- Messages
- 231
- Name
- Fred Dawson LRPS
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Photographers issue plea to end 'hostile' public searches under anti-terror laws. Report
Signed letter
Signed letter
plea to end 'hostile' public searches
- Thread starter Fred Dawson
- Start date
- Messages
- 1,527
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed 100%
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
no it hasn't. Seven police officers to question one tog, or 6 to arrest and question an Italian student for example - no dummies spat on either occasion but just a polite refusal to show ID which in either case they weren't required to carry or show.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 10,037
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Some believe that they have a right not to be hassled by the law enforcement agencies and to some point I guess this is true. However, looking at it from the other side, why wouldn't anybody give proof of ID if they had nothing to hide ?
I get searched fairly regularly at Aldgate East Station on my way home from work - not a big deal, I'd rather they caught somebody before they committed an offence than after it.
What is annoying is that those that are meant to enforce the law, do not understand the laws themselves, which is what generally causes people to start throwing their toys out of the pram......
Steve
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
because you're not legally required to carry or show it maybe? - if there is a genuine need for ID cards in this country then legislate for it. If not then you could view asking for it and mis representing your legal rights to do so as equally antagonistic.
As for showing id to a security guard - they are just members of the public same as you and I, and outside of their place of work they have no more rights then you and I - I wouldn't show them my ID any more then I'd show it any other member of the public.
And you can do all that and still be polite
Hugh
- Messages
- 6,253
- Name
- Sean
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't mind telling them what I'm doing and why, but why should I tell them who I am if I'm not doing anything wrong?
It's the principal. If I was trespassing or acting suspiciously (hiding my camera or whatever) then that's fair enough. But I don't believe that simply holding your BIG camera, in plain sight is warrant for a search under anti-terrorism laws.
It's the principal. If I was trespassing or acting suspiciously (hiding my camera or whatever) then that's fair enough. But I don't believe that simply holding your BIG camera, in plain sight is warrant for a search under anti-terrorism laws.
- Messages
- 1,094
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How many people here always carry ID with them anyway?
- Messages
- 1,527
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Showing ID doesn't mean having an ID card. It just means showing something to say who you are. Whats wrong with showing it and having a civil conversation along the lines of 'yes of course you can see ID but I'm interested to know why you want to'. What habve you lost? You certainly havent lost your liberty. You have a choice to show it or not but the choice you make determines how people think of you.
I think the law gets it wrong a lot of the time but making it more difficult for the police isn't going to help.
I think the law gets it wrong a lot of the time but making it more difficult for the police isn't going to help.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
but the point is at present you're not required to carry anything that says how you are - and you don't have to show it. Whats wrong the respecting that right instead - you're not actually doing anything supsicous by taking a photo.
To me the worry is when the police say that one group of society (in this case photographers) should carry ID. Where then does the line get drawn, a certificate for your camera, or a badge on your clothes so they can identify you at a distance? what about other groups in society, people in red jumpers for example, ? or on other more worrying grounds? you set a very dangerous precendent when you ask one group to carry ID.
I think also the police at present risk losing the support of the public. Getting it wrong is not OK for them it may not help not to support them in getting it wrong, but at the same time it will help a heap less when the completely lose respect from all
Hugh
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
chance would be a fine thing
but yes and when I lived in the US a few years ago I got 'carded' regularly (more due to Boston police's attitude to the drinking laws over there then my youthful good looks) 
.
- Messages
- 3,336
- Name
- Clarke Kent ;)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
chance would be a fine thing
So you'd happily show ID to a complete stranger working in a pub/bar (not a legal requirement either) but not a law enforcement officer/security guard?
It's an interesting stance, I must admit.
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, because they have something that I want and are perfectly entitled to refuse it to me.
A security guard/police officer has nothing that I want.
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
When refusing to cooperate becomes an arrestable offense get back to me.
- Messages
- 3,336
- Name
- Clarke Kent ;)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would suggest you may wish to check up on the law if you want to avoid arrest in the future!
Edited to add: If this is your attitude toward a fellow poster on a forum in a debate, then I don't hold out much hope for you when dealing with the police.
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would suggest you may wish to check up on the law if you want to avoid arrest in the future!
Which law precisely? If an officer has reasonable grounds to arrest me then he is more than entitled to do so, and I have the legal right to silence. I can choose to explain my actions.
If an officer has no grounds for suspicion then I can completely blank him and he should deal with it. I'm not saying I would, I'm saying I can.
My attitude in this particular debate is directed at the general apathy towards the erosion of rights or liberties of the British public. If you read my post again you will note there is no trace of ill feeling towards you, though you may have read it that way due to the nature of the subject.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Its an interesting way of looking at it and I knew where you were going when you asked - but I'm sure you know you are manipulating what I'm saying a little
although showing id is not a legal requirement in a bar, in the UK you do need to be 18 to buy alcohol and showing id to prove that is not unreasonable, nor has it ever been.The last time I looked you didn't have any age or other ID related issues with taking a photo or acting in an ordinary way in public, there are no age or other restrictions I'm aware of doing so and you don't need to carry id.
Now my turn to ask you a question - a more serious one, where would you draw the line
1. Carrying ID to take photos?
2. A licence to use your SLR?
3. A badge to be displayed when you carry your DSLR (not any camera)?
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with the questions
Hugh
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Same argument involving the same people all with thier own differing views. Agree to disagree and go for a beer or summat...........
Would love to, but unfortunately liberty is one of the few issues on which I can't refuse an argument. I find the apathy of the public at large frightening, it boils down to "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", a mentality I hate.
It's mi only vice guv, honest.
- Messages
- 3,336
- Name
- Clarke Kent ;)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Its an interesting way of looking at it and I knew where you were going when you asked - but I'm sure you know you are manipulating what I'm saying a little
Wasn't trying to manipulate what you said, sorry if it seems that way. It was simply a point in relation to your resistence to showing a police officer your ID as it wasn't a legal requirement to do so.
Now, whilst I agree concerning the 18 or over law in relation to purchasing alcohol, you are not legally required to show ID when asked in a pub. You can refuse, and leave. However, the fact that you are quite willing to do so because it suits you was the point I was trying to make.
I can and, to be honest, I always have ID on me of some description, so I would have no problem producing it when asked.
- Messages
- 3,336
- Name
- Clarke Kent ;)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Failure to cooperate with police officers going about their duties can, in certain circumstances, be construde as obstruction and, as such, becomes an arrestable offence.
- Messages
- 1,527
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
there seems to be a while load of paaranioia amongst togs these days. Some might be justified but I suspect very little.
A doctor may not always give you the right medicine but he does try to help you. Would you refuse to let him help just because he doesn't alwas get it correct?
A doctor may not always give you the right medicine but he does try to help you. Would you refuse to let him help just because he doesn't alwas get it correct?
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can be charged with obstruction of justice for hindering an official investigation, but there is no legal requirement (unless ordered by a court) to co-operate.
I fail to see how is that relevant here since there is no suspicion of a crime unless a perfectly legal activity is now to be regarded as suspicious.
- Messages
- 3,336
- Name
- Clarke Kent ;)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Obstruction of a constable in the exercise of his (or her) duty is punishable with anything up to 1 month's imprisonment. There is no requirement for the obstruction to be during an official investigation as you put it.
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Surely a non-sequiter. If you wish to phrase this question and make it apt a better example would be "would you object if a doctor forced you to take a vaccine", or similar.
The issue is one of the restriction of liberty, not the active seeking of a service.
That's the same point the bar example above also falls down on, the analogy is poor since it involves the person actively seeking a service/goods from another and being required to do certain things in order to acquire that service/those goods.
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
And again, which part of that is relevant to the discussion here? Refusing to give your name and details does none of the above.
Attached link, obstructing a constable
http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-15.html
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd not taken any offence and wasn't worried at all by it, please don't apologise
.One of the other ways of looking at it would be its also a more sensible way of looking for ID, if somebody looks 17 they'll be carded. I'm afraid I look in my late 30's so its being a long time since I was asked for ID.The ID & liberty thing is only one of my two problems with this issue - I'd believe I behave in a lawful open manner in public and want to continue to be free to do so, but I have a far bigger problem with being told by the police I'm now part of a group they regard as people who should be carrying ID. Although I joked about people in red jumpers earlier there is some very dangerous precedent historically about telling one group of people they should carry ID.
I've no issue supporting the police stopping and questioning suspicious behaviour at all, although I do think (and APCO and other groups have said this) that the way the police are behaving on this issue risks undermining the support they need from the public and thats something very hard to get back.
Hugh
- Messages
- 1,527
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Squark I think that is the whole point. The officers in question do have suspicion and that is why they stop people. The problem is they are suspecting us of crimes that don't exist but that is down to mis-communication by their superiors.
It's relative isn't it? We know we're guilty of nothng. The officer needs to find out if that's true but he's trying to pull a splinter from is finger when it doesn't exist. Our task then is to make him take a closer look at his finger but he won't do that if we make the pain worse.
i think I need another drink
It's relative isn't it? We know we're guilty of nothng. The officer needs to find out if that's true but he's trying to pull a splinter from is finger when it doesn't exist. Our task then is to make him take a closer look at his finger but he won't do that if we make the pain worse.
i think I need another drink
- Messages
- 3,336
- Name
- Clarke Kent ;)
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd get you one Andy, but the barmaid wants to see my ID but I refuse to show it to her as it is my civil liberties at stake here!
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
thats a really bad analogy - but if my doctor repeatedly got things wrong then I'd change doc's fairly quickly
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd get you one Andy, but the barmaid wants to see my ID but I refuse to show it to her as it is my civil liberties at stake here!
its ok - I'll buy the round, but when the barmaid sees this mug she'll be sensible & realise there's no way I'm underage
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Actually that isn't a bad summary. The question is one of reasonable grounds for suspicion. To be honest the photography issue isn't my main concern here, though I think it's wrong that togs get stopped for taking photos from public spaces, a perfectly legal activity with the implication that further legal activity is also suspicious (driving a car, walking down the street?).
My issue is with the attitude and actions of the police officer once a person becomes uncooperative. Being uncooperative is not reasonable grounds for suspicion and yet is treated to be so by the police. It is this which I rail against. In the situation I would probably throw my driving license at them, but thats not the point. The point is that I shouldn't have to, and they shouldn't react to the fact that I didn't provide the information.
My issue is that this is the first (or one of the first few) steps towards a police state and I am genuinely concerned at where it ends.
- Messages
- 1,527
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But it seems that you think the police are nothing but a pain in the arse and you're forgetting they actually have a purpose and generally do a good job that a lot of other mortals wouldn't want to do.
Fine to be uncooperative but do it in good humour. I've been stopped late at night before and asked to wait with an officer while a car went off to pick up a victim to come and identify me. I stood in the street with the copper for half hour during which time I assured him I was guilty of nothing to whihc he replied that he was pretty sure I wasn't because of my attitude but he had to go through the motions. Needeless to say when the crime victim arrived he confirmed I wasn't the person responsible for throwing a chair through the window of his pub! But it ended with a hand shake from the police and an acknowledgement from me that I know they were just trying to do their job and they need to cover all the bases.
I could have said no I wasn't going to wait. I could have stayed there and argued. Would that have made them less suspicious? I think not. Did I give up my liberty? No I dont think so. I enjoyed a chat with a copper who understood it was a pain for me to be waiting there.
I would rather be stopped now and then than think the police stopped taking any interest in what people are doing. At some point someone needs to publish figures showing how many of the photographers that are stopped are actually convicted of something. Perhaps that will demonstrate that the efforts of a few misguided officers are being concentrated in thw wrong place
Fine to be uncooperative but do it in good humour. I've been stopped late at night before and asked to wait with an officer while a car went off to pick up a victim to come and identify me. I stood in the street with the copper for half hour during which time I assured him I was guilty of nothing to whihc he replied that he was pretty sure I wasn't because of my attitude but he had to go through the motions. Needeless to say when the crime victim arrived he confirmed I wasn't the person responsible for throwing a chair through the window of his pub! But it ended with a hand shake from the police and an acknowledgement from me that I know they were just trying to do their job and they need to cover all the bases.
I could have said no I wasn't going to wait. I could have stayed there and argued. Would that have made them less suspicious? I think not. Did I give up my liberty? No I dont think so. I enjoyed a chat with a copper who understood it was a pain for me to be waiting there.
I would rather be stopped now and then than think the police stopped taking any interest in what people are doing. At some point someone needs to publish figures showing how many of the photographers that are stopped are actually convicted of something. Perhaps that will demonstrate that the efforts of a few misguided officers are being concentrated in thw wrong place
W
whiteflyer
Guest
Its an interesting way of looking at it and I knew where you were going when you asked - but I'm sure you know you are manipulating what I'm saying a little
The last time I looked you didn't have any age or other ID related issues with taking a photo or acting in an ordinary way in public, there are no age or other restrictions I'm aware of doing so and you don't need to carry id.
Now my turn to ask you a question - a more serious one, where would you draw the line
1. Carrying ID to take photos?
2. A licence to use your SLR?
3. A badge to be displayed when you carry your DSLR (not any camera)?
I'm sure you can see where I'm going with the questions
Hugh
Yes you should also have to wear an arm band stating whether you shoot Canon or Nikon.
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Not at all, I think many officers do a great job. I play golf most weekends with a police officer and have had discussions with him on the same subject.
I don't see this as an appropriate analogy. A crime had been committed, you were a suspect. I agree with you that many police officers are excellent judges of character. Similar story, I once went fishing and forgot to take my rod license with me. A representative of the environment agency came around checking licenses (first time I've seen that actually), and of course I didn't have mine. He was great, we had a chat for about half an hour about fishing and what not. He took my details and gave me a producer as required by his job, and just as he was leaving I said to him "look, in all seriousness, how do you know I gave you the right details, I could have given you any old details". His reply was that he knew within 10 seconds of meeting us (there were two of us) that we were genuine and that he had means at his disposal to check up on ID should the need be required. Simple resolution, I got home and sent off my license details and never heard another peep.
Again, possible crime committed, no qualms about co-operation.
In the long run I might not have a problem with the random stopping of photographers if it is shown that a percentage of those involved in the taking of photos are using them to commit crime, and further, that preventing the taking of those photos would help stop crime. Analogous would be the random stopping of motorists on Christmas eve to prevent drink driving.
As of right now I don't see any such correlation.
However, in both the above scenarios the person stopped as the right not to co-operate, and unless given grounds for suspicion the police should not take things further. As I understand it (and someone can correct me on this) you are not breathalised unless suspected of a driving offense, and being argumentative does not constitute suspicion.