They are at it again...

these same MEDIA companys started the paranoia in the first place telling the world that everyone was a p*** or a terrorist :razz:
 
Being Asian, bearded and usually wearing camouflaged parka jacket I'd hate to think what would have happened to me had I been in that position.
 
I think you have to bear in mind the report that Merrill-Lynch made and their own security staff. Once the police established that there was no cause for concern, that was the end of the matter. Details were taken and everyone went their own separate ways. He wasn't searched, his camera wasn't handled, and he wasn't prevented from going about his business.

Police arrive - do nothing = complaint from Merrill-Lynch
Police arrive - do something = complaint from Photographer

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
 
lol. Some might say I'm just asking for trouble... but what's wrong with a camouflaged parka jacket?
 
They should sue Merrill-Lynch for the wasted police time. Hit them in the pocket for "self-policing".

It would be great if a number of photographers took pictures, one at a time for hours :D

Let's face it the 'poll tax' had the moral high ground even though it was breaking the law.

Graham
 
KayJay said:
lol. Some might say I'm just asking for trouble... but what's wrong with a camouflaged parka jacket?
Click to expand...


Nothing, it's the non-white face sticking out the top of it that causes alarm in today's panic-ridden society. Have you considered wearing a hoodie? :naughty:
 
Mmmm, quite a one-sided account of the incident as far as I am concerned. From what I can see from the 'report' he obviously had a bit of an attitude (which Smith has more or less admitted) hence the reason why the police were called. I would wager a pound to pinch of **** that the Bank of America/Merryll Lynch building is considered a high risk target and probably why there was a robust response to the incident.

Many years ago I was in the police in London and then worked as a security consultant (close protection, surveillance/counter surveillance, training etc) both in the UK and overseas and for what it is worth and from a purely personal point of view if anybody took my picture I would want to know why. Admittedly I was working in run down inner-city areas which didn't have a lot of tourists or interesting architecture but my personal safety (and those of my colleagues) was paramount particularly when you consider some of the people we were up against. This followed me into the security consultancy world where often I would be working in a ****-pit country where the threat was much higher and anyone seen taking our picture would be viewed as an overt hostile act. I know you can't compare the situation reported above with my experiences but it might give an insight as how to how our security apparatus sometimes thinks and works.
 
Sounds like the security guards were the only richard heads here. Police did as they were supposed to. It also sounds like that photographer appeared to take an attitude with the police.

I can't see anything wrong with the above incident tbh (apart from the afore mentioned "richards")
 
Just for reference i spent all day yesterday in London taking pictures, a good few hours in the banking district and a while in the law courts area. I also had my camera out and in my hand when travelling on the tube and was snapping away in front of staff a number of times.
I was expecting to get hassle some time or another, but the only person that said anything about my photography was a shoe shine that said he didnt want me taking his picture, ( i was fairly close 10ft or so) he said he didnt want his picture and i said fair enough.

No Security, No Police, No hassle. All day long.

Its really not as bad as they make out.
 
Photo Plod said:
I think you have to bear in mind the report that Merrill-Lynch made and their own security staff. Once the police established that there was no cause for concern, that was the end of the matter. Details were taken and everyone went their own separate ways. He wasn't searched, his camera wasn't handled, and he wasn't prevented from going about his business.

Police arrive - do nothing = complaint from Merrill-Lynch
Police arrive - do something = complaint from Photographer

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Click to expand...


I think that sums it up pretty reasonably.

As someone who has been stopped and questioned by the police/PCSO's several times this year (the latest being last Tuesday in Portsmouth) I fail to see an issue with the actions of the police in this instance.
 
It sounds like the security guards were the ones being arsey.. why the hell should he provide some idiot with a badge his personal details.

Although he could of explained he was a photographer taking some shots, nothing more. Then said but I'm under no obligation to show you ID.

When the police arrived it would have then taken ten seconds to repeat the above and say he wasn't happy to provide mall cops with his personal details.

I can only assume this would have been the end of it?

or is that too much common sense?
 
Came across these :lol:
stevebellif1_071209.jpg

if1.jpg

Steve-Bells-If-...-09.12.-004.jpg

if1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top