Police Arrest Photographer...

[TheAnimus]

Are you saying the British taxpayer paid the Waffen SS?

I also though it was pretty clear I was commenting on the first video.

ps she also admitted to an offence.

Saying that it was tax payers.

The principle is universal, the first photographer was needlessly antagonistic yes. Was the treatment of the police justified, no.

as for the lady admitting to an offence. No she admitted to cycling on a street, not to a simple open and shut offence.

Also I wouldn't say that its a good use of police time to go and hassle someone filming something, then when they aren't able to 'do them' for that, pull something else out of the air.

If the officer had asked about that first then its possible that was his intention. However it is apparent that he spent a dis-proportionate amount of time on the photography. Kinda wrong don't you think?

Also as to my first hand experience regarding prejudice wouldn't you say that is worrying?

[santa claus]

Stop being disingenuous Santa (Now there's a sentence I thought I'd never have to say).

Sorry. I'm just fed up of all these wacky videocamsters and their 2 minutes of fame. The police have a tough job EVERY day and it doesn't help when otherwise decent people start having a go.

[format]

Sorry. I'm just fed up of all these wacky videocamsters and their 2 minutes of fame. The police have a tough job EVERY day and it doesn't help when otherwise decent people start having a go.

OFC they have a hard job, not disputing that. But its of vital importance to question authority, always. IMO of course.

[santa claus]

Saying that it was tax payers.

The principle is universal, the first photographer was needlessly antagonistic yes. Was the treatment of the police justified, no.

as for the lady admitting to an offence. No she admitted to cycling on a street, not to a simple open and shut offence.

Also I wouldn't say that its a good use of police time to go and hassle someone filming something, then when they aren't able to 'do them' for that, pull something else out of the air.

If the officer had asked about that first then its possible that was his intention. However it is apparent that he spent a dis-proportionate amount of time on the photography. Kinda wrong don't you think?

Also as to my first hand experience regarding prejudice wouldn't you say that is worrying?

She admitted to cycling on a street yes. She also knew she was going the wrong way. It shows the officer had observed her for quite sometime and had not immediately pulled her for the traffic violation as he had suspicions about her activity. When questioned, she did nothing to help her cause. The police have to act on their initiative and you can eliminate yourself from suspicion by simply assisting them. I feel comforted with active policing tbh.

OFC they have a hard job, not disputing that. But its of vital importance to question authority, always. IMO of course.

I suppose it's down to pov. We give authority to the police and have mechanisms to address misuse. That mechanism isn't videocamman and whatever axe he has to grind or voxpops with a bunch of builders who would be wolf whistling after the young policewoman just as soon as the 'arrest' they witnessed was over.

[Lucio]

I think the more important question to ask is this a sign that perhaps police training not rigorous enough, particularly in the areas of civil liberties? More importantly, are the police being forced up against the local community more and more so that the internal attitude is that someone must be a guilty little toerag if they don't treat you respectfully?


After all, look at it from the copper's point of view, you've asked what you believe is a perfectly reasonable question (since your superiors have told you to get this information) and you've gotten a lippy and evasive response. Your experience tells you that generally only people who have something to hide act like this, so you want to check things out with your superiors or collegues what's the best way to proceed. Their actions don't seem so unreasonable now do they? After all if a member of the public had stopped the photographer in the street and asked for their name and why they were taking pictures, I bet the response would have been a lot different!

[Whiternoise]

Sorry. I'm just fed up of all these wacky videocamsters and their 2 minutes of fame. The police have a tough job EVERY day and it doesn't help when otherwise decent people start having a go.

That doesn't give them carte blanche to take it out on members of the public, however.

It's particularly annoying and downright cowardly when they nitpick to find an offence when it's clear that they're losing ground. For instance when it becomes clear that he's not going to get the girl for taking pictures of a building he goes after her cycling down a one way street (hardly worth their time).

It is blatantly obvious he had it in for the girl. You don't watch someone, note an offence, grill them on something else and go for the kill - finally fining them for causing distress in a public place.

I'm sorry, but so many PCSO's are a joke and a disgrace to an otherwise noble profession. All right they do a good job, but too many of them are just up their own arses with delusions of grandeur. I'm sure they have a hard job, but that doesn't give them amnesty from, quite frankly, abusing the public. What about toilet cleaners? I'm sure they have a hard job every day, but they don't put chili sauce on the bog roll when they've had a stressful night

How can you say she does nothing to help her cause?

He doesn't believe she was filming for fun - what can you reasonably say to that? If you talk back you're causing a disturbance, if you agree then you're a terrorist? There's no middle ground.

And again, they're using a law designed (and has so far failed at) for catching terrorists against hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

[funke_munke]

Anyone else been stopped and search under the act? I have, and it's unpleasant . The kind of policing in those videos is a joke.

[TooNice]

I can't speak for the second example since the arrest isn't shown. But the first example is not quite the same as putting chilli sauce on a roll of toiler paper though. More like telling someone to wait outside while they are cleaning (because the cleaner had an issue with the other's attitude).

