More anti-social photographers
Discussion
Oh my!
Yet another BiB baiting exercise by an 'ammerchewer fotographer' to get his story in the papers because another dizzy PCSO fell hook line and sinker for it....and wait... two fully fledged officers compounded the error....deep joy!
On the other side of the same coin, we never actually see the photographer taking any of the shots that led to the confrontation...we see some of the shots he actually took prior to the confrontation, we don't know if "the manner in which he was taking the photographs" was indeed suspicious or anti social or not...the paper doesn't interview anyone other than those 'photographers' so we have a rather lop sided view of the whole thing weighted in favour of the photographer...So nowt strange there then.
The three striper considered their behaviour was Anti social and as we hear on the vid 'others' had also thought their behaviour was anti social. I take 'others' to mean not only his colleagues but MoP as well.
I must say though the Photographer chappie was well rehearsed in his on camera commentary almost as if he had prepared it for just such an occasion.
It smacks of yet another set up by some so-called 'amateur photographer' to bring the anti terrorism legislation into the public eye again.
What makes it really sad is that BiB fell for it... AGAIN!
Yet another BiB baiting exercise by an 'ammerchewer fotographer' to get his story in the papers because another dizzy PCSO fell hook line and sinker for it....and wait... two fully fledged officers compounded the error....deep joy!
On the other side of the same coin, we never actually see the photographer taking any of the shots that led to the confrontation...we see some of the shots he actually took prior to the confrontation, we don't know if "the manner in which he was taking the photographs" was indeed suspicious or anti social or not...the paper doesn't interview anyone other than those 'photographers' so we have a rather lop sided view of the whole thing weighted in favour of the photographer...So nowt strange there then.
The three striper considered their behaviour was Anti social and as we hear on the vid 'others' had also thought their behaviour was anti social. I take 'others' to mean not only his colleagues but MoP as well.
I must say though the Photographer chappie was well rehearsed in his on camera commentary almost as if he had prepared it for just such an occasion.
It smacks of yet another set up by some so-called 'amateur photographer' to bring the anti terrorism legislation into the public eye again.
What makes it really sad is that BiB fell for it... AGAIN!
Am I the only one that thinks the PCSO at the start was very attractive?
Iv been arrested at gun point for being asian without due care and attention while in posession of a large camera in Central London, when I complained to the police force, it was met with a "We will not investigate this because of national security", when I complained to the IPCC, I was visited by two chappies from MI5 strongly advising me to remove my complaint, otherwise I would be chucked in jail for 2 years for being a suspected terrorist (One was the same guy who was there when I was being interviewed, same person who told my father that I was arrested and he could pick me up from jail in 2 years, making my dad cry, then having a laugh at the other people in the room).
If you have a look at the statistics, something like over 300k people have been searched under Sec44, and a grand total of 0 have been successfully prosecuted for being terrorists. But its Labour's manifesto to keep the people terrified, the terrorist boogeyman is out there to get you, dont you know!
Iv been arrested at gun point for being asian without due care and attention while in posession of a large camera in Central London, when I complained to the police force, it was met with a "We will not investigate this because of national security", when I complained to the IPCC, I was visited by two chappies from MI5 strongly advising me to remove my complaint, otherwise I would be chucked in jail for 2 years for being a suspected terrorist (One was the same guy who was there when I was being interviewed, same person who told my father that I was arrested and he could pick me up from jail in 2 years, making my dad cry, then having a laugh at the other people in the room).
If you have a look at the statistics, something like over 300k people have been searched under Sec44, and a grand total of 0 have been successfully prosecuted for being terrorists. But its Labour's manifesto to keep the people terrified, the terrorist boogeyman is out there to get you, dont you know!
Terzo123 said:
Odie said:
You dont have to give your details.
But then it falls into, always better to comply as if you dont you look guilty of something.
I don't know what the powers are with regards to the legislation used in this case. However there is no mention of the police being sued for wrongful arrest, so i presume there must have been some sort of power of arrest attachedBut then it falls into, always better to comply as if you dont you look guilty of something.
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
PintOfKittens said:
Iv been arrested at gun point for being asian without due care and attention while in posession of a large camera in Central London, when I complained to the police force, it was met with a "We will not investigate this because of national security", when I complained to the IPCC, I was visited by two chappies from MI5 strongly advising me to remove my complaint, otherwise I would be chucked in jail for 2 years for being a suspected terrorist (One was the same guy who was there when I was being interviewed, same person who told my father that I was arrested and he could pick me up from jail in 2 years, making my dad cry, then having a laugh at the other people in the room).
This didnt happen did it!!Edited by Odie on Monday 22 February 13:42
Edited by Odie on Monday 22 February 13:43
PintOfKittens said:
Odie said:
This didnt happen did it!!
I wish it didnt, now i treat all police officers (and "intelligence" officers) with suspicion, and I think theyr all corrupt dodgey f
kwits.- edit because of quote fkwittery*
Edited by PintOfKittens on Monday 22 February 13:37
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. courts don't deal with matters that are nopt brought before them; charges must be laid for that to happenHe was asked numerous times for his details, and refused to provide them.....he was entirely within his legal right to do so
If there is a power of arrest attached to the legislation for failure to provide your details, then that's why he was arrested as the article itself confirmed ...no there was not. he asked if he was free to go the first time and did so.
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. [ b] clearly, our jumped up PCSO and her plod colleague felt that they were above the mere public and were not going to be seen to 'lose'. Regrettable but increasingly common attitude[b]
So:
Man doing nothing wrong and breaking no laws
PCSO asks what he's doing
Man politely tells her to mind her own business
PCSO gets police officer involved
Man repeats above advice
Police officer gets superior officer
Superior officer arrests man for refusing to provide his details regarding a matter which is in no way antisocial or illegal
...and people here try to defend this? "Oh but he was being argumentative" - GOOD. The police earn respect through their actions, and not because they simply wear a uniform.
Man doing nothing wrong and breaking no laws
PCSO asks what he's doing
Man politely tells her to mind her own business
PCSO gets police officer involved
Man repeats above advice
Police officer gets superior officer
Superior officer arrests man for refusing to provide his details regarding a matter which is in no way antisocial or illegal
...and people here try to defend this? "Oh but he was being argumentative" - GOOD. The police earn respect through their actions, and not because they simply wear a uniform.
Parrot of Doom said:
So:
Man doing nothing wrong and breaking no laws
PCSO asks what he's doing
Man politely tells her to mind her own business
PCSO gets police officer involved
Man repeats above advice
Police officer gets superior officer
Superior officer arrests man for refusing to provide his details regarding a matter which is in no way antisocial or illegal
...and people here try to defend this? "Oh but he was being argumentative" - GOOD. The police earn respect through their actions, and not because they simply wear a uniform.
No P-O-D not defending (at least not in my case)but rationalising what has been shown/written against what hasn't. In so doing reaching a logical conclusion that IF (big if) Plod was acting without provocation they deserve a roasting..IF (again big if) the snappy happy chappy orchestrated it to suit some agenda (as has previously happened) the twonk needs a good kicking for wasting Police time...and ours!Man doing nothing wrong and breaking no laws
PCSO asks what he's doing
Man politely tells her to mind her own business
PCSO gets police officer involved
Man repeats above advice
Police officer gets superior officer
Superior officer arrests man for refusing to provide his details regarding a matter which is in no way antisocial or illegal
...and people here try to defend this? "Oh but he was being argumentative" - GOOD. The police earn respect through their actions, and not because they simply wear a uniform.
ETA qualifier.
Edited by oldsoak on Monday 22 February 16:38
Parrot of Doom said:
So:
...and people here try to defend this? "Oh but he was being argumentative" - GOOD. The police earn respect through their actions, and not because they simply wear a uniform.
I don't think the Police care if they have your respect. They just want you to do what they tell you to....and people here try to defend this? "Oh but he was being argumentative" - GOOD. The police earn respect through their actions, and not because they simply wear a uniform.
Edited by rewc on Monday 22 February 17:08
Richard C said:
If there is a power of arrest attached to the legislation for failure to provide your details, then that's why he was arrested as the article itself confirmed ...no there was not. he asked if he was free to go the first time and did so.
You've changed my quote, is that allowed?Anyway a direct quote from the article which contradicts the gist of what you were inferring
"There is a section of that act that compels a member of the public to give their details if a police officer suspects them of antisocial activity."
He failed to provide his details and was arrested. No doubt he will say that his actions were not anti social, where as the BIB/PCSO will say they were provided with information to the contrary.
Terzo123 said:
Richard C said:
If there is a power of arrest attached to the legislation for failure to provide your details, then that's why he was arrested as the article itself confirmed ...no there was not. he asked if he was free to go the first time and did so.
You've changed my quote, is that allowed?Anyway a direct quote from the article which contradicts the gist of what you were inferring
"There is a section of that act that compels a member of the public to give their details if a police officer suspects them of antisocial activity."
He failed to provide his details and was arrested. No doubt he will say that his actions were not anti social, where as the BIB/PCSO will say they were provided with information to the contrary.
Terzo123 said:
Richard C said:
If there is a power of arrest attached to the legislation for failure to provide your details, then that's why he was arrested as the article itself confirmed ...no there was not. he asked if he was free to go the first time and did so.
You've changed my quote, is that allowed?Anyway a direct quote from the article which contradicts the gist of what you were inferring
"There is a section of that act that compels a member of the public to give their details if a police officer suspects them of antisocial activity."
He failed to provide his details and was arrested. No doubt he will say that his actions were not anti social, where as the BIB/PCSO will say they were provided with information to the contrary.
...It's not prohibited and since I did it it hadn't been prevented so...I guess ..by definition .. it must be allowed 
. Thats quite an authoritarian streak you have there Terzo123 ! I know some authoritarian folk amongst us feel, if it isn't specifically allowed it ought to be banned. While the rest of us loose libertarians like me think unless its specifically banned, lets go for it. Anyway I was just emphasizing the matter and as skwdenyer says seems the conflab (?) of police had to cook up something whart was in the Act to go back and harrass him with.
Edited by Richard C on Monday 22 February 18:47
Jasandjules said:
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...http://www.verzetsmuseum.org/tweede-wereldoorlog/e...
"Almost everyone obeyed. After all, what would happen if you refused? And why shouldn't you be open about your origins?"
oldsoak said:
No P-O-D not defending (at least not in my case)but rationalising what has been shown/written against what hasn't. In so doing reaching a logical conclusion that IF (big if) Plod was acting without provocation they deserve a roasting..IF (again big if) the snappy happy chappy orchestrated it to suit some agenda (as has previously happened) the twonk needs a good kicking for wasting Police time...and ours!
That is red herring. If the authorities are going to exercise a power (assuming they have such a power) then they had better be damned sure that they are going about correctly and within the law. It should not matter whether the photographer is doing it to illustrate a point or whether it is just a member of the public going about their lawful business, the police should behave according to the law and not according to their own interpretation or assumption of the law. It is understandable to an extent that a PCSO does not have an in depth knowledge of such matters, but a constable should, and a Sargeant (who has had to pass an exam to reach that rank) most definitely should.It is not acceptable for the police to make up reasons to harass people because they think they can. They should not be trying to get one over on the member of the public because he doesn't immediately kowtow to them. It is called professionalism, and is something that appears to be missing in the majority of these cases that come to public attention.
T89 Callan said:
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.
Yes must be what 10 or so on threads on here. out of the 135,000 + 20,000 pcso's. Just one more bad egg in a very quickly increasing list.
Get some perspective.
Police in some officers are a
holes or not sure about the law shocker.Still you keep implying it's some form of massive problem.
After all that lovel story about 1989 policing just shows how things were far far better then. Oh hold on...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff