" Independent " Legal Observer
Discussion
progressing tangentially from the 'Recording Police actions' thread and Photosnob's posts and my replies there in , we are pretty close to the issue of 'Independent' Legal Observers at incidents / protests and 'Hunt Monitors' etc at fox hunts
these individuals despite claiming to be independent are in fact actors for the protestors - just have a read of http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk/Guide%20fo... and can really say they are independent rather than agents of the protest attempting to claim they are some kind of special status.
this is before we get into the realms of FItwatch and Copwatch ...
the tactics of FItwatch are interesting , where if they were truely aiming to do what they suggest they would parallel the techniques of a Police FIT / EGT rather than trying to intervene .
these individuals despite claiming to be independent are in fact actors for the protestors - just have a read of http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk/Guide%20fo... and can really say they are independent rather than agents of the protest attempting to claim they are some kind of special status.
this is before we get into the realms of FItwatch and Copwatch ...
the tactics of FItwatch are interesting , where if they were truely aiming to do what they suggest they would parallel the techniques of a Police FIT / EGT rather than trying to intervene .
I don't believe that independence is ever possible. Either consciously or subconsciously everyone has an angle. As long as both sides have the ability to give their side of the story I think that this is the best we can hope for.
That's a simplistic view but the best one I can come up. My posts on here whilst being open to learning are clearly influenced by what I believe and what I have experienced. The idea that anyone can be truly subjective is not inline with human nature IMO.
That's a simplistic view but the best one I can come up. My posts on here whilst being open to learning are clearly influenced by what I believe and what I have experienced. The idea that anyone can be truly subjective is not inline with human nature IMO.
photosnob said:
I don't believe that independence is ever possible. Either consciously or subconsciously everyone has an angle. As long as both sides have the ability to give their side of the story I think that this is the best we can hope for.
That's a simplistic view but the best one I can come up. My posts on here whilst being open to learning are clearly influenced by what I believe and what I have experienced. The idea that anyone can be truly subjective is not inline with human nature IMO.
I definitely wasn't getting at you PS That's a simplistic view but the best one I can come up. My posts on here whilst being open to learning are clearly influenced by what I believe and what I have experienced. The idea that anyone can be truly subjective is not inline with human nature IMO.
one of the things i found most interestign in the link posted was the statement that the ILO should never take a picture that could be used against a protestor - this kind of wording aqnd sentiment adds weight to the suggetion that their independence is a joke and they are there as aan additional form of of troop to disrupt things , where an EGT will gather evidence and a journalist who is there to report really doesn;t care if the image protrays one side or the other as better only that it;s one or both of sellable / a good photo
mph1977 said:
I definitely wasn't getting at you PS
one of the things i found most interestign in the link posted was the statement that the ILO should never take a picture that could be used against a protestor - this kind of wording aqnd sentiment adds weight to the suggetion that their independence is a joke and they are there as aan additional form of of troop to disrupt things , where an EGT will gather evidence and a journalist who is there to report really doesn;t care if the image protrays one side or the other as better only that it;s one or both of sellable / a good photo
1977 I have no direct knowledge about that group. I'd never chose to get involved in it.one of the things i found most interestign in the link posted was the statement that the ILO should never take a picture that could be used against a protestor - this kind of wording aqnd sentiment adds weight to the suggetion that their independence is a joke and they are there as aan additional form of of troop to disrupt things , where an EGT will gather evidence and a journalist who is there to report really doesn;t care if the image protrays one side or the other as better only that it;s one or both of sellable / a good photo
However playing devils advocate the police do occasionally threaten to seize cameras as they "may contain evidence". It very rarely happens, however once threatened with having 15 grands worth of stuff taken for an unknown length of time does make you pretty conscious. Obviously if there had been a murder that would be right and reasonable, however for minor public disorder it can come across as draconian. I'm well aware that evidentially it's worth more to the police if it's seized there with camera, however for minor events it shouldn't be threatened or happen. At worst take the card and only until a copy is taken.
Again playing devils advocate, if the "observers" were known to take incriminating photos would they be welcomed by protesters? They would have bibs on identifying themselves and would risk a good kicking if the crowd turns. I personally tried to avoid big protests as it's hard to get anything decent and there were too many people doing it. But when I was asked to go to any sort of protest my camera was always under my jacket with a black rapid strap on to be hidden when wanted and I'd only carry a normal type of backpack and certainly wouldn't be going around with a big lowepro bag. Horses for courses but you are very vulnerable.
Ultimately for me it comes down to the type of person who choses to volunteer for this role... More than likely someone with a point to prove. I've got no problem with that in itself. Look at the Red Cross... Whilst a fantastic charity they are hardly known for being completely objective.
photosnob said:
mph1977 said:
I definitely wasn't getting at you PS
one of the things i found most interestign in the link posted was the statement that the ILO should never take a picture that could be used against a protestor - this kind of wording aqnd sentiment adds weight to the suggetion that their independence is a joke and they are there as aan additional form of of troop to disrupt things , where an EGT will gather evidence and a journalist who is there to report really doesn;t care if the image protrays one side or the other as better only that it;s one or both of sellable / a good photo
1977 I have no direct knowledge about that group. I'd never chose to get involved in it.one of the things i found most interestign in the link posted was the statement that the ILO should never take a picture that could be used against a protestor - this kind of wording aqnd sentiment adds weight to the suggetion that their independence is a joke and they are there as aan additional form of of troop to disrupt things , where an EGT will gather evidence and a journalist who is there to report really doesn;t care if the image protrays one side or the other as better only that it;s one or both of sellable / a good photo
However playing devils advocate the police do occasionally threaten to seize cameras as they "may contain evidence". It very rarely happens, however once threatened with having 15 grands worth of stuff taken for an unknown length of time does make you pretty conscious. Obviously if there had been a murder that would be right and reasonable, however for minor public disorder it can come across as draconian. I'm well aware that evidentially it's worth more to the police if it's seized there with camera, however for minor events it shouldn't be threatened or happen. At worst take the card and only until a copy is taken.
Again playing devils advocate, if the "observers" were known to take incriminating photos would they be welcomed by protesters? They would have bibs on identifying themselves and would risk a good kicking if the crowd turns. I personally tried to avoid big protests as it's hard to get anything decent and there were too many people doing it. But when I was asked to go to any sort of protest my camera was always under my jacket with a black rapid strap on to be hidden when wanted and I'd only carry a normal type of backpack and certainly wouldn't be going around with a big lowepro bag. Horses for courses but you are very vulnerable.
Ultimately for me it comes down to the type of person who choses to volunteer for this role... More than likely someone with a point to prove. I've got no problem with that in itself. Look at the Red Cross... Whilst a fantastic charity they are hardly known for being completely objective.
"Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
"Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."
Trotter's reminder of the law to forces across the country comes two months after photographer Carmen Valino was threatened with arrest and handcuffing by a police sergeant as she took pictures for Hackney Gazette at a murder scene in east London.
Bigends said:
ACPO guidelines -
"Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
"Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."
Trotter's reminder of the law to forces across the country comes two months after photographer Carmen Valino was threatened with arrest and handcuffing by a police sergeant as she took pictures for Hackney Gazette at a murder scene in east London.
The police have every right and indeed duty to seize evidence (including cameras and video cameras). I don't know the sections but it's in pace. No one would have any objection if it was done fairly. As I said if there was a murder or something serious take it all, leave no stone unturned. For other stuff play cricket. "Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
"Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."
Trotter's reminder of the law to forces across the country comes two months after photographer Carmen Valino was threatened with arrest and handcuffing by a police sergeant as she took pictures for Hackney Gazette at a murder scene in east London.
What you are referring to is a police officer wishing to take someone camera or memory card because they don't like what has been taken. What I was referring too was images which would have evidential value.
EDIT - it's also worth pointing out some obvious things, APCO guidelines are not law. They are just that, a set of guidelines laid down.
Furthermore can you imagine the bizarre consequences of if that was taken as gospel. Someone with a dashcam could refuse the police access to it after killing a pedestrian until they got a court order. By which point it would either disappear or be formated and have the data rewritten with 0's and 1's. Or a nightclub who could refuse to let the police seize CCTV footage after a violent incident involving their doormen.
As someone who served in the police for 30 years you should know better than that. If people went around believing that they could end up in some serious trouble.
Edited by photosnob on Saturday 30th August 21:57
photosnob said:
Bigends said:
ACPO guidelines -
"Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
"Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."
Trotter's reminder of the law to forces across the country comes two months after photographer Carmen Valino was threatened with arrest and handcuffing by a police sergeant as she took pictures for Hackney Gazette at a murder scene in east London.
The police have every right and indeed duty to seize evidence (including cameras and video cameras). I don't know the sections but it's in pace. No one would have any objection if it was done fairly. As I said if there was a murder or something serious take it all, leave no stone unturned. For other stuff play cricket. "Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
"Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order."
Trotter's reminder of the law to forces across the country comes two months after photographer Carmen Valino was threatened with arrest and handcuffing by a police sergeant as she took pictures for Hackney Gazette at a murder scene in east London.
What you are referring to is a police officer wishing to take someone camera or memory card because they don't like what has been taken. What I was referring too was images which would have evidential value. [/quote
http://www.lcpu.org/docs/2011/ACPO%20Letter%20Phot...
http://photocritic.org/police-in-england-can-seize...
I'm going to leave it to the current police officers/lawyers to decide who's right. I've attended talks on rights and have had it instilled that this is the case. I'm more inclined to believe the lawyers giving the talk than someone of the internet.
I'm going to leave it to the current police officers/lawyers to decide who's right. I've attended talks on rights and have had it instilled that this is the case. I'm more inclined to believe the lawyers giving the talk than someone of the internet.
photosnob said:
http://photocritic.org/police-in-england-can-seize...
I'm going to leave it to the current police officers/lawyers to decide who's right. I've attended talks on rights and have had it instilled that this is the case. I'm more inclined to believe the lawyers giving the talk than someone of the internet.
Photo - this is the current Police guidance-not from some Mickey Mouse website. Can current Plod confirm this is no longer validI'm going to leave it to the current police officers/lawyers to decide who's right. I've attended talks on rights and have had it instilled that this is the case. I'm more inclined to believe the lawyers giving the talk than someone of the internet.
That's 3 years old, and posts on this very forum have indicated that said ship has since sailed and been scuppered (despite what some constables might still like to claim "out on the street" and pointing no finger at any member of the public or police officer on here 
).
Other fora have indicated the same...
).Other fora have indicated the same...
photosnob said:
I don't believe that independence is ever possible. Either consciously or subconsciously everyone has an angle. As long as both sides have the ability to give their side of the story I think that this is the best we can hope for.
That's a simplistic view but the best one I can come up. My posts on here whilst being open to learning are clearly influenced by what I believe and what I have experienced. The idea that anyone can be truly subjective is not inline with human nature IMO.
As you are open to learning, PS, and please take this kindly, the word that you wanted in your last line was objective, not subjective. That's a simplistic view but the best one I can come up. My posts on here whilst being open to learning are clearly influenced by what I believe and what I have experienced. The idea that anyone can be truly subjective is not inline with human nature IMO.
You are right, BTW, that true independence of view is impossible (in other words, all views are subjective), although depending on the subject matter we can be more or less objective in our assessments. I can be quite objective if I watch QPR play Man City, but am less so when I watch Spurs play Arsenal.
As for police powers, it is right to resist police notions that they can curb filming or photography, but it is also correct that a police officer can seize an item as part of an investigation. That power is open to abuse, especially when it comes to cameras, and should be closely monitored and challenged where appropriate.
Breadvan72 said:
As you are open to learning, PS, and please take this kindly, the word that you wanted in your last line was objective, not subjective.
You are right, BTW, that true independence of view is impossible (in other words, all views are subjective), although depending on the subject matter we can be more or less objective in our assessments. I can be quite objective if I watch QPR play Man City, but am less so when I watch Spurs play Arsenal.
As for police powers, it is right to resist police notions that they can curb filming or photography, but it is also correct that a police officer can seize an item as part of an investigation. That power is open to abuse, especially when it comes to cameras, and should be closely monitored and challenged where appropriate.
Thanks BV. I would usually make up some excuse about phones, but the truth is I'm just not very bright. You are right, BTW, that true independence of view is impossible (in other words, all views are subjective), although depending on the subject matter we can be more or less objective in our assessments. I can be quite objective if I watch QPR play Man City, but am less so when I watch Spurs play Arsenal.
As for police powers, it is right to resist police notions that they can curb filming or photography, but it is also correct that a police officer can seize an item as part of an investigation. That power is open to abuse, especially when it comes to cameras, and should be closely monitored and challenged where appropriate.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff