Photographer gets settlement from police for mistreatment

[DemiLion]

This couldn't just be a 'London thing', could it?

Not really - although it'd be nice to think so!

The Plod in Manchester have been getting themselves into hot water recently (even in the post Sect 44 era) with one case just settled and a couple of others in the pipeline.

It tends to be that the London cases are higher profile for obvious reasons, but that doesn't meant it's restricted to the Met area (it in this case meaning incorrect application of the Terrorism act and other similar daftness).

 

[Tringa]

Your record of the two mounted police in Parliament Square is interesting, gnirtS especially as the Metropolitan Police website contains the following -

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Dave

 

[gnirtS]

Your record of the two mounted police in Parliament Square is interesting, gnirtS especially as the Metropolitan Police website contains the following -

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Dave

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

I can't see anything in there forbidding it at all (assuming the pavement outside is classed as public) but was more surprised by the direct fairly aggressive attitude by the police to what were clearly just tourists. Not even a "please can you not photograph me" or similar, a straight "No. DONT do THAT".

FWIW the others around the corner there seemed to have no problem and even posed for some tourists but these two on horses certainly didn't want any photos taken. There was no incident on at the time, they were just trotting from the square through the park towards the river.
My camera was in my bag at the time and i didn't get involved or say anything but it happened right in front of me. It would appear from that at least that not everyone is aware of the law or messages.

 

[DemiLion]

... i didn't get involved or say anything but it happened right in front of me...

Next time, take a note of his shoulder number and report him.

a) He needs an attitude readjustment (officially)

and more importantly

b) that sort of behaviour is seriously not good for tourism/image.

 

[gramps]

On Tuesday 21 June 2011 six photographers were assigned different areas of the City to photograph. Some used tripods, some went hand held, one set up a 5 x 4.

All were instructed to keep to public land and photograph the area as they would on a normal day. The event aimed to test the policing of public and private space by private security firms and their reaction to photographers.

All six photographers were stopped on at least one occasion. Three encounters led to police intervention.

This is what happened.

Directed and Produced by Hannah White for the London Street Photography Festival

[YOUTUBE]FJH9F7Hcluo[/YOUTUBE]
Edited by Stuart York

Interesting video, thanks for posting.

 

[Bernie174]

Donnie
No, you have that wrong I'm afraid. You are searched before arrest under S43. In fact, I don't think there is a power to arrest, unless search is refused.
Once arrested other things come into play, but lets deal with the search it's self, as that was your question.
A camera contains information, and if the reason for stop was relevant to that information, they a police officer has a right to look at it. If you are stopped because you are trying door handles on cars, it would be difficult to justify looking at images on a camera before arrest. If on the other hand, someone with previous for nicking high value cars is seen photographing them, you might well consider the images as evidence and want to see if the camera has them before wading in with an arrest.
Putting it another way, instead of a camera, think of a suitcase. Again, if I am stopping someone because I think he's nicked a 4 poster bed, then looking in his suitcase isn't going to be justified, but if it's say a quantity of jewelery, then I would be.

Rapscallion
I am not too sure I'd believe that every case where abuse of police powers has actually happened.
Of course Police get it wrong, no ones pretending otherwise. So do Doctors, lawyers, Judges, photographers, and every other occupation in the world. It's because we are all human.
I've sat on both sides of the fence, and about 6 months ago, actually witnessed one of these 'assaults on photographers rights'. Well, thats what the photographer in question told everyone afterwards, but in fact his version was utter rubbish. I was stood there when the Police officer stopped both of us. His immediate reaction was to go off on the "I know my rights" path. Refusing to co operate and frankly, had I been the PC, he'd have been nicked. Anyway, because he made such a fuss, it lasted far longer than it would, certainly police were with him for 15 minutes, and finished with me within 2. He got searched, and let off for the criminal offence he'd committed. I didn't but then my approach was the opposite, but some 30 minutes later, when a few more people had turned up he related the story, which bore no resemblance to what happened.
On your last point, it's exactly the same thing. Police have a power to Stop and if necessary search. Be that outside a Military unit, where in this case they were preventing a breach of the OSA, or in London, where they might be looking for terrorist related matters, or just trying to prevent crime.
In this womans case, frankly, she was playing games from the start. Why not say what she was doing? Would that have caused her any harm? No, of course not. It's difficult to see how filming or photographing CCTV is not going to arouse some suspicion in Police, or in fact anyone else, so she really shouldn't have been surprised to get stopped. Had she provided an explanation at the start, I doubt anything else would have followed. In exactly the same way I do when i am stopped, and you know what it's painless.
Just like me, the vast majority of photographers who get stopped, play the game, it's over with in minutes.
As I said earlier, yes, you might get a PCSO go too far, and thats not confined to stops either. I've complained about 2 in my area, both of who exceeded their powers. While I personally disagree with PCSO's, it isn't entirely their fault they make mistakes, the training they get is very restrictive.
Given that, they are for all intents and purposes are expected to know everything. Even with a Police Officers training, you can't do that, and I've made mistakes. You should also realise that this photographers thing is a very small part of a police officers (or PCSO's) life. It's not something you deal with often, unless you are somewhere like Heathrow where i was, and we didn't need the Terrorism act there, while you may argue you have the right to photograph, most of those who were doing it didn't have the right to be there in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Rapscallion
I am not too sure I'd believe that every case where abuse of police powers has actually happened.

Berni, I certainly dont believe every story i hear, but just because a friend of a yours once exaggerated an encounter with the police, i don't see this as reason to discount other reported encounters. Indeed, many have been reported by respected journalist, and some encounters have resulted in significant damages being paid. These are obviously not exaggerated events.
Our perspectives obviously differ on this, but i believe it is in the best interest of the relationship between police and photographers for the police to show some empathy to the public / photographers they meet, a quality that is missing in many of the problem encounters that i have seen.
I just wish the police would acknowledge the issue rather than say reports are exaggerated, or say that if the photographer just gave them the answers to any question asked, things would be fine.
But many photographers see this as a civil liberty infringement, and deliberately not answer questions they are not requred to answer by law, as way of protest at police treatment. Right or wrong, and i think i know which side you stand on this, this is an important issue to many.

Just like me, the vast majority of photographers who get stopped, play the game.

The problem with this statement is that the rules of the 'game' are refereed by the police, and as we have seen, they can, and have, made up those rules to suit the encounter.

Here's hoping for a change of direction in the police's view of photography.

 

[merlinonline]

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.

What a load of tosh! never heard such apologist twaddle in all my life.

The PCSO's have lied, made the police execute an illegal arrest.

The PCSO's should be facing criminal charges let alone being dismissed. As the arrest is illegal the other officers are on a sticky wicket.

Unfortunately arrogance and cynicism is endemic within the police service these days down the culture.

 

[merlinonline]

I think there are a few issues that people have got very very wrong in this.

So, let’s start at the beginning, there's nothing stopping a Police officer, or a PCSO, or anyone else asking you, or anyone else what they are doing. It falls under the same 'right' as the photographers 'rights', there's nothing in law to say that you don't have the right to do it, and there's nothing in law to say you have the right to do it. Becuase there's nothing either way, you are entitled to think you have 'photographers rights', just the same as everyone else has the same 'right' to ask you what you're doing.

So, having stopped her, his held his arms in an 'aggressive way'. Really? Good luck with trying to prove that. As his hands were for the most part inside his vest, it's hardly aggressive is it? I mean you can clearly do a considerable amount of damage to someone, while you arms are behind 1/4 of Kevlar. Silly comment, and either you didn't watch the video, or you are just trying to infulence thoise who haven't watched it.

Next, listen carefully, she declines to give her name and address. PCSO points out that she was riding her bike the wrong way down a one way street. She admits this. S25 PACE comes into play, and she either gives her name, and an address at which a summons can be served, or its Police Station time.

Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

Attitude. Neither side looked good. PCSO chewing gum. That would have not been allowed in my day, but then we only had real Police in my day. His approach wasn't good, but then neither was her response. Had she told all, then I doubt it'd have got to where it did. She decided not to, and let’s be honest here, filming CCTV? Not exactly everyday is it. It would have aroused my interest too, but I wouldn't have bothered for the terrorism act. Oooh shock horror, it's not the only power Police could use to stop photographers. Well, shock to some, not to others.

The Met settling out of court? They usually do, even when they are very right. Simply because it’s cheaper than going through a protracted court case, that even if they win, they wont be able to recover the costs from the other side.
But in summary, neither side was particularly great in this. I’ve been on both sides, and like most of these incidents, if you are photographer, it’s always the Police’s fault. If you are Police it’s always the Photographer. In reality it’s usually both sides that to one extent or another have not acted very sensibly.

It's strange, I am not dark skinned and I am don't always carry my camera, and yet I've been stopped under the Terrorism act, the Road Traffic Acts and PACE. I've not managed the Misuse of drugs act, but then I am 50 bald and don't fit anything like the profile of a druggie.

But my approach to being stopped isn't the same as this woman’s, and I have never had any issues with attitude or with being stopped in its self. When asked I give a full account, I don't prevaricate, and I don't try to wind up the old bill. It always ends painlessly, and it always does for everyone I know that acts the same way.

If your doing nothing wrong then you don't have to talk to let alone acknowledge a Police officer, if they arrest you then general conditions of arrest have to be made, if they haven't stuck to the rule book then its an illegal arrest, its a serious matter to deprive someone of their liberty if they haven't done anything wrong, further more if force is used then those officers involved have assaulted an innocent person and are not protected by their status as Constables. At the end of the day they have committed offences which need to be answered for.

 

[SnapperMatt]

And you're right, to intents and purposes Sect 44 has been taken off statute and will formally be removed once the PoFB '11 gains Royal Assent, although from memory some elements of the vehicle searches will remain.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Donnie]

I think you've missed my point.

I was trying to discuss the difference between a standard stop and search and a stop under S43?

A s43 has to be where the officer has reasonable suspicion and it clearly wasn't so it does appear they threw out the old, "I think you could be a terrorist card" because she didn't simply succumb.

Plus don't pcso's have to be accompanied by a real police officer to do a stop and search even the Met ones?

Donnie
No, you have that wrong I'm afraid. You are searched before arrest under S43. In fact, I don't think there is a power to arrest, unless search is refused.
Once arrested other things come into play, but lets deal with the search it's self, as that was your question.
A camera contains information, and if the reason for stop was relevant to that information, they a police officer has a right to look at it.

 

[tiler65]

What a load of tosh! never heard such apologist twaddle in all my life.

The PCSO's have lied, made the police execute an illegal arrest.

The PCSO's should be facing criminal charges let alone being dismissed. As the arrest is illegal the other officers are on a sticky wicket.

Unfortunately arrogance and cynicism is endemic within the police service these days down the culture.

If your doing nothing wrong then you don't have to talk to let alone acknowledge a Police officer, if they arrest you then general conditions of arrest have to be made, if they haven't stuck to the rule book then its an illegal arrest, its a serious matter to deprive someone of their liberty if they haven't done anything wrong, further more if force is used then those officers involved have assaulted an innocent person and are not protected by their status as Constables. At the end of the day they have committed offences which need to be answered for.

Yawn.

Are the police, PCSO's not allowed to make mistakes just like you and I?

Like I said, I genuinely think the PCSO 'thought' he was quoting the correct procedure. We know different but he cannot know every detail on what is right or wrong therefore he is allowed to make a mistake. The mistake has been rectified so why the big fuss.

Why shouldn't you want to answer questions to a PCSO or a police officer is beyond me especially if you think you have done nothing wrong.

Far to much of this liberty malarkey going about.

 

[Paul Gooch]

Ok, here's my last word on the subject.
Firstly, I suspect that the photographer concerned was trying to provoke the police by taking photos. of CCTV cameras.
My reason for suspecting this is, there is no photographic merit in shooting photos. CCTV cameras and security systems, they have no visual or aesthetic value.
If I were to specifically take photos. of the CCTV cameras\security system at a premises, any kind of premises, I would expect to be questioned by the police.
This is reasonable.
It isn't an infringement of my liberties, it's the police doing their job.

 

[andya700]

I was stood there when the Police officer stopped both of us. His immediate reaction was to go off on the "I know my rights" path. Refusing to co operate and frankly, had I been the PC, he'd have been nicked. Anyway, because he made such a fuss, it lasted far longer than it would, certainly police were with him for 15 minutes, and finished with me within 2. He got searched, and let off for the criminal offence he'd committed.

Three questions:

If you had been the PC, why would you have nicked him, and what would you have charged him with?

What criminal offence had been committed that he was let off?

If a criminal offence had been committed, then what relation does this story bear to the incident in question, where a totally innocent young woman was arrested by the police?

 

[boliston]

Ok, here's my last word on the subject.
Firstly, I suspect that the photographer concerned was trying to provoke the police by taking photos. of CCTV cameras.
My reason for suspecting this is, there is no photographic merit in shooting photos. CCTV cameras and security systems, they have no visual or aesthetic value.
If I were to specifically take photos. of the CCTV cameras\security system at a premises, any kind of premises, I would expect to be questioned by the police.
This is reasonable.
It isn't an infringement of my liberties, it's the police doing their job.

I think they can make quite interesting pictures in some instances. There is even a group on flickr devoted to them http://www.flickr.com/groups/484947@N23/

There are quite a lot of photographic subjects that I don't find amazingly interesting but I don't assume for this reason they have "no photographic merit".

 

[Donnie]

 

[Bernie174]

Rapscallion
He certainly wasn't a friend of mine!
Moving on, yes, perception has a great deal to do with this. I don't know, and I'm not even sure the stats would be collected, how many photographers are stopped or stopped and searched, under all acts that allow a Police officers to do so. But I'd suggest that the those where the Police Officer are wrong are reasonably few. I'd also suggest the number of stops isn't that high, when compared to others anyway.
I accept that many people shout and scream, and thats where my issue with what your perception is lays. Of those that shout and scream, I'd suggest a good number of gilding the Lilly, hence the example I quoted.
Of course those that do get stopped for very good reasons, and it's all amicable, don't tend to go around telling the world, which of course perpetuates the 'Police Officers are always wrong attitude'.
I am not denying that no one had every been treated badly by Police, unfortunately, the perception given by some on here is that no police officer has ever acted reasonably. I do accept that, you quite rightly did caveat your comments with that.
This incident is a good example of yes, I think the woman should have been stopped and asked what she was doing. Filming or photographing CCTV is whatever some think something thats going to raise suspicion. Should that stop be conducted under the terrorism act? It wouldn't be the first thing I'd leap at no. But was she stopped under that act, or was the PCSO just asking her what shes doing? He mentioned the TA, doesn't mean he was acting under it.
Was it a breach of her civil liberty? No, I don't think it was, far from it, he asked her what she's doing and why. A reply to that, given what she was filming would be a reasonable expectation. That answer came after her giving a different answer, that would only to serve to make me more suspicious. Someone has already said that the PCSO used must have been lying because he didn't mention the cycling bit at the start, does the same not apply to her doing the same?
The balance has to be made of liberty against protection, be that of property or life. There's nothing upsetting that balance in asking here.
On the subject of perception, unfortunately suspicion is all about perception, with sometimes some other knowledge thrown in. If you are photographing high end cars, I doubt I'd bat an eyelid. If you had previous for nicking them I'd probably be thinking something else.
If someones photographing general street scenes in suburbia, again, my interest wouldn't have been aroused. If they are sticking a camera under CCTV, some may not like it, but I am going to wonder why. If I am caused to wonder, then not having being issued with ESP, there's only one way I am going to get any answers and thats through a stop.

Donnie
In both cases, PACE or TA, the search can come before arrest. As he didn't actually search, or make that requirement, he's not acted outside of what I'd call reasonable. I've not missed your point, you suggested that viewing images can only come after arrest, thats not the case.
I would consider, if I'd stopped her search would be reasonable.

andy700
1. Official secrets act, photographing a prohibited place. Charge is a matter for the CPS now, not police.
2. Same answer as above, photographing a prohibited place.
3 It is relevant in answer to the perception that Photogs are always right, and are just harassed by Police, which is the wider point being made.
It's also relevant, in that the reality was one thing, what he told others was a different one. Again, in answer to the wider point which is that it's always Police who are aggressive and rude, it's not.
Lastly, it's an example of how our own attitude can make life far easier. He had problems, I didn't, he was rude and aggressive, I wasn't. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[andya700]

3 It is relevant in answer to the perception that Photogs are always right, and are just harassed by Police, which is the wider point being made.
It's also relevant, in that the reality was one thing, what he told others was a different one. Again, in answer to the wider point which is that it's always Police who are aggressive and rude, it's not.
Lastly, it's an example of how our own attitude can make life far easier. He had problems, I didn't, he was rude and aggressive, I wasn't. Draw your own conclusions.

I don't think that anyone on here is suggesting that togs are always right or that police are always wrong, and as for being rude/agressive, the young woman in question was neither.

 

[Donnie]

Donnie
In both cases, PACE or TA, the search can come before arrest. As he didn't actually search, or make that requirement, he's not acted outside of what I'd call reasonable. I've not missed your point, you suggested that viewing images can only come after arrest, thats not the case.
I would consider, if I'd stopped her search would be reasonable.

So you're basically saying any police officer or PCSO can suspect anyone of terrorism and stop and search them

 

[steveo_mcg]

Photographers may get hot under the collar about this but try being Black or Asian in some parts of the UK. Equally going about their legal business but stopped and searched and I'd be willing to bet at a much higher incident rate.
There is no need to cooperate with the police but it will certainly make things go a lot smoother, manners are a very simple social grease.
The PCSO may have been being an officious bully but cooperating short of deleting her images would likely have diffused the whole situation before it became one.

 

[gnirtS]

Firstly, I suspect that the photographer concerned was trying to provoke the police by taking photos. of CCTV cameras.

I can't see the logic in that at all. If you want to provoke the police there are far better methods.

My reason for suspecting this is, there is no photographic merit in shooting photos. CCTV cameras and security systems, they have no visual or aesthetic value.

100% of photography is subjective and not everything is done for artistic merit. I can think of several reasons why you'd want a cctv camera, set of traffic lights or anything else on photos for projects.
There is no "art police". I see nothing aesthetically pleasing at all about black and white or soft focus shots but admit that other people do. I have no need to photograph CCTV camera but equally can see why someone people need or want to. Above all, its not illegal. You're just as entitled to take a photo of those as you are taking a photo of a mountain or the sea!

If I were to specifically take photos. of the CCTV cameras\security system at a premises, any kind of premises, I would expect to be questioned by the police.

If they've got nothing else to do then sure they can talk. If they're friendly and polite then i'd probably answer. If someone comes up with an aggressive "what are you doing" then by default im telling you nothing as i legally don't have to.

The people in question here with the plastic PCSOs anyway. Not police, not police trained and generally utterly useless in most of their roles and have a well established reputation for being useless.

 

[merlinonline]

Yawn.

Are the police, PCSO's not allowed to make mistakes just like you and I?

Like I said, I genuinely think the PCSO 'thought' he was quoting the correct procedure. We know different but he cannot know every detail on what is right or wrong therefore he is allowed to make a mistake. The mistake has been rectified so why the big fuss.

Why shouldn't you want to answer questions to a PCSO or a police officer is beyond me especially if you think you have done nothing wrong.

Far to much of this liberty malarkey going about.

Are you a troll?

Police officers are taught that they can approach any member of the public in the street but there is nothing to say that the member of the public has to speak to them, if they are doing nothing wrong! You can't get arrested for not speaking to the police, in fact one of the PCSO's tricks is to wind people up and cause an argument then claim they have been threatened which has happened in this case.

If anything the PCSO/police in this case are guilty of Public Order Offences namely causing Harassment, Alarm and Distress. just because someone wears a uniform does not mean they are above the law.

 

[merlinonline]

#1 If they've got nothing else to do then sure they can talk. If they're friendly and polite then i'd probably answer. If someone comes up with an aggressive "what are you doing" then by default im telling you nothing as i legally don't have to.

#2 The people in question here with the plastic PCSOs anyway. Not police, not police trained and generally utterly useless in most of their roles and have a well established reputation for being useless.

#1 Totally agree with you here

#2 PCSO's are a complete and utter waste of money, cause more problems then they solve

 

[HMansfield]

So you're basically saying any police officer or PCSO can suspect anyone of terrorism and stop and search them

They used to. Section 44 allowed the stop without the need for reasonable grounds, and as such was being wheeled out as a "back up" when no other offence could be considered.

This is largely why it was repealed.

Section 43 (still in use) requires an officer to reasonably suspect that the person is an actual, bona fide, about to blow something up, terrorist.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Of course those that do get stopped for very good reasons, and it's all amicable, don't tend to go around telling the world, which of course perpetuates the 'Police Officers are always wrong attitude'.

Hi Bernie, if you take a look at the video i embedded above by the London Street Photography Festival, i think you'll see that the police portrayal was very positive, and that may surprise some that see these videos as anti-police.

Far to much of this liberty malarkey going about.

Isn't it such a poison! How dare people expect liberty in this country of all places...

 

[cyclamens]

Your question to tiler65

Are you a troll?

No - he just likes to wind people up - but has a very valid point.

Not relevant to the legalities of the thread, but:

I have been stopped numerous times by Mr Plod including Traffic and I always try to comply with their questions and often enjoy a chat with the 'Plastic' versions.

But then I respect them and their job.

There are always idiots in any line of work - don't make it right, it's just a fact.

There are always idiots looking to create problems - again just a fact.

Perhaps being less confrontational is an answer? Perhaps the 'It's my right' attitude prevailing these days is a contributory cause?

Having a chip on one's shoulder will not help - from any side.

It takes two to tango.

I got stopped once when I lived in France - by two of the best looking women Police Officers I have seen and was breathalized. Did I make a stupid comment? Was I awkward? Was I confrontational? No..............and I got two lovely smiles and went on my way. (Sorry for the possibly sexist connotation).

Mind you.........they both had bloody guns

IMO attitude is an important factor which will either diffuse or aggrivate a situation.

Both were wrong in this case.

 

[tiler65]

Are you a troll?

I have been on this site for 6 years and this is the 1st time I have been accused of that, I am not sure what to think of such a statement.

The facts are that the PCSO got it wrong and the event was duly put right in a courtroom. Why the big bruhahah and mudslinging regarding the police and PCSO. Now if you want this sort of thing to disappear then if you read my earlier posts about education for the PCSO about what is right & wrong then we should be seeing less and less of these scenarios.

BUT

We also have to allow the authorities to try and do their best in their judgement at any particular time. Us being awkward or silent will not help a police stop and ask/search situation. It is no different than having my bag searched when going through customs, in fact you get asked questions by a check-in clerk that you would not answer to a police officer, so why do we do that?

Common sense is all that is needed.

Your question to tiler65

No - he just likes to wind people up - but has a very valid point.

I don't agree there - I actually try and give a balanced view from both sides, if you care to read my posts, you will notice this.

 

[cyclamens]

No - he just likes to wind people up - but has a very valid point.

I don't agree there - I actually try and give a balanced view from both sides, if you care to read my posts, you will notice this.

Should I have put a smiley on that one?

I do read your posts, (not all it's true), and was agreeing with the quoted one.

[I have also read, I'm sure, statements such as you shouldn't need to use smileys or similar]

 

[Philx1979]

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..

^^^ I agree

 

[tiler65]

Should I have put a smiley on that one?

I do read your posts, (not all it's true), and was agreeing with the quoted one.

[I have also read, I'm sure, statements such as you shouldn't need to use smileys or similar]

Touché Barry.

 

[Bernie174]

Donnie

No Donnie, not only did I not say that, I said nothing even remotely like it. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, don't bother, I've had experts try.

The simply fact is that Police have a number of powers to stop search and detain,you may not like it, and if so address your comments to Parliament, they make law, Police just use whats there.

Before you do though, be careful what you wish for, there's numerous examples where stop and search has prevented crime or resulted in people being arrested for very serious offences, Yorkshire ripper being an example. You could also think what would happen if your camera kit was nicked, and Police couldn't stop someone seen 5 minutes later with what appears to be the same camera kit you just lost, simply because you don't like people with cameras being stopped.

merlinonline

Be very careful how you phrase things. No, you don't have to speak to anyone. But if a Police officer has reasonable grounds to stop you, then you'd be ill advised, no matter how innocent you are to ignore it.
Stop and Search is more often used to eliminate people. So for example, your wearing red jacket minding your own, walking along the road. 2 streets away, 5 minutes ago, Mrs Smith was mugged and her pension nicked, by a man wearing a red jacket, vaguely matching your description. Yes, you have done nothing wrong, but how are the police officers that see you to know that? You decide to say nothing, and carry on, what do you think is going to happen?
In case you're in doubt, your going to get nicked. Yep, you can sue and good luck with that, you wont be the first thats tried in exactly the same circumstances and you wont be the first to loose.
There are other circumstances where, no matter if you have done anything wrong, or are suspected of you can get stopped, driving is an example. Police can stop you for no other reason than to check you documents.
You may be happy with what you've said, but writing it on this sort of site is dangerous, someone might be daft enough to believe you! The difference is they have no come back on you when it goes wrong for them.

Rapscallion

Thanks, i will look, but being at work, the firewall wont let me look!

 

[merlinonline]

Donnie

No Donnie, not only did I not say that, I said nothing even remotely like it. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, don't bother, I've had experts try.

The simply fact is that Police have a number of powers to stop search and detain,you may not like it, and if so address your comments to Parliament, they make law, Police just use whats there.

Before you do though, be careful what you wish for, there's numerous examples where stop and search has prevented crime or resulted in people being arrested for very serious offences, Yorkshire ripper being an example. You could also think what would happen if your camera kit was nicked, and Police couldn't stop someone seen 5 minutes later with what appears to be the same camera kit you just lost, simply because you don't like people with cameras being stopped.

merlinonline

Be very careful how you phrase things. No, you don't have to speak to anyone. But if a Police officer has reasonable grounds to stop you, then you'd be ill advised, no matter how innocent you are to ignore it.
Stop and Search is more often used to eliminate people. So for example, your wearing red jacket minding your own, walking along the road. 2 streets away, 5 minutes ago, Mrs Smith was mugged and her pension nicked, by a man wearing a red jacket, vaguely matching your description. Yes, you have done nothing wrong, but how are the police officers that see you to know that? You decide to say nothing, and carry on, what do you think is going to happen?
In case you're in doubt, your going to get nicked. Yep, you can sue and good luck with that, you wont be the first thats tried in exactly the same circumstances and you wont be the first to loose.
There are other circumstances where, no matter if you have done anything wrong, or are suspected of you can get stopped, driving is an example. Police can stop you for no other reason than to check you documents.
You may be happy with what you've said, but writing it on this sort of site is dangerous, someone might be daft enough to believe you! The difference is they have no come back on you when it goes wrong for them.

Rapscallion

Thanks, i will look, but being at work, the firewall wont let me look!

Reasonable grounds...exactly and they had neither here.

All this was about was some numpty PCSO who lets face it has a pretty boring job and needs the kudos (in their eyes) of getting someone (anyone) arrested. The Prevention of Terrorism Act is often used for a fishing trip (which is illegal) for other offences, they had no reason to arrest her so its that old chestnut that she had been using threatening behaviour, they thought they could get away with it because it was a Fixed Penalty Ticket, how many other people get treated this way and are bullied into taking a ticket and don't complain.

Also in this case the officer from Professional Standards Department has failed to investigate properly, the MET will probably trot out that it's a "procedural error".

All in all its not looking good for the officers concerned.

 

[Bernie174]

Merlin
Reasonable grounds? As I said, if it were me, then I'd not be messing about with The Terrorism Act (POT was not renewed years ago, it had to be renewed annually, hence it's full name had Temporary Provisions in it).
I would have stopped to account, in the first instance, and reasonable grounds are not required for that, any more than they are required for saying hello to Mrs Miggins outside her pie shop. Her initial silly replies would have made me a lot more unhappy with her activity, and while I accept that being unhappy isn't the same as she is guilty of something, thats not the point, it just makes her activity more suspect. OK, she later came up with her real reasons, but just cause she says something, doesn't make it true, and I'd be asking myself why she didn't say that in the first place.
As for the PCSO in question. People are leaping to conclusions. "He was on a fishing trip", really? I don't agree. We don't know how all this came about, was it he saw, or was it he was called too? Until you know that the accusation of fishing trip's a bit unreasonable.
The rest of your comments about PCSO's in general, I agree with. They are policing on the cheap, and it's pointless putting someone who's had insufficient training, and who is recruited on far lower standards than a PC is.
Neither of us where there for the events that happened later, so it's hardly fair to anyone to comment on what may or may not have happened. Even the Guardian doesn't do that, and they are famed for not worrying about writing anything anti Police they can get away with.
The same goes for PSD, who I regard as even lower pond life than PCSO's. I doubt any PSD officer would pass up any opportunity to enhance his promotion prospects by showing a PC or PCSO as a body.
The IPCC disagree with them often, and in most cases the IPCC end up doing so wrongly.

 

[Georges]

I am always very suspicious when people post these kind of videos. 99% has the hallmark of a setup. watching the video from the beginning,it is obviously a setup. roughly it goes like this: p = police s=student

p- can i ask what are you filming?
s- why not
p- for any reason at all/
s- no just for fun
p- so you are basically filming for fun?
s- yes
p- I don't believe you
s- no!!! (laughing)
p- Can I see what are you filming/
s- No, you don't have the right to do that/

here the police is explaining some of the reasoning why he is asking, there are terrrorists etc..

s- so you think i am a terrorist
p- i never said that. if you rewind your film you will see I never said that

blah blah

s- I am an artist
p- any id?
s- I don't think you have the right to ask me

at this point I lost interest in her case.

Yes attitude will get you nowhere. there was nothing wrong if she showed and explained from the start what was she doing. Also, instead of saying when asked about her id "you don't have the right to ask me that" and explained to them she is not carrying any (although I find it hard to believe she does not carry anything on her, not even a cash machine card.)

You want respect you have to show respect. I think the police was polite at the start and asking reasonable questions and it is her attitude and dodgy answers that inflamed the situation.

At this point they used the bicycle excuse; mind you she did not question it as they were right.

A this point she says, come on don't fine me I am a student, just because you don't like me. The police never said that and again he explained her that she keep saying that.

He explained to her why she was arrogant in her answers. when i asked you why you were filming, you said just for fun and now you are saying you are a student, you are doing an art project which you did not tell me from the start. then the officer says if you told me this from the start we will not be in this situation.

After that we only have her account of what happened; at the least on the video. she claims the builders are witnesses, well I am sorry the builders did not hear anything; they just saw the arrest.

the reaction on both side were exaggerated and I believe her answers at the start were the contributing factors.

It has nothing to do with colour, nationality or accent.

I am a brown man with a beard and army cut hair and non English as you can tell from my grammar. . I get stopped at every airport I pass through, UK, Paris, USA,Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Russia, Norway etc... does it bother me/ not a single bit. The important point I am cooperative and give them no reason to be rude to me. Yes there are people like me who commits stupid act of violence against civilians. Being polite and cooperative is my way of eliminating myself.

I got stopped in London few time at Hyde park, Big ben,and the palace etc.. and few places in little villages around Swindon. Does it bother me? Not a single bit. Here is hardest conversation I had with a policewoman.

P- excuse me, what are you doing here~? (Wootton Bassett alleys and square)
me- i am taking photographs of streets and old buildings.
p- why/
me- I am just trying to improve my photography and study how ambient light affect my picture. (now at this stage,she had a blank look on her face). SO I continued to explain and showed her my pictures and which one were correct and which were horrible and dark).
P- any ID on you?
me - I have my driving license in the car and on me I have credit cards if you are interested. (I offered my credit card to her).
p- where do live?
me- swindon.
P- why when I take pictures at home they come out orangy?
me- explained WB and modes and also also to use flash.

Personally, I am glad they stop and ask questions and they are not as horrible (perhaps I did not meet one yet) as some like to make them. It saved many lives and I do have children who travel with me occasionally and I want them to be safe. Yes I do look like a terrorist and yes I carry a powerful media. My camera which has a lot of potential for terrorist activity.

carrying a camera does not give you the right to be treated differently than anyone else.

Being arrogant and smart ass will get you in trouble any where in the world, whether with the police or ordinary people.

RESPECT ...

 

[specialman]

I wonder how many of the TP membership have been stopped, searched, arrested (delete as appropriate) in the last year as a result of their photographic activities?.....

 

[Donnie]

Donnie

No Donnie, not only did I not say that, I said nothing even remotely like it. If you're going to try and put words in my mouth, don't bother, I've had experts try.

The simply fact is that Police have a number of powers to stop search and detain,you may not like it, and if so address your comments to Parliament, they make law, Police just use whats there.

Not trying to put words in your mouth at all so you don't need to get all defensive, I'm trying to see exactly what the "workflow" is for a PCSO being able to legally stop me and search my images :shrug: but I don't seem to be getting a straight answer from you.

Before you do though, be careful what you wish for, there's numerous examples where stop and search has prevented crime or resulted in people being arrested for very serious offences, Yorkshire ripper being an example. You could also think what would happen if your camera kit was nicked, and Police couldn't stop someone seen 5 minutes later with what appears to be the same camera kit you just lost, simply because you don't like people with cameras being stopped.

Ummmmmmmm I'm not saying that I am anti stop and search at all, again I'm simply focussing on the scenario of this photographer and how it can pertain to other photographers.

merlinonline

Be very careful how you phrase things. No, you don't have to speak to anyone. But if a Police officer has reasonable grounds to stop you, then you'd be ill advised, no matter how innocent you are to ignore it.

I think that's where a lot of people have the issue though "reasonable grounds". It's very very subjective on both sides.

 

[Donnie]

I wonder how many of the TP membership have been stopped, searched, arrested (delete as appropriate) in the last year as a result of their photographic activities?.....

Not been stopped as such in the last 12 months as I was static already at 3am with tripod out etc to take a shot for the local camera club competition

Cop car came past twice then decided to see what I was up to, no problem with that, soon as they saw the tripod etc and I offered to show them the pics they were grand and moved on.