Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws

It's blatantly clear that he was carrying a lock knife from the linked report.

I can't see it saying he was carrying any art materials though.
 
Simmotino said:
It's blatantly clear that he was carrying a lock knife from the linked report.

I can't see it saying he was carrying any art materials though.
Click to expand...

In another report it states he was carrying artist tools and a laptop with examples of his work.
 
fabs said:
The police are honour bound to investigate and the chances are a routine search discovered the knife.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a ruotine search though was it? The problem most people have is not necessarily with the detention for carrying a knife, its the abuse of s44 to initiate the seach


LJR said:
Great. Then sharpen them at home. It's basic preparation really. Simple truth is that it's illegal to carry a lock knife - I don't think artists are excluded from that law.
Click to expand...

What if they go blunt or need reshaping? And for about the 10th time in this thread it is not illegal to carry a lock knife if you have a reason
 
I find it amazing the "facts" people are coming up with here. No-one here was there, yet a lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions. No-one actually know why the police chose to question the guy under the terrorism act, yet there are cries of them abusing it.

The guy was in possession of a knife and was arrested. We do not know what the guy said to the police when questioned so we cannot determine whether he was rightfully arrested. We only have a newspaper report based on one side of the story. But if certain people want to parade those chips on their shoulder, then carry on.
 
fabs said:
I find it amazing the "facts" people are coming up with here. No-one here was there, yet a lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions. No-one actually know why the police chose to question the guy under the terrorism act, yet there are cries of them abusing it.

The guy was in possession of a knife and was arrested. We do not know what the guy said to the police when questioned so we cannot determine whether he was rightfully arrested. We only have a newspaper report based on one side of the story. But if certain people want to parade those chips on their shoulder, then carry on.
Click to expand...

:clap:

Exactly the point I was making only better presented!
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
What if they go blunt or need reshaping? And for about the 10th time in this thread it is not illegal to carry a lock knife if you have a reason
Click to expand...
I guess if he was carrying pencils and artist equipment (which it certainly doesn't sound that way from the report) then he may have a 'good reason' to carry the knife. Excerpt from the directgov site below:

it is generally an offence to carry a knife in public without good reason or lawful authority (for example, a good reason is a chef on the way to work carrying their own knives)


However, carrying a lock knife with no pencils one claims to sharpen with it or any other artist equipment would make the excuse a pretty weak one.
 
fabs said:
The guy was in possession of a knife and was arrested. We do not know what the guy said to the police when questioned so we cannot determine whether he was rightfully arrested. We only have a newspaper report based on one side of the story. But if certain people want to parade those chips on their shoulder, then carry on.
Click to expand...

:nono:

You're side stepping the issue as to why he was stopped in the first place. It wasn't the knife, that wouldn't require a s.44 stop & search.

The question that's being asked is did the police have reasonable cause to perform a s.44 stop and search? What were the "excpetional" circumstances that required it? As you said, we don't know what lead to the police being there or taking an interest, but assuming he was just a bloke taking pictures do you consider that "exceptional" and if not, what would be?
 
LJR said:
I guess if he was carrying pencils and artist equipment (which it certainly doesn't sound that way from the report) then he may have a 'good reason' to carry the knife.
Click to expand...

You do well to read all the posts in the thread then... he had pencils and other artist's equipment with him.
 
Wayned is spot on.

We'd be calling for heads to roll if the police weren't around and were blown to smithereens. We hate it when people look after us but crib like hell when someone's not around to wipe our noses.

I suspect that a lot of people here are takin in by the style of journalism displayed int he original story. 'Creative' journalism is common and used to get across to point that the newspaper wants to put across.

The headline could have read....

Local artist arrested for taking photographs near police station

or....

Suspected terrorist arrested with concealed weapon

It's the same story, using the same facts but with totally different ways to gets a reader's attention. It's been going on for years and will continue to do so. Most of you Daily Mail and The Sun readers will be more than used to it (and totally oblivious to it).

I'm sure being collared by the fuzz is a bit crap and whenever something happens like that, you feel wronged because the authorities seem to be taking liberties. But if you were on the receiving end of something that you feel the police had it in their power to stop but didn't, wouldn't that be worse?
 
pxl8 said:
:nono:

You're side stepping the issue as to why he was stopped in the first place. It wasn't the knife, that wouldn't require a s.44 stop & search.

The question that's being asked is did the police have reasonable cause to perform a s.44 stop and search? What were the "excpetional" circumstances that required it? As you said, we don't know what lead to the police being there or taking an interest, but assuming he was just a bloke taking pictures do you consider that "exceptional" and if not, what would be?
Click to expand...

