Video: From snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect

[scott170]

I'm not quite sure how your experiences of the Omagh bombing come into this, but surely that experience has taught you how important it is to protect people's rights? The modern troubles stemmed from the blatant disregard of such civil rights, in case you've forgotten. It's all very well to talk about exercising 'common sense', but you seem to have forgotten that so-called common sense belongs in the hands of the powerful...

YOU MY FRIEND HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM TERRORISM !! or would you like to throw that away to the right off taking a poxy picture whilst not having to spend 1 min of your time speaking to somebody that has the intention of proctecting the lifes of your family , friends , workmates and those that are standing next to you !!!

 

[fracster]

Many moons ago, in a different place, I would have shot the clown.............

 

[Squawk]

The film demostrates how one unecessarily annoying chap over 9mins of constant annoyance can cause a policeman (who are human too and not inherently more evil than the rest of us) to have a look on his camera and then let him be on his way.

Actually it demonstrates how the police can detain a subject for 9 minutes without grounds to do so, simply because they choose to.

What would your ideal outcome have been, given the annoyingness of the journo

That the policeman knew his job and stopped hassling the photographer without reasonable grounds to do so. That the policeman recognised that a person being annoying is not a violation of any law and is not reasonable suspicion of anything.

In short, that the policeman obeyed the laws he is sworn to uphold, nothing more or less.

 

[Squawk]

YOU MY FRIEND HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM TERRORISM !! or would you like to throw that away to the right off taking a poxy picture whilst not having to spend 1 min of your time speaking to somebody that has the intention of proctecting the lifes of your family , friends , workmates and those that are standing next to you !!!

If you wish to change the law that's fine. The issue here is the law as it stands and the police abusing it.

 

[steve.82]

Actually it demonstrates how the police can detain a subject for 9 minutes without grounds to do so, simply because they choose to.

Disagree, the journo detained himself by acting weird, and police have a habit of looking into people acting weird.

Anyway, more important things to do like sleep, what am I still doing up?!!

 

[Squawk]

Disagree, the journo detained himself by acting weird, and police have a habit of looking into people acting weird.

Anyway, more important things to do like sleep, what am I still doing up?!!

Which part of anything he did was weird? Are you telling me that someone doing what he is legally entitled to do is weird and grounds for suspicion?

 

[PhotoTalk]

YOU MY FRIEND HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED FROM TERRORISM !! or would you like to throw that away to the right off taking a poxy picture whilst not having to spend 1 min of your time speaking to somebody that has the intention of proctecting the lifes of your family , friends , workmates and those that are standing next to you !!!

Hmm ... how come I get the impression you are not really calling me a friend?

Seriously though, it's probably best to try and remain objective in your reading of what's being said on this thread. Nobody is attacking the police here or calling into question their importance in maintaining a civil society. But like everybody else, police actions need to be driven by rational thought...

 

[steve.82]

erm, all of it?

It's legal to shoot a Welshman with a longbow on Sunday in the Cathedral Close in Hereford. Just because it's legal behaviour does not make it normal or justifiable.

 

[Squawk]

erm, all of it?

It's legal to shoot a Welshman with a longbow on Sunday in the Cathedral Close in Hereford. Just because it's legal behaviour does not make it normal or justifiable.

But it does prevent the police from detaining you for doing it, and the lack of suspicion that you have done anything illegal much more so.

That used to apply to a Scotsman with a crossbow on a Sunday in York too I think. I wouldn't advise trying it.

 

[steve.82]

That used to apply to a Scotsman with a crossbow on a Sunday in York too I think. I wouldn't advise trying it.

Haha, no... I'm never going to Scotland or Wales on a Sunday ever again now!

 

[PhotoTalk]

Night all. Been nice reading your responses, but 1am is way past my usual bedtime - especially now that you are all talking weapons.

 

[scott170]

If you wish to change the law that's fine. The issue here is the law as it stands and the police abusing it.

The police are there to protect YOU and every member of the public !! Do you honestly think they do not deter the 1000's of active terrorists in your town , city or country !! If you only knew how blinkered you are being !! a quick conversation with the people trained to spot active intelligence gathering would solve any issues !! Be a grown up gentleman and think about it !! As i said what if YOU were there the day a terrorist decided to commit an unspeakable act only through the intelligence he had gathered at a highly populated area just because the police could not stop him taking his recon photos !! ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE !! if you had any idea of how many of these acts have been stopped then i might entertain your wish of attention !!! FACT we live in an era where terrorism does not discriminate ! THAT INCLUDES YOU !

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Many moons ago, in a different place, I would have shot the clown.............

I don't believe that for one minute, Ade :nono:















You'd still shoot him today

 

[Squawk]

The police are there to protect YOU and every member of the public!!

Quite, they do this by upholding the law. They do that by obeying the law. They do not do this when they act unlawfully. Their actions in this case were unlawful and an abuse of police powers.

Do you honestly think they do not deter the 1000's of active terrorists in your town , city or country !!

If there are 1000 terrorists in my town I will be amazed. Quite frankly if there are 2 I will be amazed. I do not doubt that the police prevent a number of terrorist attacks, I would not like to speculate on the numbers without better information.

If you only knew how blinkered you are being

By wanting the police to abide by the law when conducting enquiries I am being blinkered? Howso?

A quick conversation with the people trained to spot active intelligence gathering would solve any issues

I am good friends with one police officer, frequently spending several hours talking with him on a weekend while playing golf. I am acquainted with many others. I have discussed intelligence gathering at length, though of course not down to specific cases.

Be a grown up gentleman and think about it

I have. I wish for the police to respect and abide by the law when conducting enquiries. If they do not, exactly what are they defending?

As i said what if YOU were there the day a terrorist decided to commit an unspeakable act only through the intelligence he had gathered at a highly populated area just because the police could not stop him taking his recon photos

If the police have grounds for suspicion of anyone then they are perfectly entitled to stop, detain, search and arrest a suspect. Taking photographs is not grounds for suspicion. The day that taking photographs from public space is deemed illegal you will have a point here. That will be a sad day, and it draws nearer every time the police are allowed to abuse their powers in the manner detailed in the article at the start of this thread.

I defend the liberty of the citizens of this country. The law of this country does the same. The threat of terrorism is, in my opinion, insignificant to the penalties should our liberties be removed. Millions have died to preserve our liberties.

!! ITS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE !!

No, its the law. If the police adhere to it, there are no problems.

if you had any idea of how many of these acts have been stopped then i might entertain your wish of attention

If you can identify a single act of terrorism that has been prevented by a police officer asking a member of the public to desist from the legal activity of taking a photograph from a public space then I will concede the point. You can't.

!!! FACT we live in an era where terrorism does not discriminate ! THAT INCLUDES YOU !

We live in an era where the police can abuse their powers without recourse and the public are for the most part accepting it without quarrel.

 

[snoop69]

^^^ ^^^

 

[scott170]

Quite, they do this by upholding the law. They do that by obeying the law. They do not do this when they act unlawfully. Their actions in this case were unlawful and an abuse of police powers.


If there are 1000 terrorists in my town I will be amazed. Quite frankly if there are 2 I will be amazed. I do not doubt that the police prevent a number of terrorist attacks, I would not like to speculate on the numbers without better information.


By wanting the police to abide by the law when conducting enquiries I am being blinkered? Howso?


I am good friends with one police officer, frequently spending several hours talking with him on a weekend while playing golf. I am acquainted with many others. I have discussed intelligence gathering at length, though of course not down to specific cases.


I have. I wish for the police to respect and abide by the law when conducting enquiries. If they do not, exactly what are they defending?


If the police have grounds for suspicion of anyone then they are perfectly entitled to stop, detain, search and arrest a suspect. Taking photographs is not grounds for suspicion. The day that taking photographs from public space is deemed illegal you will have a point here. That will be a sad day, and it draws nearer every time the police are allowed to abuse their powers in the manner detailed in the article at the start of this thread.

I defend the liberty of the citizens of this country. The law of this country does the same. The threat of terrorism is, in my opinion, insignificant to the penalties should our liberties be removed. Millions have died to preserve our liberties.


No, its the law. If the police adhere to it, there are no problems.


If you can identify a single act of terrorism that has been prevented by a police officer asking a member of the public to desist from the legal activity of taking a photograph from a public space then I will concede the point. You can't.



We live in an era where the police can abuse their powers without recourse and the public are for the most part accepting it without quarrel.

The day terrorism enters your life and i pray it does not i will reply to your incoherant rant !! At the end of the day all i ask is that you co-operate with the people that protect you !! Or do you think if the forces did not bother about it , then it will all be fine !!!!!!!! Were you in London on 7/7 or in an airport on the day the twin towers were brought down to the ground with the lost of many lifes ! People behind the scenes are trying to stop such things happening again ! people like the officers in that attention seeking video !! Do you honestly think we are untouchable , the police are not abusing there power !!!! they are trying to save lives !!! one day that could include YOURS !!! Think about it !! all for the sake of a little chat cause you want to take a photo !!

 

[Squawk]

The day terrorism enters your life and i pray it does not i will reply to your incoherant rant !! At the end of the day all i ask is that you co-operate with the people that protect you !! Or do you think if the forces did not bother about it , then it will all be fine !!!!!!!! Were you in London on 7/7 or in an airport on the day the twin towers were brought down to the ground with the lost of many lifes ! People behind the scenes are trying to stop such things happening again ! people like the officers in that attention seeking video !! Do you honestly think we are untouchable , the police are not abusing there power !!!! they are trying to save lives !!! one day that could include YOURS !!! Think about it !! all for the sake of a little chat cause you want to take a photo !!

All I want is for the police to abide by the law while attempting to enforce it. You appear to be advocating the police breaking the law.

Now, kindly retract the accusation of incoherance, or point to any aspect of my post that can be considered as such.

 

[scott170]

All I want is for the police to abide by the law while attempting to enforce it. You appear to be advocating the police breaking the law.

Now, kindly retract the accusation of incoherance, or point to any aspect of my post that can be considered as such.

At what point did the officers in question break the law ?

 

[Laudrup]

The police clearly don't have a clue about the law and spouting things like 'you're filiming in a potentially iconic place!' doesn't mean anything.

Long may the media continue to expose their ignorance.

 

[Laudrup]

Here is a wee spanner in the works !! what if in fact this was a terrorist in the act of gathering inteligence to commit another attack on London ! Dont tut cause it could easily have been !! The officers in this film have a job to do and it is to save peoples lives not to **** you off !! 52 people died on 7/7 and these 3 officers might have been there and witnessed what the acts of terrorism do ! Does this person believe he is so special that he cannot have a courtious conversation with the people that are solely there to protect his life and intrests , I DONT THINK SO !! we are all part off a big team to avoid such things happening again in this country with the potential off hurting you or your loved ones !! Think about it for 2 mins all they want to do is protect , and if you have to take a few mins to explain yourself then so be it ! As i said if this was in fact a terrorist and he was detered by the police response i dont think this person would have complained !! especially if he were standing there pulling the same LOOk AT ME STUNT when the terrorist walks up to the Gerkin with his rucksack full off 50lbs of cemtex !!! THINK ABOUT THAT SCENARIO !! rant over sorry

I'd highly doubt a covert sleeper terrorist cell on a jihad who have been trained in the dark arts of terrorism are going to stand outside the Gherkin with a dslr filming it while security guards shoo them away. If they had 50lbs of Semtex on them then I don't think all the hi-viz jackets and police cyclists in the world could stop them.

It isn't feasible to stop every single person. Photographers should be left well alone to avoid these embarrassing situations as the police clearly aren't reading their own internal memos.

 

[Squawk]

At what point did the officers in question break the law ?

I never said they did. I said it was their duty to upold the law, and that they failed to do so. Detaining someone without grounds for suspiscion is not upholding the law, it is inventing new laws on the spot. It is an abuse of police powers. If he had been arrested it would have been wrongful arrest.

I am unclear as to whether his detention constitutes the police breaking the law, it may or may not be. Since I am not certain I have not said it.

 

[Laudrup]

I don't see the point in all of this 'terrorists will use it for recon' when they and anyone has access to Google Street View which is far superior to anything they could covertly film or photograph.

 

[Fuuudge]

Slightly confused by this section 44 garbage.

If they stop me under section 44 do I have to provide my details or show them images?

It also said in the article that officers made someone delete images, they can't so this can they?

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Slightly confused by this section 44 garbage.

If they stop me under section 44 do I have to provide my details or show them images?

It also said in the article that officers made someone delete images, they can't so this can they?

I don't think you've got much chance of getting stopped under Section 44 up here.....

 

[spaniel]

The man is a total plonker............. why go looking for trouble? It's antagonistic people like this that cause problems for the rest of us. Why carry on fiming? I'm lost for words (which is very unusual!).

Nigel.

 

[andy.m]

I never said they did. I said it was their duty to upold the law, and that they failed to do so.

The principal of what you say is true.

In a democratic society it is important for the people to stand up for their given rights, if you do not, then you have no grounds for complaint when they are taken from you.

But, by this journalists actions, I believe he made himself suspicious and therefore should have been stop/searched.
I believe he was deliberately obstructive which is a crime.

 

[PhotoTalk]

The principal of what you say is true.

In a democratic society it is important for the people to stand up for their given rights, if you do not, then you have no grounds for complaint when they are taken from you.

But, by this journalists actions, I believe he made himself suspicious and therefore should have been stop/searched.
I believe he was deliberately obstructive which is a crime.

Absolutely agree with your first paragraph, but must take issue with the second. On what grounds do you claim he 'made himself suspicious', and who has the right to determine this? You seem to be suggesting security guards should be allowed to make this decision, and that based on their reported suspicions, that the police should then have the right to stop and search...

Not only does the law disagree with you on this, but your fine principle doesn't tally with what you claim should happen in practice. And as for your belief about obstruction, you'll have to explain that a little more. On what point of law are you claiming he committed a crime? I'm genuinely at a loss to understand what you are referring to.

 

[gingerweasel]

At what point did the officers in question break the law ?

At the point they undertook a search of his person - which was an unlawful search and a total missuse of the anti-terrorism act.

There have been previous cases of this where the courts have determined that without 'reasonable' suspision that a terrorist act is about to be committed or is being planned then a stop and search under section 44 is unlawful.

..

 

[andy.m]

Phototalk:
All fine points and partial agreement is better than none it used to be enough to hang a man!

But, the fundamental point you overlook is that the security guard did not make the decision, he felt that the matter was above his station hence he called for the Police.

Whatever the point of law in question, however you want to dress it up, the guy was being a plank and more than that, deliberately.
He was questioned repeatedly throughout the footage as to what he was doing and why.
Now, here's a thought, he could have said, " I work for the gaurdien (sic) and I'm doing a piece on <insert valid reason here>". Architecture, Foster whatever.
By choosing the aloof, obnoxious route he was in fact being obstructive.
This point is highlighted when he absolutely **** himself when faced with a genuine arrest, he knew he was pushing and when the authorities push back (as they sometimes have to do) it tends to be with more force due to the totalitarien nature of the defence of Her Majesty's Subjects.

 

[StewartR]

I don't normally contribute to - or even bother to read - threads like this.

But I must say I'm impressed with the restrained and articulate way Squawk has made his point.

Yes, this guy was a plonker. Yes, he was trying to provoke the police into a reaction. Yes, he might have been acting strangely.

But at the end of the day, if the police want to wheel out Section 44 then they have to have reasonable suspicion that the guy intends to commit a terrorist act, and with the best will in the world it's hard to see how they could get there. That's all it's about, really.

 

[Steve Smith]

But I must say I'm impressed with the restrained and articulate way Squawk has made his point.

Me too. He is talking sense and making most of the points I would like to make but is expressing them better than I could.

There is nothing wrong with the current laws or the powers the police have but they need to be used correctly, legally and with common sense.


Steve.

 

[DelK]

I don't normally contribute to - or even bother to read - threads like this.
<snip>
But at the end of the day, if the police want to wheel out Section 44 then they have to have reasonable suspicion that the guy intends to commit a terrorist act, and with the best will in the world it's hard to see how they could get there. That's all it's about, really.

Agreed. The issue that's been ignored (unless i missed something?) is the security guard's role in this?
The entire episode hinges on the police believing the security guard's complaint about "suspicious" behaviour. That is their basis for suspicion.
I don't think it's the police that need educating in this instance...

 

[Foggy]

Now, here's a thought, he could have said, " I work for the gaurdien (sic) and I'm doing a piece on <insert valid reason here>". Architecture, Foster whatever.

But this is the whole point as far as I am concerned. He was doing nothing wrong and should not have to justify what he was doing.

Where does this all stop. It is OK for an officer to stop you because it only takes 30-60 seconds out of your day. What about when you are out for an afternoon and that becomes 2,3 or 4 or more officers stopping you? What about if they ask if you have other compact flash cards and want to see what is on those? What about when they want to check your bag to see what you are carrying? Especially that 'suspicious' large tripod bag you have.

As said in the letter from the letter by Andrew Trotter:

"Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers. "

 

[snoop69]

This point is highlighted when he absolutely **** himself when faced with a genuine arrest, he knew he was pushing and when the authorities push back (as they sometimes have to do) it tends to be with more force due to the totalitarien nature of the defence of Her Majesty's Subjects.

What would they have arrested him for?

Using his right to refrain from giving details or information :shrug:

They use the 'you will be arrested' line in the hope that members of the public are not
aware of their rights & co-operate more readily.

 

[PhotoTalk]

any.m - agreed that it's best not to be at loggerheads but see gingerwaesle's point above about the need for reasonable suspicion of a terrorist act being planned. Neither the security guards nor the police could present reasonable grounds for this at any stage.

And your summary of the journalist being 'a plank' is avoiding the issue of what he was doing and why. He set out to test the law. He was not being obstructive, he was pushing his test to get valid results. You might think the experiment should not have been conducted in the first place (I would disagree. We need such examinations of power), but you surely realise that the test would have ended as soon as his motives were made clear. So rather than being a plank, I'd suggest he was bravely pursuing his story. And 'aloof' and 'obnoxious' are little more than your subjective take on the incident. I can see no evidence for labelling him this way, especially when you take into consideration the context of the encounter as explained above.

p.s. you didn't explain how and where he committed a crime - I guess you are now retracting that claim...

 

[purpleclouds]

Would anyone complain if they were arrested for breaking and entering if they were caught in a building whilst just 'testing' the police??

 

[Hacker]

I think they did have reasonable grounds to 'search' him. Let's take all the opinions and assumptions out of the equation and look at the facts:

1. The building in question is a prime terrorist target in the City of London;
2. Similar buildings have been the target of serious attacks in the past, Bishopsgate, Canary Wharf, London Stock Exchange 1990, BBC 2001(?) and many, many more - do you want me to list them?
3. He was originally filming inside the building until asked to stop;
4. He carried on filming outside the building raising the suspicions of the security staff who called the police;
5. When the police arrived he was deliberately obstructive - not givng them his name or address, he didn't tell them he was a journalist and his general behaviour was obstructive which in my view increases the suspicion levels;
6. there was a second cameraman/photographer so look at it from the police officers point of view - what would you do? They are there as the result of a call and must deal with the incident - I would be interested to know how you would approach it;

None of you know what information/intelligence the police and security services are currently working with but it is only a matter of time before their is another major incident.

Maybe you have been fortunate enough not to have to deal with immediate aftermath of a bomb but unfortunately I have and I have witnessed up close and personal the death, maiming and destruction it can cause so this 'journalist' gets no sympathy from me for his behaviour. He was trying to set the police up (when they have got better things to do) and make a sensationalist piece of film backed up by a questionable report in the Guardian.

He was taking pictures and then acted like a knob - it's not that important. Sometimes you have to give up some of your 'liberties' for the greater good in order to preserve life.

 

[EdinburghGary]

Awesome thread

My take...

The guy was an idiot. The police were idiots. If I were in his position? I would have been a bigger idiot and got arrested.

Well done for standing up for his RIGHTS. He might be an idiot, but videos like this will only educate the police. You can be sure that those featured will be thinking about how they could or should have reacted...

For the record, If I were stopped in the same manner, I would be banged up.

Gary.

 

[snoop69]

Would anyone complain if they were arrested for breaking and entering if they were caught in a building whilst just 'testing' the police??

Breaking & entering is illegal :shrug:

 

[purpleclouds]

Breaking & entering is illegal :shrug:

The photographer in question wasn't arrested either.... merely engaged in conversation. Well, I say engaged.... he wasn't too willing. Which lead to problems.

If he had been 'preparing an act of terrorism' and had refused to answer the officers questions, then what? Who's hands would be covered in the blood?

The officers just wanted to know what he was up to, nothing more.

I feel very :bang: that he didn't just tell them. He didn't have to hand over his name, or even show them the film. All he had to say was that he was a journalist filming for work. Job's a good'un. The officer gave him plenty of opportunities to talk. There was no mention of detention or arrest until he started actually asking about it, when he was obviously looking for trouble.