More anti-social photographers

[Mr_annie_vxr]

inkiboo said:

Nick M said:

And thus, the point in the thread has been reached where, sadly, opinions are being expressed ever more forcefully, yet less productively.

As soon as it starts to get personal then that's a sure sign it's gone tits up

Forgive me; I tend to react when someone says a fact I have written is bullst and then tries to suggest that I thought the police investigated rape in the same way they investigate a snowball fight.

You need to be clearer how you represent your position in terms of the language you use. As your statement made it sound exactly as described.

Otherwise why even mention it? It undermined your point that the police don't crime things. Like the newspaper article you wanted something sensationalist to say. Like the newspaper article you misrepresented the position.

I'm glad you now are clear that you don't for one second believe that the police report or treat rape in the same way as a snowball fight. That you understand it's a HO counting rule that confused it and that infact a lot if recorded crime is only recorded as people report it and NCRS means it must be recorded even if it's just a snowball to the face.

[14-7]

fluffnik said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

T89 Callan said:

Should have just been allowed to go about his inocent daily life instead of being treated like a criminal by incompetent bullying police.

Indeed.
which is what would have happened had he just concentrated on his chips.

...but not if he engaged in other equally legitimate activities.

Quite.

Although I still fail to see any significance in this story (like all the other 'photographer arrested' stories).

I do quite a bit of photography in my spare time and as part of that wander around in public areas photographing people and buildings. Never once has a police officer approached me about what I was doing.

Perhaps I don't look like a dodgy so and so though.

Even if an officer approached and asked what I was doing I'd quite happily talk to him and show him what I was taking photos of, talk to him about what I was photographing and why, I'd even tell him who I was (shock horror!).

The problem here is that if you are a decent person you wouldn't hesitate to help the police do their job. The only people that don't are those that have something to prove. I don't know what that is, perhaps they feel hard done to, oppressed, maybe even have a grudge just because the media has made them feel like they should. Perhaps they feel that by refusing to comply with law they are a rebel and are somehow more superior to those that just get on with life. Perhaps they just see the pound signs when approached and realised they can create a situation out of nothing. I really don't know and don't see the points others have made over the time I have been a member here.

Personally, although I don't always agree with laws introduced, I believe that as a UK citizen it is my duty to not only obey the law but also do what I can to stop people who don't. Far too many just walk past someone being assaulted, drive past collisions that they witnessed, ignore things that don't concern them. All things concern us and if we all cared about others and realised that in the end our refusal to do anything will affect us we would all be better off. Unfortunately, all society has learned is that its easier to ignore things because we can't be bothered and are really just a bunch of lazy so and so's.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

TTwiggy said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

TTwiggy said:

I think first of all that AnnieVXR deserves respect for his input to this thread - personally I've always found him to be one of the more open-minded coppers who posts on here.

But while I take in board his assertions that crime is down, accountabilty is up etc, I also agree with the poster above who questions the 'perception problem', because the fact is, rightly or wrongly, the police seem to be losing the support from the generally law-abiding middle classes.

Something that swept back into my memory during this thread was a scene I witnessed last summer.

I live in South East London - it's a high crime area. And yet the one time that I've seen the biggest police presence in my local area was when about 40 coppers were backing up Connex ticket inspectors for a fare-evading blitz at one of my local stations.

Now, I accept that there were probably secondary arrests for other offences, as those people who fare-evade are likely to be up to other nefarious pastimes, but the 'perception' is that the police were essentially being used as 'revenue protection' officers for a company that falls very much below the minimum standards in terms of delivering a service to its customers (Connex).

TFL have their own part of the police force.

If you see lots of police then you have a crime problem. Police resources are more targeted these days to where problems exist. If I was moving and asked the home owner in the village if they ever saw police and they said no. I would be chuffed. If they said every day then I'd not touch the place with a barge pole.

I'm aware that there is a specialist transport police force - these chaps were MET, I know what their badges look like.

Yes, we do have a crime problem - it's South East London, what do you expect?

My point was, that considering we have gang and gun crime, it's a little sad that the greatest number of coppers gathered in one place I've ever seen, was to protect the revenue of Connex through the policing of fare-evasions

But as I said, I have no doubt that some secondary crimes were accounted for off the back of this operation.

The TFL police are part of the MET funded by TFL and seperate from BTP.

There is of course no way you'd know that as I don't think it's publicised that widely.

They support and target buses, taxis, congestion and trains/underground.

[fluffnik]

14-7 said:

fluffnik said:

...but not if he engaged in other equally legitimate activities.

