My original post was relevant, it was my experiences with the police. Then when I do reply (I admit with some time lag because I hadnt noticed the reply to my original post) I was attacked by a Troll. His post count does not discount him from making stupid and personal remarks. His original post was to intimidate and humiliate nothing less. The perfect defination of a troll.
If I am not allowed to defend myself why would I want to be a part of a community that actively encourages this sort of bullying? Pick on the new guy, thats all it is bullying, childish comments made to assault and not to contribute to the discussion. Yes I disagreed with the reply to my post but thats part of discussion. What Demilion said was an out and out attack and nothing more, I wouldnt mind but they where not even witty or fun. It would seem that there is no moderation on this forum either people are allowed to attack at will. On the other forums I frequent and moderate on, trolling would not be allowed.
Getting back on track, Goldenlight, you make a good point there. I think this has to do with the attitude of authority figures and the way they treat people. I have never come across your problem but have had many security guards decide that they own the pavement outside a building that they guard as I do a lot of street photography. There is definately a insecurity in society that manifests itself in many ways, unfortunately it is often used to lay suspicion on photographers.
Dune, I never said your original post wasn't relevant.
What followed, from both you and DemiLion was handbags at dawn. The truth seldom lays in extremes, but both of you have adopted extreme positions. Don't worry, that's par for the course on this forum and I must admit to getting hot under the collar myself sometimes, it seems to be what the general atmosphere here does to you. On the other hand, it does lead to lively debate, you can't say it is boring!
Regarding the situation to which you originally referred, I would guess there was maybe a bit of attitude from both you and the police. Depending on the situation I wouldn't say never to give the police some attitude but if you do it's not likely to be a pleasant confrontation. You have to expect that.
There have always been good and bad cops, it's nothing new and not exclusive to how they treat photographers. Going back nearly 40 years to when I was around 18 I remember being with a small group of friends when we were stopped by two policemen on our way home from the pub. They suspected us (wrongly) of petty vandalism and we got the good cop, bad cop routine. The good cop was polite and asking reasonable questions, which we were happy to answer. "Bad" cop aggressively denouned everything we said, liberally interlaced with the "F" and "B" words, which was completely unecessary. We sensed that even his colleague was getting irritated with him and eventually my friend, who was a little bolder than the rest of us, told good cop that we wouldn't answer anymore questions while bad cop was present. Good cop diplomatically suggested his colleague retired to a discreet distance and shortly afterwards the situation was amicably resolved.
That taught me at an early age that it is best to co-operate with the police who are generally reasonable people and essentially on our side. But if you do get a bad one with an attitude problem you don't have to take it, their powers are limited by law, after all.
Returning to the present, the general problems experienced by photographers, particularly in the Met area in recent years, I blame primarily on inept, stupid politicians rather than directly on the police who are, somewhat, caught in the middle. Many have plainly been a little too zealous in applying a pretty badly worded law and have badly mis-interpreted directives from senior officers and in these situations it is right that photographers have stood their ground and insisted upon their rights. Just let's not forget that extremes on both sides are bad.
