Section 44 still being used.
Discussion
XG332 said:
Possibly better in SP&L?Ignorance is no defence as they say . . .
More relevant here than SP&L imo.
BIB's response likely to be sincerely apologetic whilst offering no real ground for action against them.
I know this as I was stopped under S44 in October, 3 months after it had been discontinued nationally by the Home Office and 15 months after Hampshire Police (the force which stopped me) had suspended its use.
I have an official apology from the force and the option of taking individual litigation against the officers involved on the basis of common assault (I was subjected to a personal search) but for the countless times I get stopped I'd rather not have the reputation of being the prick who decided to get two cops in trouble, as I'd doubtless end up viewed from some angles.
Instead there's a more constructive course of action presently underway but I'll save the details until it's concrete. FWIW the Inspector who investigated my complaint intimated that it would be dealt with as a performance management issue rather than disciplinary.
Interesting that it continues even now. I couldn't see a link on the page you posted that says where or when the bloke got stopped but I'm going to try and make contact to swap notes.
BIB's response likely to be sincerely apologetic whilst offering no real ground for action against them.
I know this as I was stopped under S44 in October, 3 months after it had been discontinued nationally by the Home Office and 15 months after Hampshire Police (the force which stopped me) had suspended its use.
I have an official apology from the force and the option of taking individual litigation against the officers involved on the basis of common assault (I was subjected to a personal search) but for the countless times I get stopped I'd rather not have the reputation of being the prick who decided to get two cops in trouble, as I'd doubtless end up viewed from some angles.
Instead there's a more constructive course of action presently underway but I'll save the details until it's concrete. FWIW the Inspector who investigated my complaint intimated that it would be dealt with as a performance management issue rather than disciplinary.
Interesting that it continues even now. I couldn't see a link on the page you posted that says where or when the bloke got stopped but I'm going to try and make contact to swap notes.
MadMullah said:
I got asked to move the other month by a security guard "under section 44"
so i moved off thier property and onto the pavement and carried on.
That's all they can do iircso i moved off thier property and onto the pavement and carried on.
Similarly I was told I had to ask for permisson by a landlord as I was taking a photo and his pub was in the background.
mrmarkreed said:
Stay tuned for news. At the moment all there is a "acknowledgement of letter".
You may also get a IPCC leaflet about the different methods of complaint resolution. In case not, somewhere in the small print it says they have to keep you updated at least every 28 days. That said, it's unlikely they'll take longer than 28 days- unless they're trying to avoid reviewing the CCTV evidence which just so happens to corroborate your side of the story, not that I'd know anything about that 
Drop me a PM if you think it's worth swapping notes.
Hi again.
Why not take photos?
Actually, it was an exceptionally foggy day, with visibility of at beast 100 feet - I couldn't see the property behind ours in the morning, so for me, there was a very strange sense of being isolated. Bridges appeared from nowhere and shrouded in grey, dense mist. Looked rather stunning and odd, and much like a 80's horror film. So, for me, the sight of this strange and modern station rising out of a sea of cloud seemed worth taking : the view was unique. Not seen something like it in the years I've lived there.
The world has some very unusual, and visually interesting views. Plenty of people miss them on their travels through life.
Why not take photos?
Actually, it was an exceptionally foggy day, with visibility of at beast 100 feet - I couldn't see the property behind ours in the morning, so for me, there was a very strange sense of being isolated. Bridges appeared from nowhere and shrouded in grey, dense mist. Looked rather stunning and odd, and much like a 80's horror film. So, for me, the sight of this strange and modern station rising out of a sea of cloud seemed worth taking : the view was unique. Not seen something like it in the years I've lived there.
The world has some very unusual, and visually interesting views. Plenty of people miss them on their travels through life.
mrmarkreed said:
Hi again.
Why not take photos?
Actually, it was an exceptionally foggy day, with visibility of at beast 100 feet - I couldn't see the property behind ours in the morning, so for me, there was a very strange sense of being isolated. Bridges appeared from nowhere and shrouded in grey, dense mist. Looked rather stunning and odd, and much like a 80's horror film. So, for me, the sight of this strange and modern station rising out of a sea of cloud seemed worth taking : the view was unique. Not seen something like it in the years I've lived there.
The world has some very unusual, and visually interesting views. Plenty of people miss them on their travels through life.
Yes the bridge picture was interesting but I couldn't see the appeal of the Debenhams photo. Like I say I think the police were wrong but the officer was probably scratching his head as to why anyone would want to shoot such a thing. LOL I seem to be turning the Police into some sort of Arts Council enforcement squad Why not take photos?
Actually, it was an exceptionally foggy day, with visibility of at beast 100 feet - I couldn't see the property behind ours in the morning, so for me, there was a very strange sense of being isolated. Bridges appeared from nowhere and shrouded in grey, dense mist. Looked rather stunning and odd, and much like a 80's horror film. So, for me, the sight of this strange and modern station rising out of a sea of cloud seemed worth taking : the view was unique. Not seen something like it in the years I've lived there.
The world has some very unusual, and visually interesting views. Plenty of people miss them on their travels through life.
Traumatic? Well, to someone caught unawares, and note xpecting a search it could be quite terrifying : I BETTER DO AS PLOD SAYS OR ELSE. They rely on YOU not knowing the law as well as they think they do to get away with it. The key line is "Are you detaining me?" under an S&S : if so, you're under arrest and they have a shedload of paperwork. If not, you are free to go, though his pride may be irked by a percieved lack of respct and a minor infraction which is often overlooked may be used to intimidate you. I felt intimidated and were I not so aware I could easily have done whatever he said. Others probably do this. The police rely on you not knowing the law, and not questioning their powers.
Noisy said:
I've never actually been searched, is it a traumatic experience? Much as I agree officers should be up to date with the law they uphold, I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to search on suspicion of something, if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a issue.
The problem in a case like this is that the thing that the PC is suspicious of is someone taking photo's in a public area. This is not something that is against the law. As I understand it, section 44 was brought in to allow police officers to detain someone who was taking detailed photographs of a possible terrorist target. The problem with this, and the reason that S44 was rescinded, is that everything these days seems to be considered a possible target and therefore every photographer became a legitimate terror suspect. This is plainly stupid.I understand where you're coming from Paul and to be honest although I've never been spoken to by the police while taking photographs, I would treat their initial approach in the same way I would a random stop whilst driving i.e. be polite, discuss the situation with them and then carry on once we'd finished talking. Currently though there appears to be a number of officers who haven't realised that S44 is no more, that taking photographs in a public place is not a crime and that treating photographers as terror suspects is the correct procedure.
Imagine if a law was passed based on the evidence that terrorists only drove blue cars (lets call it Section MX5) and that the result of this law was that if you had a blue car the police would be correct in assuming that you must be a terrorist and should therefore pull you over, demand to know what you're doing, where you're going, search you and impound your car. Every time a police officer saw you. It would soon wear very thin with all owners of blue cars I'm sure. This is what happened to photographers under S44. Now imagine that SMX5 was rescinded but that a number of officers still insisted that all blue cars must be pulled over. How long would it take before you considered it harassment? How long would you still think "I can't see why they shouldn't be allowed to search on suspicion of something, if you have nothing to hide it shouldn't be a issue" if what they suspected you of doing was driving a blue car?
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff