Police forget law shocker

Simple police attitude when something like that is going on, arrest everyone first, ask questions after.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
Simple police attitude when something like that is going on, arrest everyone first, ask questions after.
Click to expand...

Were you there? If you weren't then you aren't in a position to make sweeping comments.
Just because it's in the media doesn't mean you have the full story so maybe keep your police bashing comments to yourself.

Andy
 
Harvey_nikon said:
Simple police attitude when something like that is going on, arrest everyone first, ask questions after.
Click to expand...

Agreed.. LOve this bit at the end of the article

When we reach the stage that constables decide where we can and cannot point a camera in bringing you the news, we will be living in a police state
Click to expand...

And no I wasnt there.. But like anyone else I am allowed an opinion based on what i do know :)
 
Keebsuk said:
Were you there? If you weren't then you aren't in a position to make sweeping comments.
Just because it's in the media doesn't mean you have the full story so maybe keep your police bashing comments to yourself.

Andy
Click to expand...

Except that in this case that does appear to have some justification:

From the M.E.N

We report today how one of our photographers was arrested while taking pictures of a street brawl following a court hearing relating to an assault on Big Fat Gypsy Weddings star Paddy Doherty. Other MEN photographers were threatened with arrest if they did not delete images, but refused to do so.

Our photographer was later released without charge. But serious questions remain about the police's attitude to professional journalists doing their job in bearing witness to a newsworthy event in a public place in the middle of Manchester.

Wiser judgement prevailed when senior officers became involved. But this unfortunate incident is evidence of a worrying phenomenon, that some rank and file police officers no longer seem to understand or respect the role of the press.

When we reach the stage that constables decide where we can and cannot point a camera in bringing you the news, we will be living in a police state.
Click to expand...


I'm perfectly prepared to stand up for the Old Bill in general circumstances, but it rather looks as though a few plod on the ground had a couple of wires loose.

The only part not mentioned in the article is whether or not the photographers

a) Identified themselves as Press
b) were carrying UK Press Cards

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, then the GMP is in more than a spot of poo and I'd imagine that the Chief Constable has a few questions to answer.
 
This seems to be happening more and more often.

Are the police not trained in the law nowadays? Or are they just trying to push their luck in the hope we don't know it either?
 
DemiLion said:
a) Identified themselves as Press
b) were carrying UK Press Cards
.
Click to expand...

I would "guess" they did as they stated many times that they where trying to do there job..

My UK Press card is in my peli case as I use that most.. but when I go on jobs I am not using it I tend to forget the press card...
 
hypnotic said:
Are the police not trained in the law nowadays? Or are they just trying to push their luck in the hope we don't know it either?
Click to expand...

I think its one of them way down the list laws that people just presume they know..
 
Unless they are freelance contributors who don't qualify with one of the Gatekeepers as yet.

I'm in the same situation (although I am qualified to hold one), and it can put you on slightly dodgy ground when tempers are flaring.
 
I am inclined to believe the story at least close to face value, but were there not more important things going on at the time than arresting photographers? And I do love the phrase de-arrested. It's like people sat down and thought hmmm what can we do when we make a big cock up to limit legal ramifications.
 
DemiLion said:
Unless they are freelance contributors who don't qualify with one of the Gatekeepers as yet.
Click to expand...

I know both names and they ahve been doing it for a long time..

DemiLion said:
I'm in the same situation (although I am qualified to hold one), and it can put you on slightly dodgy ground when tempers are flaring.
Click to expand...

eh?
 
As in I'm qualified under the NUJ regs to hold a UK Press Card, but for various personal reasons haven't applied for one as yet.

Not having the card to wave in plod's face when he starts getting uppity can mean that you don't get accorded full privileges; and understandably so.

I'm not having a dig at the photographers onsite, just commenting that there can be circumstances where yelling 'Press' without being able to back it up can land you in hot water.

However, if they were carrying and accredited as you suspect, then it's a moot point! :)
 
DemiLion said:
As in I'm qualified under the NUJ regs to hold a UK Press Card, but for various personal reasons haven't applied for one as yet.
Click to expand...

haa right sorry didnt follow and I wont pry :)

I rarely have any need to use mine for my line of work (sports).. there was a bank robbery a couple of months ago in my town center (I got my first regional paper front page pic from it)

When i got to the line they had put up i didnt take any pics until i spoke to the police... i spoke to a constable and showed my press card.. he brought over a seargent who said... "i cant stop you taking pictures anyway" to which I replied.. "I know but I wanted to do things right"

On the few occasions I have shown it nobody has even known what to do or why its the most secure photo ID you can get
 
Interesting that the police were apparently trying to delete images. This could be interfering with evidence - a very naught thing for a copper to be guilty of :nono:

Security guards do not have stop and search powers or the right to seize your equipment or delete images or confiscate film under any circumstances.

In some circumstances, the police may grab your film or memory cards but they are still not authorised to delete any images.

After all, if you've committed an offence the images would act as evidence, and if you haven't broken the law, the images are innocent.
Click to expand...
(from here: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-deleting-images.html).

And of course it doesn't make any different what sort of card you wave. If you are in a public place you are legally entitled to take as many shots as you like.
 
jon ryan said:
And of course it doesn't make any different what sort of card you wave. If you are in a public place you are legally entitled to take as many shots as you like.
Click to expand...

Not strictly true at a crime scene as this was... but obviously they where allowed otherwise they wouldnt have de arrested them..
 
jon ryan said:
And of course it doesn't make any different what sort of card you wave. If you are in a public place you are legally entitled to take as many shots as you like.
Click to expand...

It makes a huge difference, as a former senior staffer you should understand that at the very least.
 
I attended an RTA a month ago - and the police stopped me taking pictures because the 'family requested it'!! Now I politely pointed out that they could pass on the request but they couldn't enforce it - they disagreed. Even after the casulties were removed and all you could see was the broken vehicles they point blank refused pictures. I was very angry - here was the family of the arse who caused the accident censoring the press with police approval!!

Oh yes, and I was on a public road!
 
Last edited:
Until it's been declared a crime scene, it's a public place.
 
.If the guys feel it was truly unjust then perhaps they should get together and sue.

I’ve had personal experiences myself of ego before sense reactions. Why some think its ok to patronise and ignore the rational is beyond me ……..in fact nearly every time I meet an officer this last year, sense seems to be the last thing on their minds and OTT bullying for nonsensical reasons seems to have become their standard point of view.
 
Last edited:
I dont understand why the police cant arrest anyone & everyone. Arresting press togs will stop it getting into the papers and thus make crime seem less to the readers. That has to be a good thing.

I just dont see the problem :)
 
Tokkelossi said:
I dont understand why the police cant arrest anyone & everyone. Arresting press togs will stop it getting into the papers and thus make crime seem less to the readers. That has to be a good thing.

I just dont see the problem :)
Click to expand...

You are kidding - arn't you??
 
awp said:
You are kidding - arn't you??
Click to expand...

See if I could have you arrested now, this issue would go away :lol:

I love the law, like watching kittens playing with a ball of wool. Except the kittens have cuffs and the tangled mess is peoples lives.

Time for madam guillotine. We could set it up where the peace protesters used to be :D
 
Ok, arrest for obstructing Police and breach of the peace, was it justified?
That depends, and as none of you there, you aren't qualified to say.
For example, if, and it happens often, everything is peaceful, and as soon as a press camera comes out it starts not to be, then arrest of the photog to prevent a BofP is justified.
I've done the same to the crew filming the Airport series at Heathrow.
De arrest is because once the danger of a BofP is over, then there is no longer reason to continue detention, and de arrest is the only option.
I'd suggest it's those who've commented about Police lack of knowledge are the ones who are guilty of that sin, but why let reality get in the way of a poor assumption.
 
Bernie174 said:
Ok, arrest for obstructing Police and breach of the peace, was it justified?
That depends, and as none of you there, you aren't qualified to say.
For example, if, and it happens often, everything is peaceful, and as soon as a press camera comes out it starts not to be, then arrest of the photog to prevent a BofP is justified.
I've done the same to the crew filming the Airport series at Heathrow.
De arrest is because once the danger of a BofP is over, then there is no longer reason to continue detention, and de arrest is the only option.
I'd suggest it's those who've commented about Police lack of knowledge are the ones who are guilty of that sin, but why let reality get in the way of a poor assumption.
Click to expand...

So if the sight of a woman with a beard caused someone to start a punch up is it then appropriate to arrest her whilst exercising her rights
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Ok, arrest for obstructing Police and breach of the peace, was it justified?
That depends, and as none of you there, you aren't qualified to say.
For example, if, and it happens often, everything is peaceful, and as soon as a press camera comes out it starts not to be, then arrest of the photog to prevent a BofP is justified.
I've done the same to the crew filming the Airport series at Heathrow.
De arrest is because once the danger of a BofP is over, then there is no longer reason to continue detention, and de arrest is the only option.
I'd suggest it's those who've commented about Police lack of knowledge are the ones who are guilty of that sin, but why let reality get in the way of a poor assumption.
Click to expand...

Thats right however, it then becomes a very small step to arrest and de-arrest at will. No charges or court case. A danger of it becoming a tool to control without consequence. Arrest/charge without trial.

Do we want to live in that world? as we speak a lot of people in north africa want out of that.

Arrest, charge and then let the courts/law rule on it. Then everyone, togs, press and police can tell their side. Not this though :thumbsdown:
 
"I've never seen a situation so dismal that a policeman couldn't make it worse" -Brendan Behan
 
Bernie174 said:
For example, if, and it happens often, everything is peaceful, and as soon as a press camera comes out it starts not to be, then arrest of the photog to prevent a BofP is justified.
Click to expand...

I asked a lecturer in constitutional and human rights law at Oxford University - she says you are talking cobblers.

C

PS and welcome to my ignore list - as I prefer people who can talk from a position of knowledge and you aren't it.
 
cjay said:
I asked a lecturer in constitutional and human rights law at Oxford University - she says you are talking cobblers.
Click to expand...

She's obviously very well educated then! and able to put forward a well reasoned response to the subject :D
 
Another police bashing thread :(
 
Looking at the photograph it would appear the tog was some distance away from the incident, perhaps the officer preferred a soft target rather than take a risk at intervening in an affray that was evidently in progress. Perhaps something to do with a health and safety assesment of the situation ;)
 
cjay said:
I asked a lecturer in constitutional and human rights law at Oxford University - she says you are talking cobblers.

C

PS and welcome to my ignore list - as I prefer people who can talk from a position of knowledge and you aren't it.
Click to expand...

If you're going to put all members of TP who you disagree with on your ignore list, you will soon become a very lonely bunny here. As you're a newbie here, chill out and realise that people do have there own opinions.
 
It is funny though all the fuss made about an off hand comment about rape and how people dress caused marches across half the globe and yet all it was right or wrong was a statement and yet when civil liberties are being affected it is somehow wrong to be annoyed about it. I don't think the general comments have been police bashing, some have perhaps but I've seen more anger about people not being able to smoke in pubs.
 
Agree, but the longer standing people on here know where this thread is gonna go. Hence Dods comment.
 
Kemble3 said:
If you're going to put all members of TP who you disagree with on your ignore list, you will soon become a very lonely bunny here. As you're a newbie here, chill out and realise that people do have there own opinions.
Click to expand...

It's not disagreeing with, it's bone ignorance and passing disinformation off as informed comment. As Churchill said, it is something 'Up with which I will not put'.

C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top