Police Incident with my camera
Discussion
Something, however strange to a 3rd party observer, must have triggered the complainant to react to the OP and it must, on the face of it, have had sufficient substance that the Police thought it worth enquiring.
Leaves me wondering if the OP was 'framing his telephoto picture for an unusually long time (i.e. miss-interpreted as staring or prying), was dressed unusually or if his ethnicity might has caused a reaction.
But like others have mentioned remaining dumb is going to prolong and inflame rather than calm any potentially tense scenario.
"Honey will catch more flies than vinegar"!
Leaves me wondering if the OP was 'framing his telephoto picture for an unusually long time (i.e. miss-interpreted as staring or prying), was dressed unusually or if his ethnicity might has caused a reaction.
But like others have mentioned remaining dumb is going to prolong and inflame rather than calm any potentially tense scenario.
"Honey will catch more flies than vinegar"!
vxr8mate said:
Thanks for pointing out what I'd already mentioned.
I think you're missing my point, that being; if a crime has been committed a police officer would be expected to confiscate equipment as part of the ongoing investigation (PC's confiscated from the homes of pedophiles for example); however, where NO crime is being investigated said officer has NO power to confiscate equipment (Bib1: "oh he seems to filming us, Bib2: let's confiscate his equipment as he's committing a crime).
If he/she does they are operating outside of their powers and there are occasions such as this regularly hitting the headlines.
Most Bib know the law and police it in a professional way, but on the odd occasions some do not.
I pointed out that the OP's comment that the police couldn't ask to see his digicard was nonsense and explained what the police could do. You jumped in saying that you thought the powers were only available under the Terrorism Act. I think you're missing my point, that being; if a crime has been committed a police officer would be expected to confiscate equipment as part of the ongoing investigation (PC's confiscated from the homes of pedophiles for example); however, where NO crime is being investigated said officer has NO power to confiscate equipment (Bib1: "oh he seems to filming us, Bib2: let's confiscate his equipment as he's committing a crime).
If he/she does they are operating outside of their powers and there are occasions such as this regularly hitting the headlines.
Most Bib know the law and police it in a professional way, but on the odd occasions some do not.
vxr8mate said:
Cat said:
threespires said:
The police are not allowed to ask to see your digicard.
Where do you get this from? The police are perfectly entitled to ask to see the memory card or the camera. They can also ask to view the images stored on them. You of course can decline to allow them to. However if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that your memory card or camera contain evidence in realtion to an offence they can seize them and they don't need your consent to do this.
I think that relates to Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 only, but I understand it's widely toted by the police themselves.
Are you now going back on this and accepting the fact that the police can seize cameras other than in terrorism cases?
For clarity I have never claimed that the police can seize cameras other than as part of an investigation and where they have a reasonable belief that the item contains evidence of an offence.
Cat
Variomatic said:
vxr8mate said:
Not sure how taking a pic in public could be construed as 'sexual harassment?' If it were then the paparazzi would have some issues wouldn't you agree, after all they take pics of stars getting out of limos with next to nowt on, if you know what I mean.
Alone and of itself taking a pic wouldn't be because no single act amounts to harassment under UK law. But it could well be part of a course of action that, taken in toto, amounted to harassment.The celeb / pap situation is also slightly different. For "ordinary" members of the public, snapping an upskirt as they got out of their car could be deemed voyeurism because they're entitled to a reasonable expectation of privacy from such things. Their level of knickership is immaterial to that.
But a celebrity, by their very celebrity, should be expecting photos to be taken because they're in the public eye (indeed, it's usually a big part of their livelihood) and their expectation of privacy in such matters is correspondingly reduced. If they're not willing to risk the tabloid publicity then they should know to cover up.
Variomatic said:
Think we may have found part of the problem here!
OP, Greendubber's comment isn't what most people would see as "abusive". At most it reads as slightly exasperated that you've finally acknowleged somethinng that's beenrepeated at least once per page since the start of the thread.
