- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/19/police-payout-student-arrested-filming
I wonder if this will change anything though? Somehow I doubt it.
and please use their services
Photographer gets settlement from police for mistreatment
- Thread starter onona
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/19/police-payout-student-arrested-filming
I wonder if this will change anything though? Somehow I doubt it.
- Messages
- 4,709
- Name
- Laurence
- Edit My Images
- No
I suppose their suspicions may have been aroused by the fact that she was filming cctv installations and that she mentioned a particular interest in cctv at the beginning of the interrogation.
He constantly gave a false account of her answers such as her not saying that she was a student or that she didn't say she had an interest in buildings when she quite plainly did say that.
I can only imagine what kind of report he must have given to the police for them to come charging in and doing what they did to her.
It would seem as the case is not yet closed as the Independent Police Complaints Commission is taking her case further.
He constantly gave a false account of her answers such as her not saying that she was a student or that she didn't say she had an interest in buildings when she quite plainly did say that.
I can only imagine what kind of report he must have given to the police for them to come charging in and doing what they did to her.
It would seem as the case is not yet closed as the Independent Police Complaints Commission is taking her case further.
OP
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Or perhaps the fact that she's Italian, which to an ignorant eye could appear, well, Middle Eastern? Because let's face it, the Met do racial profiling all the time.
Well sadly at the end of the day, despite paying the settlement, the Met are still refusing to admit they've done anything wrong. So I'm glad they're taking the case further, otherwise this kind of crap will just keep happening.
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
It was my opinion then, and still is, that in this case the complainant set out deliberately to provoke a reaction from the Police/PCSO's; as did a number of other photographers at the time-Grant Smith, for example.
What happened wasn't right, but it was set in motion and exacerbated by the photographer herself.
As for whether the settlement will have any effect now - probably not, but it was one of the cases that prompted the removal (in effect) of Section 44 from the statute book.
What happened wasn't right, but it was set in motion and exacerbated by the photographer herself.
As for whether the settlement will have any effect now - probably not, but it was one of the cases that prompted the removal (in effect) of Section 44 from the statute book.
D
Deleted member 49549
Guest
That wasn't my interpretation of the encounter, the photographer gave an simple answer that she was filming for fun, and it appeared to me it was the pcso provoking an encounter, telling her he didn't believe she was filming for fun. He then said he had the right to look at what she had filmed, and she quite rightly said he had no right to do that. When she said she didn't have any ID he said "how come" as if she was required to carry id. He said she was being cocky just because she knew her rights.
No doubt there are people spoiling for an encounter, but i don't think she was one of them. And to be arrested and pushed to the groung with a knee and an elbow is horrendous behaviour.
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I agree with this. I find their suggestion that she was being aggressive frankly absurd; furthermore, the PC's claim that he had a right to look at her pictures is an outright lie.
- Messages
- 137
- Name
- Robb
- Edit My Images
- No
In an arrestable offense you are only legally entitled to provide the police your personal details (that of your full name, address, age) and nothing more/less. Even if they ask "do you know why you are being arrested" you keep your mouth shut until the lawyer comes along, as remember anything you do say will be used as evidence.
As photography in the street isn't an arrestable offense as in the terms stated by the METs own legislation as indeed the Crown City Police, the student is entitled to question these PCSO motives and terms of what the 'offense' actually is. Evenmore the fact PCSO's have no arrestable power outside of calling a MET division unit to deal with the incident and even then with evidential proof 'said' person is under warranted arrest.
Gawd help us if Cameron goes ahead with plans to put PMSc contrators on the streets.
As photography in the street isn't an arrestable offense as in the terms stated by the METs own legislation as indeed the Crown City Police, the student is entitled to question these PCSO motives and terms of what the 'offense' actually is. Evenmore the fact PCSO's have no arrestable power outside of calling a MET division unit to deal with the incident and even then with evidential proof 'said' person is under warranted arrest.
Gawd help us if Cameron goes ahead with plans to put PMSc contrators on the streets.
When the riots were in progress, we saw large numbers of individuals who were deliberately setting out to provoke a reaction from the police, yet the police took very little action against them. Not only did they provoke, but they looted, burned down buildings (arson can carry a life sentance), and were found guilty of violent disorder.
Here we have an incident where the PCSOs got it completely wrong (how many times do they get it wrong?:shrug
, and then the police started assaulting a young woman for no reason.This is one of the many reasons that people such as myself have started to look at the police in a very different way.
- Messages
- 4,709
- Name
- Laurence
- Edit My Images
- No
I've just had a look on Wiki to see what actual powers a PCSO has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_community_support_officer#Powers
Must admit that I was quite surprised at the extent of the powers they had.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_community_support_officer#Powers
Must admit that I was quite surprised at the extent of the powers they had.
London Headshots
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I totally get why the student reacted the way she did, there's something about PCSO's that telegraphs the most cliched abuse of power.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but for the life of me I cannot figure out how or why you come to the opinion that she "set out deliberately to provoke a reaction".
Pcso - I want to know why you are filming.
Girl - Why not
Pcso - is there any reason at all?
Girl - no, just for fun...
a little more blah blah from pcso (complete with gum chewing and hands in vest) and girl, then....
Pcso - I don't believe you.
She had given him no reason not to believe her and had certainly not been provocative.
As for "set in motion and exacerbated by the photographer herself." !!!
How on earth do you figure that one out? Or is going out taking photographs and film now "provocative"?
The pcso in question should be sacked for his attitude and the policeman who the builders mentioned as aggressive should be sacked.
Last edited:
I think you're completely wrong and it would be interesting to see what you would do in a similar situation.
- Messages
- 6,257
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- No
London Headshots
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you've got that spot on. It's purely a way for them to feel like they're policing, without any of the risk associated with actual policing.
wontolla
Misery Guts Monica
- Messages
- 8,501
- Name
- I'm not a Misery Guts and Monica is not my Moniker
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It is my opinion now, and still will be, that in this case the poster set out deliberately to provoke a reaction from the forum members; as has a number of other photographers.
there are some morons around i hope they realise they are so.
she was doing nothing wrong, she wasnt breaking the law,she was quietly spoken and not speaking in her native tongue while answering questions.
he had the stance and manner of a classic bully while chewing gum and holding his arms in a aggresive manner.
how dare a member of the public and a mere woman at that not cower and obey him in his massive self oppinionated position of power.at the same time as he lied and/or did not know the law himself.
6 men to arrest a woman for taking photos and then bullied into taking a fine.
thats not my England and never will be.
really if people cant see how wrong this is then there must be something wrong with them. :thumbsdown:
she was doing nothing wrong, she wasnt breaking the law,she was quietly spoken and not speaking in her native tongue while answering questions.
he had the stance and manner of a classic bully while chewing gum and holding his arms in a aggresive manner.
how dare a member of the public and a mere woman at that not cower and obey him in his massive self oppinionated position of power.at the same time as he lied and/or did not know the law himself.
6 men to arrest a woman for taking photos and then bullied into taking a fine.
thats not my England and never will be.
really if people cant see how wrong this is then there must be something wrong with them. :thumbsdown:
OP
- Messages
- 997
- Name
- Leigh
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I started the thread, and I don't recall ever participating in another discussion on "photographer rights", as you put it.
:/
Maybe we accept that the PCSO got it wrong but he was ill advised (or even not advised on the issue of photography which is worse imo) but many of us have seen this type of behaviour before with authoritative figures & the reporting of it is getting a little long in the tooth. Joe Public has been persecuted by police type institutions since they were formed, it is nothing new and will probably never cease.
Education is the answer, for the PCSO in this matter. I honestly believe that he thought he was within his rights. We now know this is not the case, so that should be the end of the matter.
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
That's rather my point.
Combine that with knowledge of what was actually happening in London at the time, knowledge of the nascent PNAT campaign and how the events were being reported in the media at the time (led by the Guardian), and I am more than slightly sceptical.
As I said, the PSCOs were wrong in almost every way possible, but that doesn't preclude the fact that I am fairly certain that the original intent of the film student was to go out and get stopped.
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
It certainly wouldn't suprise me... I cant say for sure either way... but theres certainly a lot of blind faith given to the photographer...
London Headshots
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
But what's wrong with that? By extension you could argue that it's wrong for the police to go out looking for criminals.
Whatever her motives or methods, she exposed a side of the law that is generally only seen by photographers. In doing so she was possibly instrumental in the changing of a draconian law enforced (abused) only by the weakest, pettiest members of the police force.
In fact, I'd respect her more if the whole thing was a set up.
rubbish, so we shouldnt bother to reports any murders our arson because they are allways being reported.
as for the PCSO we have to obey the law and so does he, ignorance of the law is no excuse for mine and your actions so why should it be for him.
besides that look how hes acting its CLASSIC BULLY!
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
Its people who do these setups (and there are a few who want a bit of limelight) that give all photogrpahers a bad name.. looking for or instigating trouble isn't worthy of my respect.. yours obviously .. but not mine..
KIPAX
Seriously Likeable
- Messages
- 21,019
- Name
- KIPAX Lancashire UK
- Edit My Images
- No
doesnt everyone agree the PCO is in the wrong? is there anyone disputing that?
How can you instigate trouble, if you are not causing trouble, not breaking the law, and more importantly not doing anything remotely offensive or wrong?
These incidents happen, because ignorant people think that they have the power to stop people doing anything regardless of whether it is right or wrong. Not all people in authority are like this, but it is the ones who misuse their power who cause these problems - not the photographers.
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh Perlease!
Photographers lobby weren't the only ones being searched, in fact if you look at the released figures for 2010 they were probably a small minority. They were however extremely vocal and well organised, with a powerful media lobby behind them.
What's wrong with it? It's tantamount to income by insurance claim.
London Headshots
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Never known anyone be stopped and questioned by PCSO's under "terror laws" except people with brown skin, cameras, or both.
It was simultaneously the most abused and least understood law of the modern age, and if this girls actions-no matter how cynical-played a part in its destruction, then good on her.
SHe's contributed more to society than I have in the last twelve months, that's for sure.
Adgreed has to cut both way,but in this case.
( In court, Bonomo was found not guilty of any offence and the Crown Prosecution Service said it was unclear why she had even been arrested.)
London Headshots
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,340
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
She hasn't given me a bad name. No, what should be worthy of your respect is the fact that she was proactive and instrumental in the reversal of a terrible law.
- Messages
- 5,092
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- No
A person going about their business can't be instigating trouble, the absurd laws and the mis-application of them instigates trouble.
Not doing something you want to, that has no effect on anyone else, just because you're afraid some tool in a high-vis vest is going to come and bully you, is a pretty lame way to live your life.
I suppose you'd say Rosa Parks went out to instigate trouble, and give black people a bad name.
Not doing something you want to, that has no effect on anyone else, just because you're afraid some tool in a high-vis vest is going to come and bully you, is a pretty lame way to live your life.
I suppose you'd say Rosa Parks went out to instigate trouble, and give black people a bad name.
- Messages
- 456
- Edit My Images
- No
PCSOs don't have any powers by default, they only have powers designated to them by their chief constable or commisioner.
These powers are listed on a designation card that they are required by law to carry with them whilst on duty, as they are to produce these when requested by a member of the public.
If the PCSO had any doubts as to whether he had those powers or not, he could have reached into his pocket and looked.
If the student had requested he show the relevant power on his designation card, then that would have been an interesting exchange. Do you think he'd have said, "Oh sorry, I don't have that power after all. You can go about your business, miss. Sorry for bothering you"?
- Messages
- 12,783
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
You need to open your eyes and ears a bit more then.
Figures for 2003-2008 show:
NO FURTHER ACTION: 140,989
ADVISED: 6,834
VERBALLY WARNED: 1,730
ARRESTED: 2,108
OTHER: 39,817
Total: 191,478
Photography only really became an issue in 2008. What were the rest of the stops for?
Welcome back, I wondered when you would post again, see my earlier post in this thread.