Not side stepping the issue at all. I was talking about the arrest rather than the stop and search. As I already said, we don't know for sure the police officers' reasons for stopping him.
 
specialman said:
I'm sure being collared by the fuzz is a bit crap and whenever something happens like that, you feel wronged because the authorities seem to be taking liberties. But if you were on the receiving end of something that you feel the police had it in their power to stop but didn't, wouldn't that be worse?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the power of stop & search is taken away, just asking if it is being used too readily? Is someone taking photos reasonable cause to suspect they are taking them as "part of a hostile terrorist reconnaissance"?

fabs said:
Not side stepping the issue at all. I was talking about the arrest rather than the stop and search. As I already said, we don't know for sure the police officers' reasons for stopping him.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but the point in question isn't the arrest but the stop in the first place? How would you answer the question above?
 
pxl8 said:
Indeed, but the point in question isn't the arrest but the stop in the first place? How would you answer the question above?
Click to expand...

I refer you to the part of my post above which you did not quote.

No-one actually know why the police chose to question the guy under the terrorism act, yet there are cries of them abusing it.
Click to expand...

I have never said that I condone the abuse of these powers, just the accuracy of the reporting of these incidents.

If indeed the officers did abuse their powers by using the Terrorism Act, then that should be reported. Whilst in custody, he was well within his rights to question why he was stopped in the first place and the powers that be would have been forced to deal with the situation. That way maybe those errant officers can be educated. Strangely it would appear he chose to go to the press, where the facts will be lost in the mists of time.
 
fabs said:
I refer you to the part of my post above which you did not quote.
Click to expand...

No, I asked what YOU would consider reasonable cause under the exceptional powers s.44 provides? What else, besides a camera, would the bloke need or do to give YOU reasonable cause to suspect hostile terrorist activity?
 
pxl8 said:
:nono:

You're side stepping the issue as to why he was stopped in the first place. It wasn't the knife, that wouldn't require a s.44 stop & search.

The question that's being asked is did the police have reasonable cause to perform a s.44 stop and search? What were the "excpetional" circumstances that required it? As you said, we don't know what lead to the police being there or taking an interest, but assuming he was just a bloke taking pictures do you consider that "exceptional" and if not, what would be?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. According to the report he was questioned and searched under the Terrorism Act, and arrested for carrying a possibly marginally illegal pocket knife.

Give the police an inch and they'll take a mile.
 
pxl8 said:
No, I asked what YOU would consider reasonable cause under the exceptional powers s.44 provides? What else, besides a camera, would the bloke need or do to give YOU reasonable cause to suspect hostile terrorist activity?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I was never commenting on what would and wouldn't be a reasonable cause, just on the reactions to an obviously sensationalised media report.
 
fabs said:
I have no idea. I was never commenting on what would and wouldn't be a reasonable cause, just on the reactions to an obviously sensationalised media report.
Click to expand...

What parts of the story are sensationalised then? The Starsky & Hutch skidding to a halt comment that's a quote from the arrested man maybe?
 
How so? A couple of quotes to demonstrate how would be useful...
 
Arent most newspaper stories sensationalised in one way or another???

basic jist of story. man stopped and searched in street under terrorist act. found in possesion of a camera, art equipment and a knife. He was taken to the police station for further questioning and released 5 hours later. man felt he was done wrong:shrug:
 
Yes, but how is the story written to sensationalise those facts? What words did the reporter use to superfically shock the reader?
 
pxl8 said:
How so? A couple of quotes to demonstrate how would be useful...
Click to expand...

Well here's one, the headline itself

Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws
Click to expand...

How about this from under the picture in the article, bearing in mind he was arrested for possession of the knife and NOT for taking photographs of a government building.

The artist Reuben Powell was arrested and imprisoned for photographing an old government building
Click to expand...

Not forgetting the Starsky and Hutch one quoted by yourself.
 
Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws
Click to expand...

the title would be a good starting point
 
For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five hours in a cell after police seized the lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils. His release only came after the intervention of the local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was handcuffed and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database.
Click to expand...

is one paragraph, a sensationalised version, IMO, might be:

For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five long hours locked in a cold and uncomfortable cell after police seized his artist's tool used to sharpen pencils. His release only came after the intervention of heroic local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was physically restrained and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database along with that of rapists and murderers.
Click to expand...
 
pxl8 said:
You do well to read all the posts in the thread then... he had pencils and other artist's equipment with him.
Click to expand...
I had missed the reference to the artist materials being with him at the time. So I stand corrected on the fact he had good reason to be carrying the knife. :)
 
fletch5 said:
the title would be a good starting point
Click to expand...