[santa claus]

That doesn't give them carte blanche to take it out on members of the public, however.

It's particularly annoying and downright cowardly when they nitpick to find an offence when it's clear that they're losing ground. For instance when it becomes clear that he's not going to get the girl for taking pictures of a building he goes after her cycling down a one way street (hardly worth their time).

It is blatantly obvious he had it in for the girl. You don't watch someone, note an offence, grill them on something else and go for the kill - finally fining them for causing distress in a public place.

I'm sorry, but so many PCSO's are a joke and a disgrace to an otherwise noble profession. All right they do a good job, but too many of them are just up their own arses with delusions of grandeur. I'm sure they have a hard job, but that doesn't give them amnesty from, quite frankly, abusing the public. What about toilet cleaners? I'm sure they have a hard job every day, but they don't put chili sauce on the bog roll when they've had a stressful night

How can you say she does nothing to help her cause?

He doesn't believe she was filming for fun - what can you reasonably say to that? If you talk back you're causing a disturbance, if you agree then you're a terrorist? There's no middle ground.

The course of events looked different to me. An observant officer noted a minor traffic violation in an area of some sensitivity. He them saw what he regarded to be suspicious activity compounded by an uncooperative member of the public. How many buildings do you routinely film? She didn't mention she was an art student until the exchange had degenerated. The officer pursued the possibly more serious crime in her suspicious activity. This turned out to be unfounded but imho he was right to check and to expect some respect for his (our) authority. He could be wearing a medal if his suspicions and alertness had actually revealed a more sinister aspect to the student's filming and attitude.

Anyone else been stopped and search under the act? I have, and it's unpleasant . The kind of policing in those videos is a joke.

Walk a mile in their shoes.

[Georgy291]

guys look at it this way its women......

[Whiternoise]

And again i'll point you to the statistics:

ection 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to stop and search people. In 2008:

* Number of people stopped nationwide by British Transport Police using s 44: 160,000
* Number of people stopped in London by the Metropolitan Police using s. 44: 200,000
* Number of people amongst the 360,000 stopped under s. 44 and found to have any terrorist material or links: 0

No doubt he would be a hero, he'd also be the one exception to the rule. Those are appalling statistics, also given that every stop and search costs us (the taxpayer) £17, those 350,000 searches cost us roughly £6m. That's quite a lot of money for a law that has failed in its purpose.

The intelligence services (in conjunction with the police) on the other hand do a pretty good job. The various raids over the past few years have been very successful, i'm sure quite a few lives have been saved because the police intervened in a timely fashion. In principle it is a worthwhile law, the police should be able to stop and question people if they have reasonable suspicion that they are a threat to the public, but as the Strasbourg enquiry has shown, the vast majority of times the law is invoked, it is done so illegally.

But you hit the nail on the head there - a minor traffic offence. Do we need to bring out the big guns for that? Let alone the fact she was cycling, hardly the same as driving a car down the wrong way. And she was filming buildings, so what? There is this quite honestly weird obsession with the police that anyone with a video camera is filming suspiciously. Was she right to withhold the fact she was an arts' student initially? Perhaps not, but if i was taking pictures in London and someone asked me why i'd be stumped for an answer. Why do i take pictures? Well i don't know, but if I enjoy it (which I do) then fun is a pretty good approximation to an answer. And what he was expecting when he asked for ID - she never says on tape that she's an arts student, she just says she's an "artist". Although, credit where it's due, why didn't she have a university card? His explanations as to why he has a problem with her filming waiver and he stumbles over his words quite a lot, he's struggling and it's then that he decides to book her over the cycling - something that (if he was going to fine her) he should have done at the start of the confrontation.

Harrassment and alarm? Looks like a deserted street to me, or has PC Plod never met a spine before?

Suppose i'm a criminal, nay, a terrorist. I want to blow up a building or commit an act of terrorism. Would I go about it by taking a video camera and and SLR to central London? I doubt it. Much more likely i'd take a covert camera and take a look at plans of the building that are likely to be available for free to members of the public.

I dunno, it just seems a waste of time that they're going after these people. Surely they have better things to do than harass arts students?

[TooNice]

I suppose the question to ask may be whether officers of the law should ever be permitted to act on suspicion based on actions that are hard to put into words (for instance, certain body language, tone of voice and so on). It may well be that an experienced officer may notice consciously, or subconsciously actions that are often associated with people who may not be acting honestly. Yet those will never be fail proof (first because they are human, and two because everyone behave differently, and even if you are able create a reasonable model on how people will react under certain circumstances, there will always be exceptions). I think of it a bit like anti-viruses. Do you risk false positive (i.e. angry public), or do you risk letting something slip through the net?

Suppose i'm a criminal, nay, a terrorist. I want to blow up a building or commit an act of terrorism. Would I go about it by taking a video camera and and SLR to central London? I doubt it. Much more likely i'd take a covert camera and take a look at plans of the building that are likely to be available for free to members of the public.

To stay on the safe side, they probably need to cover as many 'level' as possible. Imagine if they were to rule out something on the basis that it's 'unlikely'/the public think is unlikely yet it turns out to be exactly to be what happens. They'll take the blame for failing the public.

[santa claus]

And again i'll point you to the statistics:

Stats say whatever you want them to say. The number of lives saved by the compulsory wearing of seatbelts is dispropportionate to the number of drivers affected but it is still worth it. It would be worth it if one life was saved.

But you hit the nail on the head there - a minor traffic offence. Do we need to bring out the big guns for that? Let alone the fact she was cycling, hardly the same as driving a car down the wrong way.

No, but an officer is within his authority to ask for a name and address in those circumstances. Her refusal created a problem for her.

And she was filming buildings, so what? There is this quite honestly weird obsession with the police that anyone with a video camera is filming suspiciously.

If that were the case they would be stopping every tourist in the Capital. No, I think the area was sensitive, possibly the building itself gave rise to suspicion, perhaps there was something else going on that day that made the policeman ultra careful?

His explanations as to why he has a problem with her filming waiver and he stumbles over his words quite a lot, he's struggling and it's then that he decides to book her over the cycling - something that (if he was going to fine her) he should have done at the start of the confrontation.

I agree she talked herself into a formal situation that could have easily been avoided.

......or has PC Plod never met a spine before?

Oh, I'm sure he has. I am very sure he has in fact.

Suppose i'm a criminal, nay, a terrorist. I want to blow up a building or commit an act of terrorism. Would I go about it by taking a video camera and and SLR to central London?

You might ask your innocent-looking Italian gf to do it for you? The police won't judge a book by its cover.

I dunno, it just seems a waste of time that they're going after these people. Surely they have better things to do than harass arts students?

Yes, all people should wear career name badges in future so that the police can tell who is who including rapists, murderers etc

[Whiternoise]

Stats say whatever you want them to say. The number of lives saved by the compulsory wearing of seatbelts is dispropportionate to the number of drivers affected but it is still worth it. It would be worth it if one life was saved.

But seatbelts do a good job, the are proven to work - indeed we've got videos of what happens when they don't. As a result, we wear seatbelts because we don't want to go conk first through the windscreen. The terror laws, on the other hand, haven't really proven themselves to be any good or give good results. We never saw a need for them back in the IRA days, nor during the Cold War (and our enemies were a lot better at being covert then). As i mentioned with the intelligence services, they are proven, they give tangible results and probably do a lot more for the public than stopping people with cameras.

Certainly it would be worth it if we save a life, but you could say that of many things. To take a particularly whimsical example, you could ban tea-cosies in the hope of eliminating the 1 in 20 billion death rate.

Anyway, my point is that there are better ways to confront the issue.

No, but an officer is within his authority to ask for a name and address in those circumstances. Her refusal created a problem for her.

That was a while after he'd quizzed her over the filming, and if he was going to go down the traffic offence route (as it's now legal grounds for taking details) that should have been done to start off with which we seem to agree on.

If that were the case they would be stopping every tourist in the Capital. No, I think the area was sensitive, possibly the building itself gave rise to suspicion, perhaps there was something else going on that day that made the policeman ultra careful?

The location was Paddington from what i gather. Not much in the way of a terrorist target there (she wasn't in the station nor near any of it's exterior parts as far as i could make out from the video). He keeps mentioning these iconic buildings, but as far as i can see it's just a London courtyard. Granted we don't know what the building was, possibly it was something governmental in which case it was likely a knee-jerk reaction but less so than the video makes it appear.

You might ask your innocent-looking Italian gf to do it for you? The police won't judge a book by its cover.

Yes, all people should wear career name badges in future so that the police can tell who is who including rapists, murderers etc

It was a general comment in response to the sorts of people that the police have started stopping. Yes if someone's snooping around the LSE with a miniature camera then that's ground for stop and search, but when it's things like journalists with press passes and members of the local council (i can't find the link, but it's getting silly when they stop a councillor from taking pictures in his constituency for an election campaign) not to mention that police have been warned by top brass not to do this sort of thing.

Andy Trotter, of British Transport police, said: "Officers and community support officers are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-1834634.html

Just to be clear, i'm criticising the photography side and the guy's attitude. Many of these people don't help the situation by being snarky to the officers, but that guy didn't look like he was about to let it go and was being deliberately sarcy and patronising i.e. "Do you like buildings?".

I suspect that no small part of the problem is that police don't really understand the legislation, or it these comments haven't fully filtered down through the ranks.

But anyway, i must be off for bed lest i sleep through my lectures tomorrow - it's been fun

[funke_munke]

Walk a mile in their shoes.

I have worked for the CPS in two locations in South Wales, crown and magistrates courts. My mother is a prosecutor and my step father a police officer (as are many other members of my family). We all (mother, stepfather) think it's a joke. I'm not saying I've done an officers job but I do have a very good knowledge of what it entails.

[mcmiller]

Sorry. I'm just fed up of all these wacky videocamsters and their 2 minutes of fame. The police have a tough job EVERY day and it doesn't help when otherwise decent people start having a go.

Its a job THEY choose to do , if they find it to hard they should go get another job