Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws

Wayned said:
...............
If he's kicked off when approached by the bobbies then he's only got himself to blame.
Click to expand...

Ah! That well known offence of "failing to respect your authoreetay". :lol:

Don't get me wrong, I do not envy the job of the police one bit. The world is full of a**eholes and you must get to see the worst of the worst of them.
But don't you think that when Joe Public gets stopped and searched for treading on the cracks in the pavement he's got good reason to be annoyed about it?

Wayned said:
Magna Carta? I suppose you want to go back to burning witches, marrying 12 yr. old girls, slavery and capital punishment. All these things happened in spite of that particular document.
Click to expand...

Your contempt for the document which founded many of the fundamental principles of the democracy which has subsequently been held as the model for virtually all of the free world is very concerning.
The fact that those very principles were at the heart of preventing these particular examples of injustice and the fact that they only happened because people who were put in a position of trust and responsibility abused their power is quite ironic. :lol:
 
Why didn't he just carry a pencil sharpener instead?
 
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...

The context was the whole description not just one aspect. Given the complete description then it's not unreasonable to conclude that person is unlikely to be a terrorist. Unlikely not impossible.

The article didn't state this bloke is white so it's impossible for him to be a terrorist but that's the context you put it into. :shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
You're going to be busy if you do that in Glasgow :lol:
Click to expand...

Good point :bang:

pxl8 said:
The context was the whole description not just one aspect. Given the complete description then it's not unreasonable to conclude that person is unlikely to be a terrorist. Unlikely not impossible.

The article didn't state this bloke is white so it's impossible for him to be a terrorist but that's the context you put it into. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The article does state that he's white. It states it in the paragraph I quoted.

Anyway, my responses have been quite tongue-in-cheek.
 
Ah wait, what a difference an invisible comma can make, I see what you are getting at now.
 
fabs said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it had been me that was arrested on such trumped up "evidence" I'd have been so pleased that a journalist and a newspaper would report it in a sympathetic manner, as the Independent has done in this case.
 
jerry12953 said:
If it had been me that was arrested on such trumped up "evidence" I'd have been so pleased that a journalist and a newspaper would report it in a sympathetic manner, as the Independent has done in this case.
Click to expand...

Obviously you and I have different ideas of "sympathetic".
 
The problem is, you never see these stories of photographers being hounded on national news channels. Until that happens or there is some sort of protest, nothing is going to change.
 
So its "knives" this time instead of "guns" this time, more fog to avoid answering the the million dollar.
We can't keep rolling out the "we weren't there, so we don't really know what happened, therefore it did not happen" avoidance tactic forever either.
Even without the suggested sensationalist element, it still smacks of an abuse of s44.
Being an asshole still doesn't constitute a stop and search under s44, but it sure is convenient.
 
joxby said:
We can't keep rolling out the "we weren't there, so we don't really know what happened, therefore it did not happen" avoidance tactic forever either.
Click to expand...

Slight correction, should read "we weren't there, so we don't really know what happened, therefore it may not have happened the way the media reported it, so let's not jump to conclusions"

Carry on. ;)
 
popcorn.gif


Please continue.
 
I'm beging to womder if I made a good choice by taking up photography. Another passion of mine is football, I attend a lot of games and football fans are ALL treated as thugs. Some forces deal with fans better than others, some even have a laugh with fans but some just treat fans like animals. Do you know what happens when honest decent people are treated like aniamals?

Anyway, now it looks like I could end up having the odd run in with the police for taking photos!

I understand that we all have to put up with extra security due to the terrorist threat but there is such a thing as profiling, if the average bobby learned this then I doubt this sort of story would materialise that often.
 
Having read through all this thread my only point would be:

Why can't the police use a bit of 'common sense' I know it's seriously lacking with some people these days :thinking: but it should be a pre-requisite of anyone joining the police force and if the guy was awkward then they should be able to deal with it politely but get their point over to him instead of wasting their own time and arresting him :shrug:
 
fabs said:
Slight correction, should read "we weren't there, so we don't really know what happened, therefore it may not have happened the way the media reported it, so let's not jump to conclusions"

Carry on. ;)
Click to expand...

Then again it could so easily be "we weren't there, so we don't really know what happened, therefore it may have happened just the way the media reported it, so let's stop defending the police every time this happens"
 
Eric Mc said:
Then again it could so easily be "we weren't there, so we don't really know what happened, therefore it may have happened just the way the media reported it, so let's stop defending the police every time this happens"
Click to expand...

Indeed. Not defending the police every time it happens, just not condemning them out of had either.
 
Not having read the whole thread............Does everybody actually believe what second rate journalists write in a media press that is obsessed with sensationalism?
 
fracster said:
Does everybody actually believe what second rate journalists write in a media press that is obsessed with sensationalism?
Click to expand...

Nope.......just as I don't belive everything the police say when they are defending their wrong doings:thumbs:
 
KayJay said:
I just realised something, possibly the greatest realisation ever. You have two tits in your name.

:D
Click to expand...

I just realised something too, this is a quite unnecessary post.

But then that is assuming it means what I think it means.
 
48thEagle said:
I just realised something too, this is a quite unnecessary post.

But then that is assuming it means what I think it means.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to assume the worst. There is a smiley in that quote right? :thumbsdown:
 
fabs said:
And you are assuming they are wrong doings based on what you read in the sensationalist media. :D
Click to expand...

No.....I am stating a fact ;)
 
KayJay said:
Stop trying to assume the worst. There is a smiley in that quote right? :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

My apologies, again, an assumption on my part.

The smiley makes all the difference, and removes every ounce of potential or perceived negativity.
 
Don't worry about it, although, I've got a feeling that you're a robot and not an actual human being. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top