If this was the first time this sort of thing had ever happened it could be excused as a mistake or a one-off. However, we all know this is happening on a regular basis. The police use the Terrorism Act in situations where it shouldn't be used and therefore it is not sensationalist to say that Terror Laws are being "abused".
 
jerry12953 said:
If this was the first time this sort of thing had ever happened it could be excused as a mistake or a one-off. However, we all know this is happening on a regular basis. The police use the Terrorism Act in situations where it shouldn't be used and therefore it is not sensationalist to say that Terror Laws are being "abused".
Click to expand...

No, it not the first time the media has reported it happening. This report is stating that the laws have been abused on this particular occassion and has reported it in a sensationalist way.
 
Personally I blame it all on the Met's recruitment policy, in days gone by (and probably still today) it had one of the easiest entry exams in the country, so desperate were they for recruits they would take candidates who had failed to get into their own local forces for not being intelligent enough.
 
As annoying and upsetting that the use of s.44 has brought a feeling of mistrust towards Photographers, and means that at times we get a hard time from the law we are not going to get away from that for a long time. In that sense the damage is done.

We need to watch our, and others backs and do our best not to provoke the law, and deal with it.

Where before we had to fight th stigma of being in the dirty mac brigade if you had a long lens and a big camera, now we fight the stigma of being a terrorist on recon. Times change i guess!!

It won't stop, but if you get stopped, take it in your stride. Meanwhile do your best to make those around you understand the joys of Photography, if we spread that message, maybe the understanding of why we go out in the cold taking pictures of building will increase too.
 
Fred Dawson said:
Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.
Click to expand...

What, white people can't be terrorists too? **** off.
 
pxl8 said:
Blimey, talk about quoting out of context :lol:
Click to expand...

I like to sensationalise, but it's not out of context at all. If doctors, teachers, farmers and community care workers can become terrorists, then why can't an artist?

This is the paragraph.

Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he surely can't be a terrorist, that'd be impossible!

Get over it. He's possibly the biggest terrorist out there.*

*May not be true
 
RichardC27 said:
Bit of juxtaposition in your statements there, within the same sentence too. I never once said, or even implied, that everyone who carries a knife is a murderer, did I? The fact of the matter is, carrying a concealed weapon in a public place is a criminal offence. That's the law of the land, and as a police officer, the officer in this story would have been duty bound to arrest him.
Click to expand...

Remember guys, make sure you don't put your hands in your pockets, you might get arrested for carrying concealed weapons (fists can be classed as weapons by some idiots).
site:

Grockle said:
Taken from Cambridge Police

Is it illegal to carry a knife in my pocket?

It is illegal to carry any sharp or bladed instrument in a public place (with the exception of a folding pocket knife, which has a blade that is less than 7.62cm or 3 inches). A lock knife is NOT a folding pocket knife and therefore it is illegal to carry these knives regardless of the length of the blade. Possession of a lock knife in a public place without reasonable excuse IS an offence.

Possession of a multi-tool incorporating a prohibited blade/pointed article is capable of being an offence under this section even if there are other tools on the instrument which may be of use to a person in a public place (screwdriver, can opener). It is for the person to prove on the balance of probabilities that he/she had good reason for possession.

The penalty for committing this offence is a minimum six month prison sentence, or maximum of two years and/or a fine.
Click to expand...

Sounds like he was lucky he didn't get charged.

Does the press sensationalising stories like this really help the photographer's cause? I don't think so. It just helps to alienate the two sides even more than they are already.
Click to expand...

So actually he wasn't committing an offence, which is probably why he was released and not charged... (although that page makes no sense as the police seem to be stating two things in the same paragraph that contradict each other...)
 
KayJay said:
I like to sensationalise, but it's not out of context at all. If doctors, teachers, farmers and community care workers can become terrorists, then why can't an artist?
Click to expand...

Because those who have recently been involved in terrorist activity and who fit the above career profiles have all been muslims?

Can't think of any artists, of late of any race or creed who have blown themselves or anyone up, in this country at least ;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Because those who have recently been involved in terrorist activity and who fit the above career profiles have all been muslims?

Can't think of any artists, of late of any race or creed who have blown themselves or anyone up, in this country at least ;)
Click to expand...

Are we to assume that terrorism can only come from the muslim community then? Terrorism comes in many shapes and forms. The Mardi Gras bombers being one such example.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Because those who have recently been involved in terrorist activity and who fit the above career profiles have all been muslims?

Can't think of any artists, of late of any race or creed who have blown themselves or anyone up, in this country at least ;)
Click to expand...

It's only a matter of time before it happens. These people are dangerous. Infact, I'm going to call the cops next time I see a white person acting suspicious. :lol:

But seriously though, I don't think the police can afford to be complacent when it comes to profiling. Richard Reid wasn't Asian, neither were the Oklahoma bombers or President Bush (tongue in cheek).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top