More anti-social photographers
Discussion
Dr Jekyll said:
What's worrying is that when they can't remember the relevant law they think. "I can't remember any laws allowing this activity so I'll assume it's illegal".
They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Ironically that used to be the way things were, now it is the former not the latter. Or it should be. They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Some officers just don't know when to back down.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Dr Jekyll said:
What's worrying is that when they can't remember the relevant law they think. "I can't remember any laws allowing this activity so I'll assume it's illegal".
They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Ironically that used to be the way things were, now it is the former not the latter. Or it should be. They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Some officers just don't know when to back down.
Just read Terz0123 comment "Job done, there is no issue and no aggro and almost without exception there will be smiles all round. IF it goes pear shaped and you are asked to stop or you are unhappy make a note of the officers number and deal with it through the complaints procedure. Yes, there is one and yes officers do not enjoy having to account for their behaviour when they are in the wrong".
Wrong!
It should go: Idiot of a police officer realises he is dealing with someone who obviously knows the law better than he does, apologises for his lack of training and backs off. Smiles all round and the citizen does not have to try and get justice from a biased compaints procedure.
Wrong!
It should go: Idiot of a police officer realises he is dealing with someone who obviously knows the law better than he does, apologises for his lack of training and backs off. Smiles all round and the citizen does not have to try and get justice from a biased compaints procedure.
havoc said:
ethnicity / social class of the 'youth' (which I suspect may have had an effect on the officers,
Well let me fill in part of the picture for you.He's white. He's also 15, not 16 as originally reported.
http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2010/07/02/police-bu...
MonkeyHanger said:
havoc said:
ethnicity / social class of the 'youth' (which I suspect may have had an effect on the officers,
Well let me fill in part of the picture for you.He's white. He's also 15, not 16 as originally reported.
http://photothisandthat.co.uk/2010/07/02/police-bu...
* Note I don't say 'justifiable' - I don't care what the kid looked like, the officers actions could never have been justifiable.
havoc said:
Hardly fits any sort of profile, except "spotty youth who looks like he might get picked on". Makes the officers attitude even less explainable*. I sincerely hope that copper gets at the very least "a meeting without coffee" for this...and I hope that lad gets a formal apology at the very least.
* Note I don't say 'justifiable' - I don't care what the kid looked like, the officers actions could never have been justifiable.
I was just filling in part of the picture * Note I don't say 'justifiable' - I don't care what the kid looked like, the officers actions could never have been justifiable.
He's a fairly average looking kid to me and shouldn't attract any sort of unwanted attention in normal circumstances.
The fact that he's only 15 is very interesting though....
Richard C said:
one of the big problems is that with 4,300 new laws, all sloppily drafted, the average policeman cannot be expected to keep up. So its not really suprising that some make it up as they are going along and claim all sort of powers that they are not entitled to, particularly as sloppy drafting blurs the edges.
I was told 15 years ago by a solicitor that " the average policeman knows about 19 laws reasonably well - theres a few that know more than that but any more is beyond what we expect from them "
John Sheldon: "Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because 'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him" - StreakyI was told 15 years ago by a solicitor that " the average policeman knows about 19 laws reasonably well - theres a few that know more than that but any more is beyond what we expect from them "
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Dr Jekyll said:
What's worrying is that when they can't remember the relevant law they think. "I can't remember any laws allowing this activity so I'll assume it's illegal".
They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Ironically that used to be the way things were, now it is the former not the latter. Or it should be. They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Some officers just don't know when to back down.
- Streakystreaky said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Dr Jekyll said:
What's worrying is that when they can't remember the relevant law they think. "I can't remember any laws allowing this activity so I'll assume it's illegal".
They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Ironically that used to be the way things were, now it is the former not the latter. Or it should be. They should think "I can't remember any laws prohibiting this so I'll assume it's legal."
Some officers just don't know when to back down.
- StreakyAnyway, back on topic,
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Illegali...
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photogra...
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photogra...
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 3rd July 13:56
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff