"I am not a terrorist!", "Photography is not a crime!" - The fightback starts here...

STOWITBELOW said:
You decide :)

Perhaps you don't like it that there are alternative views to yours & are thus astounded. This was just an illustration of how someone's behavior does have consequences, both Tomlinsons & the officers. His ambling through an area where there was public disorder resulted in an officers reaction of charging at him (presumably seeing him as part of the disorder). The offices action knocking him to the ground has raised the question whether he is responsible for Tomlinsons death. THE POINT - a change in either behavior would probably had a different outcome. I am drawing a comparison with how I suspect some of these 'photography' incident COULD be diffused by different behavior by either party. I am not apportioning blame. We can argue about the law, however it is the set of rules that govern our society. As such we should all follow it. That applies to both parties. The 'authority' figure (security guard, Police, whoever) & the photographer. On occasion who's in the right at that time is irrelavant. An incident could be avoided by different behavior by either party. Being right won't necessarily stop your arrest (lawful or not), an adversarial or pugnatious attitude undoubtedly will inflame an incident.
Watch the footage of Tomlinson he is not just making his way home. He very much appears to be demonstrating a reluctance to 'be moved on'. It's possible but I would be astounded if Tomlinson had not been advised to 'move on'. That may have been in the form 'F'#$* Off' consequently he took exception. We may never know what's occured before the strike & charge, but from what we've seen I don't believe we can just blame the officer. Prevention is better than cure, that incident was preventable. Incidentaly Im not sure if he was injured ? 'Assaulted' yes, any injury as a result ?
I would also say Jean Charles was altogether different, there is no suggestion that his behavior in any way would have altered events. (Short of staying in bed) It was mistaken identity.
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't like people having alternative views from my own but I was genuinely surprised by this one. However, if this really is your opinion that's fine and I respect your right to express it. I don't agree with it but of course that's my right too. In fact it probably won't surprise you to hear that I regard that officer's disgraceful actions as totally inexcusable whatever the provocation. If he can't control himself and remain level headed in stressful situations he shouldn't be doing the job and despite escaping criminal prosecution on a technicality I suspect that his superiors will come to the same conclusion and sack him.
 
Last edited:
Duplicated post, and it wasn't that good that you should read it twice!
 
Last edited:
goldenlight said:
escaping criminal prosecution on a technicality
Click to expand...
I haven't looked that closely at all the 'evidence' regarding the incident. I believe now generaly the criminal law is applied impartialy to all parties (historicaly maybe not) - in fact something like this, the CPS would feel a deal of pressure to prosecute. If they won't, then the evidence just isn't there & it's a waste of public money pursueing a prosecution. The lack of evidence may be due to a clever trick, or the all the available evidence couldn't support a charge/prosecution Your quote above indicates your presumption of his guilt. Many people are not prosecuted due to lack of evidence, have they escaped prosecution / justice? Escaped trial maybe. All of this is illustrating my point. How what you say / do provokes a response. You can't control the others response, only your own behavior. Automaticaly there is potential for conflict when someone's telling you what (not) to do. It's very easy to escalate a dialogue into an argument. Without apportioning blame I believe at least some of these conflicts are preventable. There's a difference between being assertive & arguementative. You don't have to necessarily have to roll over & comply with someones request. :D
 
Maybe you should familiarise yourself.

The CPS decision not to prosecute for manslaughter was based on conflicting results of the three post-mortems that took place.

here's the CPS article: http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/articles/the_death_of_ian_tomlinson_decision_on_prosecution/

The first one, organised by the Police, found that he died of coronary artery disease.

The second one, organised by the IPCC found that he died of haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, specifically his liver.

A third one, organised by the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards, agreed with the second post-mortem.

The pathologist who undertook the first post-mortem is, however, under investigation by the General Medical Council for professional malpractice in four other cases.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10729545

A prosecution for assault was not pursued as the CPS decision process took fifteen months, well beyond the six month statutory limit for the bringing of charges in cases of common assault. Evidence may well have been sufficient for a charge, but by the time a decision was made, it was not possible for it to be brought.
 
If the officer were to be cleared of, or not charged with, manslaughter (which I think he should have happened) there is certainly no reason why the officer should not be charged with assault - that clearly cannot be denied
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
If the officer were to be cleared of, or not charged with, manslaughter (which I think he should have happened) there is certainly no reason why the officer should not be charged with assault - that clearly cannot be denied
Click to expand...

I sort of agree about the assault part. Whether or not it could be denied/defended is I supose that would be for the court.
Interesting how this is still being discussed, I was using it as an illustration how things go wrong - a parallel with these photo disputes perhaps ? I was neither supporting or intending to defend either party.
 
Musicman said:
The first one, organised by the Police, found that he died of coronary artery disease.

The second one, organised by the IPCC found that he died of haemorrhage from blunt force trauma to the abdomen, specifically his liver.

A third one, organised by the Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards, agreed with the second post-mortem.
Click to expand...

So on my understanding, 2 out of 3 expert witnesses agree the office caused the death? This still doesn't reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt for me. Criminal court is a different beast to civil. I am sure we could site examples where it got it both right or wrong.
 
STOWITBELOW said:
So on my understanding, 2 out of 3 expert witnesses agree the office caused the death? This still doesn't reach the standard of beyond reasonable doubt for me. Criminal court is a different beast to civil. I am sure we could site examples where it got it both right or wrong.
Click to expand...

even when the 1 disagreeing is facing multiple charges of misconduct/deficient professional performance?

how many would it take - 4 out of 5? The pathologist's will never be 100% sure because the initial gentleman (i hesitate to use the word doctor for much longer) destroyed the evidence!
 
Last edited:
STOWITBELOW said:
I haven't looked that closely at all the 'evidence' regarding the incident.
Click to expand...

Your remarks make it quite obvious that you have not looked closely at the evidence. To help you here is a link to the full CPS statement http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jul/22/cps-statement-death-ian-tomlinson

You have to read it carefully and in full, but if you do you will see that although the CPS concluded there was insufficient evidence for a manslaughter charge, due to a disagreement about the cause of death by expert witnesses, they did conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a charge of assult. The only reason they are not prosecuting for this offence is that there is a six month time limit which has been exceeded. So, as I said, the officer has escaped prosecution on a technicality.

You should also note that PC Simon Harwood is now facing diciplinary action by the police. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...attack-officer-faces-disciplinary-action.html

And he has a history of being in trouble for aggressive behaviour, on one occassion retiring from the Met on medical grounds to escape a misconduct charge. A few years later he rejoined the force in Surrey and eventually got a transfer back to the Met. It's all here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...-faced-two-previous-aggression-inquiries.html

I'd be interested to hear your opinion once you have aquainted yourself with all the facts.:)
 
Generaly previous convictions or evidence of similar behavior isn't always admissable to a court during a trial (there are exceptions). However from the article they aren't even convictions. Allegations of aggressive behavior by whom, over what? Retired on health grounds, now maybe this was to escape a disciplin action, or perhaps the stress of investigation, or some other health issue supervened. That enquirymay have come to nothing. I also feel 'escape' implies he got away by some action. If CPS dropped the ball..........
He should face disciplinary action - looking at the video. Of course he may be a thug who's consistantly evaded justice. That seems to be the inference of the press. Well we all know how reliable they are! :D
 
STOWITBELOW said:
Generaly previous convictions or evidence of similar behavior isn't always admissable to a court during a trial (there are exceptions). However from the article they aren't even convictions. Allegations of aggressive behavior by whom, over what? Retired on health grounds, now maybe this was to escape a disciplin action, or perhaps the stress of investigation, or some other health issue supervened. That enquirymay have come to nothing. I also feel 'escape' implies he got away by some action. If CPS dropped the ball..........
He should face disciplinary action - looking at the video. Of course he may be a thug who's consistantly evaded justice. That seems to be the inference of the press. Well we all know how reliable they are! :D
Click to expand...

Please don't take this the wrong way - but could I ask what you do as a career? Your answers seem to suggest you might be involved in the legal system in some way (though :thinking: not sure what)
 
STOWITBELOW said:
Generaly previous convictions or evidence of similar behavior isn't always admissable to a court during a trial (there are exceptions). However from the article they aren't even convictions. Allegations of aggressive behavior by whom, over what? Retired on health grounds, now maybe this was to escape a disciplin action, or perhaps the stress of investigation, or some other health issue supervened. That enquirymay have come to nothing. I also feel 'escape' implies he got away by some action. If CPS dropped the ball..........
He should face disciplinary action - looking at the video. Of course he may be a thug who's consistantly evaded justice. That seems to be the inference of the press. Well we all know how reliable they are! :D
Click to expand...

This evidence of similar behaviour isn't going to be presented at a trial because their isn't going to be one. I notice you've chosen not to comment on the six month technicality which appears to be the only thing that has prevented him from being prosecuted. The CPS feel that, were it not for this limitation, there would be a good case against him.

The links I provided were to two of the better papers and much of the information was supplied by the police themselves, so I don't understand your inference that this information is unreliable. I'm also surprised you've chosen not to comment on that very full and thorough report by the CPS, which they took the unusual step of issuing as they felt it to be in the public interest.

Do you not find it odd that a person can retire (which implies drawing a pension) from their occupation on health grounds - normally only granted for serious long term health problems - and then within a few years be re-employed and back on the front line of what is obviously a very physically and mentally demanding job with high stress levels?

As for your comment "If CPS dropped the ball.........." that rather implies good luck to him and that you're not sorry he escaped prosecution.

It does just make me wonder, and forgive me for asking if I'm drawing the wrong conclusions....you don't know PC Simon Harwood, or have some connection with him, do you?
 
I've some relevant experience. ;) Im neither in the Police nor aquainted with Harwood. I will state rather than infer, the press whos job it is to report these issues, also have to make a story & aren't always impartial or accurate. (The linked articles probably are ok.) The Independant ran a Tv ad where a Black man ran at & pushed a lady messing with her purse, apparantly mugging her. A 2nd wider view showed him saving her from a falling piano I recall. On this forum above all, surely we know what you see isn't always the full picture. The press, the courts, the Police, CPS, jurys all get it wrong sometimes.
If CPS 'dropped the ball' Im not implying good luck to Harwood at all. However thats not his fault, it doest mean he's tried to escape justice. It's CPS's fault. Harwood may have been looking forward to clearing his name in court, :D his previously tarnished reputation is irrelevant. If due to some health factor he was unable to continue in post, was retired, recovered, then subsequently re-employed, again relevance? Perhaps they should have kept him in post off sick? When he returned he could face disciplin. Despite it's many faults I prefer to reserve judgement until a (criminal) court's offered one. Incidently, courts never find someone innocent, (despite asseverations by the aquited) just not guilty. It doesn't look like Harwood will face a criminal trial.
 
STOWITBELOW said:
I've some relevant experience. ;) Im neither in the Police nor aquainted with Harwood. I will state rather than infer, the press whos job it is to report these issues, also have to make a story & aren't always impartial or accurate. (The linked articles probably are ok.) The Independant ran a Tv ad where a Black man ran at & pushed a lady messing with her purse, apparantly mugging her. A 2nd wider view showed him saving her from a falling piano I recall. On this forum above all, surely we know what you see isn't always the full picture. The press, the courts, the Police, CPS, jurys all get it wrong sometimes.
If CPS 'dropped the ball' Im not implying good luck to Harwood at all. However thats not his fault, it doest mean he's tried to escape justice. It's CPS's fault. Harwood may have been looking forward to clearing his name in court, :D his previously tarnished reputation is irrelevant. If due to some health factor he was unable to continue in post, was retired, recovered, then subsequently re-employed, again relevance? Perhaps they should have kept him in post off sick? When he returned he could face disciplin. Despite it's many faults I prefer to reserve judgement until a (criminal) court's offered one. Incidently, courts never find someone innocent, (despite asseverations by the aquited) just not guilty. It doesn't look like Harwood will face a criminal trial.
Click to expand...

That's fair comment that you wish to reserve judgement on PC Harwood, you obviously don't interpret the video as being as damning as I do. That's fine, we all see things differently. However, in your original post you didn't appear to be reserving judgement on Mr Tomlinson. I just don't see a balanced view here. You hint that you have some relevent experience and tell us what it's not, but don't tell us what it is. :cautious:
 
Well it's good to have some secrets :cool: -& it's not that interesting! Again I wasn' judging Tomlinson, but observing his behavior he was displaying a reluctance to 'move along'. Despite being bitten by a Police dog - something that would have goaded me into faster motion. That neither judges or condems him, It seems though it made PC Harwoods mind up (mistakenly) that Tomlinson was part of the problem.
 
Yup, wasn't the 'bitten by a police dog but he made no response' bit laughed at in court. The pathologist found bite marks on his leg.

I've been bitten by a guard dog on an exercise. ****less thing took my leg rather than the outstretched padded arm like it was supposed to. I certainly didn't ignore that
 
Byker28i said:
Yup, wasn't the 'bitten by a police dog but he made no response' bit laughed at in court. The pathologist found bite marks on his leg.

I've been bitten by a guard dog on an exercise. ****less thing took my leg rather than the outstretched padded arm like it was supposed to. I certainly didn't ignore that
Click to expand...

Just the fact that one jumped at me at a football match when it was supposed to be facing towards the rioting fans was enough to warrant the spare undies I keep in the car!!! ;):D:eek:
 
Byker28i said:
Yup, wasn't the 'bitten by a police dog but he made no response' bit laughed at in court. The pathologist found bite marks on his leg.
Click to expand...

Tomlinson was a newspaper vendor.

I suspect he was just acting on Alfred Harmsworth's dictum - "When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news." - and decided that being bitten by a dog himself was not newsworthy

:)
 
STOWITBELOW said:
Well it's good to have some secrets :cool: -& it's not that interesting! Again I wasn' judging Tomlinson, but observing his behavior he was displaying a reluctance to 'move along'. Despite being bitten by a Police dog - something that would have goaded me into faster motion. That neither judges or condems him, It seems though it made PC Harwoods mind up (mistakenly) that Tomlinson was part of the problem.
Click to expand...

I have to say I have some sympathy with Stuart's comments here and above.
Having watched the clip over and over, it certainly looks to me like he was sauntering away with a smirk on his face...
In my youth I've battered marchers in NI for a lot less 'attitude' than what it appears I'm seeing here...
Also there could have been any number of spoken remarks from both sides of the fence up to that point that we'll never be appraised of...
 
Arkady said:
I have to say I have some sympathy with Stuart's comments here and above.
Having watched the clip over and over, it certainly looks to me like he was sauntering away with a smirk on his face...
In my youth I've battered marchers in NI for a lot less 'attitude' than what it appears I'm seeing here...
Also there could have been any number of spoken remarks from both sides of the fence up to that point that we'll never be appraised of...
Click to expand...

Or he could have been a frail man in poor health, trying to make his way home from work and becoming increasing confused and disorientated as he found his usual routes blocked.

My view remains that whatever the build up, whatever may have benn said, that response from the officer was disproportionate and inexcusable. The Police and the CPS seem to agree; he is facing diciplinary procedings and only escaped prosecution for assault through a technical time limit.
 
goldenlight said:
Or he could have been a frail man in poor health, trying to make his way home from work and becoming increasing confused and disorientated as he found his usual routes blocked.

My view remains that whatever the build up, whatever may have benn said, that response from the officer was disproportionate and inexcusable. The Police and the CPS seem to agree; he is facing diciplinary procedings and only escaped prosecution for assault through a technical time limit.
Click to expand...

How often do police "officers" EVER stand up in court for their misbehaviour? Virtually never. And when they do, the courts bend over backwards to find them not guilty. It often seems to me that they are beyond the law.
 
jerry12953 said:
How often do police "officers" EVER stand up in court for their misbehaviour? Virtually never. And when they do, the courts bend over backwards to find them not guilty. It often seems to me that they are beyond the law.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a rather handy technicality, wasn't it? :cautious:
 
Arkady said:
I have to say I have some sympathy with Stuart's comments here and above.
Having watched the clip over and over, it certainly looks to me like he was sauntering away with a smirk on his face...
In my youth I've battered marchers in NI for a lot less 'attitude' than what it appears I'm seeing here...
Also there could have been any number of spoken remarks from both sides of the fence up to that point that we'll never be appraised of...
Click to expand...

its not NI and I'm assuming (sorry if wrong) you were there during the troubles. The whole issue of policing and Met tactics (kettling, covering ID tags etc) really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Battering a man & *probably* contributing to his premature death is a little harsh for a bit of attitude, would you say?
 
boyfalldown said:
its not NI and I'm assuming (sorry if wrong) you were there during the troubles. The whole issue of policing and Met tactics (kettling, covering ID tags etc) really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Battering a man & *probably* contributing to his premature death is a little harsh for a bit of attitude, would you say?
Click to expand...

Quite, but you have to take these things in context.

A random pedestrian on the street exhibiting an attitude problem to police officers conducting normal patrolling isn't likely to encounter the same treatment as someone doing the same thing in the midst of a serious disturbance involving thousands of demonstrators and police in riot-gear - those same officers will be pre-disposed to be far less sympathetic towards such behaviour in those situations than they would during normal policing duties... we see them as armoured phalanx - aggressively uniformed and wielding batons, they see themselves as hopelessly outnumbered and very vulnerable with just a baton to protect themsleves with against (possibly) petrol bombs and nailed clubs (I've seen it).

Public-Order Training for the police is almost identical to our own - we wrote the book, so to speak, during the Troubles in NI and those lessons have been adapted for domestic use by the various police forces around the country.

My comment on my own actions reflected the prevailing attitudes at the time during the Marching Season in NI back in the 1980's...you couldn't back-down an inch or you'd be battered yourself.
Youngsters would try it on, often with older marchers encouraging them. A quick whack up the side of the upper arm (all you are permitted to do is aim controlled blows to the upper arm and thighs, from a position where you hold the baton against your shoulder - you're not supposed to 'take a swing' as this imparts too much force and results in serious injuries - the idea is to deliver a short-sharp shock, not break bones) would often be all that was required to calm things down - if a mob doesn't think you have the heart to act aggressively in self-defence, they will push you harder...you have to maintain the upper hand or you quickly lose control. One or two individuals targetted aggressively at the outset usually convinces those others with less enthusiasm to get hurt to back things down a bit.
In that situation, an individual who has been 'moved on' who then displays 'attitude', will be treated as a potential troublemaker who could embolden others to act in a similar manner. That individial will therefore be treated perhaps more harshly than the situation at first glance would seem to warrant - there's an element of pour encourager les autres about actions during demos and public-order situations...
Remember the Police Officers' first concern will be for their own personal safety and to protect inncocent civilans as well as public and private property.
We had already seen incidences of vandalism and looting on a small scale and it was obvious to anyone with experience that many of the demonstrators were only there for a scrap.
 
Last edited:
jerry12953 said:
How often do police "officers" EVER stand up in court for their misbehaviour? Virtually never. And when they do, the courts bend over backwards to find them not guilty. It often seems to me that they are beyond the law.
Click to expand...
That's a load off *@#% !
The police usualy interview offenders as what they say is stong evidence as to their 'mens rea'. Of course police officers are all too aware of this & could avoid offering adventitious evidence in interview. So they may 'escape' prosecution.
When there is sufficient evidence of criminality they are prosecuted, but again knowledge of the legal system may assist them to be aquited.
Serving officer dealing with 'criminals' often accrue bogus complaints - it's an easy way for offenders to 'attack' officers.
However the CPS also seem keen to prosecute officers for the most serious offence possible (say manslaughter in this case) & in their efforts to do so let a much simpler conviction (assault) slip.
No one here knows what instructions Harwood had been given (Say 'we've info that a protestor is armed & intends to stab an office.') If told to clear the street the last thing they would need is a potentialy armed man behind you whilst dealing with 'obvious' protestors in front. We don't know what dialogue took place. It could have been 'Sir we have to ask you to move on, we're dealing with a serious incident of disorder' Tomlinson 'Well I am moving' (shuffles along defiently)
We simply do not have the full story - the video although it looks bad is only a small part of it. Please don't missunderstand. Harwood may have been a thug who hit a confused old man, but there is not enough evidence either way. Read Arklady's post again, it offers an insite into these events.
The Police are in an invidious position. If you had a business in that area, you'd want these 'protesters' moved away. Do you do that by cajoeing, a stern warning, perhaps with harsh words, if these havent worked threaten them with a dog, even a dog bite perhaps? When these fail do you just give up? I can't tell from one little video clip what's occurred. Far more of the guilty go free from court that the inocent get convicted. Perhaps a few more TP members on jurys would change that. Or does this great insite / quick judgement only come to bear on this Police officer? :D:D:D
 
Guys, I'm sure it's a very interesting debate but this thread is specifically to do with Photography/Terrorism and not the Police in general and certainly not to do with Ian Tomlinson. Please can we get back on topic

Thank you
 
boyfalldown said:
its not NI and I'm assuming (sorry if wrong) you were there during the troubles. The whole issue of policing and Met tactics (kettling, covering ID tags etc) really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny. Battering a man & *probably* contributing to his premature death is a little harsh for a bit of attitude, would you say?
Click to expand...
Perhaps smoking, drinking, poor diet, lack of exorcise, contributed to a premature death? Of the three Pms the first offered the best evidence, this though somewhat tarnished, that doesn't mean it was wrong. None of us here know enough to say with any certainty what occured at the time of the incident, or if it in any way contributed to his death. Yes the video shows Tomlinson being assaulted, but we don't know if that was lawful or not. after such a tragedy the officers conduct is being investigated, - quite right. I just think if everyone had this insite into these events we wouldn't need, trials the courts, coroners, the IPCC etc. Think of the money saved! Now it's clear, just ask some TP membersto watch a 30 second video & justice will be served.:wacky::wacky::wacky:
 
fabs said:
Guys, I'm sure it's a very interesting debate but this thread is specifically to do with Photography/Terrorism and not the Police in general and certainly not to do with Ian Tomlinson. Please can we get back on topic

Thank you
Click to expand...

Marc is right, we have gone way off course and I'm as guilty as any in this respect. It's a very emotive subject and I'm sure many of us still have plenty to say, but that wouldn't be productive in any case as those of us involved in this side issue are so entrenched in our views that further discussion would probably be pointless.

Anyway, to get back on track, has anyone enjoyed a good Stop & Search lately? :D
 
I've had a few funny looks and some comments though nothing more but maybe if we all donned t-shirts with "i'm a terrorist not a photographer" we would perhaps be left alone to carry on with our hobby/work.
 
I thought you guys might be interested in reading a copy of this letter that has been sent to ALL Chief Constables throughout the UK .. I have posted this for your information, please treat as such.

26 August 2010
Dear Colleagues
Guidance for Photographers

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.

There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:

• There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
• We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
• We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
• Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
• Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.

If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter
Chief Constable
Chair of ACPO Communication Advisory Group
Click to expand...
 
PDS said:
I thought you guys might be interested in reading a copy of this letter that has been sent to ALL Chief Constables throughout the UK .. I have posted this for your information, please treat as such.
Click to expand...

Really helpful to see a copy of this. Many thanks for posting.
 
policeman.jpg
 
PDS said:
I thought you guys might be interested in reading a copy of this letter that has been sent to ALL Chief Constables throughout the UK .. I have posted this for your information, please treat as such.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, it's clear and unequivical. Hopefully it will herald the end of a difficult and most unfortunate period of unhealthy conflict between the police and photographers (both press and amateur). I know the job's not done yet but I do sense the tide has turned. :)

I'd love nothing more than to put my soap box away, get on with my photography and go back to respecting the police, valuing them for the difficult job they do, as I always have done until the last few years. No doubt most of us feel the same but the authorities should know that we'll be watching and if similar daft policies are implimented in the future......... :nono:
 
If the current guidance for police is emphasising that they have no power to stop someone from taking photos in a public place, what do you do if you get confronted?

For example, if police ask:

i) what are you doing/why are you taking photos here?
ii) please provide me with your name address etc?

What is the current state of the law with regards the powers of the police to stop and question or search someone? If the power requires that they suspect something, what is it that they must suspect, and what are the rights of the individual?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top