Police Incident with my camera

[threespires]

Variomatic said:

La Liga said:

hy would he say, "fair enough" if you literally don't say anything to him? That seems an odd thing to say to someone who has said no words.

It also seems particularly odd from someone who's approached with such aggressive body language / tone / general demeanour that you felt the need to blank them in the first place.

I agree. He then waited for me to leave the store and his partner took pix of me as I left. I can only assume that they then went to the police, made their complaint and I was traced through my car number captured on their cameraphone.

[threespires]

V6Pushfit said:

OP only tells part of a story and has now admitted a further incident of taking a photo of 'frosted cobwebs' and being accused of taking photos of someone's house. This will be the 5th time.

OP your are coming over as a nutter or a troll.

This thread is a farce now, that's if it wasnt already by page 2

Edited by V6Pushfit on Tuesday 2nd February 18:59

4 times the police have been involved, this was a separate incident.

[threespires]

Fastpedeller said:

Crikey 26 pages........ It's appearing quicker than I can read. Still no photo from the OP, or confirmation that no photo was taken. A troll methinks!

I agree, I can't believe the number of comments either. I'm not a troll, but I spent many happy years with a Troll in motor sport.

I believe the officer who wants to talk to me is back at work on Thursday. I'll not answer the question that everybody wants to know until after he's interviewed me.

Troll

[threespires]

pinchmeimdreamin said:

What question

Did I or did I not take a photo.

[threespires]

deckster said:

Right. Cos that makes it much better, obviously.

Once is unfortunate. Twice is a pattern. Three or more times, and you've got one serious attitude problem.

I agree with your point of view and have asked the same of myself after each time. One thing I will say is that on each occasion I've been approached very aggressively.

[threespires]

DT398 said:

OP, have you had any brushes with the law not involving a camera or the taking of pictures?

No, not even a speeding ticket or a parking ticket.

[threespires]

don'tbesilly said:

La Liga said:

What was the bloke saying, "fair enough" to?

Why would he say such a thing if you stood there in silence?

For some reason the OP has dodged this question every time it's been asked,and it's been asked numerous times now.

Someone wouldn't approach a stranger in a confrontational and aggressive manner, demand to know what the OP was doing with his camera, get the silent treatment from the OP, and then say "fair enough" and walk away.

The OP's initial story never mentioned that the Guy had been aggressive, he also stated further on in the thread that the reason he declined to answer was because he had four front teeth missing.

It's clear the OP is being economical with the truth, his story has changed/ is changing quite markedly from his original post.

I was in the store choosing corn flakes, suddenly this man is in front of me standing aggressively and says 'Oy, why are you taking photographs' loudly and aggressively.
I turned and walked away from him. He said 'Fair enough' and left.
I agree, I thought it an odd thing to say but thought no more about it.

When I got home much later on, there was a card through my door asking me to make contact re incident # 432. I phoned the next morning, went in & was asked by the officer if I took a photo of a woman on Friday. I said that I'd not answer that question. He left room for a few minutes, returned, took my name, address & phone. He then said the officer involved would be back at work on Thursday. Then I left.

[threespires]

La Liga said:

OP, how were you going to incriminate yourself by saying you didn't take a picture when at the police station?

The police are not allowed to ask to see your digicard. Did I commit an offence? I don't know yet. Until then I'll keep my cards close to my chest.
Perhaps a silly attitude to take, but that's my choice.

[threespires]

don'tbesilly said:

So the fact you had 4 front teeth missing had nothing to do with you not answering the question the Guy posed, it was more to do with the aggression the Guy was both vocalising and displaying.

I'm guessing the only concern regarding your teeth was that you were in danger of losing quite a few more!

By the way, cornflakes on exposed gums can be quite painful, I'd recommend porridge, the oats variety as opposed to the barred type.

☺☺

[threespires]

StottyEvo said:

You're not protecting the civil liberties of photographers here, you're just being awkward.

When the Police speak to you, simply tell them what you were doing.

True, but following a number of instances I'm a bit fed up of having to explain my reasons for carrying a camera.

I've admitted that I took a dashcam movie of them, is it their right to ask me why I took a video of them and then pop into the Station and complain to the police who action an inquiry?

[threespires]

La Liga said:

ow would they know you took a dashcam video of them if you stood there in silence for the entire time? How would you admit it if you stood there in silence the entire time?

Easy, she walks past my car & notices the dashcam, as I drive out she sees the red recording-light on, as she has her iphone in her hands takes a photo of me, then makes a complaint.

Alternatively, where I was standing, rather then having a DSLR in my hands I've got my iphone out. The way I'm standing makes it seem that I'm taking a photo, but in fact I'm checking an email. They are suspicious, chase after me and demand in to know why I'm taking photo's. I refrain from explaining myself they rush off to the police.

After a few times one might tend to get angry.

Edited by threespires on Wednesday 3rd February 00:22

[threespires]

V6Pushfit said:

I wonder if OP makes a meal out of everything like this. He clearly feels persecuted by plod but cant understand why. The 'I'm going to make a stand' attitude just wastes everyone's time.

I'll be sending my bill to him I'm at 72 hours on this already

Making a meal? - No, only this time as I'm fed up of continual intimidation from public and police just because I carry a DSLR.

My previous encounter with the police six months ago when I was accosted in an extremely aggressive manner by a policewoman who told me she didn't care about the law and would use police powers to find out who I am and look at F/book to see if I'd posted a photo of her. I had told her that I didn't photograph her but still she carried on with her intimidating rant. It was quite a scene.

Why should I continually be subjected poor behavior from the police who have had instructions not to harass photographers. Straw/Camels back -

~~~~~~

You mention wasting time. I don't see that one, it's the police who have decided to spend time on this incident. Did I take a photo of these people - nobody knows. Did they take a photo of me - Yes and the police have seen it.

This is a non-incident & the police should have told the complainant to go away and forget it but they have chosen not to and have created an 'incident'.

[threespires]

heebeegeetee said:

Isn't that like saying police should investigate people doing 28 in a 30 because some people do 32 or more?

As it is the police don't have time to investigate illegal acts so they should forget investigating legal ones imo.

Thanks for your support.

[threespires]

daemon said:

I don't really get why as you could clear this up very easily, and then take the moral high ground with the police, you've chosen to decline to do so, because you don't feel your obliged to.

I've not been interviewed yet by the policeman who left a note through my door. He's back at work on Thursday.

I was asked to go to the station last Saturday. When I got there I was asked if I took a photo of this woman. I declined to answer, reason being that until I know why an incident has been created why should I answer the question.

You might not like my attitude, many on here don't, but I hope you support my freedom to defend myself until I know why the police have created this 'incident'.

[threespires]

walm said:

This is the crux of it.
And for the life of me I really can't imagine something REALISTIC that they might have said to force the police into action.
All this "my wife has been stalked" rubbish just sounds too far fetched.

I am willing to donate £10 to the charity of your choice La Liga if what the complainant reported justified further investigation.
I am still 90% sure that it was simply someone in the chain (phone operator or PSCO or some other muppet) having no clue about the photography laws and hassling the OP for no reason.

Seriously - the FAR most likely report was "there was a weirdo taking my wife's photo at the supermarket".
At which point the operator should have said "stop wasting our time".
But instead through ignorance they said, "well that sounds like the crime of the century and I don't really have a clue so I will bump it up the chain".

For clarity, the report has to be a complaint about an actual potential crime rather than just "weirdo with a camera".

Thank you for your support.

[threespires]

Nothing to do with this ongoing topic but something I found strange.

I went to the Station last Saturday morning.

The main entrance and reception that used to be there has been blocked off. To gain access you have to go to the council offices next door, press a big red button by the entrance with Police written on it. Explain to the operator why you are there. Then go back to the Station and wait [in this case 10 mins in the rain] until somebody opens the side door for you.

I'd assume this is because of budget cuts. Damn Tories ☺

[threespires]

La Liga said:

He'd then need to figure out how he managed to see her phone screen when driving past (or not, depending on the account) and at which point she asked why he was filing them. Although this was apparently when he was driving but as you've probably noted he has declined to answer when she asked this.

She was standing in my path, took a photo of the front of the car as I drove towards her, then she moved aside & as I drove past her she turned and I noticed a car very similar to mine on her phone. Then in my mirror she seemed to take a photo of the rear of the car as I exited. The dashcam didn't see the phone image.

I'm unsure what her male friend was doing at the time. So sorry, when I said 'they took photo's' I should have said 'she'.

[threespires]

Thank you Dibble for your long post. I pray that you are soon back home and fully fit.

Edited by threespires on Wednesday 3rd February 17:26

[threespires]

Mr2Mike said:

Quite honestly you sound like one of those people who enjoys creating confrontational situations. The vast majority of people don't go looking for trouble and it doesn't go looking for them, your tale of woe and general attitude suggest you are in that small minority.

> confrontational situations

No, that's not my usual way of going about things. But in this case, following the number of times I've been spoken to by the police and every time without any justification, I feel it's time I took a stand and defend myself so that I can enjoy my completely legal hobby without fear of intimidation from either the public or the police.

[threespires]

Vaud said:

Sorry, yes I did read it and thank you for your comment.