video:Stopped yesterday for photographing in a public place!

SpikeK6 said:
asking what you are doing is nothing, just be polite and tell them.

we all know if you are up to no good a mobile phone would be a better camera but if the catch just one person that is up to no good is it not worth it.

How long does it take to be polite to an officer???? unless of course they are being like the one in the video, but then there are ways of dealing with that aswell by asking for a proper police to come and attend.
What is the difference between a police officer saying hi and asking what you are doing to a member of the public who is interested in photography coming up and asking the same question " hi what are you taking pics of", i am sure you would not tell fellow tog to get lost, so why not just be polite and say what you are doing????

I know its frustrating but just be polite manners cost nothing, nothing at all. Police officers have to deal with scum everyday of the week, being spoken to like carp so they might just suprise you if you are polite to them.

spike
Click to expand...

I totally agree that politeness goes far in these type of situations, what I cannot agree is that being asked what I'm doing and why is nothing. I'm taking photographs, that's all. It is no more illegal or grounds for questioning than is walking along the street carrying a shopping bag on the way to a supermarket. By such questioning there is an implied judgement on behalf of the officer that he considers you a potential criminal. What for? For taking photographs? See the lady over there pushing a pram, perhaps she should be questioned as to the contents of the pram. Is that newspaper that bloke's carrying a cover for a firearm?

The Met's own guidance says clearly that "Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped."

By acquiescing to "random" stops, you risk the allowing the authorities to intrude ever further into innocent activities.
 
I never said anywhere the OP was not polite at all. donot know where you all read that.

what i said was if we get stopped be polite it costs nothing, do not see the point in getting arse just because you have been asked a question

I am really waiting for the day when it is reported that copper stopped and asked a question to a person supposedly inocently taking pics around a town with a DSLR with a lovely L lens on the front so ok looks like quite a few of us on here, and it turns out that he was a p**** or a someone plotting something he shouldent, would like to hear what people say then. would it all be right then that they stopped him and asked him??

I know its not againt the law to take pics in a public place and i can see where everyone is coming from, I have never been stopped but its been proven that if you are polite stand your ground and go through the right channels and actions and it get sorted very quickly. we nearly all carry phones these days so a quick phonecall would quell anything getting silly if they insist you are wrong.

Ok soap box put away now (hopefully:thumbs:)

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
I never said anywhere the OP was not polite at all. donot know where you all read that.

what i said was if we get stopped be polite it costs nothing, do not see the point in getting arse just because you have been asked a question
Click to expand...

But by bringing it up at all it implies that he wasn't being polite. Since the OP was polite then it seems irrelevant to make a point that people should be polite, when he already was.

If you see what I mean.
 
SpikeK6 said:
I am really waiting for the day when it is reported that copper stopped and asked a question to a person supposedly inocently taking pics around a town with a DSLR with a lovely L lens on the front so ok looks like quite a few of us on here, and it turns out that he was a p**** or a someone plotting something he shouldent, would like to hear what people say then. would it all be right then that they stopped him and asked him??
Click to expand...

Cases of that happening as far as I am aware is nil. What about people phoning a bomb detonator?

Should the police started questioning people on mobile phones as to who they were calling just in case they were detonating a bomb? The probability of it happening is about the same.
 
If the female PCSO doesn't want to be on video I wonder why? Must have something to hide.... claiming benefits perhaps? Or she is supposed to be somewhere else.
 
Joe how many people just in this thread have said along the lines of "I am doing nothing wrong I would tell them to get lost" ?? that is what i was answering too. i know fine well what the OP said, even defended him against the muppet on youtube last night.

Ding I know what you are saying I was speaking hypothetically

spike
 
srichards said:
If the female PCSO doesn't want to be on video I wonder why? Must have something to hide.... claiming benefits perhaps? Or she is supposed to be somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit extreme...she could trust truly believe she has the authority to prevent people from filming her, which isn't true.

That or she is paranoid
 
DemiLion said:
Nice to see a PSCO that knows her stuff then.

Trespass is a civil matter, what the drivers were doing was not illegal, but a tort.
Click to expand...

It WAS and is illegal to use an (access only road) for purposes other than "access" to places within that road, it is illegal to use it as a short cut.

Civil matters have nothing to do with it ?

Many roads in the UK are access only I didn't say PRIVATE.
 
Last edited:
JSER said:
It WAS and is illegal to use an (access only road) for purposes other than "access" to places within that road, it is illegal to use it as a short cut.
Click to expand...

Care to define which law makes this illegal then, as I'm pretty sure that it isn't the RTA 1988/91?
 
JSER said:
It WAS and is illegal to use an (access only road) for purposes other than "access" to places within that road, it is illegal to use it as a short cut.

Civil matters have nothing to do with it ?

Many roads in the UK are access only I didn't say PRIVATE.
Click to expand...

No it isnt - by doing so you commit an act of trespass against the owner(s) but as has been noted normal (as opposed to agravated or armed) trespass is a civil offence not a crime

the only exception would be if it is a public road on which a TRO has been applied limiting it to access only (or prohibiting traffic entirely) - violating a TRO is a crime under the Road Traffic Act '91

However a TRO must be clearly signed in order to be enforced , a small sign noting that the road is access only is not sufficient
 
DemiLion said:
Care to define which law makes this illegal then, as I'm pretty sure that it isn't the RTA 1988/91?
Click to expand...

For heavens sake read this and argue with them


Warning to drivers in Whaley Bridge about 'access only' roads

Posted on 7th December 2011

Police in Whaley Bridge are warning drivers who ignore access only restrictions on local roads.

Residents on Old Road have told officers that they are concerned about safety being put at risk by drivers speeding down the road and using it as a short cut to avoid the Buxton Road and Horwich End traffic lights.

The Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale Safer Neighbourhood Policing Team (SNT) and local response officers have stepped up patrols to the area.

PC Andy Crosthwaite of the Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale SNT said: “Access only means that only residents and visitors can use these roads and these restrictions are clearly signposted at both ends of Old Road.

“I would urge all motorists to respect this rule and also the wishes of the local community, who are concerned about the volume of traffic using the road, which gets quite narrow, and the potential risk this poses to the safety of other road users.”

Police can issue motorists with a £30 on the spot fine if they are found to be breaching the restrictions.

To contact the Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale Safer Neighbourhood Policing Team call 101, the police non-emergency number or email chapel.neighbourhoods@derbyshire.pnn.police.uk.
 
big soft moose said:
No it isnt - by doing so you commit an act of trespass against the owner(s) but as has been noted normal (as opposed to agravated or armed) trespass is a civil offence not a crime

the only exception would be if it is a public road on which a TRO has been applied limiting it to access only (or prohibiting traffic entirely) - violating a TRO is a crime under the Road Traffic Act '91

However a TRO must be clearly signed in order to be enforced , a small sign noting that the road is access only is not sufficient
Click to expand...

ITS AN ACCESS ONLY ROAD it is a ROAD not a private road, access only is a legal sign in the highway code if people don't know the sigh or law that is their fault.

Owners, :bang: its a ROAD that is access only.

This is why it has ROAD signs each end stating

Access only

sheeesh :bang:

Image1-3.jpg
 
Last edited:
tamphotography said:
belive me i was polite and calm, when asked what i was taking photographs for i explained nicely even stating the image they were in will not be used as it was a poor image, they then requested i delete it and claim he could sue me, they were wrong and got slightly aggressive, i never once shouted or made a scene unlike themselves
Click to expand...

:thumbs: for you Tom :thumbsdown: for them.
 
tamphotography said:
BBC article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-16177043
Click to expand...

From the above:

In a statement, the force said: "Nottinghamshire Police has clear guidelines for dealing with photographers at incidents.

"We are looking to ensure all our officers and staff are aware of this guidance that prevents photos from being deleted or equipment from being seized - unless there are reasonable grounds that it contains evidence in relation to an offence and it is deemed necessary to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

"No-one - whether that be a member of the public or an officer - should have to be photographed and if a photographer repeatedly continues to ignore requests to refrain from doing so, it could be deemed to be causing harassment, alarm or distress."

Police said an arrest could be made if a photographer's actions were deemed to be causing harassment.
Click to expand...

Now I'd say that's disingenuous. Correct as it goes (as far as I know), but misses the rather important point that says anyone is free to take photographs in a public place, OTHER THAN when the above caveats may apply. Also, it should be made clear that PCSOs do not have the same powers of arrest as Police Officers.
 
JSER said:
For heavens sake read this and argue with them


Warning to drivers in Whaley Bridge about 'access only' roads

Posted on 7th December 2011

Police in Whaley Bridge are warning drivers who ignore access only restrictions on local roads.

Residents on Old Road have told officers that they are concerned about safety being put at risk by drivers speeding down the road and using it as a short cut to avoid the Buxton Road and Horwich End traffic lights.

The Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale Safer Neighbourhood Policing Team (SNT) and local response officers have stepped up patrols to the area.

PC Andy Crosthwaite of the Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale SNT said: “Access only means that only residents and visitors can use these roads and these restrictions are clearly signposted at both ends of Old Road.

“I would urge all motorists to respect this rule and also the wishes of the local community, who are concerned about the volume of traffic using the road, which gets quite narrow, and the potential risk this poses to the safety of other road users.”

Police can issue motorists with a £30 on the spot fine if they are found to be breaching the restrictions.

To contact the Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale Safer Neighbourhood Policing Team call 101, the police non-emergency number or email chapel.neighbourhoods@derbyshire.pnn.police.uk.
Click to expand...

I believe what you meant to say was that there is a Road Traffic Order in place under the RTRA 1984; which is enforceable by the police - but not by PCSOs (as she wasn't in the Met) ...

...so again it looks like she knew what she was doing!
 
I listened to it and I agree with Eric

erictearle said:
Tom was the only person being the professional in this whole incident.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

tamphotography said:
i sound a right nervous wreck
Click to expand...

But you were coherent and consistent in the points you were making, Tom!

In reply Notts Police put up Supt Paul Winter who was obviously trained in interview technique, but whose skills at police PR on behalf of the Notts force were, I thought, about as weak as the original PCSO's skills at Police - Community - Support.

He could have smoothed the situation and effectively just apologised but instead he blustered and seemed rather confused as to the point he wanted to make.

Anyway, I was really pleased that Supt. Winter said that while the police have no right to delete a picture, the Nottinghamshire Police can ask to have pictures deleted if they think it appropriate to do so.

You realise that with a bit of effective PCSO training that could mean there'll be no more underexposure or soft focus or wonky horizons in Mansfield street photography ever again!! :D
 
Tom,
Well done on standing your ground against the PCSOs in Mansfield. The lack of training and ignorance of the law on these officers is staggering, but not surprising. Please look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo organised by London Street Photography Festival to see the disparity between fully trained police officers and other security forces. Thank you for keeping this issue of harassment of photographers by authorities in the public eye. You had no reason to be challenged for taking photographs, as the ACPO guidelines clearly state that the act of taking photographs is not necessarily a suspicious activity. Keep photographing and carry on! Grant
 
"No-one - whether that be a member of the public or an officer - should have to be photographed and if a photographer repeatedly continues to ignore requests to refrain from doing so, it could be deemed to be causing harassment, alarm or distress."
Click to expand...

Can't really argue with that, methinks there's a danger that all street togs get branded as causes of harrassment - might be a time to argue the toss but equally might be a time to move on and come back later.
 
Sorry but I disagree, you have to put the harassment in context, basically if I was in the street taking photos of street scenes, that's one thing.

Now if I took a picture of a particular person in the street, i.e. he/she was the main subject AND they started to protest about having their picture taken then the sensible thing to do is apologise and explain why you took it, ask if they want it deleted and oblige if they do.

However, explain too that you will still be taking photos in the vicinity and that allows them the chance to move on if they don't want to be in any of the photos.

If though you're a berk and decide to tell him to jog on and then take a few more pics as he protests then THIS can be construed as harassment as you are focussing your attention at one person.

Taking pictures of a wider scene where the person is in the photo, but not in prominence is NOT harassment.

To move on and come back later is to acquiesce to the ignorant, you should be looking on such situations calmly and as an opportunity to educate.
 
I too disagree, there are times to stand your ground but there are also times to exercise common sense - rights also incur responsibilities. Creating an issue can work against not only you but also the wider photographic society.
Sure there will always be testosterone-filled photographers who are anxiopus to create confrontation but it does not necessarily work for the general advantage.
 
Have read through this thread a couple of times just to make sure that this has not been mentioned already.

There has been a lot of mention in this thread of the person in the video being a female PCSO etc. etc.

The woman I see in the video the OP has posted appears to be a female PC and not a PCSO
 
Last edited:
But surely every TV cop show following the police is breaking the law and harassing someone, the use is not evidence so that is not a valid excuse, so according to the logic of the police officer interviewed there are several cases waiting to happen. Also every Pap would also be able to be arrested. Again by this logic the photographer in question was photographing the PCSO who didn't like it, that is enough to arrest him? Maybe I am reading into it wrong?
 
I would go to the police station and speak to the inspector in-charge, I don't think its acceptable for a police officer to treat any citizen like that.
 
Keith W said:
Have read through this thread a couple of times just to make sure that this has not been mentioned already.

There has been a lot of mention in this thread of the person in the video being a female PCSO etc. etc.

The woman I see in the video the OP has posted appears to be a female PC and not a PCSO
Click to expand...

I new she had a 'POLICE' hi vis jacket, does this mean she was not a PCSO?
 
PCSOs have blue banding where propper police have white - i think
 
I would make a complaint, and ask for a follow up on what they do in a way of retraining staff and maybe get in-touch amateur photographer as they have done a lot of stuff on things like this.
 
tiler65 said:
I new she had a 'POLICE' hi vis jacket, does this mean she was not a PCSO?
Click to expand...

It should say Police Community Support Officer and not just Police

Also she was wearing the wrong type of hat to be a PCSO, she was wearing a female PC's hat
 
Keith W said:
It should say Police Community Support Officer and not just Police

Also she was wearing the wrong type of hat to be a PCSO, she was wearing a female PC's hat
Click to expand...

A female PCSO wears the same hat as a female police officer in most forces (albeit with a blue band instead of a checker).

PCSOs often have a badge that says POLICE then community support officer in much smaller letters underneath.


The reality is that it is physically impossible for anyone to know every bit of UK law. Including stated cases etc it fills an entire library. Most police officers are aware of the law in relation to photography but there are bound to be the odd one that does not. PCSOs training is not as long as police officers training and so it is more likely that there was a hole in that training. The PCSO made a mistake.
 
Keith W said:
It should say Police Community Support Officer and not just Police

Also she was wearing the wrong type of hat to be a PCSO, she was wearing a female PC's hat
Click to expand...
Notts Police have confirmed that both officers were PCSOs.
 
cowasaki said:
A female PCSO wears the same hat as a female police officer in most forces (albeit with a blue band instead of a checker).
Click to expand...

Thats my exact point Darren, her hat should have a blue band and it doesn't


She is wearing the hat of a normal PC
 
HMansfield said:
Notts Police have confirmed that both officers were PCSOs.
Click to expand...

Can you provide a link etc. to where they say this?

Because if that is the case then a whole new can of worms has just been opened up because the female in the OP's video is wearing the uniform of a normal PC and not that of a PCSO which is a big no no

So are Nots police lying and was the female in the video really a normal PC and they are trying to cover there buts by saying it was a PCSO?

Or

Are nots police sending out there PCSO's in the wrong uniform?

Either way something is no quite right here
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting link

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/jobs/police_staff/police_community_support_officers_pcsos/

Looking at the PDF on the same page, unkess I have miss read it, a PCSO has no power to arbitarilly someone ?? yes they have power to stop for certain "offences" and require you to gice them your name. However, there is no reference to stopping someone for alledged harrasment or indeed taking photos.

For future reference PCSOs are required to show thier authority card if demanded ?
 
Keith W said:
Can you provide a link etc. to where they say this?

Because if that is the case then a whole new can of worms has just been opened up because the female in the OP's video is wearing the uniform of a normal PC and not that of a PCSO which is a big no no

So are Nots police lying and was the female in the video really a normal PC and they are trying to cover there buts by saying it was a PCSO?

Or

Are nots police sending out there PCSO's in the wrong uniform?

Either way something is no quite right here
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00m2hfq/Andy_Whittaker_14_12_2011/

At 1:51 there is the interview with Supt Winters, where the officers involved are referred to as PCSOs. At about 2:30, the officers are specifically described as PCSOs.
However, she definately has checkerboard banding on her hat. Intriguing.....
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top