Photograper arrested

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holden Caulfield
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

'm with you Trev the guy's clearly an idiot. He thinks his life is so important that everyone should see it on video, He was so determined to exercise his rights for all the world to see on the net that he actually forgot the real-world situation he was in and got himself arrested
 
ding76uk said:
I repeat this, as those who said the police were in the right have not answered.
Click to expand...

People are obviously gpoing to react differently to a member of the public than they are to a police officer, but for me it would depend on that person's attitude and whether I thought he had reasonable grounds for enquiring. :shrug:

A citizens right to arrest is severely limited compared to that of the police and you certainly could not arrest in those circumstances. generally speaking, you'd need to have witnessed an offence taking place to be empowered to do so. Police can arrest on reasonable suspicion of committing an arrestable offence whether in fact an offence has actually been committed or not.
 
Trev Rich said:
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.
Click to expand...

BECAUSE BY LAW HE DOESN'T HAVE TO.

I've said it several times in this thread and others.
 
ki_user said:
BY LAW I DON'T HAVE TO TIE MY SHOELACES IN THE MORNING.

I just find it helpful if I do.
Click to expand...

Yep...fair enough.

This guy just chose to act this way. Just as I'll use my experience to act in the way I see fit. That experience is something that only 20% of the people who answered the "other" poll have.

Neither party have used it in this case, and it's a cluster**ck.

As I've said before, different people chose to act in different ways...I'm not going to tell you what to do...not my place, but I would be very careful that my civil liberties aren't eroded. If that makes me obstructive, difficult or "cocky" then so be it. That's my choice.
 
ki_user said:
BY LAW I DON'T HAVE TO TIE MY SHOELACES IN THE MORNING.

I just find it helpful if I do.
Click to expand...
You may well find it helpful if you tie your shoe laces. But no-one is making up reasons for asking you to do so.
 
Why didn't he just give her his details? Maybe the girl fancied him and she wanted his number.
 
it wouldnt be so bad if there was a genuine concern for security ,but in all of the cases ive read about there seems to be no reason at all for any of the stops .and some of the officers do seem to overstep their authority by using sect 44 ( and others no doubt )
 
jamesb84 said:
BECAUSE BY LAW HE DOESN'T HAVE TO.

I've said it several times in this thread and others.
Click to expand...

By law, if the police say he is acting suspiciously then he has to give his address. By flat out refusing to give his address, he IS acting suspiciously!.

You have to remember that the police ARE the law. Know how to protect yourself people ;)
 
Voyager said:
No, the lass asking for their names and addresses without any reason was the problem - the constables should have let it go at that.

But because the photographer knew his rights they thought they would make sure he know his place - no backing down or defusing anything - so, as I said on the first page, good on him and the Guardian in highlighting the particular stupidity of those day-glo uniform wearers.
Click to expand...

she obviously wasn't sure so went to ask a more experienced hand, a thing in itself that makes me happy as its not bowing to the wisdom of someone she didn't know who was doing something she was warned about. Better to ask than be wrong in my book


tog gets ****y so more experienced copper says (mentally most likely) '**** him boss's problem' and gets the sergeant

photographer wanted a rise out of them and wound up 3 coppers enough to nick him, got nicked, 6 blokes (arbitrary figure before you go counting) on the whole internet care and see him as a new savior everyone else doesn't really care. Up to him whether it was worth 8 hours in the nick

What laws were broken again?
Click to expand...

That was my own personal photography ;)
 
bomberman said:
By law, if the police say he is acting suspiciously then he has to give his address. By flat out refusing to give his address, he IS acting suspiciously!.

You have to remember that the police ARE the law. Know how to protect yourself people ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, he does not have to give his address in public. If he is not forthcoming with his details then he will be arrested and processed at the police station. However, there is usually something that you have to be arrested for! As I see, there is no law they could arrest him under, other than failing to provide details. The arresting officers would also have to explain to the custody sergeant what reasonable belief they had that he was breaking the law.

Remember that "experience" thing I spoke about in my last post?! ;)
 
As I see, there is no law they could arrest him under, other than failing to provide details
Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

The explanation to the custody sergeant would be along the lines of refusing to give his details for no aparrent reason.

Like i said, they are the law, you have to respect that. and yeah i have the "experience" thing too - i know that you don't ***** with the law.
 
This guy just chose to act this way
Click to expand...

so that he could post it on the internet. he therefore had a hidden agenda. i'm really not surprised the police were suspicious of him - he deserved to be charged with wasting police time and taxpayers money
 
bomberman said:
The explanation to the custody sergeant would be along the lines of refusing to give his details for no aparrent reason.

Like i said, they are the law, you have to respect that. and yeah i have the "experience" thing too - i know that you don't ***** with the law.
Click to expand...
Did you bother to read the piece from Hansard?
 
hell, if i were the police i'd charge him with wasting my time for reading this thread
 
bomberman said:
EXACTLY.

The explanation to the custody sergeant would be along the lines of refusing to give his details for no aparrent reason.
Click to expand...

Which, in my experience was a reply of "aaaw diddums constable" (or something similar) from the sergeant, followed by..."go away mr photographer".

Like i said, they are the law, you have to respect that. and yeah i have the "experience" thing too - i know that you don't ***** with the law.
Click to expand...

They are NOT the law. The Police are an organisation formed to uphold and enforce the law correctly. In this case they've well and truly c@cked that up.
 
bomberman said:
By law, if the police say he is acting suspiciously then he has to give his address. By flat out refusing to give his address, he IS acting suspiciously!.

You have to remember that the police ARE the law. Know how to protect yourself people ;)
Click to expand...

So if they just feel like arresting someone for no reason, they can approach them and ask for their details, if they refuse they can then say it was suspicious behaviour!! I don`t think so. :lol:

.... also the police are not the law, they are there to carry it out, I think part of the problem is that some of them think they are the law, along with PCSOs.

Laws are made by men in suits, not police uniforms.
 
Enough :(

It was inevitable how this would end up from the first post.
 
Surprise, surprise.

[/turnsoffCillaBlackmoment]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top