Police Arrest Photographer...

[TooNice]

@TheAnimus: I acknowledge that the power of authorities should be kept in check and I can't think of an instance where letting the authorities do what they want has been beneficial. However, does that mean that every instance where empowering the authorities has been disastrous to the public, or the start of a slippery slope that leads to said disaster? I am not too convinced of that either. No precaution/safety net is free nor fail proof, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find that a balance (and we do agree that it's a balance).

As to your second point, I am inclined to agree. But as to what constitute 'good reasons', surely that is going to vary from person to person (guidelines can't cover -everything-)?

And that goes back to a question I asked earlier (asked because I do not have an answer, and I would like to hear people's opinion). Should officers ever/never be allowed discretionary power to request certain things (within limit of course, but to what limit?) if they see someone acting 'suspiciously'? Or should they never act on simple observation of body language no matter how overtly nervous, aggressive and so on? [Keeping in mind that they are bound to run on 'false positives']

[TheAnimus]

TooNice, what gets me is the fact that the burden of proof is been shifted onto the tog to prove they are not doing anything wrong, as I said a few pages ago, when I'm in my suite, brandishing a private banking card as my best form of ID(i don't carry any form of ID, I don't even have a drivers license.... I should probably learn to drive one day!) vrs when I'm in normie clothes is just not right. Their right to exercise judgment has to be controlled to what the person is doing, otherwise people would just not trust those who had tattoos peircings or where a different ethnic origin.

There is NOTHING wrong with taking pictures, vidoes or painting buildings. The police shouldn't interfere, and most don't, plenty in the city of london around ledenhall in particular are more like glorified tourist guides anyway, one guy even came up to ask me if that was the tamron 10-24 I was using. This is not all police by any extent.

But there are some, who hassle people who are completely innocent just because they are holding a camera. This is what people are complaining about.

[Saracen]

Would you care to even attempt to answer the questions I raised towards you, or will you just be sulking?...

The point Santa was making was that when you insult people, it degrades the discussion.

And insult him you did.

When you quote someone and then say

See, this is really the problem that many non-thinking people are causing.

... the direct implication is that he's non-thinking. And when he points it out, he gets accused of sulking.

And that's MY point, and why we have rules about insults ... not because people aren't capable of coping with being called a name, but because it ends up with a trading of insults that not only means those involved don't make much of a case, but it often ends up wrecking the thread for the rest of us too.

Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he hasn't thought about it, or that he's necessarily wrong. Santa and I regularly disagree .... to the point where I wonder if he sometimes does it just to get a debate out of me. And I'm not above a bit of devil's advocacy myself when I feel like it.

But one thing I've never found is that he can't argue his case when he wants to. God knows he pushes me hard enough to justify mine when we get into it, and makes me work for it. And he isn't the only one either ... you lot know who you are.

So if, instead of accusing him of being non-thinking, or of sulking, you just disagreed with what he said and challenged him on it, or put the opposing case, I rather imagine you'd get (or already have got) the answers and debate you say you want .... or if he can't justify his stance, would say so.

I've said it often and I'll say it again, argue, debate, disagree and challenge all you like, with him, or me, or anyone ..... but do it without the personal digs or snipes.

[santa claus]

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.

You're confusing me. Are you or are you not interested in hearing my opinion which you have already condemned as unthinking? Ok, I'll assume that you are:

For a start, we have 6 billion+ people on this planet, we are not priceless and irreplaceable.

Perhaps others place higher value on their continued existence?

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.

Taking steps to minimise danger so that an activity that is economically and socially desirable is possible is a bit different to attempting to totally eliminate danger by removing the cause. You already said it's a matter of balance. So, instead of say, banning the use of camera equipment in sensitive areas, we allow coppers to ask for a few details and an explanation and bob's your uncle. It falls over when the rebel without a cause is affronted just because he or she feels like it and wants to do one of those YouTubey vid things dat makes ordinary people famous.

Furthermore, why are so many unthinking people so bothered about terrorism anyway?

I dunno, ask them . Duh. But perhaps they perceive the danger as a more likely threat to them? I don't feel threatened by cows but I do feel a bomb on the Tube would spoil my journey home.

[Kata]

Thankyou Saracen for your comments, and many of them I agree to be sound. I do think that someone should be prepared to counter an argument, even if the way it is addressed hurts their feelings, but further debate on that won't be productive here so I'll restate my questions in a gentler manner.

See, this is a problem that many 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". I think this is a very naiive viewpoint, for the following reasons.

1) For a start, we have 6 billion+ people on this planet, we are not priceless and irreplaceable.

2) It's all a question of balance. We could save thousands of lives a year if we banned the motor car (or even reduced all speed limits to 10mph); do you think that's worth it too, "if one life was saved"? I do not, because the cost would have a huge negative effect on people, so we choose to accept the risk. Could you explain why a 0 for 300,000 success rate in terrorism stop and searches is an acceptable use of our resources, and why terrorism is so different to the other thousands of risks we deal with in daily life? It seems that it is a huge scarecrow to persuade people to hand over more of their freedom to the government.

3) The risk itself is laughably low to be wasting this level of money on. 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. Logically, why is it right to waste all this time and money on a very low-level risk, when it could achieve far better 'life-saving results' elsewhere?

[Kata]

Perhaps others place higher value on their continued existence?

The stop and search legislation has, it is mentioned earlier in the thread, saved 0 lives, for maybe 6 million pounds of cost. This gives a rough 'cost per life saved' as infinite. Do you think that a human life has infinite value?

Taking steps to minimise danger so that an activity that is economically and socially desirable is possible is a bit different to attempting to totally eliminate danger by removing the cause. You already said it's a matter of balance. So, instead of say, banning the use of camera equipment in sensitive areas, we allow coppers to ask for a few details and an explanation and bob's your uncle. It falls over when the rebel without a cause is affronted just because he or she feels like it and wants to do one of those YouTubey vid things dat makes ordinary people famous.

The point I challenged from you was that "It's worth it if it saves just one life". This phrase implies the removal of danger no matter the cost, which is different to what you have then said above. I agree that rationalisation of risk is sensible; reduction to "As low as reasonably practicable", rather than complete removal; and the current costs vs benefits are apparently way, way beyond that point. Has there been a single example of a photographer being stopped by the police resulting in the prevention of an act of terrorism, or indeed anything other than hassle, timewasting, and illegal orders to delete images etc? I think not; it just doesn't make any sense, even by your own reasoning above.

I dunno, ask them . Duh. But perhaps they perceive the danger as a more likely threat to them? I don't feel threatened by cows but I do feel a bomb on the Tube would spoil my journey home.

This is the problem that I am raising, again. It is based purely on feeling, not on reality or fact. It seems foolish to base such important issues on a feeling, rather than some simple research. More to the point, do you honestly feel safer on the tube because an Italian student has been stopped from taking photos? That makes no sense to me...

[Saracen]

....

Perhaps others place higher value on their continued existence?

.....

Or, do we place higher value on some people than others?

I know, personally, I would, and have, felt a far greater sense of loss and grief at the loss of immediate family than I have over an entire plane-load that crashed or got blown up when I don't know any of them. To me, those family members are utterly irreplaceable ... as no doubt are those on that plane to their family.

A lot of people felt grief at the loss of Princess Diana. I admit to a bit of shock at the event itself, and to sympathising with her family and kids, but not much more than that. I was more seriously affected by Terry Pratchett's announcement of his illness, partly because I sort-of know the guy from our chats on CIX years ago, partly from some help he gave me at the time, and partly because I love the books and it seems we're to be denied those that we would presumably have got for many more years had he not become ill.

He sure as hell isn't replaceable in my .... erm ... book.

I wonder if Tim Berners Lee had had a childhood accident and been killed, would we ever have got the internet. Without Beethoven (or Shakespeare, Newton, Einstein, Mozart, or Ozzie Osbourne .... delete according to taste) would the world be a poorer place? Were they replaceable? Or irreplaceable?

Just because our numbers are legion doesn't mean an individual has no value or doesn't make a unique contribution. Or, for that matter, cause unique damage.

[Saracen]

Thankyou Saracen for your comments, and many of them I agree to be sound. I do think that someone should be prepared to counter an argument, even if the way it is addressed hurts their feelings, but further debate on that won't be productive here so I'll restate my questions in a gentler manner.

Well, as insults go, that was pretty mild. But I've seen and dealt with far worse and seen things go downhill fast as a result. So as a guiding principle, it's best to avoid them. Rarely will insults aid a coherent, rational discussion.

If you or anyone else wants to discuss that start a thread and I'll do my best to explain both my view and our reasoning for the rules. But I do agree, this thread isn't the place.

[santa claus]

Thankyou Saracen for your comments, and many of them I agree to be sound. I do think that someone should be prepared to counter an argument, even if the way it is addressed hurts their feelings, but further debate on that won't be productive here so I'll restate my questions in a gentler manner.

Yes, thank you Saracen. You're more than a match for anyone in debate

Ninja edit noted Kata; you have my views.

[Kata]

Just because our numbers are legion doesn't mean an individual has no value or doesn't make a unique contribution. Or, for that matter, cause unique damage.

This is true; but it is not practical to treat every single person as if they were the next Mozart, or the US President. It would be an impossibility. Overall, we have to legislate and run our policy for the majority; that's the whole point of democracy, after all, and I suspect the majority would not accept the inconvenience and cost of the measures necessary to save "just one life" from every conceivable risk. The evidence is there in the fact that we continue to drive our cars, and do every other thing in life that we do, and comes with a risk attached.

Just because terrorism is an emotive subject doesn't mean that other-wise intelligent people should lose all sense of proportion and reason!

[Kata]

Yes, thank you Saracen. You're more than a match for anyone in debate

Ninja edit noted Kata; you have my views.

And you have my responses; I have made the effort to present them with some logic, and not just opinion.

[Saracen]

This is true; but it is not practical to treat every single person as if they were the next Mozart, or the US President. It would be an impossibility. Overall, we have to legislate and run our policy for the majority; that's the whole point of democracy, after all, and I suspect the majority would not accept the inconvenience and cost of the measures necessary to save "just one life" from every conceivable risk. The evidence is there in the fact that we continue to drive our cars, and do every other thing in life that we do, and comes with a risk attached.

Just because terrorism is an emotive subject doesn't mean that other-wise intelligent people should lose all sense of proportion and reason!

And with that, I utterly agree.

We could prevent, or all but entirely prevent terrorism. If we had a Soviet Union style secret police with draconian powers, if only the political elite we allowed to use planes, if everyone had a compulsory GPS chip implanted and it was a condition of admittance to the country that visitors did too ... and so on. And would the last one to leave please turn off the lights.

Sometimes, the solution is worse than the problem, and that's why I deplore function creep in legislation. If you give the police a power intending it to be used for one thing, you have to be very explicit in limiting it or it'll end up being used for something else ... and as we've seen with the way photographers among others are being treated, sometimes it'll get misused even if you do limit it. Even small freedoms should not be given up lightly, because if you eat enough crumbs off the cake, eventually you wind up with no cake left.

[Saracen]

Yes, thank you Saracen. You're more than a match for anyone in debate

And likewise thanks .... though if you go easier on me next time, it'll reduce my sweat levels markedly.

And while we're all thanking each other .... group hug anyone? Hey, come back 'ere.

[Kata]

And likewise thanks .... though if you go easier on me next time, it'll reduce my sweat levels markedly.

And while we're all thanking each other .... group hug anyone? Hey, come back 'ere.

[Blastuk]

I have been stopped before, but I was photographing at a location nearby the excel days before the G20 summit or w/e it was called.
I'll let that one slide because of that reason.

[santa claus]

Sorry but I don't see giving my name and address to a police officer as capitulation. It's non-compliance with requests for the simplest of information that will lead to more Draconian laws. Refusal invites tougher laws because the ebb and flow of social environment will lead the majority to consider it will benefit their safety.

We can thank our video heroes then for standing up for their rights and eventually diminishing ours. Fancy an ID card bearing your name, address, next of kin, DNA, blood group, financial status and sexual preferences?

If you're worried about further restrictions this is how they will be visited upon us. Way to go YouTubers.