Tog gives up

Lol completely stupid, what a waste of police team, seriously!

Asked to look at his PC and camera, I would have asked for a signed warrant.
 
And he didn't show the officer his PC or camera because? Seems to me some people just want to make enemies but if he has nothing to hide then why refuse just to be difficult. If he cooperated then he would be more likely to get the support he needs in getting the kids dealt with for causing the damage.

Some people just don't do themselves any favours.
 
So to the police.. a man photographed a kid in the woods..
Of course they are going to follow it up.

Show the copper the shot and explanation of why it was taken.
I thought he took the shot as proof of what the kid was doing, so why hide from the police? dense..
Don't give up photography, give up bloody whining.
 
AndyB said:
And he didn't show the officer his PC or camera because? Seems to me some people just want to make enemies but if he has nothing to hide then why refuse just to be difficult. If he cooperated then he would be more likely to get the support he needs in getting the kids dealt with for causing the damage.

Some people just don't do themselves any favours.
Click to expand...
If I were put in that position I would want to make the police jump though hoops before showing them my pictures.
 
"Hi, I’d like to report an incident. One of the children i was meant to be child minding was out causing some vandalism to some trees.
A man, whose house backs onto the trees asked the boys to stop. They then returned later to cause more vandalism to the same trees. At which point, the man took a photograph of the child. I want him arrested for photographing children"

Ok, can someone please tell me when the photographer is in the wrong, and not the stupid woman, the child, or the police officer for trying to enforce a law that doesnt exsist?
I can understand the man making the situation worse by not showing the picture of the child, but thats not the point, he shouldn't have to as it should never have gotten to this stage.

Its a joke, totally shocking!
 
Trev Rich said:
So to the police.. a man photographed a kid in the woods..
Of course they are going to follow it up.
Click to expand...
Why?
The next morning a community support officer and a police officer came to his house to ask him about the incident.

“The officer was talking to me and said I don't care if you're a professional photographer or not you can't take a picture of a child without written consent of the parent.”
Click to expand...
That is not even slightly correct. I'd tell them to come back with someone who knows what they are talking about.
 
Mr Massey, who was so shocked by the situation forgot to ask for the officers' badge numbers
Click to expand...
Perhaps he should have photographed them..... :suspect:
 
how stupid, just get over it.
 
The point is that even if the police got it completely wrong it's not a reason to be obstructive and difficult. What's wrong with sitting down with them and talking it through - maybe by doing that the same police officer wont make the same mistake again.

Too many people seem to want to give the police a hard time when it may just be a case of missunderstanding or lack of training (which isn't the fault of the individual).

Whether we think it's appropriate for police to be called when a child is photographed is irrelevant - we just need to be adult and professional in the way we respond and that is to cooperate so the officers can see we are reasonable and intelligent types. The way a lot of togs here react to police mistakes is simply childish and only serves to make the police more suspicious than they were.
 
No police officer should ever have gone to the house (except to ask for a copy of the photo wrt the tree incident) and should have told the child 'minder', politely, that there was nothing wrong with what the gentleman had done.

Bear in mind the officer AND CSPO went around they DAY AFTER!! Someone should have known that the photographer had done nothing wrong and stopped this. Now that CPSO may think that the officer would know what was happening and what is right and we have another misinformed person ready to wield what little power they have incorrectly
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
No police officer should ever have gone to the house (except to ask for a copy of the photo wrt the tree incident) and should have told the child 'minder', politely, that there was nothing wrong with what the gentleman had done.
Click to expand...

Do you know exactly what the woman told the police when she reported it? It could be that she put a spin on it to make it sound more seedy than it was. Also we only have the photographers word for what the police officer said. It is not uncommon for people to misquote when relaying the content of conversations to others. It was also reported that the police "left on good terms" so is there really a story here?
 
MJ Stebbings said:
"Hi, I’d like to report an incident. One of the children i was meant to be child minding was out causing some vandalism to some trees.
A man, whose house backs onto the trees asked the boys to stop. They then returned later to cause more vandalism to the same trees. At which point, the man took a photograph of the child. I want him arrested for photographing children"
Click to expand...

You really think thats how the conversation went? I imagine it would be something more along the lines of this:
"Hi, Police? - One of the children I'm caring for was out playing in the woods when he saw some creepy guy hiding and taking photos - apparently this isn't the first time either - can someone go around and talk to him please?"


Based on that call of course the police are going to be suspicious, the only thing that annoys me about that story was the police not being clear on the law and saying something is illegal when it wasn't.

If the officer had said something along the lines of "I realise your not obliged to show me your photographs but if you do it would help to clear up this whole situation now and perhaps I can even go and talk to the child in question about the vandalism." I'm sure the whole thing would have been sorted out there and then :)

It gets up my nose when authority figures get the law back to front but we're all human - as the author wrote - it was a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Bear in mind the officer AND CSPO went around they DAY AFTER!! Someone should have known that the photographer had done nothing wrong and stopped this. Now that CPSO may think that the officer would know what was happening and what is right and we have another misinformed person ready to wield what little power they have incorrectly
Click to expand...

Its an impossible situation for the police, if someone reports a suspicion of something dogdgy then they are pretty much obliged to perform some sort of investigation (imagine the furor if the had been a demon kiddy photographing scum bag who wasn't caught until something really bad happened - even after being reported to the police [Daily mail anyone?]). As I've said above I think the situation could have been handled a little better by all concerned but imho the police were right to turn up and have a chat.
 
hyakuhei said:
You really think thats how the conversation went? I imagine it would be something more along the lines of this:
"Hi, Police? - One of the children I'm caring for was out playing in the woods when he saw some creepy guy hiding and taking photos - apparently this isn't the first time either - can someone go around and talk to him please?"
Click to expand...

Haha, sorry, i was having a bad day, and i know it wouldnt have gone like that, far from it! haha!
It would have been the photographer was a paedophile and the child was being sweetness and light etc.
It still gets my back up though, when police quote something as the law, when really, its a load of Bull Droppings! Yes, i know its not the officers fault, but surely, send someone who specialises in this perhaps?
 
Allegedly,

“The officer was talking to me and said I don't care if you're a professional photographer or not you can't take a picture of a child without written consent of the parent.”

If that statement was true, that would cause a few sleepless nights for all the (professional) CCTV operators. How many pictures have they got of children? Lol.
 
hey there was a post a while back which linked to an article on the law regarding photography of buildings people etc. I tried searching for it, but can't find it. Anyone know where it is?
 
mjd611 said:
hey there was a post a while back which linked to an article on the law regarding photography of buildings people etc. I tried searching for it, but can't find it. Anyone know where it is?
Click to expand...

Is this it?
Code: 
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html

If not, i still think it's quite a good site.
 
AndyB said:
And he didn't show the officer his PC or camera because? Seems to me some people just want to make enemies but if he has nothing to hide then why refuse just to be difficult. If he cooperated then he would be more likely to get the support he needs in getting the kids dealt with for causing the damage.

Some people just don't do themselves any favours.
Click to expand...
And should we co-operate with the law when it requires us to wear yellow stars on our jackets?

Suggest you have a listen to what Officer George Bruch says about helping the police with their enquiries. It's really worth watching the full preceding video (by a civil of a civil rights law professor) to appreciate the full impact of the cop's "everything he said was right" statement, but it's 30 minutes & they do refer to American legal precedents. Nevertheless, you shouldn't think British policemen are any different - especially as they have quotas to fill these days.

The police had no right to view his computer, but I suppose it didn't cost them anything to ask and they hoped they could get themselves some brownie points if they found child porn on his PC or a spliff in the ashtray on his coffee table. FWIW, if you allow police across the threshold of your house they can freely & fully search the premises.

Stroller.
 
The world is a big place,you could always go and live in another country where the local police don`t have to deal with weapon grade bell ends.
 
Strolls said:
Suggest you have a listen to what Officer George Bruch says about helping the police with their enquiries. It's really worth watching the full preceding video (by a civil of a civil rights law professor) to appreciate the full impact of the cop's "everything he said was right" statement, but it's 30 minutes & they do refer to American legal precedents
Click to expand...

Both interesting and entertaining.
 
fracster said:
The world is a big place,you could always go and live in another country where the local police don`t have to deal with weapon grade bell ends.
Click to expand...
So do you think Geoff Massey was being a "weapon grade bell end" when he photographed those kids trashing the trees? Because it was him who got hassled over it, and it was his home the police wanted to search.

I can understand that inexperienced coppers make mistakes, but I think it's a bit off making out the togger was somehow stupid or unhelpful here (as the post I quoted did) because he exercised his civic right not to be searched or have his computer tampered with (when he had done nothing wrong!). I'm sorry, but "if he has nothing to hide then why refuse" is the enemy of our freedom.

Hopefully he'll put a copy of the photo on CD, deliver it to the cop-shop and these little vandals will be taken into care, their actions having proved their parents to be incapable of keeping them out of mischief.

Stroller.

Warning: 1 of the 3 preceding paragraphs may contain elements of sarcasm.
 
At the end of the day the police have a duty to behave in a professional manner, quoting laws that don't exist, doesn't sound very professional to me. You'd think common sense would suggest they would check what acts might have been broken before mincing around the blokes house, after all they are going to look pretty stupid charging the bloke with a non existant crime when it comes to court.
Wayne
 
Strolls said:
And should we co-operate with the law when it requires us to wear yellow stars on our jackets?

Suggest you have a listen to what Officer George Bruch says about helping the police with their enquiries. It's really worth watching the full preceding video (by a civil of a civil rights law professor) to appreciate the full impact of the cop's "everything he said was right" statement, but it's 30 minutes & they do refer to American legal precedents. Nevertheless, you shouldn't think British policemen are any different - especially as they have quotas to fill these days.

The police had no right to view his computer, but I suppose it didn't cost them anything to ask and they hoped they could get themselves some brownie points if they found child porn on his PC or a spliff in the ashtray on his coffee table.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a quantum leap! From police questioning someone to the Nazi persecution of the Jews! You seem to have ignored a few posts on this thread, mine being one of them. A woman made a complaint to the police, they were duty bound to investigate, Geoff Massey refused to let them see his computer and camera (as is his right), the police left on good terms. The only possible thing wrong there is that the police allegedly made a mistake over a point of law (we only have Geoff Massey's word for that). But hey, don't let that get in the way of an opportunity to call the police Nazis! :cuckoo:

Strolls said:
FWIW, if you allow police across the threshold of your house they can freely & fully search the premises.
Click to expand...

No, they would need a warrant to search your premises, just allowing them over the threshold does not give them that right.
 
fabs said:
You seem to have ignored a few posts on this thread, mine being one of them. A woman made a complaint to the police, they were duty bound to investigate,
Click to expand...
You'll find they need more than just uncorroborated evidence from a single cuckoo 'witness' before they are 'duty bound' to do anything. Otherwise I could just call them up and suggest 'fabs is a terrorist' and you'd get your house turned over looking for evidence..... :cuckoo:
 
Voyager said:
You'll find they need more than just uncorroborated evidence from a single cuckoo 'witness' before they are 'duty bound' to do anything. Otherwise I could just call them up and suggest 'fabs is a terrorist' and you'd get your house turned over looking for evidence..... :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

And how do you think they gather evidence? If someone makes a complaint they are duty bound to investigate. The first aspect of that is to go and see the person the complaint has been made against. In this case they spoke to the guy, realised there was nothing for him to answer to and left. No-one turned the guy's house over looking for evidence.
 
With the exception of "you need written permission" which I have never heard of it seems a job well done. If my daughter was playing and someone was taking photographs of her I would wander over for a chat. If the guy was abusive I too would call the police and hope they would investigate. When I worked on newspapers I often took photographs of minors playing to support articles but I always explained to the parents first and asked their permission.

Why this tog plans to give up begs a further question in my mind, did he feel guilty of something?

stew
 
artona said:
When I worked on newspapers I often took photographs of minors playing to support articles but I always explained to the parents first and asked their permission.
Click to expand...
There is a slight difference between 'taking pictures' and photographing children for publication in a newspaper and you would be wise to get prior permission to do the latter.

However it is not against the law to take pictures of children in public places. It is not even remotely 'suspicious' unless you have lost grip on reality.
 
fabs said:
Really? On what do you base that statement?
Click to expand...
They are not 'duty bound' to knock on anyone's door because some batty old dear thinks someone should not be 'taking photographs of children'.
 
Voyager said:
They are not 'duty bound' to knock on anyone's door because some batty old dear thinks someone should not be 'taking photographs of children'.
Click to expand...

So the police officer is supposed to tell the person who complained "you're a batty old dear so we're not going to investigate"? As was said in previous posts, we are not privy to the content of her complaint so how can you possibly judge her as a batty old dear? You're just working off assumptions really aren't you?
 
fabs said:
So the police officer is supposed to tell the person who complained "you're a batty old dear so we're not going to investigate"? As was said in previous posts, we are not privy to the content of her complaint so how can you possibly judge her as a batty old dear? You're just working off assumptions really aren't you?
Click to expand...
You won't mind if the police come knocking down your door if someone deranged just thinks Marc Falber Photography could be a front for bestiality pornography?
 
Voyager said:
You won't mind if the police come knocking down your door if someone deranged just thinks Marc Falber Photography could be a front for bestiality pornography?
Click to expand...

Nope. If someone has made the allegation in a realistic manner, then they are welcome to knock on my door and ask me a few questions. I would even offer to make them a cup of tea. Of course the police wouldn't actually come round anyway if someone just thinks I'm into bestiality pornography, however, if they tell the police they saw what looked like me photographing a naked bloke doing obscene things to a chicken then they would be obliged to at least ask me some questions.
 
fabs said:
Nope. If someone has made the allegation in a realistic manner, then they are welcome to knock on my door and ask me a few questions. I would even offer to make them a cup of tea. Of course the police wouldn't actually come round anyway if someone just thinks I'm into bestiality pornography
Click to expand...

:lol:

beaten by your own argument - if someone complained you were into beastiality photos they'd be duty bound to do investigate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top