Police Arrest Photographer...

[Steve]

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.

Although I tend to disagree with you, I must say that you do have a good point in there about simple information. When you consider that historically, the local bobby would have known most people in the neighbourhood and where they lived. But now in a more urbanised, densely populated society that sort of knowledge just isn't available.

But I still don't think we should have to give up any details we don't want to. I think if we had better knowledge and control over what was going to be done with the information we gave away, those of us with issues might be happier to provide it.

Example - if a bobby asked me for details and although I knew I'd done nothing wrong, understood his reasoning behind checking me out, I'd be happy to do so provided he reciprocated such that if I had any subsequent complaint or inquiry to make, I could make it to, or about him specifically. If they want my details I want theirs - not their home address or anything stupid, but a means of contacting them, in person. That makes it a mutual exchange which makes it feel less "authoritarian". Further, I'd want assurances that the data wouldn't be recorded unless I was being charged for something. People are wary of governments having enormous amounts of information on them (and who can blame them will all the breaches and misuse we see), so this would help attitudes as well.

[format]

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.

This is a democracy, and as such the only way that such restrictions are enforced is if we let it happen. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, IMO. The police and politicians probably love attitudes like yours.

[Kata]

Refusal invites tougher laws because the ebb and flow of social environment will lead the majority to consider it will benefit their safety.

What sends the message that we don't like this type of law more clearly; refusal to comply, or rolling over and taking it? I think that your logic may be 180 degrees reversed.

[TooNice]

This is a democracy, and as such the only way that such restrictions are enforced is if we let it happen.

Umm, I don't voting to send troops to Iraq. How often do the public really have a say on new legislations outside of elections (where you can vote for the party that is for/against that legislations - but then they may still disagree with their other policies).

[format]

Umm, I don't voting to send troops to Iraq. How often do the public really have a say on new legislations outside of elections (where you can vote for the party that is for/against that legislations - but then they may still disagree with their other policies).

No party is perfect - that's quite clearly true.

But it's also true that the government is held accountable to us, the British public. Make enough fuss about sometime and most of the time, something gets done.

[Lucio]

Example - if a bobby asked me for details and although I knew I'd done nothing wrong, understood his reasoning behind checking me out, I'd be happy to do so provided he reciprocated such that if I had any subsequent complaint or inquiry to make, I could make it to, or about him specifically. If they want my details I want theirs - not their home address or anything stupid, but a means of contacting them, in person. That makes it a mutual exchange which makes it feel less "authoritarian". Further, I'd want assurances that the data wouldn't be recorded unless I was being charged for something. People are wary of governments having enormous amounts of information on them (and who can blame them will all the breaches and misuse we see), so this would help attitudes as well.

ACtually that's a pretty good idea, even if it's something like a business card or a "thanks for helping us keep you safe" info pack

[Saracen]

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.

I'm sorry but that argument is circular.

Your logic seems to be that if the police want something and we refuse to give it voluntarily, the law will be changed to compel us so we should just give them what they aren't entitled to voluntarily. If you're pushed into it against your will, whether it be by legislative fiat or blackmail about getting the law changed, isn't voluntary is it? So it's only a right if we choose not to exercise it?

You say we have "video heroes" to thank for our rights being diminished, but your stance is that we shouldn't expect to be able to insist on our rights anyway. So what's the point of having them? Your way, you;'d hand over the info so it wouldn'y matter if the right to decline was removed anyway. So why does it matter if it is?

You blame the "video heroes" for a stance that leads to the removal of a right you think we shouldn't exercise?



Neither we the public nor politicians want to give police powers just because they want them. We've had quite enough rights removed, and the police given quite enough extra powers, and I adamantly refute the idea that allowing police to demand name and address just because they want it is okay. They can ask, and if you don't mind giving it, then go ahead. But I do mind.

Bear in mind that they can stop you to ask you to explain your actions, if they consider your behaviour suspicious. Having done so, they then have a decision to make .... does "reasonable" grounds exist for detaining you or for reporting you for an offence. If it does, then they can insist on name and address, but if it doesn't, then you're an innocent member of the public who has already been inconvenienced by the police. Yes, they have a job to do, and they've seen something suspicious, stopped you and you've explained. Why the hell should you then have to give name and address, especially when the law explicitly decided that that was not required of you for a stop and account?

And Santa .... the whole point of stop and account was to reduce paperwork for the police (by simplifying the receipt instead of a full stop and search form, and the inconvenience to the public. That's right .... it's a reaction to the backlash from the public over being stopped for a search that may take seconds, or a minute or two, followed by several more minutes delay while they fill in the forms.

Nobody with any sense seriously objects to reasonable actions by police officers doing their job. I don't particularly mind being asked what I'm up to, I don't mind getting the once over by a drugs dog in a random check or being pulled up in a roadside checkpoint. I'm quite happy to see people carrying drugs pulled over, and to see tax and insurance dodgers nailed. I don't mind a bit of necessary inconvenience while the police do their jobs. I don't even mind security checks at airports.

But having been stopped, asked to account for my actions and having had the police find inadequate grounds to detain me, I damned well do mind getting pushed to provide details they have no right to ask for by what is often either an uninformed and ill-trained officer (or PCSO), or worse yet, one that is adequately trained and is throwing his/her weight around anyway.

They stopped me, asked me what I'm doing and failed to get grounds to keep me, so by then I'm a member of the public rightly and quite legally wanting to go about my business without further inconvenience from the police. I am happy to support them doing their job, and to be inconvenienced in the process when it is legal and necessary. But they go beyond that and they end up with an angry and resentful public.

It's like retaining DNA records of innocent people permanently on a database. In years gone by, I would have voluntarily cooperated with police if they'd asked for a sample for elimination. But with things as they are right now, hell will freeze over before I will given them my DNA voluntarily ... and if that means they have to waste their time to investigate me more thoroughly, so be it.

If they want people to respect the police they can start by respecting us and that includes not intimidating people into asking for information they know damn well they are not entitled to. If they want us to stop treating them like the enemy that's out to get us and seeing us all as guilty, start treating us as if we weren't guilty, until such time as they know better, or at least have reasonable grounds to suspect it.

It cuts both ways. They can't treat people unreasonably and try to exercise powers they don't have, and expect to be respected back. They jerk me about, I'm going to resent it, and any voluntary cooperation goes right out the window with that. And I'm middle-aged, middle class and life-long law-abiding. If they're losing me .....

[TooNice]

But it's also true that the government is held accountable to us, the British public. Make enough fuss about sometime and most of the time, something gets done.

Well, I hope so

I think the one place we may differ, is the 'Give them an inch and they'll take a mile' part.

Even though we will see example of officers who may not deserve their badge, like everywhere else, I would like to think better of the police in the UK. Maybe because I have seen dodgier elsewhere. Please don't take this as me accepting bad because there are worse - but as a whole, my current perception is that we are quite at 'bad' yet. Give it time, and maybe my stance will change, though this is one instance where I would rather not be wrong.. [I am tired of growing more cynical year after year :/]

[SeriousSam]

In regards to whether I would give my details to the police it would depend on the situation. If for example I was stopped whilst driving for having a break light out then I would of course comply. However, were I to be stopped under “Section 44” for taking photographs or something similar then I would politely refuse*. If that led to my in turn being arrested then that is something that I would accept and deal with in a calm manner. Ensuring of course that I collected enough documented evidence to support a wrongful arrest claim.

*I’d happily explain my actions of course, to demonstrate that I was not engaging in unlawful activity. But beyond that I would exercise my rights for the simple reason that I disagree with the law. Democracy is about choice and you sometimes have to exercise that right to protect this very right itself.

Whilst some people may see this as being unduly obdurate and obstructive, I would counter with a question; how would you feel if you were picked up off the street and arrested for murder because you looked “a bit shifty”. Obviously it would never happen because of the consequences they would face for being wrong, so why should it be any different for terrorism. Any exception in law can set a dangerous precedent and has been repeated shown throughout history, erosion of civil liberties never leads to any good. In fact if you want a modern example I give you the continent of Africa, Ian Smith was right (well at least in this case) “One man, one vote, once!!” Unless we the people, whom public servants are supposed to work for the benefit of, question and democratically curb their powers to limit our freedoms then we may as well be worker ants that mindlessly do as they are instructed. Though I suspect some politicians wished we were.

There is another small detail that I would raise about this situation and that is the one that seems to have been missed in all the furore and heated discussion. You don’t need a camera in order to able to acquire information for terrorist activity. In fact anyone with a modicum of training could and obviously do reconnoitre buildings etc. without one. Due to past jobs I could walk round a food factory once and then walk out and draw up a detailed floor, equipment and services plan. So if we let the situation with camera’s slide, what happens next… we get arrested for “looking at a building in a suspicious manner”?

Of course what this all comes down to is fear and its use as a means of control, to create change and of the unknown. Having lived through the more general threat of the IRA bombings and a more personal one to my own family I probably have a better idea than most of how it affects you. It is something you should neither dismiss, nor give into, but instead come to understand and accept so you can act accordingly. Simple things like not having waste bins in certain types of public place whilst irksome at times are not an issue as you just have to wait till you find a bin somewhere else. Having your individual freedom slowly eroded because those with power let fear control them is an issue and one that we should fight against.

[santa claus]

Although I tend to disagree with you, I must say that you do have a good point in there about simple information. When you consider that historically, the local bobby would have known most people in the neighbourhood and where they lived. But now in a more urbanised, densely populated society that sort of knowledge just isn't available.

Fair enough then. You don't want to give your details. I do. Officers are the instrument of law and I prefer to assist them; dealing with them on a personal basis seems impractical.

This is a democracy, and as such the only way that such restrictions are enforced is if we let it happen. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, IMO. The police and politicians probably love attitudes like yours.

This is a democracy. Democracy operates to the wishes of the majority. Restrictions that are enforced are approved by the majority for mutual benefit. If you don't like the way it works, try tyranny or martial law and let us know how you get on.

What sends the message that we don't like this type of law more clearly; refusal to comply, or rolling over and taking it? I think that your logic may be 180 degrees reversed.

Who's "we?".

They can ask, and if you don't mind giving it, then go ahead.

Ok ta. That's all I've said I want to do. It seems some others don't. I believe my choice makes it easier for the police to be more effective - they don't have to waste time on the belligerent and can concentrate on those who are really up to no good.

Having your individual freedom slowly eroded because those with power let fear control them is an issue and one that we should fight against.

But giving my name and address isn't slowly eroding my individual freedom; it is my choice and I'm happy to assist the police. I'd like to exclude myself from this particular fight.

[format]

This is a democracy. Democracy operates to the wishes of the majority. Restrictions that are enforced are approved by the majority for mutual benefit. If you don't like the way it works, try tyranny or martial law and let us know how you get on.

I think you misunderstood me.

That aside, are you really saying that public opinion has no bearing on policy in this country?
Or are you suggesting that the authorities have carté blanche regarding civil liberty because they have a mandate from the electorate to do so?

Ok ta. That's all I've said I want to do. It seems some others don't. I believe my choice makes it easier for the police to be more effective - they don't have to waste time on the belligerent and can concentrate on those who are really up to no good.

The police love wasting time on the belligerent. I'd on nights out I've seen far more people arrested for belligerence than any other 'crime'

[santa claus]

I think you misunderstood me.

Sorry. But how so?

That aside, are you really saying that public opinion has no bearing on policy in this country?
Or are you suggesting that the authorities have carté blanche regarding civil liberty because they have a mandate from the electorate to do so?

No and no. But we all agree that there have to be laws. Once we've democratically agreed what those laws should be, we expect our police to enforce them. Noone has a free hand to do what they like and the minority have to be persuaded to accept that when it comes to the law the majority rule.

I've seen far more people arrested for belligerence than any other 'crime'

Quite right too. The law breaking gets .

[format]

Sorry. But how so?

I was arguing in favour of a democracy, not against.

No and no. But we all agree that there have to be laws. Once we've democratically agreed what those laws should be, we expect our police to enforce them. Noone has a free hand to do what they like and the minority have to be persuaded to accept that when it comes to the law the majority rule.

Of course, but I think that a democracy is more than just marking a bit of paper every 4 or 5 years. If a government is doing something that people are unhappy with then they should voice their opinion, especially if it was not included in its manifesto.

[Funkstar]

Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington
“They told me to delete the photos and I said ‘no’."

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/502...n__Kidlington/

[santa claus]

Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington
“They told me to delete the photos and I said ‘no’."

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/502...n__Kidlington/

LARF! I love the disgruntled and wronged look on his face like as if his life will never be the same again. Get over it mate and go down the boozer in Thrupp with all your mates and bore them with your tedious "I stood up to them coppers" story. The police have real work to be getting on with.

[Saracen]

Fair enough then. You don't want to give your details. I do. Officers are the instrument of law and I prefer to assist them; dealing with them on a personal basis seems impractical.

....

Ok ta. That's all I've said I want to do. It seems some others don't. I believe my choice makes it easier for the police to be more effective - they don't have to waste time on the belligerent and can concentrate on those who are really up to no good.

....

But giving my name and address isn't slowly eroding my individual freedom; it is my choice and I'm happy to assist the police. I'd like to exclude myself from this particular fight.

We all obviously have the option to volunteer information, and if someone, say a marketing survey company rep, stopped us in the street and asked us to account for our activities and then for our name and address, we'd all be quite within our rights to tell them to go to hell and walk off, or to agree and give the information, entirely as we chose, and with no fear of the consequences or doubt as to our right to do so.

However, when you are stopped by a police officer, the situation is rather different. When a uniformed officer (or a plain clothes one that produces identification) stops you, what's likely to happen if you say "I'm too busy to answer your questions now" and walk off? And what are most people likely to think is likely to happen?

Police officers, while acting in that role, are representatives of the state that are not only given a load of equipment and a uniform the very nature of which is intimidating to a lot of people, but are given some fairly wide powers and authority over each of us, powers to legally interfere with our activities, to physically detain us and, if necessary, used force to do it. And if you decline to be arrested, you are likely to find yourself charged with resisting arrest and, depending on quite how you do it, perhaps assaulting a police officer as well .... neither of which are possibilities if you tell the marketing firm to "shove it".

And we know the police have powers to stop, and sometimes to search, and sometimes to require people to supply name and address. But if they've done a stop and account, they do not have that right, and they don't have it for a good reason, that being that to start doing all that defeats the objective of stop and account in the first place.

So. when a police officer stops someone, it is not an encounter between two equals, two individuals. It is an encounter between an individual and an arm of the state, with all the muscle and clout of the state, of everything from the local beat bobby (in those rare places where that endangered species still exists) to armed response officers and riot police, of the courts and prosecutors, and the penal system stopping you.

Moreover, it is a representative backed up by a vast array of laws which I will bet a pound to a penny not even police officers fully understand. They are trained in how to do their jobs, but not in the finer nuances of every single piece of relevant legislation. And Joe Public sure as hell doesn't know what his rights are, or aren't.



All this brings me to the point, which is what our reaction should be when stopped by the police. In relation to the bit I quoted above, which was a response to what I said ....

Ok ta. That's all I've said I want to do. It seems some others don't. I believe my choice makes it easier for the police to be more effective - they don't have to waste time on the belligerent and can concentrate on those who are really up to no good.

.... I don't accept that that is "all" you wanted to do. The tone throughout has been similar to the tone in that ... that by refusing to give police your name and address (when they are NOT entitled to it, and sometimes they are entitled) is somehow "belligerent", and that is where we part company.

There is nothing belligerent about declining to provide personal details to a police officer that has neither justification nor excuse for requiring them.

If the stop were one governed by statutory powers, then it can only happen if they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect you of whatever offence they suspect, and the information you give in response to that stop should either confirm their suspicion (in which case, you'll be arrested) or not, in which case, you won't, and are free to go.

But, absent that reasonable "grounds to suspect", what you have is an encounter that's not governed by statutory powers. To put that anoother way, you aren't required to even stay and talk, much less provide personal details.

Put it this way ... encounters in the street, like this, with police by the public will fall into three categories :-

1) General chat .... like "Officer, which way is the tube station", or "Is that a Tamron 10-24mmm lens you're using". These are entirely unregulated, and rightly so.

2) "Account". You've been stopped and and account of your behaviour, actions or reason for being there requested. This is because of a low-level suspicion, the "twitchy nose" factor I referred to earlier, where there is suspicion but it falls short of "reasonable grounds" to actually do a stop and search.

3) Stop and Search. Governed by statutory powers, this is the full weight of the state, backed up by all that authority, in action. What the police3 can do is authorised by statute, and by and large, so is how they do it .... PACE and the various Codes of Practice.

And when you read those Codes of Practice, you get the tone of how the authorities expect officers to conduct themselves. Read Code A. Even, just read the first section of Code A. It makes clear that any stop and search, of a type-2 "account" is an encounter with a member of the public of whom some level of suspicion exists, but that all such encounters should be conducted in a way that is fair, used responsibly and brief, and that public confidence needs to be maintained if the use of stop and search at all is not to be put in doubt. In other words, and it's my phrasing, in a way that achieves the necessary public needs for policing, while putting the member of the public to the practical minimum of inconvenience necessary.

For instance, using a stop and search, a suspect (for that is what you are) is likely to be asked questions. If the answers to those questions satisfies the officer that their "reasonable grounds" no longer exist, then neither does the power to detain or search, and furthermore, the member of the public must be told that.

Pretty much the entire ethos of the PACE Codes of Conduct is to define the way in which we, the public, must be treated during encounters with police, in order to both allow the police to conduct their duties, do their job, exercise their powers while doing the utmost to maintain public confidence and support, by not jerking us around without good cause ... and legal authority.


I asked earlier what would happen is you reacted to a "stop and account" by saying "Not now, I'm busy" and walking off. I wonder who got that right? The answer is that in the absence of "reasonable grounds" for a stop and search (and remember the PACE requirement to explain those grounds) is that, legally, nothing will happen, because absent those reasonable grounds, the officer has no authority to detain you.

So .... when stopped for a stop and account, which is hat most photographic stops are unless it's a s.44 TA stop in a designated area and during a designated time frame, in the absence of that reasonable grounds, and an explanation of it, you aren't actually even required to account for your actions, much less provide name and address. However, most people would recognise that the police have a job to do and would explain that they are an amateur, or a tourist, or an art student, or (like me) a member of the press, and be happy to do so. But, having provided such an explanation and there still being an absence of "reasonable" grounds for suspicion, it is not "belligerent" to decline a request to provide name and address because "request" is precisely what it is. Not a demand, not an entitlement and not something you are obliged to provide.

So yes, you provide it if you wish, but I would not. It is not necessary for the officer to do his job, I've explained what I'm doing and that is as far as my voluntary cooperation goes, and it's more than I'm obliged to do. And having provided that explanation, either he/she has "reasonable grounds", or I'm going about my legit business, and there's nothing at all "belligerent" about it, simply for declining to provide information I;m not obliged to provide.

What is belligerent is when police abuse their powers by pestering people when they have no reasonable grounds for doing so, and using the intimidatory nature of the police to public role to bully information out of them, or even to interfere with them going about their legal activities. That is beyond their legal authority, and as the tone of many responses in this thread not to mention the much wider press coverage make clear, gives a lot of people the right hump with them. As the very first guiding principle in the PACE code stipulates, stop and search must be used "fairly, responsibly, with respect for people being searched".

So while I have no problem with them requesting my name and address when they aren't entitled to it, I expect them to have no problem with me declining, and I'd also expect them to make clear it is a request not a demand I have to comply with, and then getting bent out of shape if I have the temerity to decline. What really gives me the hump is the apparent beleif of many officers that just because they're police, when they ask for name and address, or for you to account for your behaviour, that you must satisfy them. Unless that "reasonable grounds" exist, you do not. The more some (and I do stress "some") police abuse the intimidatory nature of the interaction between them to treat cooperation from the public as their right and due, regardless of their legal authority, the less respect they will get from people like me that really ought to be 100% behind them. But a whole series of actions, ranging from the way they used Terrorism powers on people like Walter Wolfgang, to the "kettling" at protests, let alone the refusal of some officers, including sergeants, to identify themselves or wear mandatory ID numbers, the the government's propensity for all-pervasive surveillance and CCTV, to national ID databases and DNA records of innocent people being retained despite EU court rulings, the more contempt I get for them, and the less I will provide any assistance on a voluntary basis. The more i:m treated as a suspect or a criminal, the more I'm going to react like one.

And that's at the heart of why I'd refuse my name and address ... because the police, and the system, have lost my respect by their actions. If I get burgled, or my car nicked, I get met with massive indifference. If I take a picture of a building in a public place, I'm a terrorist suspect. And they want and expect me to cooperate? If the police expect respect and cooperation from the public, stop treating us as if we might be Osama bin Laden's best mate.




For the purist, I've referred to PACE a lot, but there are some statutory powers of stop and search that aren't governed by PACE. They're pretty rare and you're not likely to encounter them, but there are a few. The statutory powers that are covered by PACE are quite extensive though, ranging from (most of) the Terrorism Act to the Conservation of Seals Act.