police try it on again....

Not sure what he was trying to achieve by photographing others doing the same as his wife. I really cant see the relevance.
 
Biggest thing there is they admit he was ordered to delete the photos, after all the press and police statements to the opposite.
 
Usual Daily Wail hype. Granted, the officer should have known better than to insist on the images being deleted. There are real, credible and current terrorist threats against the police, so it's not unreasonable for them to ask the guy what he was doing in those circumstances.
 
Nothing to make a story out of ,his wife was in the wrong and got caught ,he was compounding matters by taking photos of something that is not a normal photography subject ,in other words acting suspiciously .
The thing that springs to mind though is perhaps there's a sensitive target / building etc in the area and security is enhanced due to it .these days it pays to have good security whether we like it or not
 
The police do this all the time, a police officer in uniform has the authority to give people permission to park in places where it would not otherwise be allowed - fine when necessary, but many years ago a judge ruled that a uniformed police officer can give that permission to himself/herself as well as to other people, which in my view is an abuse of power.

As for anti terrorism abuse of power, again this happens all the time. It's a nice catch-all for the police. I remember that an old gentleman was once arrested under this legislation because he heckled the then Prime Minister...
 
dejongj said:
Not sure what he was trying to achieve by photographing others doing the same as his wife. I really cant see the relevance.
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious what he was thinking I'd say.
He thinks if his wife gets a ticket for parking at a bus stop, then why are the police allowed to park there?
It would appear they park there regularly, as they were there when his wife got caught.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's pretty obvious what he was thinking I'd say.
He thinks if his wife gets a ticket for parking at a bus stop, then why are the police allowed to park there?
It would appear they park there regularly, as they were there when his wife got caught.
Click to expand...
Yes duh. But what does he think he will achieve by taking a photograph of it? Two wrongs don't make a right. She shouldn't have parked there, man up and pay the fine and move on.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
It's pretty obvious what he was thinking I'd say.
He thinks if his wife gets a ticket for parking at a bus stop, then why are the police allowed to park there?
It would appear they park there regularly, as they were there when his wife got caught.
Click to expand...

They park there and have the permission of the local authority to do so.
His wife doesn't share that permission.
Pay the fine.
 
Last edited:
Whippet said:
Just bare in mind that police are being breifed to be hyper vigilant against hostile reconnaissance at present given the current threat level.
It is well documented in the public domain that there is credible intelligence that police officers are at risk:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-alert-amid-fears-lee-rigby-style-attack.html
Click to expand...

A) It's a 7 month old article.
B)) It's the Mail again, so the words "credible" and "intelligence" shouldn't be used anywhere near it.

:lol:
 
Haha very good... but I'm on the receiving end of the up to date intelligence picture and I can assure you it is still very current.
 
If it was a daft thing for him to do or not, it is still not illegal. The police made a mistake, admitted it, changed their minds, and let him go. If a real terrorist wanted the pictures, they too could refuse to delete them and tell some story about their wife. Buck up you police guys. We know you have a difficult job sometimes. But brief your team properly, so as not to make the press with red faces again.

I got stopped by the US police last year for photographing near an oil refinery at sunset. I saw a police car following me. Then on came the blue lights and megaphone "Pull over!" He was polite didn't ask to see or delete any pictures. Just checked my license and made the excuse that "We cant be too careful you know, what with terrorists and all that." So I asked if I could take his picture. He said yes. Hooray much better than the stupid sunset shots. Nice car too.


P3070060-Detroits Finest by ianp5a, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
Yes duh. But what does he think he will achieve by taking a photograph of it? Two wrongs don't make a right. She shouldn't have parked there, man up and pay the fine and move on.
Click to expand...

Is it wrong to take a picture of the bus stop with a police car parked there?
 
Nope, it is wrong to waste police and council time. It is also wrong to park your car there. Just man up, pay and move on.
 
ianp5a said:
If it was a daft thing for him to do or not, it is still not illegal. The police made a mistake, admitted it, changed their minds, and let him go. If a real terrorist wanted the pictures, they too could refuse to delete them and tell some story about their wife. Buck up you police guys. We know you have a difficult job sometimes. But brief your team properly, so as not to make the press with red faces again.

I got stopped by the US police last year for photographing near an oil refinery at sunset. I saw a police car following me. Then on came the blue lights and megaphone "Pull over!" He was polite didn't ask to see or delete any pictures. Just checked my license and made the excuse that "We cant be too careful you know, what with terrorists and all that." So I asked if I could take his picture. He said yes. Hooray much better than the stupid sunset shots. Nice car too.


P3070060-Detroits Finest by ianp5a, on Flickr
Click to expand...

I've got a very similar shot kicking about somewhere taken in a very cold and snowy Cleveland, Ohio.
The officer was happy as a P.I.S. to be asked tbh :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top