More anti-social photographers

[rpguk]

I really despair when I read the replies by some on here justifying the actions of the police in this case.

The chap refused to give his information and from what I can tell was guilty of nothing but that. There is absolutely no excuse for them arresting him on that basis, fortunately English law does not yet require one to identify themselves on demand without reason.

[Terzo123]

gruffalo said:

Absolutely never should arguing your innosence should not make a situation worse!!!!

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, that's what courts are there for.

He was asked numerous times for his details, and refused to provide them.

If there is a power of arrest attached to the legislation for failure to provide your details, then that's why he was arrested

If there is no power of arrest attached, then it would be a wrongful arrest, and i'm sure he would not be slow in suing the police.

[stitched]

If a police officer asks you for details you are perfectly entitled to ask him to stop being so nosey.
How would you feel if I walked up to you and asked who you are, where you are going oh and where do you live?
BiB are members of the public who are paid to do full time the duties of any citzen.
If no crime has been comitted then they should have no power at all over other, equal to themselves, citizens.

[heebeegeetee]

I could only watch the first 30 secs odd.

The country has gone absolutely stark staring mad, hasn't it?

[gruffalo]

Terzo123 said:

gruffalo said:

Absolutely never should arguing your innosence should not make a situation worse!!!!

This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, that's what courts are there for.

He was asked numerous times for his details, and refused to provide them.

If there is a power of arrest attached to the legislation for failure to provide your details, then that's why he was arrested

If there is no power of arrest attached, then it would be a wrongful arrest, and i'm sure he would not be slow in suing the police.

14-7 said:
Terzo123 said:
At the end of the day, how hard is it to give your name and address to a BIB

It looks to me like the photographer engineered this situation
Like so many do that make the news.

I don't actually think I've seen any stories or videos where the person taking the photos hasn't made the situation ten times worse by being argumentative.

Absolutely never should arguing your innosence should not make a situation worse!!!!


I was responding to this, it implied that disagreeing with a BiB and stating your innosence would make things worse, never should it do so.

You should not have to go to court all the time, some people can't afford time or money to do this and it is a waste of court and CPS time, what should happen is that the job should be done correctly in the first place.

[14-7]

gruffalo said:

I was responding to this, it implied that disagreeing with a BiB and stating your innocence would make things worse, never should it do so.

You should not have to go to court all the time, some people can't afford time or money to do this and it is a waste of court and CPS time, what should happen is that the job should be done correctly in the first place.

I agree that arguing your innocence should never make the situation worse but the story also mentions there had been complaints from members of the public about him. If they have complained to the police about this chap and officers just said, "nothing we can do", chances are they would complain about them not doing anything. What if someone has said that he was photographing them and their children and they were not happy with that?

I don't agree with some legislation but when simply answering who you are will in all likelihood make the officers walk away then what's the easiest thing to do? Be a pompous arse or just give them your details and get on with what you were doing?

[BDZ]

Mr E said:

Is failing to supply personal details to an officer an arrestable offence?

Generally not BUT if there is suspicion of an offence AND you do not provide a name and address (i.e. where a summons could be sent to) then there are grounds to arrest you. Once your name and address are confirmed, the grounds for arrest no longer apply.

Technically this means you can be arrested for any offence.

I think a lot of the paranoia about taking pictures is self-generating, compounded by mistakes from ignorant officers and PCSOs. Some people wish to believe we live in a Gestapo-like police state, and so go and create situations which allow them to confirm their prejudices.

The fact that the police are also part of the public (as per Peel) is largely irrelevant in this case as far as I can tell.

Doesn't help that imho most civil liberties types are in some ways more clued up on anti-terror laws that the majority of coppers. That said I'd want my facts on this matter from somewhere more objective than the Guardian.

[gruffalo]

14-7 said:

gruffalo said:

I was responding to this, it implied that disagreeing with a BiB and stating your innocence would make things worse, never should it do so.

You should not have to go to court all the time, some people can't afford time or money to do this and it is a waste of court and CPS time, what should happen is that the job should be done correctly in the first place.

I agree that arguing your innocence should never make the situation worse but the story also mentions there had been complaints from members of the public about him. If they have complained to the police about this chap and officers just said, "nothing we can do", chances are they would complain about them not doing anything. What if someone has said that he was photographing them and their children and they were not happy with that?

I don't agree with some legislation but when simply answering who you are will in all likelihood make the officers walk away then what's the easiest thing to do? Be a pompous arse or just give them your details and get on with what you were doing?

Well as the Sargent stated no one had complained to him but the Special did say there had been complaints but who knows what the reality was. I think that there are several bit of legislation on the statute books these days that need a root and branch review.

[TTwiggy]

If the people who complained were on public property, they should have been politely informed that having their picture taken was not a cause for complaint.

[stitched]

BDZ said:

Mr E said:

Is failing to supply personal details to an officer an arrestable offence?

Generally not BUT if there is suspicion of an offence AND you do not provide a name and address (i.e. where a summons could be sent to) then there are grounds to arrest you. Once your name and address are confirmed, the grounds for arrest no longer apply.

Technically this means you can be arrested for any offence.

I think a lot of the paranoia about taking pictures is self-generating, compounded by mistakes from ignorant officers and PCSOs. Some people wish to believe we live in a Gestapo-like police state, and so go and create situations which allow them to confirm their prejudices.

The fact that the police are also part of the public (as per Peel) is largely irrelevant in this case as far as I can tell.

Doesn't help that imho most civil liberties types are in some ways more clued up on anti-terror laws that the majority of coppers. That said I'd want my facts on this matter from somewhere more objective than the Guardian.

I assume from this that you work in law enfocement,
Does this not make you a de facto civil liberty type?

[rpguk]

14-7 said:

I don't agree with some legislation but when simply answering who you are will in all likelihood make the officers walk away then what's the easiest thing to do? Be a pompous arse or just give them your details and get on with what you were doing?

If more people stood up for their rights and acted the 'pompous arse' rather then just bending over because it's the 'easiest thing to do' then perhaps the police would think twice before throwing about their weight in situations like this.

Edited by rpguk on Monday 22 February 13:11

[gruffalo]

TTwiggy said:

If the people who complained were on public property, they should have been politely informed that having their picture taken was not a cause for complaint.

Just as well you can not complain about this or the how many million CCTV camera's and there opperators would be done for anti social behaviour;)

[BDZ]

stitched said:

BDZ said:

Mr E said:

Is failing to supply personal details to an officer an arrestable offence?

Generally not BUT if there is suspicion of an offence AND you do not provide a name and address (i.e. where a summons could be sent to) then there are grounds to arrest you. Once your name and address are confirmed, the grounds for arrest no longer apply.

Technically this means you can be arrested for any offence.

I think a lot of the paranoia about taking pictures is self-generating, compounded by mistakes from ignorant officers and PCSOs. Some people wish to believe we live in a Gestapo-like police state, and so go and create situations which allow them to confirm their prejudices.

The fact that the police are also part of the public (as per Peel) is largely irrelevant in this case as far as I can tell.

Doesn't help that imho most civil liberties types are in some ways more clued up on anti-terror laws that the majority of coppers. That said I'd want my facts on this matter from somewhere more objective than the Guardian.

I assume from this that you work in law enfocement,
Does this not make you a de facto civil liberty type?

I believe quite strongly in civil liberties, far more so than some of my colleagues in fact. I merely wished to make the distinction between someone who supports civil liberties in general and a civil liberties activist in particular.

[cs02rm0]

14-7 said:

I agree that arguing your innocence should never make the situation worse but the story also mentions there had been complaints from members of the public about him. If they have complained to the police about this chap and officers just said, "nothing we can do", chances are they would complain about them not doing anything.

Err... that's ok, isn't it?

[T89 Callan]

Congratulations to the Police on a job well done.... or is it just one bad egg giving you a bad name?

Just one more bad egg in a very quickly increasing list.

[Size Nine Elm]

rpguk said:

14-7 said:

I don't agree with some legislation but when simply answering who you are will in all likelihood make the officers walk away then what's the easiest thing to do? Be a pompous arse or just give them your details and get on with what you were doing?

If more people stood up for their rights and acted the 'pompous arse' rather then just bending over because it's the 'easiest thing to do' then perhaps the police would think twice before throwing about their weight in situations like this.

Perhaps sir might be interested in this?

I think you could add a NSFW to this... please.

[Cyberprog]

There are (and IANAL!) only two ways for the police to gain your name & address.

1) If you are a driver of a vehicle (if the Sgt had waited for them to return to the car, He could at least have gained the drivers name lawfully) under section 164 and 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
2) If you are suspected of engaging in 'antisocial behaviour'. This is behaviour that has caused harassment, alarm or distress to other people.

Now just how you can prove that you haven't engaged in antisocial behaviour I don't know. Hell, farting on the bus would probably tick all the above boxes!

Section 43 & 44 Searches (along with the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which provides for searches for items being used or may be used for criminal damage) DO NOT allow the police to get your name and address (unless you are the driver of a vehicle, see above), though if you had some ID on you, they could then view that.

Now, interestingly I cannot find a reference to this "section 2" that the sgt was mentioning. There is a subsection 2 which makes it an offence not to provide your address, but the actual section of the police reform act is Section 50. Subsection 1 gives the power to require the name & address.

It's always worth pointing out to the officers that if they waste your time, you will waste theirs by making formal complaints. May make them think twice when being officious.

[Jasandjules]

Size Nine Elm said:

Terzo123 said:

Seems simple, give your name and address, and then your free to go about your business.

Ihre papier, bitte...

Funny, that was my immediate thought.

[porka944s]

Small man syndrome flexing their muscles....again.

[rpguk]

Size Nine Elm said:

rpguk said:

14-7 said:

I don't agree with some legislation but when simply answering who you are will in all likelihood make the officers walk away then what's the easiest thing to do? Be a pompous arse or just give them your details and get on with what you were doing?

If more people stood up for their rights and acted the 'pompous arse' rather then just bending over because it's the 'easiest thing to do' then perhaps the police would think twice before throwing about their weight in situations like this.

Perhaps sir might be interested in this?

I think you could add a NSFW to this... please.

Fair enough, thought better of it anyway and removed it.