Police forget law shocker

Then again amtaylor, its still an offence in itself, so BofP does not come into it.

Out of interest, is it really necessary to attack someones spelling, when they make a point? If their point is at issue, then point it out, attacking spelling in preference seems to me to be an admission you can't dispute what they are saying.

Just to make everyone aware, I can't spell, but if you want to attack that, feel free, I'll ignore it, so you'll be wasting your effort.
 
Last edited:
Not necessarily an offence. It may not be racially motivated but may be enough to just stir 2 differing opinions.
 
Bender said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one has mentioned it because, apart from two very specific sections of PACE working in conjunction with each other, it's not true, and even then it would be the recording medium and not the camera itself.


Edit:
And even then that doesn't apply to the press.
 
Last edited:
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!


.
Click to expand...

Hi Bernie. :)

I read you considered and concise responses as written by someone who is unaware that we are born free...
The laws you adhere to so closely appear to have caused a kind of institutionalised blindness to this fact.

In essence our laws are designed to maintain those very freedoms, all within society’s acceptable list of boundaries, not the other way round.

In fact I’d go so far to say this is the crux of the problem for our officers letting the side down.
They seemed to have encompassed the power of the law so much they’ve gone and forgotten they're their to protect our freedom to do what we want in the first place!
 
Last edited:
Rather nicely put Adam.

To phrase that slightly differently, until the HRA came along it was a subject's/citizen's right to do as they please, provided that they were not breaking the law.

The HRA altered that mindset by specifically outlining a series of rights, hence Bernie's comment that you do not posses a right unless it is laid down in Statute. That is fundamentally wrong.
 
Forbiddenbiker
I'm sorry, but you are talking about how you think the UK's legal system works, rather than the way it does.
Your freedoms are not freedoms as such, they are simply things that no ones bothered or thought to legislate against. Thats the problem with an unwritten or part written constitution.
So in the USA for example the principles of rights are set out in that constitution, and those are non negotiable. Which is some ways is good, but in others, for example firearms ownership is bloody awful!
So comparing the 2 things, the US on one hand has said that it's citizens can do everything in the constitution and the Executive has a hard time trying to interfere in those rights. The UK on the other hand says do what you like, until such time as we decide we don't like it and pass legislation. So in simple terms the US way gives rights, the UK doesn't.
It's not a matter of institutional blindness, it's a matter of thats the way our system is set up. I can understand why you don't like it (and trust me, it has a huge number of downsides!), but tough, thats the way it is and shooting the messenger because you don't like it, isn't going to change it.
The other thing you have wrong, is Police are not there to protect your freedoms, they are there to prevent crime, then detect and punish offenders. The last of those has never really been a Police responsibility, but its based on the words of Richard Mayne in 1929.
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Rather nicely put Adam.

To phrase that slightly differently, until the HRA came along it was a subject's/citizen's right to do as they please, provided that they were not breaking the law.

The HRA altered that mindset by specifically outlining a series of rights, hence Bernie's comment that you do not posses a right unless it is laid down in Statute. That is fundamentally wrong.
Click to expand...

Ah right I get you, So now annoyingly and counterproductively to our freedoms these outlines are now being referred to as our 'rights'. Which of course they are not.
 
DemiLion said:
Rather nicely put Adam.

To phrase that slightly differently, until the HRA came along it was a subject's/citizen's right to do as they please, provided that they were not breaking the law.

The HRA altered that mindset by specifically outlining a series of rights, hence Bernie's comment that you do not posses a right unless it is laid down in Statute. That is fundamentally wrong.
Click to expand...

My friend (yes, she really does exist) is of the opinion that the HRA is fundamentally broken, but for reasons I don't entirely clearly understand - something to do with the doctrine of deference - but part of it seems to be some of the reasons above - the HRA *should* be a buffer against the state removing the outlined fundamental rights, but as each state is at liberty to interpret and codify their HRA within their remit (outside the ECHR) then it is possible to do as you say and give no more than the minimum, when in fact it should give no less than that.

C
 
The HRA isn't flawed due to deference, it's flawed because it is wide open to abuse.
Deference is that it holds higher status than our own domestic law, and so all legislation must comply with the HRA.
Things passed into law years ago and which work fine, are now being overturned because they are incomparable with the act.
In addition, a principle overturned in another signatory to the ECHR, has affect in the UK, in other words our law has become subservient or inferior to that of another state or Europe.
Apart from anything else, it states the bleeding obvious, you have a right to life. Really? Did we need legislation for that?
The only real winners in the HRA are lawyers, and like they really give 2 hoots about everyone else?
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
The HRA isn't flawed due to deference...

Apart from anything else, it states the bleeding obvious, you have a right to life. Really? Did we need legislation for that?
The only real winners in the HRA are lawyers, and like they really give 2 hoots about everyone else?
Click to expand...



No exactly, we don't need a list of what it is to be free. :thumbs:

I think your turning... ;)
 
Tioc said:
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.
Click to expand...

Completely different! BoP in Scotland covers all manner of offences, and can see people imprisoned for years. In England and Wales it us, basically, a temporary method of detention to prevent a situation escalating into something more serious. At worst, you'll be brought before a magistrate the following day, and the only sentence available is a bindover (hardly used for any other offence) - and if you breach that then you can end up with something in the region of a £50 fine.

The sanctions are almost meaningless, but it remains a very useful piece of common law, since the real world rarely fits so neatly into academic legal textbooks.
 
DemiLion said:
No one has mentioned it because, apart from two very specific sections of PACE working in conjunction with each other, it's not true, and even then it would be the recording medium and not the camera itself.

Edit:
And even then that doesn't apply to the press.
Click to expand...

Things may vary in England, but in Scotland, if you have pictured or recorded what is deemed to be evidence, then the Police can seize it. Your camera included.

Trust me the entire camera would be taken as best evidence.

You would of course get it back, but this would be following the outcome of any trial, probably months later.

Please explain exactly why you think this is not true?
 
Photoplod
We used to use BofP a lot pre CPS. It was always court next hearing to explain to the bench why they shouldn't be bound over. Quite apart from being a less than 8 (in those days) if you timed them right, it also meant that in addition to any bindover it was 24-48 hours plus in custody waiting for the next court (couldn't be bailed for BofP). Plenty of time for the person concerned to, reflect on their sins.
Although, by vertue of being Met and therefore having Powers and Privileges of a Constable in Scotland within 15 miles of the Royal Palaces, I have no idea how BofP worked up there, but word on the street was the Scots only ever arrested for BofP.

Demilion
If I were going to seize your card as evidence, then your camera would be coming along too, for continuity. That would apply to press as well as anyone else. You may get your camera back before a court hearing, but that would depend on the CPS and defence lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Bender said:
Things may vary in England, but in Scotland, if you have pictured or recorded what is deemed to be evidence, then the Police can seize it. Your camera included.

Trust me the entire camera would be taken as best evidence.

You would of course get it back, but this would be following the outcome of any trial, probably months later.

Please explain exactly why you think this is not true?
Click to expand...

This is a thread talking about an incident in Manchester. Why would Scottish law even feature in it?
 
Bender said:
Things may vary in England, but in Scotland, if you have pictured or recorded what is deemed to be evidence, then the Police can seize it. Your camera included.

Trust me the entire camera would be taken as best evidence.

You would of course get it back, but this would be following the outcome of any trial, probably months later.

Please explain exactly why you think this is not true?
Click to expand...

Under PACE (I can't remember exactly which section it is), journalistic material such as a press photographer's camera, notes made by a journalist etc. are classed as Special Procedure Material and require a warrant authorised by a magistrate.

A more detailed answer can be found:
HERE - LINK
 
Last edited:
Section 19 supported by Sect 23 for the seizure, Sect 11 for the exemption.

Edit:

Having checked, I'm wrong. It's Sects 11, 13 and 14.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
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.
Click to expand...

From what I recall, and the definition of BoP may be different south of the border, the justification for an arrest is that one's actions cause a "state of fear or alarm" in others. Quite how that applies to photography I'm not quite clear on, it strikes me more that many (low ranking) officers simply use the threat of an arrest under BoP as a means to move people on.
 
DemiLion said:
This is a thread talking about an incident in Manchester. Why would Scottish law even feature in it?
Click to expand...

It seems to have moved beyond that one incident on this page and more into a general discussion.

@jamesb84 pace doesnt apply in scotland
 
Demilion

You should read the conclusion, it is still possible to sieze under PACE, and the part about possession of a Press card is only her opinion. The caveats she gives though if it were siezed are fair and reasonable.
 
Tioc said:
It seems to have moved beyond that one incident on this page and more into a general discussion.

@jamesb84 pace doesnt apply in scotland
Click to expand...

It may have on this page, but Bender's original post referred to the thread, hence my reply.

James was also replying in kind I think, hence the PACE reference.
 
Last edited:
Bernie174 said:
Demilion

You should read the conclusion, it is still possible to sieze under PACE, and the part about possession of a Press card is only her opinion. The caveats she gives though if it were siezed are fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...

Her conclusion?

I'm referring directly to the act.

Edit:

That article refers to Sect 43 Terrorism Act and PACE Sect 14 working against each other, not to PACE as a stand alone mechanism.
 
Last edited:
Demilion
I think we may have been talking at cross purposes.
It's only now, I've realise I should have clarified something. I assumed we were talking in circumstances where the photog is the person suspected of doing something wrong.
Dealing with the in general point, I can't see any reason why I would want to seize your photos even if they were evidence of someone else committing an offence. If you didn't want to give them up, who looses? Not the Police, the public, and it's hardly going to enhance the reputation of the press you declining to do so.
Going back to where I think the photographer is in the wrong, if the evidence is likely to be on your camera, then I would search, using PACE or the Terrorism Act (If that is relevant). If found evidence of wrong doing, then neither Press pass, PACE or the TA will help you out, your status becomes the same as everyone else.
The only gray area, is where you may be involved in a whistleblower type thing, where strictly you are gathering something as a member of the press, but may be doing something not strictly legal in doing so. I can see in those circumstances a situation where I would sieze but it would be subject of the protections the Guardian article mentions.
In those circumstances I see no conflict between the 2 acts, although in all likelihood PACE would be the relevant one.
 
Crazy crazy crazy. Obviously we don't know exactly what happened, but probably getting the guys fighting would have been better than arresting a photographer. The police all need to be fully educated, as photographers we know that we can photograph in public places, why don't the Police?
 
Perhaps the police spokesman should be sacked/disciplined as well as the police officer who arrested the man - photography is a breach of the peace?
 
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...

Good to know then that this was not just an isolated case, and there are more police who wish to help alienate themselves from the general public. I just wish that they would spend their time and energy arresting criminals, because that is what WE pay them for, not making excuses to go around arresting people who are doing nothing wrong.
 
andy700 said:
Good to know then that this was not just an isolated case, and there are more police who wish to help alienate themselves from the general public. I just wish that they would spend their time and energy arresting criminals, because that is what WE pay them for, not making excuses to go around arresting people who are doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

the idea that we only pay the police to arrest criminals is somewhat flawed - we also pay the police to keep the peace and keep the streets safe(ish) - hence their being used to police demonstrations etc - they aren't there to arrest criminals but to keep those with diametrically oposed views from coming to blows

hence the BotP arrest/dearrest being used to deesclate potential flashpoints - and someone who is exacerbating and escalating a situation towards violence isnt "doing nothing wrong"

I also wish those who were so quick to police bash would get out of their ivory towers and see what its really like being a cop out on the streets - then they might have a better understanding of why these things occur.
 
big soft moose said:
the idea that we only pay the police to arrest criminals is somewhat flawed - we also pay the police to keep the peace and keep the streets safe(ish) - hence their being used to police demonstrations etc - they aren't there to arrest criminals but to keep those with diametrically oposed views from coming to blows

hence the BotP arrest/dearrest being used to deesclate potential flashpoints - and someone who is exacerbating and escalating a situation towards violence isnt "doing nothing wrong"

I also wish those who were so quick to police bash would get out of their ivory towers and see what its really like being a cop out on the streets - then they might have a better understanding of why these things occur.
Click to expand...

WE pay the police to keep law and order, and WE pay for their training, in order that they may make sensible decisions. Clearly they have found in this case, the decision making process a bit too much for them.
I wonder if all the people involved in the fighting were arrested and charged?
 
andy700 said:
Clearly they have found in this case, the decision making process a bit too much for them.
Click to expand...

so you were present when this went down and have all the facts at your disposal then ?

or are you just basing that on what was reported later ? :bang:

also even if it were true in this case, its no reason to generalise about the police - do members of your proffesion never make mistakes (it mut be nice to be perfect) - and if they did would it be fair to generalise and judge you based on what a fellow [insert proffesion here] has done.
 
big soft moose said:
so you were present when this went down and have all the facts at your disposal then ?

or are you just basing that on what was reported later ? :bang:

also even if it were true in this case, its no reason to generalise about the police - do members of your proffesion never make mistakes (it mut be nice to be perfect) - and if they did would it be fair to generalise and judge you based on what a fellow [insert proffesion here] has done.
Click to expand...

I am basing this on what was reported, as I am sure many people are doing. I am sure that if anything was not reported correctly, then the police could take out libel action against the newspaper.
Unlike other countries, we have freedom of speech and press, which means that the police and government find it quite difficult to suppress news and information, particularly when it is in the public interest.
I am not sure why you used the little icon, showing you banging your head against a wall, maybe because someone does not share your view?
I used to be very "pro police", but incidents like these (also Tomlinson, Menezes and the like), plus my own personal experience of police ineptitude, have left me with a very jaded opinion of the police.
I am not "anti establishment", and I recognise the need for a police force, but I also recognise that they "shoot themselves in the foot" when they behave like this, and they lose the respect of the law abiding public.
 
andy700 said:
I am not sure why you used the little icon, showing you banging your head against a wall, maybe because someone does not share your view?
.
Click to expand...

I dont mind in the slightest that you dont share my view the head banging icon was to express frustration with people generalising from a few instances and incomplete information

it is totally unacceptable in society (and the forum rules) to generalise about ethnic minorities (e.g a black man commits a crime so all muggers are black/all blacks are muggers), about women, about people with alternative lifestyles etc - and there are numerous threads on here potesting about people stereotyping photographers as terror suspects/paedophiles/perverts etc based on the actions of a tiny minority

so why is it okay to generalise and stereotype the police ? based on the actions of a minority, and where even in those cases the full facts arent generally known.
 
Quick question related to the BoP Arrest / De-Arrest.

Would this show on a subsequent CRB check?
 
andy700 said:
I am basing this on what was reported, as I am sure many people are doing.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the whole problem with this thread and most others like it. We've only heard one side of this story and from a newspaper article which has an axe to grind anyway. If you'd spent any time investigating you'd know that there are two sides to any issue which need to be heard. The only person who can really explain the motivations for the police action was the policeman himself. It's unlikely that we're going to hear his version of events on this board and in the absence of his account this is just another lynch mob trial by bulletin board. We weren't there and can't possibly know how potentially inflammatory the situation was. The bobby concerned may or may not have taken the right decision, I don't know and neither do you.
I am sure that if anything was not reported correctly, then the police could take out libel action against the newspaper.
Click to expand...

That's almost funny. There are sections of the press who misreport incidents and misquote people as part of their routine. The police would need a full time team of barristers to handle the ongoing actions. The press are about news - the more sensational the better. The press reporting of the murdered girl at Christmas where the press ran a virtual smear campaign against the landlord originally arrested was a disgrace. He's now suing and I sincerely hope the damages are substantial.
Unlike other countries, we have freedom of speech and press, which means that the police and government find it quite difficult to suppress news and information, particularly when it is in the public interest.
I am not sure why you used the little icon, showing you banging your head against a wall, maybe because someone does not share your view?
I used to be very "pro police", but incidents like these (also Tomlinson, Menezes and the like), plus my own personal experience of police ineptitude, have left me with a very jaded opinion of the police.
I am not "anti establishment", and I recognise the need for a police force, but I also recognise that they "shoot themselves in the foot" when they behave like this, and they lose the respect of the law abiding public.
Click to expand...

The case of Tomlinson is ongoing. On the face of it the bobby deserves all he gets, but lets' wait and see what comes out of the judicial process. He's entitled to be heard - as are we all.

Mendez - OK it was a tragedy, but the police were acting on information they'd been given and they had a split second to make a decision whether to shoot or not. If the guy had detonated a bomb on that train the furore would have been horrendous as would the loss of life.

It's an unfortunate fact that when guns come into the equation accidents will happen. They happen in every theatre of war and you can rest assured that a proportion of the lives we've lost in Afghanistan will be down to accidents and 'friendly fire' - they're just not reported as such.

I carried a firearm until I was required to sign a form indemnifying the Chief Constable from any liability as a result of my actions, at which point I handed in my authorisation.

People have some strange ideas about guns.. "Why didn't they shoot to wound him?".... "Couldn't they have shot him in the hand? Sorry, but it's all Roy Rogers Saturday morning matinee stuff. If you shoot at someone you shoot to kill. Be concerned about Mendez, as we all should, but be grateful you're not the one having to make the split second decisions.
 
Faldrax said:
Quick question related to the BoP Arrest / De-Arrest.

Would this show on a subsequent CRB check?
Click to expand...
No. It's effectively a no further action incident. there'll be no record of it outside of any notes the copper may have made for himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top