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

My 2pence worth.

In relation to the amount of terrorist searches amounting to no direct arrests, that number is high on paper granted. However in comparison with 'other' offences the police can legally search you for (Drugs under the misuse of drugs act, stolen goods under P.A.C.E section 1 and going equipped etc etc) the numbers would be far far greater (albeit with a slightly higher arrest result granted but say no more than 10% ratio?) and these powers are used with grounds and other factors coming into play (more so than what the section 44 powers required....which in comparison was no different to that of the pre Brixton riots sus search powers!) What statistic would be interesting is what % of those 100,000 ended in either arrest or a person bein reported for an offence when items were then found during the s.44 search. The public would not give two hoots if you searched Mr Smith on Whitehall for s.44 and he turned out to actually have a kilo of Charlie on him....That would be fine. Nobody would say 'Oh how terrible the poor man was being searched as a possible terror suspect then his little bag of drugs got found!'.

I do realise the issues these searches cause for some people (law abiding for example) however how do people feel in say NYC who are subjected to the same treatment from time to time. Given WHY the powers were created I think we would all agree it's for the greater good. But the execution of these in circumstances where someone is innocent have been badly demonstrated by some Police officers.

I think the simple fact is if your asked by a constable of the Queen to show him/her your photos so they can immediately rule you out of being dodgy then help make their day easier and go along with it. Take a stop and account form from them, keep the copy and produce it every time you get stopped again....nearly all cops will avoid repitition (Like you they probably have better things to do!)
 
King Eric said:
Given WHY the powers were created I think we would all agree it's for the greater good.
Click to expand...
Too many freedoms are being lost and excessive powers granted "for the greater good".

I don't agree that it is for the greater good anyway. Still yet to see conclusive evidence that it actually stops terrorism, and the problem in some cases is not just that they stop you and ask to see photos, but that they are stopping some people from taking the photos in certain places or of certain people, in contrary to photographer's rights.

We should not just roll over and accept increasing intrusions into our lives under a false promise of increased safety. It's part of the slippery slope to a police state.
 
King Eric said:
My 2pence worth.

In relation to the amount of terrorist searches amounting to no direct arrests, that number is high on paper granted. However in comparison with 'other' offences the police can legally search you for (Drugs under the misuse of drugs act, stolen goods under P.A.C.E section 1 and going equipped etc etc) the numbers would be far far greater (albeit with a slightly higher arrest result granted but say no more than 10% ratio?) and these powers are used with grounds and other factors coming into play (more so than what the section 44 powers required....which in comparison was no different to that of the pre Brixton riots sus search powers!) What statistic would be interesting is what % of those 100,000 ended in either arrest or a person bein reported for an offence when items were then found during the s.44 search. The public would not give two hoots if you searched Mr Smith on Whitehall for s.44 and he turned out to actually have a kilo of Charlie on him....That would be fine. Nobody would say 'Oh how terrible the poor man was being searched as a possible terror suspect then his little bag of drugs got found!'.

I do realise the issues these searches cause for some people (law abiding for example) however how do people feel in say NYC who are subjected to the same treatment from time to time. Given WHY the powers were created I think we would all agree it's for the greater good. But the execution of these in circumstances where someone is innocent have been badly demonstrated by some Police officers.

I think the simple fact is if your asked by a constable of the Queen to show him/her your photos so they can immediately rule you out of being dodgy then help make their day easier and go along with it. Take a stop and account form from them, keep the copy and produce it every time you get stopped again....nearly all cops will avoid repitition (Like you they probably have better things to do!)
Click to expand...

hmmm...or they could just concentrate on stopping people who are genuinely behaving in a suspicious manner. Just a little reminder - in large part the 1981 riots were caused by police and goverment stopping and searching people at will under the so called 'suss' laws. Now I'm not suggesting for a second the average photographer is going to start chucking petrol bombs, but we have, in our recent history an example of what can and does happen when you start stopping people for no good reason whatsoever.

Only fools don't learn from history
 
King Eric said:
My 2pence worth.

In relation to the amount of terrorist searches amounting to no direct arrests, that number is high on paper granted. However in comparison with 'other' offences the police can legally search you for (Drugs under the misuse of drugs act, stolen goods under P.A.C.E section 1 and going equipped etc etc) the numbers would be far far greater (albeit with a slightly higher arrest result granted but say no more than 10% ratio?) and these powers are used with grounds and other factors coming into play (more so than what the section 44 powers required....which in comparison was no different to that of the pre Brixton riots sus search powers!) What statistic would be interesting is what % of those 100,000 ended in either arrest or a person bein reported for an offence when items were then found during the s.44 search. The public would not give two hoots if you searched Mr Smith on Whitehall for s.44 and he turned out to actually have a kilo of Charlie on him....That would be fine. Nobody would say 'Oh how terrible the poor man was being searched as a possible terror suspect then his little bag of drugs got found!'.

I do realise the issues these searches cause for some people (law abiding for example) however how do people feel in say NYC who are subjected to the same treatment from time to time. Given WHY the powers were created I think we would all agree it's for the greater good. But the execution of these in circumstances where someone is innocent have been badly demonstrated by some Police officers.

I think the simple fact is if your asked by a constable of the Queen to show him/her your photos so they can immediately rule you out of being dodgy then help make their day easier and go along with it. Take a stop and account form from them, keep the copy and produce it every time you get stopped again....nearly all cops will avoid repitition (Like you they probably have better things to do!)
Click to expand...

I think the best response to this is the following quote:-

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
 
And still it goes on.......
This is where a common sense approach has been completely ignored and another good citizen feels alienated and persecuted. Shame on you. Yes the police were acting on the stupidity of a little Napoleon security guard but surely it must have been obvious from the off that no action was required. If anything the police should have had a quiet word with the security guard about being over zealous.


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographer_How_I_became_a_terror_suspect_news_305137.html
 
Last edited:
Gazamonk said:
And still it goes on.......
This is where a common sense approach has been completely ignored and another good citizen feels alienated and persecuted. Shame on you. Yes the police were acting on the stupidity of a little Napoleon security guard but surely it must have been obvious from the off that no action was required. If anything the police should have had a quiet word with the security guard about being over zealous.


http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographer_How_I_became_a_terror_suspect_news_305137.html
Click to expand...

That's a nice little plug for Howard's website, what a fortunate encounter!

As for the police, you just have to feel sorry for them. They're paranoid about terrorists and with good reason. They are responsible if anything goes wrong, they are the one's who will be critisized for not taking action to stop it. And yet they haven't got a clue what a terrorist looks like or how he would behave. Best then, to be on the safe side, to apprehend anyone not following normal behavior. That is, anyone not engaging in the only officially recognized passtime of shopping with their spouse and 2.4 children, dutifully increasing their level of personal debt in order to support the economy and generate extra income for the Treasury. Anyone deviating from this expected behaviour is surely up to no good!
 
Have to say I've been doing this photography malarky for a year now and never been stopped in Liverpool or Manchester.

Been at Media City Uk in Manchester with a few security guards there, but they don't seem to mind photographers at all.

Today, been to Manchester with my 450D and 70-200 lens and walked past quite a few police officers and ones in vehicles and didn't get stopped at all. Maybe it would be different if I had a tripod out or something, but to be fair I haven't ever been stopped.
 
jpwild said:
Have to say I've been doing this photography malarky for a year now and never been stopped in Liverpool or Manchester.

Been at Media City Uk in Manchester with a few security guards there, but they don't seem to mind photographers at all.

Today, been to Manchester with my 450D and 70-200 lens and walked past quite a few police officers and ones in vehicles and didn't get stopped at all. Maybe it would be different if I had a tripod out or something, but to be fair I haven't ever been stopped.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's true that this sort of thing is only news when you have a problem, never when you don't have a problem. Plus things do seem to have improved generally.
 
goldenlight said:
As for the police, you just have to feel sorry for them.
Click to expand...
Not when as in this case, they seem not to know the law.

Although the security guard was in the right to ask him not to take pictures if it was private property and the owner didn't permit photography.
 
goldenlight said:
Certainly can't fault the police in this instance, they have no option but to respond vigerously to this type of report.
Click to expand...
why?

someone's taking pictures - no crime has been committed unless the complainant has evidence of wrong doing they should tell him to take a hike
 
simonw said:
why?

someone's taking pictures - no crime has been committed unless the complainant has evidence of wrong doing they should tell him to take a hike
Click to expand...

Hear hear! I'm really tired of people saying how nice the police were to them when they were taking photos, and how they let them get on with it! As far as I know, photography is not a crime. When we as a society start to feel grateful simply for not being openly persecuted, we're becoming like the frog in the frog soup. Before the poor thing knows it, it's been boiled! I think something very sinister is going on here.
 
simonw said:
why?

someone's taking pictures - no crime has been committed unless the complainant has evidence of wrong doing they should tell him to take a hike
Click to expand...

Quite simply if a member of the public reports what they believe to be a matter of concern to the police, the police have no option but to check it out. If they assumed it was just a harmless photographer and the person making the report was paranoid, and then something did happen because it was a real pervert, they would be fried! the ploice won't know what's really going on until they have checked for themselves. We must remember that although using a camera doesn't automatically mean you are a pervert, using one doesn't automatically mean you're not! Don't blame the police in this type of situation, blame the society which we have become!
 
goldenlight said:
Quite simply if a member of the public reports what they believe to be a matter of concern to the police, the police have no option but to check it out. If they assumed it was just a harmless photographer and the person making the report was paranoid, and then something did happen because it was a real pervert, they would be fried! the ploice won't know what's really going on until they have checked for themselves. We must remember that although using a camera doesn't automatically mean you are a pervert, using one doesn't automatically mean you're not! Don't blame the police in this type of situation, blame the society which we have become!
Click to expand...

So if you are sitting there without a camera and someone reports you looking well dodgy they will react in the same way. I'm sorry but I doubt it.

There should be at leasst some follow up questions before they get the patrol car out.

Why do you think its dodgy sir? being the first one.
 
Last edited:
simonw said:
So if you are sitting there without a camera and someone reports you looking well dodgy they will react in the same way. I'm sorry but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

Of course, what makes you think they wouldn't?
 
simonw said:
So if you are sitting there without a camera and someone reports you looking well dodgy they will react in the same way. I'm sorry but I doubt it.
Click to expand...

other then maybe not asking to see your photos I would of thought they'd react in exactly the same way :shrug:
 
boyfalldown said:
other then maybe not asking to see your photos I would of thought they'd react in exactly the same way :shrug:
Click to expand...


Personally I would hope they would tell the person that it is not an offence to look dodgy and to get a life. OK the last bit is optional.

Not the nine o'clock news anyone?
reasonable grounds for arrest:

"Wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area"
"Walking on the cracks in the pavement"
"Looking at me in a funny way"
" . . . and walking around with an offensive wife !! "
 
simonw said:
Personally I would hope they would tell the person that it is not an offence to look dodgy and to get a life. OK the last bit is optional.

Not the nine o'clock news anyone?
reasonable grounds for arrest:

"Wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area"
"Walking on the cracks in the pavement"
"Looking at me in a funny way"
" . . . and walking around with an offensive wife !! "
Click to expand...

Well for a start, if someone contacted the police saying that someone looked dodgy I'm pretty sure they wouldn't dispatch officers without asking for further information. In these situations, we never know what the police have been told so you can't really say that the police should have told them A,B or XYZ.

And you're not seriously saying that your view of the police is influenced by a 30 year old comedy sketch are you?
 
simonw said:
Personally I would hope they would tell the person that it is not an offence to look dodgy and to get a life. OK the last bit is optional.

Not the nine o'clock news anyone?
reasonable grounds for arrest:

"Wearing a loud shirt in a built-up area"
"Walking on the cracks in the pavement"
"Looking at me in a funny way"
" . . . and walking around with an offensive wife !! "
Click to expand...

simonw said:
The application of common sense :it is not an offence to sit on a bench.
Click to expand...


No but as already pointed out the police do have a duty to investigate if a matter of concern is reported to them by a member of the public, they can of course, use their common in deciding that the reporting member of public is being an ar** when they investigate
 
fabs said:
And you're not seriously saying that your view of the police is influenced by a 30 year old comedy sketch are you?
Click to expand...


Of course not - it was an attempt to lighten the thread which clearly went over your head.
 
simonw said:
The application of common sense :it is not an offence to sit on a bench.
Click to expand...

That's not what you asked. You suggested that if someone was reported but not with a camera that they would be treated differently, implying that the police have some sort of bias against people with cameras.
 
boyfalldown said:
No but as already pointed out the police do have a duty to investigate if a matter of concern is reported to them by a member of the public
Click to expand...

No they have a duty to assess whether it is worth investigating or not and whther an offence has or is likely to have been committed.

I am amazed at the acceptance of the errosion of rights accepted by some in this thread.
 
fabs said:
That's not what you asked. You suggested that if someone was reported but not with a camera that they would be treated differently, implying that the police have some sort of bias against people with cameras.
Click to expand...

Which has been shown to be the case in a number of instances.
 
simonw said:
No they have a duty to assess whether it is worth investigating or not and whther an offence has or is likely to have been committed.

I am amazed at the acceptance of the errosion of rights accepted by some in this thread.
Click to expand...

What rights have been eroded?
 
simonw said:
No they have a duty to assess whether it is worth investigating or not and whther an offence has or is likely to have been committed.

I am amazed at the acceptance of the errosion of rights accepted by some in this thread.
Click to expand...

No acceptance of erosion here thanks - look at my previous posts on this if you still need to be sure (y)

Just how do they make that assessment without investigating though?
 
simonw said:
The right to go about your lawful private business without being stopped and asked what you are up to.
Click to expand...

You've never had the right not to be questioned by a police office if someone has reported you as acting suspiciously.

simonw said:
I would respectively suggest you read through this thread where a number of examples are given.
Click to expand...

No examples in here of where someone without a camera has been treated differently when someone has reported them as being suspicious.
 
Ive had a quick scan through this thread an no one has pointed out that when your name and address is checked out that is recorded on the police computer. Next time you are stopped for your photography and asked have you had any dealings with the police and you say no. Another check will show that check up but not what for and then your on a hiding to nothing.

Its a simple case of not giving your name and address as we have the right to go about your lawful business with out harressment.
 
fabs said:
No examples in here of where someone without a camera has been treated differently when someone has reported them as being suspicious.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you have misread my post.

There are plenty of examples in this thread of people being stopped becasue they had a camera which is the point I was making.
 
simonw said:
I'm sorry you have misread my post.

There are plenty of examples in this thread of people being stopped becasue they had a camera which is the point I was making.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, in the past there have been a substantial number of instances where the police have behaved badly, misunderstood and misused the law. The law itself has been a right shambles and photographers have been treated unfairly and had their rights abused. If you care to read this thread you will see that nobody has been more vociferous or active at a practical level in their condemnation of this than I.

Just lately, however, I do sense that the tide has turned and there has certainly been a change of Government policy. There are still instances being reported but they are becomming more uncommon. It takes time to turn this sort of situation around and of course we must remain vigilant and be prepared to assert our rights when needed.

However, in this particular case I do think the police were in a no-win situation, damned if they did and damned if they didn't. It's all very well speaking up for our rights but we do have to attempt to understand the position of the police and the dilemmas they face, just as much as we expect them to understand our position.

There have been past instances where the polioce have clearly exceeded their authority by attempting to prevent photographers taking pictures, deliberately intimidating them, needlessly conducting a stop and search, unlawfully conviscating cameras and attempting to delete photographs. There is no suggesting that any of that happened here, but if there was I would be the first to complain. It appears to me that in this case the police acted reasonably and did no wrong.

There is still the issue of public perception and paranoia of photography and that unfortunately is a much tougher nut to crack. There's a very fine and delicate line between exercising your rights as a photographer and respecting the sensibilities of anxious parents. Would I defy a police officer trying to prevent me taking photographs of, say, police action at a demonstration and risk arrest? You bet I would! Would I ignore a 6ft 4inch father in a frenzied rage of illogical paranoia? Sadly, I probably wouldn't even attempt to take pictures with children about. That's the real issue and indicative of the sad, suspicious and intolerant society which we have become. I see no answer to that. :(
 
Last edited:
You are mistaken Dune, not every detail of people who talk to officers is recorded on searchable databases. Officers have notebooks you know. Our society has a paranoia both about paedophiles, & about erosion of our civil liberties IMO. It's a balancing act to allow individual freedom, yet protect 'society' from individual wrongdoers. Sometimes the Police may go too far, sometimes offenders get away with offending. Sometimes an individual may take umbridge over Police actions which are quite reasonable & appropriate. If you expect the Police to enforce our laws, then why p!$$ & moan about them doing so. Until they are issued with psychic powers the only way they can investigate is to speak to someone & look at any 'evidence' available. Even then, strangely enough not everyone tells the truth when approached. Relatively easily verifiable are - who are you? Where do you live? Have you ever been in trouble with the Police? Here recidivists may well expose themselves by lies or the truth. Uppity individuals may also fall foul with a bad attitude 'Im not telling you anything' & though being uppity isn't an offence, but may well align you more closely with offenders than the innocent
 
simonw said:
I'm sorry you have misread my post.

There are plenty of examples in this thread of people being stopped becasue they had a camera which is the point I was making.
Click to expand...

well we were discussing the part where you implied that someone reported as suspicious would be treated differently to someone who didn't have a camera. That's what I was asking for examples of.
 
fabs said:
well we were discussing the part where you implied that someone reported as suspicious would be treated differently to someone who didn't have a camera. That's what I was asking for examples of.
Click to expand...

As I say, you misread my post :

my post relates to the last part of yor post implying that the police have some sort of bias against people with cameras

which has been the subject of this thread and where a number of examples have been quoted.
 
simonw said:
As I say, you misread my post :

my post relates to the last part of yor post implying that the police have some sort of bias against people with cameras

which has been the subject of this thread and where a number of examples have been quoted.
Click to expand...

And that statement was in direct relation to the assumption that police would treat someone without a camera differently to someone without one based on a call from a third party to report someone as behaving suspiciously.

This thread was set up as a response to a badly thought up and poorly implemented piece of legislation, not as a direct attack on the police per se. The police have much bigger things to think about other than how they can discriminate against people with cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top