If you take photos in London...

[GTH]

Originally Posted by eeyore

No ACPO arent wrong , but you are wrong in your interpretation of what they said - the missing word in your post is Some - as in some of the rank and file may be misusing their powers on the ground, also officers being confused about their powers under section 44 (as started by acpo would indicate that they were genuinely trying to do their (difficult and taxing) jobs to the best of thie abilities but were maybe confused about certain aspects of the legislation

I missed nothing from the ACPO letter.......the word the was used..and not some.


...and ACPO did not indicate, in their opinion, that..they were genuinely trying to do the job that they have chosen and are paid to do correctly.These are biased and preformed opinons

that isnt the same thing as baldly stating that every police officer is instituionally "thick" .......The word every was not used...the wording was seems

also while officers should indeed be reminded that it is not an ordinarily an offence for a member of the public to take a photo of a public building, photographers should also be reminded that if a police officer asks what you are doing, there is nothing wrong with politely telling him.

.....(which the videos clearly show the Police NOT being able to in a polite manner, but extremely confrontational



as to the videos all over the web - it is difficult to keep an open mind about people who set out to wind the police up and "just happen" to have a feind video it....

this is just an opinion...as the facts on the web don`t show Muppets winding up the Police with a fiend there to photograph...quite the reverse, if they are viewed with an open mind...and to label law abiding members of the public fiends (satan/monstrous/ evil) seems to say a lot of where you`re coming from

Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington (From Oxford Mail)

I'm not saying that the police are perfect, nor am i saying that photographers shouldnt have the right to work freely - ( but you have been disrespecting innocent members of the public by calling them Muppets, fiends ..and trouble makers, as well as inferring that it is set up, of which the videos show otherwise

but what i am saying is that the police are not on the whole a bunch of "big I am" poseurs who like abusing their powers, and nor are they secretly facists intent of debriding our civil rights - on the whole they are decent hard working individuals doing a difficult job in trying circumstances , and there is nothing to be proud of in setting out to make their life more difficult

The web videos don`t support the opinion of photographers being muppets and trouble makers...but do show the attitude of Police officers when abusing their powers...and do appear to be a using big I am attitude to innocent law abiding members of the public ( not fiends......all confirmed by the ACPO.....and not based on biased and and blinkered opinions...or adding a spin on the situation by changing the words published to suit ulterior motives, and the need to support something that is so obviously wrong says all.

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest | UK news | The Guardian

In times where finances are low, this is just a total waste of tax payers money. Many man hours wasted and the end result....Oh, released without charge!...that`s not guilty of any offence.....

If the Police continue to waste money in this manner, no wonder respect for them is diminishing..and when cuts are made, lets hope it`s those that are able to use common sense who are retained. Respect may be restored then, among the alleged Muppets, trouble makers and fiends....who are just law abiding citizens...like me ! ...and entitled to go about their business and jobs without unlawful and illegal harassment.

[eeyore]

with the web videos what puzzles me is that if they werent set up how did they come into being - did someone just happen to film a police officer dealing with a photographer ? or did the photographer go there with a freind with the express intent of being filmed ?

if as i suspect, the latter is the case, it is not a big leap to thinking that they also set out to provoke the reaction that they wished to film

Originally Posted by gth

and to label law abiding members of the public fiends (satan/monstrous/ evil) seems to say a lot of where you`re coming from

that was an obvious typo - I meant to write "...to have a freind video it" and picking up on that kind of thing says a lot about where you are coming from too

you also seem to have missed the point that I am a photographer - this isnt a them and us situation, and i agree with you that legitimate and law abiding members of the public have the right to freely take photographs of public buildings etc

However I dont agree that the police are "respect for the police is diminishing" or that they are "instituionally thick" or that they are the "big I am" or that the (possibly provoked) actions of a few officers caught on camera are representative of a fine body of men and women who regularly risk their safety and well being to keep us safe

[Bobbobthebob]

Originally Posted by eeyore

with the web videos what puzzles me is that if they werent set up how did they come into being - did someone just happen to film a police officer dealing with a photographer ? or did the photographer go there with a freind with the express intent of being filmed ?

I doubt it's quite so premeditated, I would've thought a lot of these videos are from digital photographers switching the camera over to video mode in order to record the interaction. On the odd chance that you are facing a bent cop then that's the only thing saving you from trumped up charges and only a "he said/she said" defense.

I might have missed a more suspect video of course but the one concerning the two photographers in Accrington seems like a normal response.

[BillyPilgrim]

Originally Posted by eeyore

with the web videos what puzzles me is that if they werent set up how did they come into being - did someone just happen to film a police officer dealing with a photographer ? or did the photographer go there with a freind with the express intent of being filmed ?

Or did the photographer have a friend there for insurance just in case he was harrassed?

Either way it doesn't really matter. If the police were doing their job properly then the photographer would be left free to get on with taking photos and would not be challenged.

Originally Posted by eeyore

if as i suspect, the latter is the case, it is not a big leap to thinking that they also set out to provoke the reaction that they wished to film

You seem to forget that the victims are not doing anything wrong. They are simply taking photographs in a public place. If a copper manages to feel provoked by this simple and harmless act then he/she shouldn't be doing the job.

Originally Posted by eeyore

However I dont agree that the police are "respect for the police is diminishing" or that they are "instituionally thick" or that they are the "big I am" or that the (possibly provoked) actions of a few officers caught on camera are representative of a fine body of men and women who regularly risk their safety and well being to keep us safe

I can only speak for myself and my respect for the police has greatly diminished over the last few years. There are many reasons in addition to the current issue of harrassment of photographers :-

Refusal to remove the DNA of innocent people from their database.

Their desire to imprison innocent people for 90 days without charge.

The use of anti-terror laws to detain lawful demonstrators.

The use of 'kettling' to detain lawful demonstrators.

Plans to use unmanned drone aircraft to spy on us.

Their desire to force us to carry ID cards.

I could go on...

This is evidence of a move towards a police state.

Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 is concerned too. She should be qualified to speak on the subject...

Spy chief: We risk a police state - Telegraph

[GTH]

Originally Posted by eeyore

with the web videos what puzzles me is that if they werent set up how did they come into being - did someone just happen to film a police officer dealing with a photographer ? or did the photographer go there with a freind with the express intent of being filmed ?

because people do have mobile phones, do use cameras, and do these days know their rights..and when they are abused, do record the FACTS which is perfectly lawful, even if a FRIEND is there. It`s not as complicated as you may like it to be, or devious

if as i suspect, the latter is the case, it is not a big leap to thinking that they also set out to provoke the reaction that they wished to film

I`d be interested in that proof ??...another spin ?

that is just your suspicious mind and opinion and not fact..one of which photographers would not waste their precious time and money doing....for what.....more harassment ?


that was an obvious typo - I meant to write "...to have a freind video it" and picking up on that kind of thing says a lot about where you are coming from too

yes, it means I can read and own what I write...fiend fitting in with your other slurs like muppets and trouble makers, being just law abiding citizens....but if it was an apology, I, as a muppet, (as you put it) can accept it.

you also seem to have missed the point that I am a photographer - this isnt a them and us situation, and i agree with you that legitimate and law abiding members of the public have the right to freely take photographs of public buildings etc.

even in Kidlington on your way to the chip shop?..or Accrington trying out a new camera

You are right, this is not about us and them as we haven`t committed any offence...it`s about our right to go about our law abiding business without harassment...and to some, 8 hours detainment, and without redress.
As a photographer I would not want my work deleted, as has happened..or equipment damaged and time wasted....as well as the loss of business and cost that would entail....and then the hassle and costs regarding appropriate compensation....and the cost to the tax payer...us !!

However I dont agree that the police are "respect for the police is diminishing" or that they are "instituionally thick" or that they are the "big I am" or that the (possibly provoked) actions of a few officers caught on camera are representative of a fine body of men and women who regularly risk their safety and well being to keep us safe

Sadly because of their actions, even the Police force accept that there is a need to regain confidence and a lot of work to do in view of the fact that the public has lost some respect due to how they approach their work, both in attitude, manner, and fact

...and [b](regardless of the rights and wrongs of police action)/B] doesn`t help when us muppets and trouble makers make a protest, when those within seem not to, and creates....carry on regardless...even after being informed 3 months ago to change as their actions are
unlawful....unlawful being the correct word sadly. And when that happens to the Police force, of all public servants, confidence and respect is bound to be effected, as it has. My concern is for all people, not just the privileged few....and that the Police cannot be selective where law is concerned, and misuse it to suit their own agenda. They, of all, have to be squeaky clean and correct by fact...or what is the message to society ?

To regain it they need to understand that what they are doing is wrong, and listen to their superiors who have already told them. Where something so small becomes so high profile and costly for the tax payer, it must say that their approach is wrong. The abuse of power in this case has been clearly stated both within....

...[b]"Andy Trotter, chief constable of the British transport police, who drafted the guidance for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said photographers "should be left alone to get on with what they are doing"."
[/B

[b] the rank and file are misusing their powers on the ground.
/B]

Originally Posted by eeyore

thus you shouldnt confuse the fact of the EHCR rulling with your preformed opinion that the police must be wrong.

and by the ECHR ruling, who after all, have made their views very clear on the subject ??...or are they wrong and to be ignored ?


By the way Eeyore i`m enjoying this debate and it`s nothing personal....but once laws become eroded and misused I feel passionately. Law has to be upheld...and not become clouded or misused, especially by those that are suppose to enforce it. That`s worrying !!

those fine body of men and women who regularly risk their safety and well being to keep us safe

....really need to make their views known to discourage those within abusing their power, thus creating a better overall standard, as would happen in my business, and I know most others. Bad practice has a habit of creating ripples and bad reputations..(like the stone in the pond !)..not carry on blindly and like a bull in a china shop in the hope it will go away or they will get there own way....that`s what loses respect ...and can be viewed as bullying at the least.

For the moment ....I rest my case