Tog gives up

fabs said:
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.
Click to expand...

Duty bound to investigate what? a man behaving legally? So he took a photo of a teenager, thats not a crime, so why investigate it in the first place.
The problem is the man had a camera therefore he's either a terrorist or a p*** as far as plods concerned.
The yob should be charged with criminal damage, his childminder with wasting police time, and the cops should get a good talking too by their CO on the actual law regarding photography.
Wayne
 
swanseamale47 said:
Duty bound to investigate what? a man behaving legally? So he took a photo of a teenager, thats not a crime, so why investigate it in the first place.
The problem is the man had a camera therefore he's either a terrorist or a p*** as far as plods concerned.
The yob should be charged with criminal damage, his childminder with wasting police time, and the cops should get a good talking too by their CO on the actual law regarding photography.
Wayne
Click to expand...

The whole point is that the police were acting on what the childminder told them. Do you think she said "He took a photo of a teenager"? We don't know what she actually told the police but it's obvious that she had labelled him as a paedophile and probably communicated that in some way that the police felt the need to question him. This they did, they left satisfied that he had done nothing wrong and all was well. So what's the problem?
 
fabs said:
The whole point is that the police were acting on what the childminder told them. Do you think she said "He took a photo of a teenager"? We don't know what she actually told the police but it's obvious that she had labelled him as a paedophile and probably communicated that in some way that the police felt the need to question him.
Click to expand...
But does that meet your caveat of making the 'allegation in a realistic manner'?

If it does your interest in photographing animals and making them look attractive in photographs 'ensuring that the client's needs are met and that a first class service is always provided' could be seen as highly suspicious to a deranged do-gooder/nutter.
 
Voyager said:
But does that meet your caveat of making the 'allegation in a realistic manner'?

If it does your interest in photographing animals and making them look attractive in photographs 'ensuring that the client's needs are met and that a first class service is always provided' could be seen as highly suspicious to a deranged do-gooder/nutter.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I really do not see the connection you are trying to make here. That statement is on a photographer's website and could not really be taken out of context. Do you really think that if someone pointed it out to police, they would come knocking on my door? There is no relevance here to the subject at hand.
 
Welcome to another argument for arguing sake, courtesy of TP.

The popcorn stand will open for daylight robbery after lunchtime and should the hardcore spectators require it there will be an overpriced bar from 6pm.
 
fabs said:
I'm sorry, I really do not see the connection you are trying to make here.
Click to expand...
I can tell.

Do you think what she told the police was an 'allegation' made in a 'realistic manner'?
fabs said:
That statement is on a photographer's website and could not really be taken out of context. Do you really think that if someone pointed it out to police, they would come knocking on my door? There is no relevance here to the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
If it was made in a 'realistic manner' then whatever is said about you could also be seen to be as 'realistic' and anything you have published, however innocent, could be used in evidencing that claim.

BUT (and despite the claims made by the Daily Prole and the like) this is NOT what the police generally do - it is the extreme that we hear about simply because they are extreme. So the police are NOT 'duty bound to investigate' whatever some nutter claims and you should be pleased that is the case.
 
Voyager said:
I can tell.

Do you think what she told the police was an 'allegation' made in a 'realistic manner'?

If it was made in a 'realistic manner' then whatever is said about you could also be seen to be as 'realistic' and anything you have published, however innocent, could be used in evidencing that claim.

BUT (and despite the claims made by the Daily Prole and the like) this is NOT what the police generally do - it is the extreme that we hear about simply because they are extreme. So the police are NOT 'duty bound to investigate' whatever some nutter claims and you should be pleased that is the case.
Click to expand...

You really are missing the point aren't you? Once again you are assuming. When a woman says that there is a boke taking photographs of teenage boys (For this is what she may have said) how do you determine whether she is telling the truth or is, as you put it, "some nutter"? The police investigated in this instance because of what the childminder told them. The only way they could investigate was to speak to the gentleman in question. In the case of the statement on my website, well d'uh, it's on a photographer's website (and could apply to the website of anybody offering a legitimate service) and is quite obvious in its meaning so that can be deduced from looking at the website themselves, no need to visit me and they wouldn't.
 
I havent looked in on this for a while but I am in agreement with FABS entirely. A complaint was made, the police responded - simple as that. It doesnt matter what the complaint is - it needs to be followed up in some way unless the police decide at the time that is silly. But without knowing what the woman said in this case we have no way of knowing how serious it sounded to the police. Thats what we need to consider - not whether the guy was in the right or the wrong although he didn't help himself buy being obstructive.

So look at it this way - he took pictures of kids yet he refused to show them to the police or to let them look at his computer to support his claim that it is evidence to show the kids were vandals.

Perhaps he has something to hide and you lot are sticking up for him! photography isn't some kind of freemasonry where all togs should stick together no matter what. Now and then there is going to be an evil individual that uses a camera innappropriately and any togs who refuse to reveal their pictures when questioned can't complain when a figure gets pointed at them. There is way too much parranoia in this forum and people who are prepared to be rude and difficult with police officers instead of working with them to resolve problems and missunderstandings.
 
Voyager said:
But that was NOT what fabs suggested.

He's back-peddled somewhat now though.
Click to expand...

No I haven't. When I originally said that I was talking about a complaint that obviously wasn't silly. I didn't realise I had to be THAT literal. I assumed a little bit of common sense would be used.
 
I suspect what he meant was a complaint that the police accept is genuine will be followed up. I'm pretty sure if I called them and told them next doors cat just barfed on my lawn they wouldn't come round and investigate criminal damage even if it did kill the grass.
 
AndyB said:
I suspect what he meant was a complaint that the police accept is genuine will be followed up. I'm pretty sure if I called them and told them next doors cat just barfed on my lawn they wouldn't come round and investigate criminal damage even if it did kill the grass.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant! :thumbs:
 
I wonder of there's a forum somewhere for police where they are always moaning about how photographers are obstructive, abusive, rude, arrogant and critical of them doing a job that is difficult and very worthy. Because all photographers are like that aren't they?
 
that last part was sarcasm in case anyone missed it
 
AndyB said:
I wonder of there's a forum somewhere for police where they are always moaning about how photographers are obstructive, abusive, rude, arrogant and critical of them doing a job that is difficult and very worthy. Because all photographers are like that aren't they?
Click to expand...

AndyB said:
that last part was sarcasm in case anyone missed it
Click to expand...

:D
 
fabs said:
No I haven't. When I originally said that I was talking about a complaint that obviously wasn't silly. I didn't realise I had to be THAT literal. I assumed a little bit of common sense would be used.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the interweb, where all statements will be taken at their exact literal meaning in an attempt to prove you are not right. Frustrating but it happens a lot!
 
I wonder if any convicted paedophiles have ever stood in public place with a DSLR taking pictures of children.
 
Not sure I understand your point there - in the link you posted he is asking you for clarification.
 
fabs said:
Excuse me? I just asked you to clarify your statement, how is that taking it at its exact literal meaning?
Click to expand...
Asking why my reply to your 'they are duty bound to investigate' statement needed to be clarified looks like you do not want to take the 'literal meaning' of my reply (which could not have been any less obvious that it was)

But your later 'If someone has made the allegation in a realistic manner...' back-pedal suggests that that you might have understood the reason that my point was entirely accurate in the first place. :suspect:
 
It wasn't a back-pedal. It was a clarification.

This thread needs closing now I think. It's not going anywhere useful.
 
fabs said:
The whole point is that the police were acting on what the childminder told them. Do you think she said "He took a photo of a teenager"? We don't know what she actually told the police but it's obvious that she had labelled him as a paedophile and probably communicated that in some way that the police felt the need to question him. This they did, they left satisfied that he had done nothing wrong and all was well. So what's the problem?
Click to expand...

And they shouldn't have !
They should have spoken to the boy (he's the one being photographed) taken a statment, discovered where he was and that he was fully clothed, then realised theres nothing worng with him being photographed in a public place in the first place, so no reason to investigate.
If the boy has claimed otherwise (lets say he said he was naked and had witnesses) then they should have gone with a warrent, arrested the tog and siezed his computer. They did neither it appears, they probably just took a call and went round the togs house to scare him off photographing kids (which they think is illegal)
The problem is these people are supposed to uphold the law, not make it up as they think fit.
 
Voyager said:
Asking why my reply to your 'they are duty bound to investigate' statement needed to be clarified looks like you do not want to take the 'literal meaning' of my reply (which could not have been any less obvious that it was)

But your later 'If someone has made the allegation in a realistic manner...' back-pedal suggests that that you might have understood the reason that my point was entirely accurate in the first place. :suspect:
Click to expand...

No. You gave a statement without backing it up with anything, hence I asked what your thinking was behind that statement, ie. seeking clarification. This being a normal way of holding a conversation, but you seem to want to use it to score points in some nit picking way.

swanseamale47 said:
And they shouldn't have !
They should have spoken to the boy (he's the one being photographed) taken a statment, discovered where he was and that he was fully clothed, then realised theres nothing worng with him being photographed in a public place in the first place, so no reason to investigate.
If the boy has claimed otherwise (lets say he said he was naked and had witnesses) then they should have gone with a warrent, arrested the tog and siezed his computer. They did neither it appears, they probably just took a call and went round the togs house to scare him off photographing kids (which they think is illegal)
The problem is these people are supposed to uphold the law, not make it up as they think fit.
Click to expand...

So they should go down the whole official statement taking route when a quick chat could solve the issue in a much more friendly and personable way and that is what they did. Remember this phrase?

Left on good terms
Click to expand...
 
fabs said:
So they should go down the whole official statement taking route when a quick chat could solve the issue in a much more friendly and personable way and that is what they did. Remember this phrase?
Click to expand...

Hello is that the police, my neighbouris a paedophile, would you mind popping around and have a quick chat with him in a friendly and personable way?
I'm sorry but if they suspect a crime has been commited it should be investigated properly, that means finding out if a crime has actually been commited before going around the suspects house, and to do that you have to take a statment, get the facts.
This isn't the first malicious/missinformed complaint the police have ever had, common sense would suggest they check first. wayne
 
swanseamale47 said:
Hello is that the police, my neighbouris a paedophile, would you mind popping around and have a quick chat with him in a friendly and personable way?
I'm sorry but if they suspect a crime has been commited it should be investigated properly, that means finding out if a crime has actually been commited before going around the suspects house, and to do that you have to take a statment, get the facts.
This isn't the first malicious/missinformed complaint the police have ever had, common sense would suggest they check first. wayne
Click to expand...

I refer you to my earlier post where I cited the difference between someone just making an allegation and actually witnessing something that could be dodgy. I'm pretty sure in this situation the officers felt that they could resolve things amicably without going down the official process, which is there prerogative. As it turned out OK I really don't see what the gripe is?
 
Anybody can make any allergation, did it not occur to them it might be a flase one?Suppose for a minute a guy really was a paedophile, the police go around for a friendly chat, he tell them to get stuffed, by the time they come back with a warrant mr P's computer has been wiped, everdence gone. Whereas if they done their homework made some checks first, they would have had enough to get a warrant and seize my P's computer and get a conviction.
It's about being professional, they should check first, and not make up laws to try and scare people
 
Haysus guys, give it a rest......:lol:

Its Friday,go for a beer...........:D
 
swanseamale47 said:
Anybody can make any allergation, did it not occur to them it might be a flase one?Suppose for a minute a guy really was a paedophile, the police go around for a friendly chat, he tell them to get stuffed, by the time they come back with a warrant mr P's computer has been wiped, everdence gone. Whereas if they done their homework made some checks first, they would have had enough to get a warrant and seize my P's computer and get a conviction.
It's about being professional, they should check first, and not make up laws to try and scare people
Click to expand...

We don't know what was said or exactly what the allegations were. I'm trying to point out that the officers may have felt that the whole situation could be diffused by having a chat as is their remit. It was, so they were right. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Others seem to be just making a lot assumptions.
 
This post was answered correctly on page one a number of times.

The so called child should have got a good slapping and sent to bed.

To many photographers are being accused of being creepy, pedofiles or terrorists

No wonder the guys fed up, so am i even listening to it.

That said if i had been a policeman at those demonstration the other week a good few of the protesters would have had to be carried away. Taunting and damaging property cant be tolerated.

Hard discipline is the answer throughout society.
 
:bonk:
 
The probability is the guy was peeved at “kids” vandalising trees bordering his property and the resulting mess he then has to look at every day. So he snaps the “kid” because, well who knows, but frankly there’s not much else he could do, save for break the law with a clip round the ear. Now I’m much younger than he is but I wouldn’t want to go toe to toe with a teenager and not just because it’s the wrong thing to do.

On the other hand he snaps a child in the woods, a complaint is made, an ill informed officer comes to see him at which point he says the snap was taken as evidence of an offence he didn’t report, nor did he want to show the officer his ‘photos/computer and he happens to have magazine articles to hand supporting his right to photograph children in a public place.

So what should the police do? I think ask a few more questions from a more experienced officer would be in order.

On the yellow star issue I can imagine it happing here quite easily.
1. Introduce voluntary id cards as a “trail”. The trail will, of course, be an official success.
2. make them compulsory, either by law or limiting access to services such as tax credit/ life insurance or credit (“yeah we used to accept driving licence with passport and gas bill but now the bank insist on seeing id as well!”
3. Make people carry id with them, going on a tube? Security alert in place? “Can I see your id please sir?” Don’t have one? “That’s fine sir.Just step aside for a moment this will just take half an hour out of your day while we check you out”. OK next time I’ll take the card.
4. Now so many cards to check it takes too much time for security to wait for you to fumble in your pocket, so they suggest you wear it in “sensitive” areas, like greater London, Bristol, your local town centre. You can pin it anywhere your style of clothes allow but to make it easy for you to get through security quickly we have made it brightly coloured and in a strident geometric shape for your safety and convenience.

Of course it’s all voluntary.

Sadly we do seem to be under a threat of terrorism and I suspect our security services are quietly doing a good job but but but the work a day officer, guard, busy body now has a new panoply of offences to suspect you of and best of all many of them don’t need any justification of suspicion. Literally guilty until proven innocent.

All very odd because I don’t recall voting Fascist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top