Police Incident with my camera
Discussion
Bigends said:
If the OP's been truthful in his account on here - I dont see any offences there -do you? They still haven't told him what hes done wrong. Was he abusive towards the bloke when confronted? Did he assault him? The cops have had time to speak to the complainant before going round to visit the OP so they should know exactly whats happened.
You have no idea what the initial complaint to the police was (neither does the OP at this stage apparently) so how can you say they should've known he'd done nothing wrong and shouldn't have wasted their time?Cat
Scenario- People loading car have child unsighted to OP, parents cioncened about wierdo taking pictures as they don't know the OP is taking a picture of something else innocently.
People ask OP and get told to effectively F off
Police get told and look up details and see he's got history of taking pictures and bad attitude when challenged over picture taking ,(if you took a picture of a police car with a 300mm lens it's unlikely they'd ever know). A pattern is forming...
Police have words and are also told to effectively F off
There's an attitude test here that the OP is constantly failing especially as an explanation could have solved the problem but the 'I know my rights' seemed the preferred solution.
Funny how the OP is probably sitting there feeling this is all an invasion of his person space and right to do what he wants yet thinks it's also fine to invade everybodies space with his camera if he so chooses. Legally everything everyone has done is ok, even the copper who had a fit if true, but that's not quite the same thing as being a good and courteous citizen to others.
It's also a damn shame you feel it more productive to come on here telling us but not to tell a police officer doing their job what you were doing. What kind of kick do you get from that?
People ask OP and get told to effectively F off
Police get told and look up details and see he's got history of taking pictures and bad attitude when challenged over picture taking ,(if you took a picture of a police car with a 300mm lens it's unlikely they'd ever know). A pattern is forming...
Police have words and are also told to effectively F off
There's an attitude test here that the OP is constantly failing especially as an explanation could have solved the problem but the 'I know my rights' seemed the preferred solution.
Funny how the OP is probably sitting there feeling this is all an invasion of his person space and right to do what he wants yet thinks it's also fine to invade everybodies space with his camera if he so chooses. Legally everything everyone has done is ok, even the copper who had a fit if true, but that's not quite the same thing as being a good and courteous citizen to others.
It's also a damn shame you feel it more productive to come on here telling us but not to tell a police officer doing their job what you were doing. What kind of kick do you get from that?
Cat said:
Bigends said:
If the OP's been truthful in his account on here - I dont see any offences there -do you? They still haven't told him what hes done wrong. Was he abusive towards the bloke when confronted? Did he assault him? The cops have had time to speak to the complainant before going round to visit the OP so they should know exactly whats happened.
You have no idea what the initial complaint to the police was (neither does the OP at this stage apparently) so how can you say they should've known he'd done nothing wrong and shouldn't have wasted their time?Cat
threespires said:
The reason I framed the photo is that I do a 365 daily photo project and so I'm always on the hunt for today's photo.
Why didn't you tell the man that? Then it might have gone no further.The issue here is twofold. Some members of the public often have expectations that are unrealistic. It isn't helped by some police officers not knowing the law and making it up on the hoof. It cost the Met a tidy sum in compensation and legal costs when its officers subjected 16 year old Jules Mattsson to some very ill conceived treatment back in 2010 (he subsequently went on to become a Times journalist). The Met clearly took exception to his successful legal challenge because ever since it has kept a surveillance file on him in a database of Domestic Extremism.
That's cause for concern in my book.A Tesco car park may or may not be a public place, but if it is not it is up to Tesco to decide whether or not photography is permitted on its premises not the police.
threespires said:
When I arrived I was asked why did I take a photo of a woman outside the supermarket.
A self-serving leading question if ever I heard one.threespires said:
My answer was that I framed a photo opportunity with my camera but declined to answer whether I had or had not taken a photo. I was told that somebody from the police would contact me next week regarding this incident.
I mentioned to the interviewer that as I left the supermarket I noticed the person who complained possibly taking a photo of me and my car on their phone.
So if you have committed an offence, the same would appear to be true of the complainant. You couldn't make it up. I thought the police were overstretched and underfunded/resourced. This is a distraction from a sensible use of their time. I mentioned to the interviewer that as I left the supermarket I noticed the person who complained possibly taking a photo of me and my car on their phone.
threespires said:
I can only assume that they did take a photo which is how the police traced me.
Have I done anything wrong and should the police be following this up?
Probably not, and they should NFA it asap.Have I done anything wrong and should the police be following this up?
JonV8V said:
Funny how the OP is probably sitting there feeling this is all an invasion of his person space and right to do what he wants yet thinks it's also fine to invade every bodies space with his camera if he so chooses.
Very much this. Unfortunately, it's also the sort of attitude that could eventually lead to privacy laws that outlaw his hobby. That's at least one couple in a Tesco car park (and likely several friends and relatives) who, when a future government propose laws that curtail such freedoms, will be 100% in favour "and about time too"
Variomatic said:
JonV8V said:
Funny how the OP is probably sitting there feeling this is all an invasion of his person space and right to do what he wants yet thinks it's also fine to invade every bodies space with his camera if he so chooses.
Very much this. Unfortunately, it's also the sort of attitude that could eventually lead to privacy laws that outlaw his hobby. That's at least one couple in a Tesco car park (and likely several friends and relatives) who, when a future government propose laws that curtail such freedoms, will be 100% in favour "and about time too"
Our laws are very free towards public photography in this country and I totally applaud that, being a keen photographer myself, but people like the OP aren't helping.
Random people don't like being photographed, and nor do the police, however legal it may be. It just pisses people off.
Bigends said:
Exactly - theyre supposed to have told him what the complaint was. If theyre being cagey then hes equally entitled to be just as cagey
I've not suggested otherwise. My issue is with your claim that the police should have known the OP had done nothing wrong and shouldn't be wasting their time. If there has been an allegation made that a crime was committed how can he police "know" if it is true without making enquiry and wasting their time asking about it.
Cat
RCBRG said:
why wouldn't you answer why you took the photo?
The police don't invite people in for a friendly chat to pass the time of day. They ask questions in order to gather evidence - enabling naive people to unwittingly incriminate themselves or others. That's their job. Having a frank conversation with the police, when you are uncertain of what is alleged or what the law actually is, and without legal representation, is a lose lose situation.There have been tales on PH about friendly chats that turned out negatively for the person who thought they were being helpful.
JonV8V said:
Scenario-
Funny how the OP is probably sitting there feeling this is all an invasion of his person space and right to do what he wants yet thinks it's also fine to invade everybodies space with his camera if he so chooses. Legally everything everyone has done is ok, even the copper who had a fit if true, but that's not quite the same thing as being a good and courteous citizen to others.
It's also a damn shame you feel it more productive to come on here telling us but not to tell a police officer doing their job what you were doing. What kind of kick do you get from that?
"invade everybodies space with his camera" - It's a daily occurrence for all of us, wherever you go these days a camera is watching you. How many dashcams/store cams/mobile phone pics have you featured in this week. How about the dashcam in the car behind you watching how you drive, are they invading your space? It's today's world. Everybody carries a camera with them.Funny how the OP is probably sitting there feeling this is all an invasion of his person space and right to do what he wants yet thinks it's also fine to invade everybodies space with his camera if he so chooses. Legally everything everyone has done is ok, even the copper who had a fit if true, but that's not quite the same thing as being a good and courteous citizen to others.
It's also a damn shame you feel it more productive to come on here telling us but not to tell a police officer doing their job what you were doing. What kind of kick do you get from that?
"tell a police officer" - Because I'd prefer it if the complainant was told that they didn't have a valid case rather than perpetuating the myth that they have. Whether I took a photo or not is immaterial, at the moment the only complaint is that I held a camera and I might have pointed it in their direction. Whether I focused on them and whether I took a photo is supposition and doesn't alter anything.
threespires said:
When I got into the store the man who had been loading his car came up to me and asked why I was taking photos. I declined to answer & he said 'fair enough' & left.
When I got home much later on I found a calling card from a policeman asking me to contact him regarding 'an incident'.
Out of curiosity, if you'd left your car and were walking towards the store when you took/did not take a pic then refused to provide the subject/not subject with any information, following which they left, how did the Police manage to trace you?When I got home much later on I found a calling card from a policeman asking me to contact him regarding 'an incident'.
SpaceCowboy said:
Out of curiosity, if you'd left your car and were walking towards the store when you took/did not take a pic then refused to provide the subject/not subject with any information, following which they left, how did the Police manage to trace you?
I saw them with their phone out & presume they took phone pic of me as I left, perhaps they showed to the police. So weren't they doing the same as they were accusing me of doing? Should I put in a complaint about them & their photos of me, the police would seem to have the evidence?
But then no offence was committed by either of us, so why the fuss.
threespires said:
I saw them with their phone out & presume they took phone pic of me as I left, perhaps they showed to the police.
So weren't they doing the same as they were accusing me of doing? Should I put in a complaint about them & their photos of me, the police would seem to have the evidence?
But then no offence was committed by either of us, so why the fuss.
Do the police know you then? I'm sure you could show 100 pictures of me to the police, ad the only 2 people who could possibly connect me are my mates that happen to be coppers. So weren't they doing the same as they were accusing me of doing? Should I put in a complaint about them & their photos of me, the police would seem to have the evidence?
But then no offence was committed by either of us, so why the fuss.
Your OP also singles you out as being odd - "may or may not have taken a photo" - are you unsure? Taking photos in public is 100% legal, so what is causing the caginess?
threespires said:
[...]Because I'd prefer it if the complainant was told that they didn't have a valid case rather than perpetuating the myth that they have.
Don't worry, if enough people take the "none of your business" attitude as you are soon enough they may well have a case when they complain.We have some of the most liberal laws in the world regarding public photography:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Country...
a simple pleasant explanation of what you were doing could help to keep them that way.
Incidentally, you don't know for certain that they didn't have grounds for concern, or possibly complaint.
They could be involved in the forces or security services - just because you don't have a beard doesn't mean you're not targeting them.
They could be witnesses (or defendants) in some sensitive trial.
They could be in the middle of some sort of harassment case and think you might be involved by the harasser.
You just don't know.
>> Taking photos in public is 100% legal, so what is causing the caginess?
Whether I took a photo or not doesn't alter anything.
The police are acting on their assumption that I did, and whether I did take a photo or didn't is no reason for them to create this incident as I did nothing wrong whatever the actions of the camera were.
The complainant should have been told this.
Whether I took a photo or not doesn't alter anything.
The police are acting on their assumption that I did, and whether I did take a photo or didn't is no reason for them to create this incident as I did nothing wrong whatever the actions of the camera were.
The complainant should have been told this.
threespires said:
I saw them with their phone out & presume they took phone pic of me as I left, perhaps they showed to the police.
So weren't they doing the same as they were accusing me of doing? Should I put in a complaint about them & their photos of me, the police would seem to have the evidence?
But then no offence was committed by either of us, so why the fuss.
It just seems odd/overkill, in circumstances where it seems that no identifying info has been exchanged between you and the complainant, for Police to go to the length of trying to trace you over a complaint that you may/may not have taken a photo of the complainant/his wife.So weren't they doing the same as they were accusing me of doing? Should I put in a complaint about them & their photos of me, the police would seem to have the evidence?
But then no offence was committed by either of us, so why the fuss.
If no details were exchanged between you and the complainant, then the Police will have to have gone to a bit of effort to find you, e.g. by checking CCTV, looking for your reg number etc. All over a complaint re a photo that may/may not have been taken in supermarket carpark?
threespires said:
>> Taking photos in public is 100% legal, so what is causing the caginess?
Whether I took a photo or not doesn't alter anything.
The police are acting on their assumption that I did, and whether I did take a photo or didn't is no reason for them to create this incident as I did nothing wrong whatever the actions of the camera were.
The complainant should have been told this.
While that's generally true, it isn't in all cases. All of the examples I gave in my last post would raise valid reasons for the police to be interested in whether or not you had, indeed, taken a photo.Whether I took a photo or not doesn't alter anything.
The police are acting on their assumption that I did, and whether I did take a photo or didn't is no reason for them to create this incident as I did nothing wrong whatever the actions of the camera were.
The complainant should have been told this.
Your right to take photos does not trump an off duty squaddie's right to protect himself and his family from being targeted.
Your right to take a photograph does not trump a sensitive witness's right not to be intimidated by someone who, for all they know, could be hired by the gang boss they're testifying against.
Your right to take a photograph does not trump someone who's subject to harassment's right to be protected.
There are many other possible reasons, and when you point your camera you have absolutely no idea which, if any, of them might apply. But, if any of them do apply, then it's absolutely right and proper that the police investigate.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff