LinkBack URL
About LinkBackswhy didn't he just give them his details? Its so much easier.
why didn't he just give them his details? Its so much easier.
□ΞVΞ□
I'll bite.Originally Posted by santa claus
No it wouldn't be.
Seatbelts, lets assume add a cost of £10 to each of the 10 million cars (numbers made up to be illustrative) in the UK. So that's £100 Million pounds which could have been spent on say vaccinations which even if they only saved 10 lives, provide a ten fold better return on life.
Whilst I do thoroughly approve of the old adage That man uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post, something to cling to for support rather than shed light on the subject, I think your comment is somewhat disappointing, as they where relevant and well presented.
What I will ask, is do you hold true a quote of one of those colonial terrorists:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
Personally I find there to be great self evident truth in those words.
Starting from the Roman empire and moving forward in time, I can not think of a single example where the common people gave up liberties and it worked out well for them.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
If he had nothing to hide then giving his details would have been the best option.
See, this is really the problem that many non-thinking people are causing. "I don't mind bending over at the airport for an anal probe every time I travel, as long as one priceless and irreplaceable life is saved". B******t. For a start, we have 6 billion+ people on this planet, we are not priceless and irreplaceable.
It's all a question of balance. We could save thousands of lives a year if we banned the motor car; do you think that's worth it too, if one life was saved? The naiivety and idiocy of that argument really makes me sick.
Furthermore, why are so many unthinking people so bothered about terrorism anyway? More people die from falling over on a level surface than from terrorism. More people die from falling out of bed, or falling off a chair, than from terrorism. How about being "bitten or struck by other mammals". Statistically, that's more dangerous to you than terrorism, but I don't see 300,000 cows being stopped and searched. Hell, one guy a year dies from overuse of laxatives. Terrifying, yes, and also about as dangerous overall as terrorism. For god's sake, get some perspective, please.
Last edited by Kata; 23-02-2010 at 11:28 AM.
Blastuk (24-02-2010),format (23-02-2010),MaddAussie (27-02-2010)
i agree
□ΞVΞ□
I agree with you on most points, yet I consider myself very liberal. I'm not sure how that works. Perhaps I'm a stiff wristed liberal?
This is a good debate guys, some interesting differences of opinion - some very strong opinions, without it turning into personal insults.
PHP Code:$s = new signature();
$s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display();
I agree with you on most points, yet I consider myself very liberal. I'm not sure how that works. Perhaps I'm a stiff wristed liberal?
This is a good debate guys, some interesting differences of opinion - some very strong opinions, without it turning into personal insults.
Stiff-wristed it must be
You make a good point, edited my post a little...
Easier, maybe, but a slippery slope.
The public have a right to go about their business unimpeded by police stopping them and demanding to "see their papers" unless there is some legislation that gives them the authority to do so, and while "reasonable suspicion" of a variety of things may provide that, the courts (and indeed, statutes) have made very clear that that suspicion must be capable of being explained and justified on objective grounds, not just that the officer's nose twitches .... and it must not be on grounds of things like appearance or racial profiling .... with the exception that things like appearance can be taken into account if and only if they are part of a witness description.
You are NOT required to give police name and address (or DOB) unless you are either being arrested, or being reported for an offence .... and in that latter case, they can satisfy themselves that the details are correct. Clearly, if when being reported for an offence where a penalty will be sent through the post, if you supply false details, they're going to have some trouble finding you later.
You may be stopped by police for a variety of reasons, including :-
- as a witness
- stop and account
- stop and search
- terrorism powers
What they can and can't ask for or insist on varies. Excluding the witness scenario, the main difference is "stop and account", and "stop and search". For stop and search, there must be reasonable grounds for suspicion, and the nature of "reasonable" is covered extensively both by PACE and court decisions. This is what I referred to above as "Not the officers nose twitching". It will generally be by objective fact, and often intelligence led.
Stop and account, on the other hand, has a much lower threshold, and might be simply on the basis of your actions or behaviour, possession of items or simply presence in an area. But, you are not obliged to provide personal details.
Where terrorism legislation is involved, it gets more complicated. s44 powers, especially for stop and search, are very broad, but ....
- there is no power to prevent people taking photos, even in s.44 areas, unless some other legislation provides it
- photos (or video) could be part of the reason for an arrest or search, but ONLY if they relate to terrorist activities
Police officers must be able to explain the basis for the search, and should be treating the public with courtesy and respect.
All these requirements are laid out in great detail, firstly in the enabling legislation and secondly, in PACE.
And in none of it, is there any general obligation on the public to provide police with name and address, simply because they want to know. They can require that only in specific situations where specific legislation entitles them to it, and that will be on the basis of "reasonable" suspicion, or reported for an offence.
Which brings me back to the quote above ... why not just give details? Well, perhaps because he didn't want to ... and such is his right, unless such power to require them exists.
And why should people provide such details just because someone on uniform wants them? Yes, you're taking a chance by refusing. If the power to require them exists and you refuse, that alone may get you arrested, so if you refuse thinking you've the right to do so and are wrong, then .... but that's the chance you take.
But if they don't have the right to insist, then why not decline?
If we all just start accepting that we should provide personal details whenever a policeman wants them, we will (if we haven't already) rapidly arrive at the point where merely refusing to provide them is suspicious, despite the fact that we are, in the absence of specific authority to demand them, perfectly within our rights.
And as soon as it gets to be suspicious to decline, and providing them becomes accepted as a norm, you face the next stage, which is .... what if they don't believe you? As I mentioned earlier, where police have a right to require details, they are also entitled to confirm them if suspicious or anyone up to anything nefarious would simply lie.
So, suppose I get stopped and, without being obliged to provide details, tell them because of the above general acceptance that we ought to when asked, that I'm Peter Pan, of 123 Crocodile Avenue, NeverNever Land, and the police oifficer suspects that this might not be entirely kosher ... then what? Do they detain me while they check out that the address I didn't have to provide is genuine? Or do they simply accept what they're told, in which case, the claimed population of NeverNever Land is due for an explosion, and the police will have a vast collection of useless and false names and addresses that defeat the point in asking in the first place.
So ... to avoid being detained if they suspect you've given inaccurate details, you're now going to have to carry credible proof of identity, such as a passport. But what if they suspect that that is faked? Or what if it gets lost or stolen while you were carrying it simply to satisfy police about information they weren't entitled to require of you in he first place?
And suppose you do provide a false name when asked for it when no authority to ask for it existed? Are you going to get a fine?
This starts out with "why not just tell them" and ends up with compulsory ID cards, police authorised to demand to see your papers whenever they damn well like, and arrest and a fine for not being able to produce it on demand because you left your wallet in your other trousers.
Like I said, it's a slippery slope, and it starts out with police effectively abusing their position by intimidating people into providing information they often have no right to ask for, and people providing it simply because it's a policeman asking ... and in many cases, demanding, whether they have the authority to or not.
One more point. Someone mentioned earlier about just deleting photos. Police do not, ever, have the authority to require you to do that, unless it's ordered by a court.
They do sometimes have authority to search, and depending on what they find, they may have authority to seize. But not to delete (or in the case or film or tape, destroy). Moreover, if they have grounds for search, their guidance says they should not allow you to either turn equipment on or off, precisely in case you delete evidence.
So, either they search, find something and seize without deleting, or they search, don't find anything and have naff all authority over your property, that including your images.
oolon (23-02-2010)
I haven't read this thread, but I'm extremely interested in the subject, it's good that this has had more mainstream media coverage than normal.
Amateur Photographer magazine has been covering photographers rights extensively over the past couple of years. It often seems that hardly a week goes by that there isn't yet another article about arrests or searches. There was a rally in Trafalgar Square earlier in the year partly organised by them.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/
I'll bite this one. Not a single place in the world is entirely 'free'. I would say that it's more of a sliding scale. Every countries have a lists of 'Do and don't', and if you tick enough boxes (weighted largely by Western values) then you are viewed as free.
In the US, they have the right to bear arms. Ironically, I often see people outside the US (like over here) look down on that right. Typical arguments made against is usually based on crime level where guns are involved. Yet isn't a prohibition to bear arm on that basis for temporary safety (criminals do get their hands on guns eventually)? Does that mean the US is 'free' while the UK and should be lumped with say North Korea? Not really IMO, the argument may be made that it's 'less free' but certainly not 'not free' (and that's assuming there is nothing else that the US prohibit that the UK don't).
A number of countries even in Western Europe requires that one carry their ID card at all time, and others may require proving one's identity when asked. Yet to call those countries 'not free' on such basis alone would again be really pushing it.
Now of course, I expect officers to uphold the law and work within the law. And that does include when they ask for ID. Whether they should have more/less/no power to ask for ID should be based entirely on their merit. And I can agree that it's to argue with the stats posted by Whiternoise.
However I am not convinced that (relatively) insignificant right would mean losing more consequential ones in a couple more years time, and/or that we will be subjected to compulsory cavity random search (knee jerk reaction comment) and eventually turn into a 'non-free' country. We all have an idea of what is acceptable and not acceptable when it comes to our own right, keeping in mind that it is a constant trade off. What needs evaluating is how much 'value' we get for each proposed trade.
Please don't feel obliged to comment if you cannot do so without insult. If my non-thinking opinion makes you sick, take comfort in the fact that I am naive and idiotic and ignore me. Now, if you don't mind, I'll continue the debate with the grown ups.
I still don't see a problem in assisting the police with their work and do not regard it as an erosion of civil liberty; I see it as something I should do if I want to live in a civilised society with laws of which I approve. I'd like to see a bit more "allo, allo, allo, what 'ave we got 'ere then?" Take the cuffs off the police I say.
While I did feel outrage at the way photographers are being treated, and how some figures in authority behave, I could not help feeling if I was the officer, after for the 50th time of saying "am i being detained", I would have snapped and gone... "YES YOU ****ING ARE IF IT WILL GET YOU TO SHUT UP! Happy now?". Really, he made his objection clear, he did not have to repeat it, it just weekens his case for me, and could be considered to be daring the officer to do something. I guess that is why I am not a policeman, as I don't with to have any contact with the general public!
Do you at least acknowledge that the argument of - letting the police/army/ceaser do what they want - has historically often ended badly?
It is a balance, you can't say that the police shouldn't be able to shoot dead some rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish arsing around with a gun, but you shouldn't let them go up and request to see photographs on someone's camera without giving a good reason.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
A much too long post!!
Would you care to even attempt to answer the questions I raised towards you, or will you just be sulking? I really would like to hear a rational argument for why you think all these efforts are not a total waste of time, given the statistics that demonstrate terrorism is a tiny, tiny issue, with a danger to you somewhat lower than that of being mauled to death by a rampant bovine?
What makes me sick is the money and time we waste that could be directed to worthwhile activities, because of the irrational fears of people who haven't actually thought that through. Sorry if my dislike of taxpayers money being frittered away offends your sensibilities.
Well put Saracen.
Deo Adjuvante non Timendum
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