Quite.

Although I still fail to see any significance in this story (like all the other 'photographer arrested' stories).

Too much police/state power in a general diffuse way, that's the significance of all these stories...

14-7 said:

I do quite a bit of photography in my spare time and as part of that wander around in public areas photographing people and buildings. Never once has a police officer approached me about what I was doing.

Very nice your photos are too, always good to see them over in Random Photos...

14-7 said:

Perhaps I don't look like a dodgy so and so though.

TTIUWOP!

14-7 said:

Even if an officer approached and asked what I was doing I'd quite happily talk to him and show him what I was taking photos of, talk to him about what I was photographing and why, I'd even tell him who I was (shock horror!).

Fine, I likely would too, I'm a garrulous after all.

No-one should be obliged to without justification though.

14-7 said:

The problem here is that if you are a decent person you wouldn't hesitate to help the police do their job.

It's not anywhere close to that simple.

There's a lot of things that the police are currently up to, not necessarily at their own volition, that the decent person should be doing everything in their power to resist.

14-7 said:

The only people that don't are those that have something to prove. I don't know what that is, perhaps they feel hard done to, oppressed, maybe even have a grudge just because the media has made them feel like they should.

Personal freedom is far,far, FAR more important than either police or state power.

This is well worth forcing the issue on.

14-7 said:

Perhaps they feel that by refusing to comply with law they are a rebel and are somehow more superior to those that just get on with life. Perhaps they just see the pound signs when approached and realised they can create a situation out of nothing. I really don't know and don't see the points others have made over the time I have been a member here.

There are no laws being broken, except perhaps by the police in this scenario...

Holding the state to account and enforcing freedoms is about as noble as it gets.

14-7 said:

Personally, although I don't always agree with laws introduced, I believe that as a UK citizen it is my duty to not only obey the law but also do what I can to stop people who don't.

There we differ.

I have a moral compass with, I believe, a much truer heading than the state's...

I won't support laws that lack moral basis, by my compass.

14-7 said:

Far too many just walk past someone being assaulted, drive past collisions that they witnessed, ignore things that don't concern them. All things concern us and if we all cared about others and realised that in the end our refusal to do anything will affect us we would all be better off. Unfortunately, all society has learned is that its easier to ignore things because we can't be bothered and are really just a bunch of lazy so and so's.

I'm a good citizen; I pay my taxes, I've huckled thieves...

I don't support current police powers.

[Egbert Nobacon]

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

[Dr Jekyll]

ExChrispy Porker said:

T89 Callan said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Quinny said:

His mistake was to get into a discussion......

Should have just bought his chips.

Should have just been allowed to go about his inocent daily life instead of being treated like a criminal by incompetent bullying police.

Indeed.
which is what would have happened had he just concentrated on his chips.

But taking photographs in a public place is just as legal as eating chips. If you want photography to b illegal, say so, but don't rely in the anti terrorist catch-all.

[havoc]

Egbert Nobacon said:

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

Hmmm...something odd there.

That said, the problem with 'targets' is it encourages people to hit the easy ones and ignore the hard stuff...which IMHO is the complete antithesis of the role the Police SHOULD have in society. IMHO it's the politicised and targeted culture which is harming both the reputation and effectiveness of the Police as much as anything. But that's a very old story which has been done repeatedly on here.


PS - 14-7 & fluffnik - interesting debate a couple of posts above...more useful than some of the mud-flinging that happens in SP&L.

[W124Bob]

DPX said:

What a sad country.
Cant wait for ID cards a quick scan and up flashes your last week shopping list from the supermarket.

When will start chipping us like dogs ?

That reminds me read this advert in a newsagents window a couple of years ago
"Pet chips £20,pensioners half price"

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Egbert Nobacon said:

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

They are not though are they?

[rypt]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Egbert Nobacon said:

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

They are not though are they?

Article said:

Police have refused to recover a stolen vehicle from a travellers' camp because of the danger.

That is called help in your book?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

rypt said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Egbert Nobacon said:

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

They are not though are they?

Article said:

Police have refused to recover a stolen vehicle from a travellers' camp because of the danger.

That is called help in your book?

They haven't though.

That is just what he says, not what the police say. He 'quotes' an officer. No name nothing.

That's called a sensationalist headline in my book.

[oldsoak]

rypt said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Egbert Nobacon said:

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

They are not though are they?

Article said:

Police have refused to recover a stolen vehicle from a travellers' camp because of the danger.

That is called help in your book?

No its called an ongoing investigation...the original posting on this particular Telegraph story (courtesy of Streaky (who else?)) can be found....
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Edited by oldsoak on Thursday 25th February 10:33

[Mr_annie_vxr]

rypt said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Egbert Nobacon said:

They're obviously too busy arresting photographers or issuing Section 59's to help this chap out ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253396/Po...

Edited by Egbert Nobacon on Thursday 25th February 07:47

They are not though are they?

Article said:

Police have refused to recover a stolen vehicle from a travellers' camp because of the danger.

That is called help in your book?

If you read the article...


[b]Yesterday a force spokesman said officers had visited the site and found no trace of the van.
He said: 'We have been to The Willows site as part of our investigation so it is not right to say we regard it as a no-go area.'[/b]

Still why should a journalist let facts get in the way of a sensationalist headline.

[Nick M]

14-7 said:

The problem here is that if you are a decent person you wouldn't hesitate to help the police do their job. The only people that don't are those that have something to prove. I don't know what that is, perhaps they feel hard done to, oppressed, maybe even have a grudge just because the media has made them feel like they should.

Personally, although I don't always agree with laws introduced, I believe that as a UK citizen it is my duty to not only obey the law but also do what I can to stop people who don't.

Thanks - you go right ahead and give up your hard won personal freedoms, but would you mind awfully not giving mine away too while you're at it because, well, I happen to disagree.

In purely simplistic terms I agree that if you've got nothing to hide then why make life difficult by not cooperating with the copper. But this is not about having something to prove in any sort of macho way, it's about standing up for a basic right which, once lost, will never be recovered.

This whole thread has danced around all sorts of opinions, comments, 'facts', etc., but fundamentally we should all be wary of losing, gradually and bit by bit, freedoms and rights which have been entrenched in our way of life for hundreds of years. This, at least to my way of thinking, is NOT a trivial issue. It's about sticking up for what we believe to be right.

[hairyben]

The irony is, while plod are running around flapping about amateur photographers, if the "real terrorists" wanted photographs, would just be using easily available covert equipment (or streetview)

[TTwiggy]

hairyben said:

The irony is, while plod are running around flapping about amateur photographers, if the "real terrorists" wanted photographs, would just be using easily available covert equipment (or streetview)

I mentioned this a way back, but was accused of being 'sad'

[hairyben]

TTwiggy said:

hairyben said:

The irony is, while plod are running around flapping about amateur photographers, if the "real terrorists" wanted photographs, would just be using easily available covert equipment (or streetview)

I mentioned this a way back, but was accused of being 'sad'

Can't understand that. Hassling amateur photographers is to anti-terrorism what speed cameras are to road safety- an easy to administer, in-your-face, simplistic pretence of doing something that only a moron would believe helps, while taking resources away from tackling any real issue.

Edited by hairyben on Thursday 25th February 12:45

[TTwiggy]

hairyben said:

TTwiggy said:

hairyben said:

The irony is, while plod are running around flapping about amateur photographers, if the "real terrorists" wanted photographs, would just be using easily available covert equipment (or streetview)

I mentioned this a way back, but was accused of being 'sad'

Can't understand that. Hassling amateur photographers is to anti-terrorism what speed cameras are to road safety- an easy to administer, in-your-face, simplistic pretence of doing something that only a moron would believe helps, while taking resources away from tackling any real issue.

Edited by hairyben on Thursday 25th February 12:45

yep - I also asked why it was, that when the IRA and UDA were bombing the mainland (much more successfully than the current lot) in the 70s and 80s, nobody had their freedoms impeached... didn't get an answer though

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Then you don't know much about what happened then. Plenty of people did but ( I did reply to this earlier) there was less willingness in the media to challenge it. Less ability to make people aware.

The Internet has made it more reportable.

Did you see my reply about the Met and TFL.

[TTwiggy]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Then you don't know much about what happened then. Plenty of people did but ( I did reply to this earlier) there was less willingness in the media to challenge it. Less ability to make people aware.

The Internet has made it more reportable.

Did you see my reply about the Met and TFL.

thanks Annie, yes I did - sorry I didn't reply, it was indeed something I was not aware of.

still not sure about the other point though, but I concede that reporting from those times is harder to come by.

I would say that my father used to visit Northern Ireland on business a lot during that era, and as our family name is the same as a very famous 'Irish Freedom Fighter' from around 1916, he did get a lot of hassle

Never experienced any problems over here though - not that that actually means anything...