If you really do see it as abusive rather than the expression of relief it obviously was then it's quite likely that you also mis-read the apparent "agression" shown by the guy in Tesco. That's also supported by the fact that you're certainly mis-reading the police's desire ti "fit you up" for something.
Bingo!OP, Greendubber's comment isn't what most people would see as "abusive". At most it reads as slightly exasperated that you've finally acknowleged somethinng that's beenrepeated at least once per page since the start of the thread.
If you really do see it as abusive rather than the expression of relief it obviously was then it's quite likely that you also mis-read the apparent "agression" shown by the guy in Tesco. That's also supported by the fact that you're certainly mis-reading the police's desire ti "fit you up" for something.
Cat said:
vxr8mate said:
Thanks for pointing out what I'd already mentioned.
I think you're missing my point, that being; if a crime has been committed a police officer would be expected to confiscate equipment as part of the ongoing investigation (PC's confiscated from the homes of pedophiles for example); however, where NO crime is being investigated said officer has NO power to confiscate equipment (Bib1: "oh he seems to filming us, Bib2: let's confiscate his equipment as he's committing a crime).
If he/she does they are operating outside of their powers and there are occasions such as this regularly hitting the headlines.
Most Bib know the law and police it in a professional way, but on the odd occasions some do not.
I pointed out that the OP's comment that the police couldn't ask to see his digicard was nonsense and explained what the police could do. You jumped in saying that you thought the powers were only available under the Terrorism Act. I think you're missing my point, that being; if a crime has been committed a police officer would be expected to confiscate equipment as part of the ongoing investigation (PC's confiscated from the homes of pedophiles for example); however, where NO crime is being investigated said officer has NO power to confiscate equipment (Bib1: "oh he seems to filming us, Bib2: let's confiscate his equipment as he's committing a crime).
If he/she does they are operating outside of their powers and there are occasions such as this regularly hitting the headlines.
Most Bib know the law and police it in a professional way, but on the odd occasions some do not.
vxr8mate said:
Cat said:
threespires said:
The police are not allowed to ask to see your digicard.
Where do you get this from? The police are perfectly entitled to ask to see the memory card or the camera. They can also ask to view the images stored on them. You of course can decline to allow them to. However if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that your memory card or camera contain evidence in realtion to an offence they can seize them and they don't need your consent to do this.
I think that relates to Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 only, but I understand it's widely toted by the police themselves.
Are you now going back on this and accepting the fact that the police can seize cameras other than in terrorism cases?
For clarity I have never claimed that the police can seize cameras other than as part of an investigation and where they have a reasonable belief that the item contains evidence of an offence.
Cat
However, I also take the point that had an 'investigation' been in play they could confiscate said equipment, but the grounds for such an investigation in this case (again taking in to account what the OP mentioned) would be weak at best.
vxr8mate said:
I take your point, but I'm not sure a 'celebrity' would agree.
Some of them don't and try to get injunctions but they rarely succeed. Common sense says that if you deliberately put yourself in the public eye to make your living then you have less grounds to complain than others if the public watch you and the courts tend to agree with that. It's part of the deal with being famous.If you know that you'll be getting out of a limo at a nightclub and, because of who you are, there will be cameras all around pointing at you then, if you value your modesty more than the next headline, you should be careful. If you're just a regular person and you're doing your shopping in Aldi (or Boots according to the link earlier) then it's reasonable to assume that you won't be surrounded by cameras pointing at your crotch so less care is warranted. So if it's a warm day and you fancy feeling a cool breeze, you should be safe to do so without worry
Edited by Variomatic on Thursday 4th February 15:11
Roo said:
That's ^^^^^ a completely different scenario.
Yes, it is. I made the point that this was not what the OP was doing.So, if the article shows an offence being committed (the question I was asking), I assume there is a point where perfectly innocent street photography turns into not so innocent photography (voyeurism/sexual harassment?). The police can only determine where on the spectrum a photograph or series of photographs lie by looking at the photos. Would that not give them grounds under PACE for seizure, if they believe an offence may have occurred? If the photos are innocent, then the BiB are (rightly) powerless. If they are not, then surely (hopefully) they have powers to take action? If the photographer refuses to share the photographs, that might raise the level of belief that a crime might have been committed (assuming what was going on in that article IS a crime - and I rather hope it is).
Coming back to this topic, maybe the subjects of the photo thought it similar to what was happening in the article? Perhaps she thought she was leaning over in a short skirt, exposing rather more than a bit of leg? Perhaps they exaggerated to say that was what was going on?
If you're just a regular person and you're doing your shopping in Aldi (or Boots according to the link earlier) then it's reasonable to assume that you won't be surrounded by cameras pointing at your crotch so less care is warranted. So if it's a warm day and you fancy feeling a cool breeze, you should be safe to do so without worry
via Imgflip Meme Maker
via Imgflip Meme MakerPrint out a few copies of this and leave them in your glove box.
http://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-p...
Also consider making a complaint to the professional standards Dept of your local Police about the WPC.
The number of ignorant morons that think it is illegal to take photos is pretty shocking.
OP, keep you chin up, glad it worked out and don't let the ignorant morons here and elsewhere grind your down.
http://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-p...
Also consider making a complaint to the professional standards Dept of your local Police about the WPC.
The number of ignorant morons that think it is illegal to take photos is pretty shocking.
OP, keep you chin up, glad it worked out and don't let the ignorant morons here and elsewhere grind your down.
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Thursday 4th February 18:06
threespires said:
PC has just phoned me and we've talked about the incident.
Like grown-ups, or did you get all "I've dun nuffink, you'll never take me alive!"?threespires said:
This is the photo that I took.
Doesn't look much like...threespires said:
Walking from my car to the entrance I saw a photo opportunity & pulled my camera out, framed the photo and I may or may not have taken a photo. The photo I framed included the local Cathedral in the background, a bird flying above a Tesco sign and three cars in the foreground, one of the cars had a man and a woman loading their shopping into the back of the car. 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.
But I was right about it being a mind-meltingly dull photo.
AstonZagato said:
Therefore:
1. Nothing to do with photography (as we have all been saying)
2. You did take a photo (you said on here you didn't)
3. The photo you took was not of the cathedral, the birds or the Tesco sign but of a car.
Doesn't really make your past posts look truthful.
>>>>>>>>>>>2. You did take a photo (you said on here you didn't)1. Nothing to do with photography (as we have all been saying)
2. You did take a photo (you said on here you didn't)
3. The photo you took was not of the cathedral, the birds or the Tesco sign but of a car.
Doesn't really make your past posts look truthful.
I didn't take a photo of the people
>>>>>>3. The photo you took was not of the cathedral, the birds or the Tesco sign but of a car.
I said that there were various opportunities available:- the Cathedral, Tesco sign, a bird flying and 3 cars in the foreground.
threespires said:
All very amicable.
It might have been, but I doubt you have been telling the full facts on here or to the Police. If that was the only photo you took you could have shown it at the time, or put it on here as part of your argument but you didn't and that speaks volumes. Better get back to your '365' then if anyone's the slightest bit interested. Yawn.
Edited by V6Pushfit on Thursday 4th February 17:07
At least all this fuss was about a weapons-grade photo that would rival any Time cover ever published
V6Pushfit said:
It might have been, but I doubt you have been telling the full facts on here or to the Police.
Better get back to your '365' then. Yawn.
>>>>>>Better get back to your '365' then. Yawn.
but I doubt you have been telling the full facts on here or to the Police.
You're intimating that I'm a liar, that is one of the problems I face when on the receiving end of 'Oy why are you taking photo's'.
Hopefully you can now understand why I decided not to engage in conversation, this man is convinced I took a photo of his wife yet I didn't but he would still be convinced that I did and would call me a liar insisting that he saw me taking a picture of his wife.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff