Police abusing thier powers yet again

[fracster]

Tomas,

Thanks for your post, I appreciate your sentiments

However, the real PC Hollis is this top-quality character from The Bill:




Anyway, back on topic.

Ah "The Bill" , the true to life story of being a police officer........

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Tomas,

Thanks for your post, I appreciate your sentiments

However, the real PC Hollis is this top-quality character from The Bill:

Anyway, back on topic.

Even despite the fact that I've been far away from British TV for sometime now, I know who the real Hollis is, I just omitted the smiley after '(if I remember correctly)'

 

[diggerz]

How long is this going to go on for gods sake? If you break the law or push your luck with the police why should you be supprised that they turn round and arrest you? The only people who benefit from these scenario's are the Ambulance chasing solicitors who are in a no lose situation regardless. So just chill out a bit and both parties should stop making a mountain out of a mole hill out of the whole issue.

 

[Garry Edwards]

3. There aren't "plenty of other laws". You've just invented that. I mentioned s89(2) of the Police Act...namely Obstruction, and even provided a link to it. I would be grateful if you could show me which laws someone would break by refusing to cooperate.

Well, we used to have The Vagrancy Act, 1824 (from memory) which was known as 'The breathing Act' because, if someone was breathing, they were committing the offence of being a suspected person. That thankfully has now gone, but seems to me to have been replaced by The Terrorism Act, 2000, which sometimes seems to be used as a catchall to make a suspected offence out of literally anything. But this is a quandry for the police, who IMO NEED to be able to arrest people when they feel that an offence may have been committed, even though they may be unsure of their grounds. The problem is not that they have those powers, but that some of them abuse them - and that the abuse is then covered up by their superiors. And of course we also have the offence of obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty, which again can be applied to a refusal to cooperate.

As I keep saying, I support the police personally. I just feel that, whether or not complaints are properly investigated in the background, senior officers should not be so quick to defend police officers in public. There's nothing wrong with saying "It would be improper for me to comment on the actions of this officer until such time as a full investigation has been carried out" - much better than saying "The gentleman was wearing heavy outer clothing even though it was a hot day, police officers believed that he might have been wearing a concealed bomb, and he also ran away and vaulted over a ticket barrier when challenged by police" (or words to that effect) when he was in shirtsleeves, was not challenged, did not run and did not vault a barrier.

It isn't, for me, about the attitude and the actions of the majority. It's about the minority, and the cover ups that follow their actions.

And the police are also quite good at turning the tables when things go wrong from the police competence viewpoint. In the cases of both Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton, both of whom were issued firearms certificates despite very clear warning signs, the murders that followed provided excuses to restrict firearms to responsible people, when what should have happened is that the police officers who failed to carry out the proper checks should have taken the blame. There was a more recent case, when a man who had a history of mental illness was issued with a firearms certificate. The police had to shoot him, and they said that although he owned his firearms legally they would not have issued his certificate if they had known about his mental health problems - a cop out, because I have to give details of my GP on my own firearms certificate applications, and I have to give the police permission to check with my doctor - they clearly didn't check in that case, so as I see it THEY were responsible for not knowing about his history.

So, let's support our hard working and conciencious police, try to educate the police better about the rights of photographers, and campaign for more honesty from senior officers when things go wrong.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Holden, you are a master of paraphrasing.

1. I'm not in a position to discuss counter-terrorism operations in a photography forum. Firstly, it's overseen by a specialist department that I don't work in. Secondly, it would be impossible for me to quantify the value of any intelligence gained from stops & searches and subsequent action that may arise from it. Finally, I note your derision at my stopping of a man who had broken (allegedly) through a fence to take pictures of a railway line. Do you not want police officers to investigate anything, or would you rather I drove past and ignored it? Personally, I think such actions are reasonable.

2. Partially true. Unfortunately, most officers don't have the education of a barrister, and don't happen to have a multi-volume copy of Archbold to hand when they have to put the law into practice. Most of us just about manage to keep up, but if you ask me to explain the finer points of the Air Navigation Orders 2005, I might struggle. However, most officers (especially in specialist departments) are very familiar with the laws that their department investigates. If an officer is having difficulty on the street, there is usually other help they can turn to at the end of a radio. But yes, sometimes officers are mistaken.

3. There aren't "plenty of other laws". You've just invented that. I mentioned s89(2) of the Police Act...namely Obstruction, and even provided a link to it. I would be grateful if you could show me which laws someone would break by refusing to cooperate.

4. Yes. If I believe you have committed a crime, I may arrest you. I can rarely prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" at the scene, so you'll probably come into custody while I make further enquiries, and you may be released on bail if it's a lengthy investigation. See my post relating to s24 PACE. I can even arrest you if I believe you're about to commit a crime

5. I quite specifically said I was talking about bureaucratic inefficiencies. The De Menezes case was nothing to do with that.

6. Not quite sure what your point is, but yes...we do listen to the society we police. My interest in being a member of this forum is in photography, but I saw an opportunity with this thread to try and be a bit more helpful and show that most officers aren't as bad as we're made out to be. I don't see society as "them" and "us" when it comes to policing, though I understand concerns about some police actions driving a wedge between the police and the general public, and I have them myself. I could have contributed nothing to this thread and ignored it, but I have stuck my neck out fully expecting to have a very rough time of it; I would rather speak to people than hide. I've also avoided patronising management-speak, politics and regurgitating stories "I've heard".

7. Again, I made that point in response to someone recommending that we conduct training with more outside organisations. It is only Kent Police that train at Canterbury University, and most other forces conduct their training in-house with external speakers and trainers visiting for lessons where they can provide a special insight. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that the curriculum includes far more than just "being assertive". I could expand on this considerably more, but I don't really see the point.

I kind of get the idea that nothing I say is really making any difference, but thankfully your particular derisive scorn doesn't affect the way I do my job. As you sleep soundly in your bed, I am content in the knowledge that I will be going out to help people who need it most, that I will do a good job of it, and that I take pride in doing it.

paraphrase
• verb express the meaning of (something) using different words.
• noun a rewording of a passage.

So we both agree I am proficient in the above, thank you

I will reply briefly to your responses point by point.
1,You are uncertain or do not know what value if any is gained by detaining an individual taking photographs on a railway line under the prevention of terrorism act. I don’t want to be flippant here but I sold cameras for nearly twenty years and have never seen an exploding one. In your position I might have asked the individual “what are you doing” then told him/her to clear off before continuing my duties.

2, An interesting paradox here Ignorantia juris non excusat ( ignorance of the law is no excuse) would apply to myself as a citizen but not to police officers who are “not barristers” or who have not got an” encyclopaedic knowledge of Archbold ,“ignorance of the law is an excuse used when detaining citizens without due cause or telling them that taking pictures is illegal.

3, Are you being deliberately disingenuous here? A cursory browse or Archbold would tell you that the ‘Police Reform Act 2002 Section 50’could be used to arrest an individual who an officer ‘believed’ was acting anti socially and of course Section 44 can be used if all, else fails.

4, Fair enough, although as you state ‘believing’ and ‘proving’ may be somewhat different

5, You might not have said it but, are we as society happy that the officer who killed De Menezes is still a fire arms officer and a prosecution was only brought under the H+S with the coroner instructing to return a verdict of lawful killing or an open verdict after seven weeks of evidence at inquest.*

6,” I've also avoided patronising management-speak, politics” I think you are being a touch naïve here every one who posts has a political position with a small p I would reflect to you that the term’ pressure group’ is a political position from you.

7, I have dealt with police officers on both a professional and a personal level and on the whole have had good experiences, however I am white, educated, older and what could be termed middle class. I know my rights and responsibilities as a citizen and I too am assertive. This has not stopped an officer telling me my name was wrong on my driving licence (when it was not), or telling me I could not take photographs in certain areas of my home town, in those instances it was a ‘battle’ of ‘assertiveness ‘that prevailed In my favour, preserving the small amount of rights I have as a citizen.

To conclude I am not really concerned about whether we have a better police force than Germany or any other country because I live in the UK , what I demand is a fully accountable police force from the top down and I don’t see that at the moment.

*I have heard that the upper levels of the police and the government know that if they prosecute a police officer for murder while using a firearm in the course of his/her duties. That the next day they will have a parade of officers handing in their firearms permits thus effectively depriving the community of armed response officers. Thus we have the situation where the police force and governmet will go to extreme lengths not to prosecute as in the De Menezes case,

 

[Arkady]

Funny - I've never had a problem photographing police, even in the course of them making an arrest (and I didn't identify myself beforehand either).
On one occasion on Brighton Seafront, a (black) male was being arrested by (white) officers and the juxtaposition of white uniformed hands holding the cuffed, topless black arrestee was too much to let pass...

The only one who complained was the arrestee who was told by the copper "you're in a public place and he can photograph whatever he bloody well likes!"

I had to laugh...

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Funny - I've never had a problem photographing police....

...and you never will either Rob, considering your profession

The only one who complained was the arrestee who was told by the copper "you're in a public place and he can photograph whatever he bloody well likes!"

I had to laugh...

Ironic yes, but the issue here is that not every officer knows that and there is not much effort being put into getting them informed either.

 

[Photo Plod]

1,You are uncertain or do not know what value if any is gained by detaining an individual taking photographs on a railway line under the prevention of terrorism act. I don’t want to be flippant here but I sold cameras for nearly twenty years and have never seen an exploding one. In your position I might have asked the individual “what are you doing” then told him/her to clear off before continuing my duties.

3, Are you being deliberately disingenuous here? A cursory browse or Archbold would tell you that the ‘Police Reform Act 2002 Section 50’could be used to arrest an individual who an officer ‘believed’ was acting anti socially and of course Section 44 can be used if all, else fails.

Holden - just on these two points (since I'm broadly in agreement with you, surprisingly, on a lot of other things, especially point 7)...

The stop / search of the photographer I made was a reasonable method of carrying out a brief investigation, and what you suggest is broadly what happened. His momentary detention was necessary in order for me to carry out my duties, and were the power not used, he could have simply walked off. The man wasn't dragged onto the pavement, handcuffed, subjected to a full body search back at the station and interrogated for hours. He was stopped, spoken to, name-checked, given some words of advice and then cheerfully went on his way.

I am not being disingenuous. s50 Police Reform Act is nothing to do with "not cooperating" in an every day sense, but a refusal to provide a name and address, or giving false details, when somebody is acting in a manner likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to people. Again, I have not seen anybody arrested for this...since if someone's behaviour is "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" in public, they are committing an offence contrary to s5 Public Order Act 1986 - the backbone offence of any of the police "reality" shows you see on TV. s24 PACE provides a power of arrest in circumstances where an offence has been committed and an offender refuses to provide their name or address. This is because it would be impossible to serve a court summons on them otherwise. As such, it is a completely duplicitous piece of legislation, and is completely different to the offence of Obstruction.

 

[Arkady]

I appreciate that Tom, but I wasn't in Uniform on this occasion and seldom am when shooting in the UK, even at events in London - smart civvies is the order of the day (for me that just means 'clean'...lol).
I truly believe that a lot of it comes down to attitude - if you approach the police with the view that they are 'freindly-forces', nod and smile, say hello (I just lead off with "Alright, Fellas?" and take it from there...); if they ask, reassure them that you're not there to crucify them for doing their jobs and that you'll give them a CD of the images for the Crew-Room wall back at the station.
Cops are human same as the rest of us - they take pride in the job they do and in the Uniform they wear and are mostly happy to be portrayed as performing a valuable service.
Any shortfalls in policing in this country are not the fault of individual officers, so don't act like they're the root cause of any problems you encounter in your travels...

A laugh and a bit of banter goes a long way, even if after you've gone they all turn to one another and laugh at the wierdo with the camera...you get the shot and no harm done.

A LOT of photographers make the huge mistake of not engaging with their subjects and it's the biggest cause of dramas out on the street. No-one likes an anonymous lens poked in their face: talk to your subjects - reassure them before you press the button...

 

[Tyke Tiler]

I appreciate that Tom, but I wasn't in Uniform on this occasion and seldom am when shooting in the UK, even at events in London - smart civvies is the order of the day (for me that just means 'clean'...lol).

I'm quite aware of that mate (as per the t'other thread) my point is that if you do get approached in the same fashion as others have before now, you won't be experiencing the 'unsavory' responses that some folk have received.

The facts are that some pretty disturbing events have occurred, take people like Pericles Antiniou and Alex Turner for example and then consider the following:

A laugh and a bit of banter goes a long way, even if after you've gone they all turn to one another and laugh at the wierdo with the camera...you get the shot and no harm done.

A LOT of photographers make the huge mistake of not engaging with their subjects and it's the biggest cause of dramas out on the street. No-one likes an anonymous lens poked in their face: talk to your subjects - reassure them before you press the button...

Clearly, what your suggesting here is by far, the more intelligent way to approach photography in public, but it didn't exactly do any good for Antiniou or Turner (initially) did it? It doesn't seem like rationality and a smile and nod are any guarantee that you'll get a good reception nor will the officers accept that you represent no threat whatsoever.
That's the point of all this 'fuss' really, hence the creation of ideas like this

I'm sure there are thousands of folk who take a snap without a single scuffle but that doesn't mean that the problems do not exist and continual dismissal due to 'significant statistics' or first hand experience is beginning to Pss folk of a little.

Any shortfalls in policing in this country are not the fault of individual officers, so don't act like they're the root cause of any problems you encounter in your travels...

Well, you'll already know that the majority of opinions within this thread, myself included, are in agreement with you on that

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Holden - just on these two points (since I'm broadly in agreement with you, surprisingly, on a lot of other things, especially point 7)...

The stop / search of the photographer I made was a reasonable method of carrying out a brief investigation, and what you suggest is broadly what happened. His momentary detention was necessary in order for me to carry out my duties, and were the power not used, he could have simply walked off. The man wasn't dragged onto the pavement, handcuffed, subjected to a full body search back at the station and interrogated for hours. He was stopped, spoken to, name-checked, given some words of advice and then cheerfully went on his way.

I am not being disingenuous. s50 Police Reform Act is nothing to do with "not cooperating" in an every day sense, but a refusal to provide a name and address, or giving false details, when somebody is acting in a manner likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress" to people. Again, I have not seen anybody arrested for this...since if someone's behaviour is "likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress" in public, they are committing an offence contrary to s5 Public Order Act 1986 - the backbone offence of any of the police "reality" shows you see on TV. s24 PACE provides a power of arrest in circumstances where an offence has been committed and an offender refuses to provide their name or address. This is because it would be impossible to serve a court summons on them otherwise. As such, it is a completely duplicitous piece of legislation, and is completely different to the offence of Obstruction.

I think we have reached what fighter pilots call an ‘impasse’ and I concede to the points you raise. I also thank you for giving a clear and honest insight in to modern day policing. Our interaction has lead me to conclude that where politics meets policing in the higher echelons of power, George Orwell was correct when he stated:-

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. “

Go safely photo-Plod

Holden

 

[Arkady]

OK Tom, just read those - unfortunately both were as a result of complaints made by a member of the Public - as I understand it, Police are duty-bound to take action in that event...
The Antiniou case looks like the Dad was being a bit over-protective (and rightly so - it's Dad's job after all...) and hopefully this will emerge in court with him having to foot the poor 'Tog's legal bill...
The other case was again the result of a complaint made by council officials (who were being wayne-kerrs, but then most local authority types are eejits IMO), so again the officers had to investigate.

And yes I accept that in the second instance my MoD-90 would have gotten me out of the van a lot sooner, but in the first case? I don't think so...Taking photos of kids is a no-no whichever way you cut it up - should have asked first, shouldn't he?
A general "Hi! Does anyone mind if I take some pictures?" while waving the camera around so everyone could see he wasn't trying to be covert. In a Tube train, we don't have the luxury of being able to walk away if we don't feel like being photographed...

 

[Tyke Tiler]

OK Tom, just read those - unfortunately both were as a result of complaints made by a member of the Public - as I understand it, Police are duty-bound to take action in that event...
The Antiniou case looks like the Dad was being a bit over-protective (and rightly so - it's Dad's job after all...) and hopefully this will emerge in court with him having to foot the poor 'Tog's legal bill...
The other case was again the result of a complaint made by council officials (who were being wayne-kerrs, but then most local authority types are eejits IMO), so again the officers had to investigate.

And yes I accept that in the second instance my MoD-90 would have gotten me out of the van a lot sooner, but in the first case? I don't think so...Taking photos of kids is a no-no whichever way you cut it up - should have asked first, shouldn't he?
A general "Hi! Does anyone mind if I take some pictures?" while waving the camera around so everyone could see he wasn't trying to be covert. In a Tube train, we don't have the luxury of being able to walk away if we don't feel like being photographed...

I agree with all of your points Rob but I still can't excuse or ignore the end results, it's unnecessary and could be easily avoided.

If you want to take a picture, you should politely ask but winding up in a cell or being arrested on the grounds of 'Prevention Of Terrorism' in absence of a 'Hi!, Is it ok to take a picture?' is not acceptable.
We're photographers, some of us are quite happy being insular and grumpy beggars.

Anyhoo, those are just two examples cases, there are more and there will be more too if something doesn't give.

P.S, I'm still chuckling over the term 'Wayne Kerr'

 

[JackSparrow]

Just to ease the pressure on Photo Plod here, as a fellow officer (albeit at the other end of this great Kingdom) I'd like to chip my tuppence worth in.

I can't speak for Photo Plod but I have been filmed on duty on a few occasions before. I don't particularly like it but people do have the right to film in public within reason.

A fact of modern society is that there are people like Gemma Atkinson (not THE GEMMA ATKINSON who is infinitely more photogenic ) and others out there who have an agenda against the police and will film them for no reason other than to attempt to discredit them. Again, I don't have a problem with this because I do my job to the best of my abilities, even if they don't like or agree with what I am doing.

The same types also are known to employ tactics of "civil disobedience" and will push their luck as far as possible and make the job as difficult as possible for police. If these people are handled correctly at the scene, scenarios like this can be avoided. Funnily enough, I never see stories from the likes of Gemma Atkinson or anyone else for that matter saying "The police were very good today".

Like with all people I deal with, I am polite and courteous to people filming me. If they don't get what they were looking for and then cross the line and (as has happened in the past) start saying "I'm going to hunt you down and do your family in" or "You're getting the ****ing sack" then I will deal with it robustly too.

As far as I'm aware though, no police force trains officers specifically to deal with such people filming you in such circumstances. When I think back to a situation I have no training to deal with or no experience of dealing with I often find that I reverted to normal human reactions. When you have cops reacting as any other person would, you do get cops who will take offence to being filmed in public.

We are human beings too, after all. Sometimes the public forget this.

In this day and age there are no clear laws or guidelines about what is or is not acceptable conduct with regards to filming police or any other person without their consent in the UK. There is a lack of understanding between police and public about what is or is not acceptable and this confusion leads to anger on both sides and leaves the police open to criticism with little scope to be supported because senior management is scared to stand up to the public for fear of more criticism or complaints. This is not just limited to photography/filming either I might add.

There needs to be new legislation introduced so everyone knows where they stand and hopefully this will be a good start to repairing the bridges that have been burnt in the past between police and moderate members of society who have a poor opinion of the police like Holden. It is only with the support of the public that the police can function properly.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

There needs to be new legislation introduced so everyone knows where they stand and hopefully this will be a good start to repairing the bridges that have been burnt in the past between police and moderate members of society who have a poor opinion of the police like Holden. It is only with the support of the public that the police can function properly.

Very well said Cap'n Sparra!

 

[MG TF 135]

Oh my, this thread has gone on ain't it.

Refering to the the opening part of the thread, about the female filming the police. We know that what she did was not against the law, and the video would have been used by the police if for example her boyfriend had complained of assault. But the way she conducted herself was inappropiate. The police did not know what was being filmed and can check the content if they wish, as already quoted they can not delete without good grounds.

The thread then went through a course of mild police bashing. Phot Plod has defended his profession very well, and thanks. Although TBH i don't see why he should be defending the police.

Lets take a step back and think of all the laws and sub laws that a police officer needs to have an understanding of. We should realise that they often make decisions under pressure not only of what is in the interests of an offender/ criminal but also of the general public.

There have been a few references to the 'if an officer believes' quote. Well next time you are at work and someone asks you how something is done do not send them away saying 'i believe it should be done like this', go and find out for certain. An officer stopping you for a belief is his way of finding out for sure.

There has also been certain posts dragging up the De Menezes case. Well i fully support the officers, ok they made a mistake but lets look at the flip side. If they had stood back and he had been a successful bomber and killed upteen people the police would have been hung drawn and quatered also. I do agree however that the supposed cover up afterwards was shameful, but again we are at the mercy of the media on that story.

At the end of the day if you have nothing to hide then you will have no problem with the police. They are human and if you speak to them in a polite and pleasent manner then i'm sure you will get the same back.

Lets remember that police officers primarily deal with people who lie, cheat, cut corners and generally deceive their way through life. It must be hard to not treat everyone the same.

Next time you have a bad day at work and bite a innocent persons head off you will do well to remember that.

Once again a thumbs up for Photo Plod, and all his hard working colleagues.

I think i've spent my 2 pence now.

 

[Garry Edwards]

There has also been certain posts dragging up the De Menezes case. Well i fully support the officers, ok they made a mistake but lets look at the flip side. If they had stood back and he had been a successful bomber and killed upteen people the police would have been hung drawn and quatered also.

Well, according to the evidence given at the inquest, the gentleman was in police custody at the time he was shot, so not a lot of chance of him setting off a non-existent bomb with a number of police officers holding him down...

I do agree however that the supposed cover up afterwards was shameful, but again we are at the mercy of the media on that story.

I tend to have far more trust in the police than in the media - but I saw and heard the lies for myself, on the TV, out of the mouths of very senior police officers. Not much chance there for the media to play games.

Lets remember that police officers primarily deal with people who lie, cheat, cut corners and generally deceive their way through life. It must be hard to not treat everyone the same.

This is very true, and is one of the reasons why police officers need to be very special

 

[neil_g]

Well, according to the evidence given at the inquest, the gentleman was in police custody at the time he was shot, so not a lot of chance of him setting off a non-existent bomb with a number of police officers holding him down...

well that depends if the trigger to said bomb was something rediculously easy like a couple of metal contacts on the thumb and forefinger for example.

 

[boyfalldown]

J I don't particularly like it but people do have the right to film in public within reason.

A fact of modern society is that there are people like Gemma Atkinson (not THE GEMMA ATKINSON who is infinitely more photogenic ) and others out there who have an agenda against the police and will film them for no reason other than to attempt to discredit them. Again, I don't have a problem with this because I do my job to the best of my abilities, even if they don't like or agree with what I am doing.


In this day and age there are no clear laws or guidelines about what is or is not acceptable conduct with regards to filming police or any other person without their consent in the UK. There is a lack of understanding between police and public about what is or is not acceptable and this confusion leads to anger on both sides and leaves the police open to criticism with little scope to be supported because senior management is scared to stand up to the public for fear of more criticism or complaints. This is not just limited to photography/filming either I might add.

There needs to be new legislation introduced so everyone knows where they stand and hopefully this will be a good start to repairing the bridges that have been burnt in the past between police and moderate members of society who have a poor opinion of the police like Holden. It is only with the support of the public that the police can function properly.

Cap'n - allow me to take issue with you on some of this. My only knowledge of the Gemma A in question is from the guardian article linked, so I apologies if you know more - she may or may not of been attempting to wind the police up, but she was acting in her rights and you seem to have jumped to allot of conclusions from that article. Do you mind me asking how? From my perspective, I'm sorry to say it looks as though you've jumped to no end of assumptions about a young lady who filmed the police. Apologies if I'm wrong

I agree many or most do a great job, but part of that is dealling with people who mean to descredit you - in this case the polices actions would of been caught on CCTV aswell and as we so often hear if you're doing nothing wrong then why worry?

I don't agree the need for new legislation, just a clear communication of the exisiting legislation and we won't need to hear stories like this in the future.

The actions of what are undoubtably a few of the police force, leave a very sour taste in the mouths of many, fortunatley we are all open to greater scrutiny the ever, attempting to hide from this makes people looks harded. In common with Holden, and after a non-photography related incident I find it very hard to support the police, despite the excellent case Photo Plod makes in their defence

Cheers

Hugh

 

[pxl8]

There needs to be new legislation introduced so everyone knows where they stand..

Well over a year ago I suggested that this is likely place we'll end up, with legislation that makes public photography illegal simply because it's the simplest solution and much cheaper than trying to educate people doing a wide variety of jobs (police, security, etc)...

 

[Photo Plod]

Well over a year ago I suggested that this is likely place we'll end up, with legislation that makes public photography illegal simply because it's the simplest solution and much cheaper than trying to educate people doing a wide variety of jobs (police, security, etc)...

I'm sure it goes without saying that everyone here - including me - hopes that is never the case. It would be an intolerable violation of freedom.

 

[Holden Caulfield]

Do we really need more legislation? I believe what we need is for huge amounts of legislation to be repealed and for existing legislation to be applied without ‘tampering’ as in the De Menzes case.

There also needs to be a change in ‘police culture’ that defends their ‘ wrongs’ as much as it does their rights , I am not alone in thinking that in some cases police officers are ‘seen’ to above the law and are supported in this by senior colleagues , members of the Judiciary and their political masters

As for the assertion that I am anti police this is not true at all, what I am highlighting is how the police are being used as agents ‘of Social control’ ,When you have a police force that takes it’s orders from an energy company, in the case of an illegal raid on climate change protesters, or lies trough it teeth when a citizen is killed as a result of their actions (Tomlinson G20) , then you start to lose policing by consent and at that point the criminals have won.

One final thing to the poster who is worried about having a career in undercover policing, photography is the least of you worries, The IRA set the ‘standard for counter surveillance operations in the 80’s, Greenpeace I am sure have some very bright psychology graduates who have a chat with new recruits. Unfortunately serving police officers, with some exceptions do not make good undercover operatives.

I can remember doing some work on a rough housing estate and seeing a workman ‘from the council’ most days doing odd jobs, a cursory observation of his behaviour indicated that he had no background in trades and he had creased seams in his overall, trousers.
The funniest part was when someone said “see that cop dressed as a workman…..”

 

[Jelster]

I work in this area and you that station on an almost daily basis. I have been searched twice, as part of a "routine search excercise". First time I was fine, 2nd time my tube was just coming in and they "had" to check me out... I was really wound up over it and was extremely short with the Officer and PCSO who were dealing with me - I wasn't rude, I didn't swear, I was just bloody annoyed that I missed the train. When I did complain on the second time I became fully aware that there was at least one plain clothes copper in the Station.

What did they find, nothing, like the time before. However, it's their job and I would prefer I miss one train than some bloke with a bomb actually get on the tube.

1) The Police should have no problem with being photographed or videoed as long as they're doing they're job properly.

2) A tube station is not actually a public area, and civilians can quite rightly be old not to film/take photographs....

Steve

 

[Dom]

Well over a year ago I suggested that this is likely place we'll end up, with legislation that makes public photography illegal simply because it's the simplest solution and much cheaper than trying to educate people doing a wide variety of jobs (police, security, etc)...

Much as I can see Gordon Brown loving this idea. I could never happen, it would be a step to far and I and many other I believe would be very happy to take action against the government that implemented such a law.

 

[Anorakus]

On one occasion on Brighton Seafront, a (black) male was being arrested by (white) officers and the juxtaposition of white uniformed hands holding the cuffed, topless black arrestee was too much to let pass...

That's a great shot, but I reckon it needs a tighter crop and a bit of B&W to emphasise the different skin colours

This is a classic stock photo image IMO.. could be used to illustrate any number of articles on law & order etc.

(Sorry, I know this is a bit off-topic but I couldn't resist a quick critique! )

A.

 

[Arkady]

I always submit full-frame to allow the PicEd to do his own thing...

BTW you'll notice there's no 'Edit' tick on my profile...

 

[Anorakus]

BTW you'll notice there's no 'Edit' tick on my profile...

Ah, sorry, I didn't know about the edit tick thing.. edited my post

A.

 

[Arkady]

Ah, sorry, I didn't know about the edit tick thing.. edited my post

A.

You're a gentleman, sir...

 

[Photo Plod]

2) A tube station is not actually a public area, and civilians can quite rightly be old not to film/take photographs....

Interesting point, this. In a legal sense, the tube is a public place because there is no limitation on entry - anybody can buy a ticket and then enter the station, the same as a cinema, sports match, etc - all of which are considered "public places" for a multitude of laws, including stop & search laws.

However, the Tube must be subject of some sort of railway byelaw - I had a very quick browse on the net, and found that you need a permit from TfL if you're taking photos for commercial purposes. However, to take personal photos, you're absolutely fine - just no flashes or tripods.

 

[Dave W]

Another copper here, sorry to come in so late but I've been working.

IMHO the big problem is that fact that if a few bobbies get something wrong then everyone knows about it. There's also a large section of society that absolutely revels in it and tries very hard to perpetuate the myth that coppers are merely tools of the state, taking your civil liberties, ad infinitum blah blah.

The police reflect the society we serve and as such is guaranteed to have the odd idiot or 7 amongst it's ranks (trust me on this one I work with a couple of them) so why is it such a surprise when a mistake is made. No other profession is as rigorously watched and held to higher standards than the police so perhaps the surprising thing should be that there's so few incidents of idiocy.

I'll not comment on any of the real life cases mentioned in this thread because I wasn't there and don't know what really happened. I will however share one experience I've had with a fellow tog.

I was patrolling a local park when I saw a tog setting up, I ambled over to have a chat because I'm naturally a nosy b****r and wanted to have a look at his oodles of expensive gear. I tried to open a conversation but he wasn't interested and to be frank, was rude and rather hostile. 2 females then ran over and said they had come to "save him". Save him from what I have no idea unless I looked as though I was trying to bore him to death. I gave up in the end but still kept him in sight for half an hour so one of our local scrotes didn't run off with his many thousands of pounds worth of gear.

Given his attitude I'm not sure why I bothered. So yes sometimes you may be stopped and spoken to by an over zealous copper. Sometimes you may be stopped and spoken to by a fellow tog who is genuinely interested in what you're doing but just happens to be wearing a uniform. Your attitude makes a huge difference as to how you are treated by everyone, not just the police so as well as questioning what the police are doing, take a look in the mirror too.