug:
Click to expand...

Indeed, I was stood outside Anfield (Liverpool FC) taking a few exterior shots before I went in to shoot a game. A couple of officers approached me - cue me getting my excuses in order - but they asked if I wanted them to stand by me whilst I took my shots so my bag was safe. Big thumbs up for the female officers, even made a joke about her fellow Liverpudlians!

Now, I was taking photos in probably the same manner that the guy in the video was, or claims to have been, yet the police saw me for what I was and acted appropriately - indeed, even going out of their way to help.

What made his situation different to mine? His behaviour or the cops having a bad day?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top