More anti-social photographers
Discussion
Man held in police station for eight hours after taking pictures of Christmas celebrations in Accrington
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photograp...
At what point does the Officer think it's a good idea to waste time and effort on someone taking photos of Xmas celebrations, then wasting even more time by bringing her sergeant along. What a pathetic officer she is.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photograp...
At what point does the Officer think it's a good idea to waste time and effort on someone taking photos of Xmas celebrations, then wasting even more time by bringing her sergeant along. What a pathetic officer she is.
Not that i agree with the PCSO's actions
But the man in question was not arrested for taking pictures, he was arrested for refusing to provide his details, whilst his friend who did provide details, was allowed to go about his business.
Seems simple, give your name and address, and then your free to go about your business.
But the man in question was not arrested for taking pictures, he was arrested for refusing to provide his details, whilst his friend who did provide details, was allowed to go about his business.
Seems simple, give your name and address, and then your free to go about your business.
Size Nine Elm said:
Terzo123 said:
Ihre papier, bitte...He chose not too, and the officers chose to apply the legistlation.
Could have been avoided, however it would appear the photographer did not wish to avoid it.
The arrest was never about photographs it was because he refused to acknowledge the power of the plod.
Remember walking back from GF late one night when a patrol stopped.
Where have you come from.
GF's house
Going?
Home (name of village given)
Name requested.
At this point I'm standing in the rain and getting a bit peeved so foolishly told them that unless they had a reasonable suspicion that I had been involved in a crime they had no power to keep me there, this was 1989 btw.
I asked if a crime had been comitted locally which they were investigating and was arrested and taken to the nick (4 miles in the wrong direction).
In the station for 20 or so minutes then a Sgt(don't know if he was duty) gives me a b
king for being disrespectful to the police.
I explain that I'm not sure walking home in the rain minding my own business is disrespectful and get another bking along with some vague threats about what they could do me for.
I asked if I could telephone my father as he is a barrister (utter bks of course) and he tells me they'll let me off this time.
Long walk home in the rain.
Remember walking back from GF late one night when a patrol stopped.
Where have you come from.
GF's house
Going?
Home (name of village given)
Name requested.
At this point I'm standing in the rain and getting a bit peeved so foolishly told them that unless they had a reasonable suspicion that I had been involved in a crime they had no power to keep me there, this was 1989 btw.
I asked if a crime had been comitted locally which they were investigating and was arrested and taken to the nick (4 miles in the wrong direction).
In the station for 20 or so minutes then a Sgt(don't know if he was duty) gives me a b
king for being disrespectful to the police.I explain that I'm not sure walking home in the rain minding my own business is disrespectful and get another b
king along with some vague threats about what they could do me for.I asked if I could telephone my father as he is a barrister (utter b
ks of course) and he tells me they'll let me off this time.Long walk home in the rain.
Terzo123 said:
Not that i agree with the PCSO's actions
But the man in question was not arrested for taking pictures, he was arrested for refusing to provide his details, whilst his friend who did provide details, was allowed to go about his business.
Seems simple, give your name and address, and then your free to go about your business.
He didn't need too, so he rightfully didn't.But the man in question was not arrested for taking pictures, he was arrested for refusing to provide his details, whilst his friend who did provide details, was allowed to go about his business.
Seems simple, give your name and address, and then your free to go about your business.
Then officer had a strop and brought along her sargent who lied about people complaining about his actions.
Edited by Rusty Arches on Monday 22 February 11:20
Terzo123 said:
Size Nine Elm said:
Terzo123 said:
Ihre papier, bitte...He chose not too, and the officers chose to apply the legistlation.
Could have been avoided, however it would appear the photographer did not wish to avoid it.
Police mandate is clear that control is given to police by the public.
Robert Peel nailed it when he said that policing was only possible with the support of the people and that police should always remain aware that they were equal to all members of society.
He foresaw a huge issue if policemen got the mistaken belief that they were in some way superior to joe public, as joe public would lose the respect they had for the police.
Robert Peel nailed it when he said that policing was only possible with the support of the people and that police should always remain aware that they were equal to all members of society.
He foresaw a huge issue if policemen got the mistaken belief that they were in some way superior to joe public, as joe public would lose the respect they had for the police.
Terzo123 said:
gruffalo said:
But would a record of his details then be kept, couyld he not have been worried that they could be used against him in the future?
Used against him for what?My tin foil hat must have fell off
Principles of policing set out by Robert Peel.
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
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
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.It looks to me like the photographer engineered this situation
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.
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
He was later asked for his details under the anti-social behaviour act, im not sure how if he was at his car preparing to go home he engineered the situation! It is possible but he walked away from the police twice before.
From what ive read in the article I'd say that was harrasment, but then their are 2 sides to any story. Unfortunately for the police he has it recorded on a video camera.
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.It looks to me like the photographer engineered this situation
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.
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
Looks like the police officer and sargent engineered this situation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff