Police forget law shocker

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...

Just fyi there are a number of offences to be considered, the most common being conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. There are offences under the public order act too so you may want to put yourself on ignore!

Andy
 
Keebsuk said:
Just fyi there are a number of offences to be considered, the most common being conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. There are offences under the public order act too so you may want to put yourself on ignore!

Andy
Click to expand...

Breach of the Peace would have to be justified by some sort of threat to people or property. I'm not sure how the photographer would justify being arrested for s5 Public Order, let alone any of the more serious offences.

Police cock up, pure and simple. We make mistakes, and when we do, sometimes they have serious consequences.

And with that, I bow out. Like all other similar threads, I know where this one is heading.
 
Last edited:
cjay said:
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...

oh and by the way bernie is a cop - i dont always agree with what he says but to suggest he isnt talking from a position of knowledge is ridiculous.

perhaps your lecturer freind would like to walk a beat and experience the realities of practical policing rather than the academic theory before passing judgement
 
big soft moose said:
oh and by the way bernie is a cop - i dont always agree with what he says but to suggest he isnt talking from a position of knowledge is ridiculous.

perhaps your lecturer freind would like to walk a beat and experience the realities of practical policing rather than the academic theory before passing judgement
Click to expand...

Absolutely spot on.

Andy
 
big soft moose said:
oh and by the way bernie is a cop - i dont always agree with what he says but to suggest he isnt talking from a position of knowledge is ridiculous.

perhaps your lecturer freind would like to walk a beat and experience the realities of practical policing rather than the academic theory before passing judgement
Click to expand...

Considering your sig: "owning a camera makes you a photographer, in the same way that owning a guitar makes you a musician" makes me assume that you think irony is to iron what brassy is to brass and stony is to stone.

He's a policeman - it doesn't mean he knows 'the law'. I have had to work with many policeman in an official capacity (quite happily - largely involving investigating what went wrong when a member of the public has decided to kill themselves with stupidity) in the past and you do not ask a police officer for clarification or explanation of any point of law. It is neither their job nor their area of expertise. It is complex and our elected masters make it more complex each and every day.

C
 
Photo Plod said:
Breach of the Peace would have to be justified by some sort of threat to people or property. I'm not sure how the photographer would justify being arrested for s5 Public Order, let alone any of the more serious offences.

Police cock up, pure and simple. We make mistakes, and when we do, sometimes they have serious consequences.

And with that, I bow out. Like all other similar threads, I know where this one is heading.
Click to expand...

:) ......... :thumbs:
 
The person responsible for maintaining law must have felt that himself/herself acting in breach of law trumps acting within the law because it was somehow the right thing to do or personally beneficial.
- Or -
The person responsible for maintaining law wasn't clear on what the law was.


Is it police-bashing to say that the above isn't acceptable behaviour of the person responsible for maintaining law?

By the way –*I've not been around long enough to know about the direction of 'where the thread's heading'. Can anybody explain?
 
Last edited:
I was once threatened with arrest by a young officer for taking a picture of a road closed sign. It was after an accident where four young girls were tragically killed in a car crash near Ebbw Vale, a few years ago. The crash scene was a further mile and a half up the road so just wanted to get the barriers and sign. He told me if I take a picture he would arrest me, I told him to contact his inspector and see what he says, after a radio call I took the pictures I needed. I just think some of them have not got a clue.

Another time I was gratefull for the police presence was when I was outside Neath magistrates court, waiting to get a shot of a murder suspect who had killed his girlfriend. All his family and friends were in court and as soon as he was remanded in custody for trial at crown court all the family and co, came out of court and noticed myself and a female tog from another newspaper, they swamed around us shouting and screaming, spitting at us, throwing things at us, it got very frightening, my femail friend was absolutely bricking it. Just at that point the arresting officer came out of court walked over to us and asked if we were having problems, I replied slightly, he got on the phone and within 2 minutes two transit vans pulled up full of police officers, they soon dispersed the crowd and we got our shots.
 
Last edited:
Russ MCR said:
By the way –*I've not been around long enough to know about the direction of 'where the thread's heading'. Can anybody explain?
Click to expand...

There was a thread last week (or maybe the week before) in which a few people were laying into Plod(UK) for some reported actions by Plod(Australia). It all got a bit silly in the end.

FWIW from my point of view, I think that generally the police in this country do a fairly good job, sometimes in fairly trying circumstances, but I also believe that when they get it wrong (as it appears here) they should be held to account.
 
Photo Plod said:
Breach of the Peace would have to be justified by some sort of threat to people or property. I'm not sure how the photographer would justify being arrested for s5 Public Order, let alone any of the more serious offences.

Police cock up, pure and simple. We make mistakes, and when we do, sometimes they have serious consequences.

And with that, I bow out. Like all other similar threads, I know where this one is heading.
Click to expand...

In accepting that a police officer may have got it wrong (we are all human) you earn my respect, for what it is worth and gives me hope that we may not be descending into a police state.
 
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...

Your lecturer friend is the one talking cobblers. A 'lecturer in constitutional and human rights law' has a very narrow field of expertise and isn't really qualified to pass judgement on criminal law. The two are like chalk and cheese, poles apart.

If the fight broke out for the benefit of the cameras (I don't know if it actually did or did not as I wasn't there but this sort of thing is quite common now), then the police were within their rights to arrest the photographer, and then de-arrest him, if he didn't do as requested. It probably never entered their minds that they were ever going to charge him, just defuse the situation for the benefit of the greater community.

I welcome you to add me to your ignore list as well, as has been said already, you are going to find this a lonesome place if you 'ignore' everyone who disagrees with you. Maybe a forum isn't the right place for such a narrow minded person.
 
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...

Does being a special constable for the last 6 months mean I have more knowledge about the goings on than most? Also means you can stick your police bashing comments to yourself.

As I said, for the majority of cases I have witnessed like this its a case of arresting everyone that they suspect may be causing or adding to the issues and then speaking to them after. Doesn't mean I agree with it and I certainly wouldn't arrest a tog for taking photos.

Now, how about you you take you comments, and keep it to yourself until you have all of the facts about something :)
 
Harvey_nikon said:
Does being a special constable for the last 6 months mean I have more knowledge about the goings on than most? Also means you can stick your police bashing comments to yourself.

As I said, for the majority of cases I have witnessed like this its a case of arresting everyone that they suspect may be causing or adding to the issues and then speaking to them after. Doesn't mean I agree with it and I certainly wouldn't arrest a tog for taking photos.

Now, how about you you take you comments, and keep it to yourself until you have all of the facts about something :)
Click to expand...

Lol, doing a job for a couple of hours a week doesn't mean a great deal tbh but I would have expected better from you!

Andy
 
So would Cjays 'Friend' be the same 'friend' thats involved in the conversation 'I've got a friend'? We know a song about that don't we Geoffrey. If this 'friend' does exists, a lecturer? Wow, how impressive, but those that can do, those that can't teach. Apparently not very well in this case.

Anyway, moving on, arrest to prevent a BofP is common place, as is de arrest for it, when there is no longer reason for continued detention, ie there is no longer a potential BofP.

A BofP cannot happen in the presence of a Constable, because he has a duty to detain a person to prevent it from happening. So if the potential cause is Mr photog, then he's the one who gets nicked.

Tokkelossi

arrest/dearrest has in this context been about officially since PACE came into being. Unofficially, it existed since Bob Peel thought it'd be a good idea to dress men in red waistcoats and send them forth from Bow Street so the Gentry didn't have to see the criminal underclass.

As a wider context, as you made mention about arrest to charge to court. Not all arrests result in charge. Evidence to arrest is not the same as evidence to convict. It's always been the case that a high number of people arrested were released from a Police station without any charge being laid. PACE changed things in that it also allowed for that process to happen before arrival at the station.

So for example, if Mr Jones called Police because he thinks Fred has nicked 2 pork chops from his shop. Police arrive and arrest Fred, but then Mr Jones's assistant says, no, he's nicked nothing, I sold those 2 chops earlier, under the pre PACE system in theory Fred would have to go to the Police Station to be booked in, then released without being charged. Post PACE, he would be de arrested then, so the system actually makes sense.

For BofP, in the good old days, for example you got arrested for it, you stayed in custody and appeared at court next hearing to show reasons why you should not be bound over to keep the peace (you weren't charged with a crime as such with BofP). With the advent of the CPS, they didn't like BofP, so the policy became arrest, and once the possibility was over, release.

Photoplod

The threat of violence does not have to occur, to justify arrest for BofP. There has to be a reasonable ground for expecting it to happen. So for example the lefties and Righties are have demo/counter demo which is all very peaceful until BBC camera crew turn up and insist on filming it, and the mood starts to change. The cause of that change is the camera crew, because up till their arrival it was nice and clam. Therefore arrest of the camera crew would be justified, because that would prevent of BofP. S5 POA is all very well after it comes to fisty cuffs, but the idea is to maintain the Queens Peace and prevention is better than cure.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why ?

it seems to me that the photographer was on public property as this happened outside the court. I'd be really p'ed off if, on public property, a "Press" tog was allowed to shoot and I wasn't. Come that day we may as well all pack up and go home.

Steve
 
Bernie174 said:
So would Cjays 'Friend' be the same 'friend' thats involved in the conversation 'I've got a friend'? We know a song about that don't we Geoffrey. If this 'friend' does exists, a lecturer? Wow, how impressive, but those that can do, those that can't teach. Apparently not very well in this case.

Anyway, moving on, arrest to prevent a BofP is common place, as is de arrest for it, when there is no longer reason for continued detention, ie there is no longer a potential BofP.

A BofP cannot happen in the presence of a Constable, because he has a duty to detain a person to prevent it from happening. So if the potential cause is Mr photog, then he's the one who gets nicked.

Tokkelossi

arrest/dearrest has in this context been about officially since PACE came into being. Unofficially, it existed since Bob Peel thought it'd be a good idea to dress men in red waistcoats and send them forth from Bow Street so the Gentry didn't have to see the criminal underclass.

As a wider context, as you made mention about arrest to charge to court. Not all arrests result in charge. Evidence to arrest is not the same as evidence to convict. It's always been the case that a high number of people arrested were released from a Police station without any charge being laid. PACE changed things in that it also allowed for that process to happen before arrival at the station.

So for example, if Mr Jones called Police because he thinks Fred has nicked 2 pork chops from his shop. Police arrive and arrest Fred, but then Mr Jones's assistant says, no, he's nicked nothing, I sold those 2 chops earlier, under the pre PACE system in theory Fred would have to go to the Police Station to be booked in, then released without being charged. Post PACE, he would be de arrested then, so the system actually makes sense.

For BofP, in the good old days, for example you got arrested for it, you stayed in custody and appeared at court next hearing to show reasons why you should not be bound over to keep the peace (you weren't charged with a crime as such with BofP). With the advent of the CPS, they didn't like BofP, so the policy became arrest, and once the possibility was over, release.

Photoplod

The threat of violence does not have to occur, to justify arrest for BofP. There has to be a reasonable ground for expecting it to happen. So for example the lefties and Righties are have demo/counter demo which is all very peaceful until BBC camera crew turn up and insist on filming it, and the mood starts to change. The cause of that change is the camera crew, because up till their arrival it was nice and clam. Therefore arrest of the camera crew would be justified, because that would prevent of BofP. S5 POA is all very well after it comes to fisty cuffs, but the idea is to maintain the Queens Peace and prevention is better than cure.
Click to expand...

Bernie - I would disagree with you over using BoP in this manner. Such are the problems with Common Law and its interpretation. Although things might be calm until the camera crew turn up, and therefore they may be the spark that sets things off, they aren't actually breaching anybody's peace. I had a similar debate with someone once on a police forum regarding a juvenile misper, as it would seem to me that unless you are the one offering violence, etc, detention would be very difficult to justify. They aren't being provocative in the sense that they're trying to incite violence, so it really doesn't work for me.

I know exactly where you're coming from, but weighed with a camera crew's equally powerful common law right to be out & about in public, I don't think in these circumstances that nicking them was the right solution. There's no answer that will suit all, and I appreciate that I wasn't there.
 
amtaylor said:
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
Click to expand...

Err, no.
The marches were not about the Canadian Copper's statement, although they were triggered by it. They were about a worldwide culture whereby the victims of rape are blamed for the crimes committed against them. That is far more than being just "a statement".
 
Photo Plod said:
Bernie - I would disagree with you over using BoP in this manner. Such are the problems with Common Law and its interpretation. Although things might be calm until the camera crew turn up, and therefore they may be the spark that sets things off, they aren't actually breaching anybody's peace. I had a similar debate with someone once on a police forum regarding a juvenile misper, as it would seem to me that unless you are the one offering violence, etc, detention would be very difficult to justify. They aren't being provocative in the sense that they're trying to incite violence, so it really doesn't work for me.

I know exactly where you're coming from, but weighed with a camera crew's equally powerful common law right to be out & about in public, I don't think in these circumstances that nicking them was the right solution. There's no answer that will suit all, and I appreciate that I wasn't there.
Click to expand...

:clap::clap:

Ah thanks phew ...

When I read your posts I feel there is a possibility that our police can once again be excellent.
 
Last edited:
Photo Plod's point is valid to me. It does seem a little odd when you are judged not by your own actions but how other people react to your actions. If person A is doing something which is perfectly within the law and person B takes offense to it are we really allowed to arrest person A because person B is likely to become aggressive and violent? I am not talking about inciting violence here but something perfectly normal and law abiding. Could we arrest someone for BoP for having a ferrari in his drive because it causes the neighbours to throw stones at it?

I can also see the police point of view though and can easily understand why it is easier to arrest everyone in a situation that is getting out of control and then clear up the mess when everything has calmed down. I have a lot of sympathy with police officers and their days of being able to deal with a lot of situations with common sense are slowly (or maybe quickly) being restricted.
 
Bernie174 said:
So for example the lefties and Righties are have demo/counter demo which is all very peaceful until BBC camera crew turn up and insist on filming it, and the mood starts to change. The cause of that change is the camera crew, because up till their arrival it was nice and clam. Therefore arrest of the camera crew would be justified.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with that arguement. Many occasions cameras prevent violence, isn't that why the police use them too.

Try swapping the words camera crew with Police and see how ridiculous it is.

We don't know the full details and as only one tog was arrested among several I can only assume that he was overly asserting his case while the police were in a difficult and volatile situation.
I suppose while you're trying to arrest violent criminals the last thing you want is 70-200 poking you in the behind lol
 
I think it's fair to say this thread is going nowhere, just like the others. So...

amtaylor said:
With great power comes great responsibility.....
Yay I got a film quote in
Click to expand...

"This stuff will make you a god damn sexual tyrannosaur, just like me"
Yay, me too :) (although it's as pointless as this old thread again)
 
There will be over zealous ploice out there just the same as over zealous togs or any other proffession, I'm sure the law in scotland is different for BotP you need to be causing fear or alarm up here, so not really able to pass comment on the case down south.
 
Davie said:
I don't agree with that arguement. Many occasions cameras prevent violence, isn't that why the police use them too.

Try swapping the words camera crew with Police and see how ridiculous it is.

We don't know the full details and as only one tog was arrested among several I can only assume that he was overly asserting his case while the police were in a difficult and volatile situation.
I suppose while you're trying to arrest violent criminals the last thing you want is 70-200 poking you in the behind lol
Click to expand...

The police use camera equipment for evidence gathering not prevention of violence. Lol I can just imagine, " ok boys it's kicking off so draw your 70-200's!"

Andy
 
Photoplod
My point is as you know, a BofP cannot occur in the presence of a constable. It's a common law duty that a constable must act to prevent one.
And while in reality all 3 parties in my example have equal 'rights' then cause of a potential BofP is what has to be removed.
Given that all is calm before the arrival of the camera crew (and as we all know, people will play for the camera!) it is reasonable to see that as the cause or catalyst for a BofP. Faced with that, something has to go, and if the camera crew wont go voluntarily, there's little option left.
The principle is one I've used. In brief a camera crew were following Jeremy from Aeroflot at Heathrow. Unconnected with that, I was waiting to put 12 Kurds on a flight for deportation. They were nice and calm, until the crew turned up. The moment they saw the camera they started to play up. There were just 2 of us, and no way we would contain anything. So I asked the camera crew to leave, they declined, so were arrested, removed and de arrested.
They subsequently complained which went no where. Their attempt at civil action for unlawful arrest failed in Court for the very reasons I gave above.

You are right though, like everyone else we were not there, and so are offering answers to points made here, rather that a factual account of why's and what's.
The only people that know all the facts are those involved, and it's not for anyone here to second guess them or assume with no knowledge that Police action was wrongful, because of their own narrow self interest.
 
Last edited:
Slightly different though. They would have been filming under licence from BAA/LHR rather than asserting their rights in a public place.
 
Demi
Yes, they were, but it doesn't alter the principles which I used to prevent a breach of the Peace.
In fact the subject of permit didn't come up at any point in the attempt and failure in civil action, or complaint, because it does not alter the situation. Which was my duty at common law to keep the Queens Peace. That duty exists everywhere in the UK.
Controversial as this is going to be, the 'right' in a public place actually does not exist. It's not a right to film (or Photograph) in public, its the absence of anything preventing you from doing it. For it to be a 'right', they'd have to be something written into law, and there's not.
 
I was referring to the implied rights of common law, not the explicit ones ladled out in the HRA; which actual restricts almost as many rights as it allows.
 
New here, just registered! New to photography and hoping to get lots of good advice on here.

Disappointed to find this is one of the first threads I have seen.

Don't believe everything you read in the media. Because it is reported to have happened a certain way, does not mean it happened anything like that.

Secondly, which no one else has mentioned, the Police could seize any cameras with photographs of this incident on them as evidence. Whilst not stopping you taking pictures for the sake of stopping taking them, you would be left standing with no camera to take them on.
 
DemiLion said:
FWIW from my point of view, I think that generally the police in this country do a fairly good job, sometimes in fairly trying circumstances, but I also believe that when they get it wrong (as it appears here) they should be held to account.
Click to expand...


I agree. And use a little common sense (something which appears not to be so commone anymore).
 
Auwyn said:
Err, no.
The marches were not about the Canadian Copper's statement, although they were triggered by it. They were about a worldwide culture whereby the victims of rape are blamed for the crimes committed against them. That is far more than being just "a statement".
Click to expand...

Err no.
It's a perceived worldwide culture. The policeman did not blame the victims. His comment might have been illinformed but to class statements as these as blaming victims and even worse that people in general feel this way is utterly ridiculous.

Going back to BOP issue. For arguments sake then, suppose there was a BNP march and 2 asian people were walking down the street.2 members if the march started hurling abuse at the 2 people. Further down the road a group of middle eastern youths heard the comments and decided to hurl some abuse back and a fight issued. Under the argument that they were a catalyst, the 2 Asian people should be arrested.

And arresting them is just as unlikely to stop a fight as arresting photographers once its broken out.
 
I must admit I've never been keen on the concept of 'de-arresting' although I appreciate that PACE provides for that course of action being taken.

It seems to me that if you arrest someone for conduct whereby a breach of The Peace is likely to be occasioned, then the offence is complete and there's a least a prima facie case in the view of the arresting officer to justify the arrest. De-arresting that person doesn't alter the fact that the offence has already been committed (in the officer's opinion), and sends out all the wrong signals to people who don't understand the concept and immediately suspect a police cock up.

Once a person is arrested then he should (in my view) be taken to a custody station where he should either be charged or released under the refused charge procedure if the custody officer feels a charge is not substantiated.
 
Bernie174 said:
A press card is neither here nor there. Its a card nothing else. It's certainly not a get out of jail free card.
Click to expand...

Hmmm .. it's an ID card. Its the only ID card supported by the police AFAIK.. Its also the only ID crd you cant really reproduce even though it does look like its been made by a 7 yr old. You can reproduce the card but not the way it works.

Anyone wiht a UK Press card also has a password. the police number is on the back of the card.. anyone can call that number.. descibe the photogrpah and ask for the password.. the police at the other end will confirm or not that the person is who they say they are and is a news gatherer..


As for the police themselves... I ahve met some very helpful policemen who go the extra mile for you.. I ahve also met some lying hard faced pillocks in uniforms who I would rather spit on than talk to.. unfortunatly the latter outnumber the former in my experience...
 
Demi
There's no implied right to do anything under common law. Its more a case of its never not been allowed, so its OK. In this case, there's nothing that in law has ever prevented you photographing in public, with a few exceptions, so until there is we just carry on doing it. A 'Right' is a positive legislation given ability to do something.
Your right, the HRA is a different animal, and causes more problems than it really solves. It's a good earner for lawyers though!

Amtaylor
Leaving aside another unpopular truth, which is that I've never seen the BNP ever start anything violent or hurl abuse at anyone (albeit thats probably because my only dealings with them I wore a big hat and a dark blue suit!). Which is why I used example of the left group and the right group, in reality they are often as bad as each other, and in some cases the same people standing on different sides depending on the day of the week!
However in your example, no, it's not the same principle. Your example uses the BNP hurling abuse at 2 people. That abuse is the catalyst, and in any case in it's self is an offence, so the discussion about BofP doesn't enter into it.

KPAX

And I've met far more photographers and Jurnos that are bad, than good. BUT the difference is, that I don't tar all of them with the same brush, nor do I assume that just because a few act illegally, or just invent things, that all, or even a majority do the same. I am also willing to see that some get things wrong, but for the right reasons. Funny how that attitude doesn't apply to my former firm though, even though its just as true.
 
Last edited:
THIS POST HAS EARNED AN INFRACTION
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bernie174 said:
Demi
There's no implied right to do anything under common law. Its more a case of its never not been allowed, so its OK. In this case, there's nothing that in law has ever prevented you photographing in public, with a few exceptions, so until there is we just carry on doing it. A 'Right' is a positive legislation given ability to do something.
Your right, the HRA is a different animal, and causes more problems than it really solves. It's a good earner for lawyers though!

Amtaylor
Leaving aside another unpopular truth, which is that I've never seen the BNP ever start anything violent or hurl abuse at anyone (albeit thats probably because my only dealings with them I wore a big hat and a dark blue suit!). Which is why I used example of the left group and the right group, in reality they are often as bad as each other, and in some cases the same people standing on different sides depending on the day of the week!
However in your example, no, it's not the same principle. Your example uses the BNP hurling abuse at 2 people. That abuse is the catalyst, and in any case in it's self is an offence, so the discussion about BofP doesn't enter into it.
Click to expand...

By definition the abuse is not a catalyst as that is part of the argument. Suppose then its not abuse and the one group hears the other talking loudly in a derogatory way about the 2 people out of their earshot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top