Anti social photographer is arrested

**steve.ledger** · 22 February 2010, 10:40 AM

John, I did not say that.

The thread title Anti social photographer is arrested doesn't infer arrest for anti social behaviour any more than Xara Developer is arrested infers arrest for being a Xara Developer

Having said that, it's worth reviewing another incident involving a student.
On the face of it, there appears to be a good case for harassment.

► I don't believe you.

**covoxer** · 22 February 2010, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by sledger

The thread title Anti social photographer is arrested doesn't infer arrest for anti social behaviour

No, the problem is that he is not an anti social photographer. He was not even charged in anti social behaviour. How can you state he's guilty?

Having said that, it's worth reviewing another incident involving a student.On the face of it, there appears to be a good case for harassment.

Oh yes, this one is quite different. Unnecessary use of violence in this case is completely unjustified. She might be cocky and initially not cooperative, but why all the brutality?

**ankhor** · 22 February 2010, 02:13 PM

I totally absolutely disagree, people have rights, and they are taken
away from us all the time. I agree with this person, and I don`t find it childish.
I actually find it childish, to call it childish

I take pictures of buildings all the time, basically because I like architecture
and the ornaments of the buildings.
I see this as police harrasment, and I don`t think that these actions actually stop any terrorists.

**covoxer** · 22 February 2010, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by ankhor

I actually find it childish, to call it childish

I see this as police harrasment

Yes it is. But would you prefer a terrorists harassment instead? I don't. I would be rather giving my autograph to the nice young lady once in a while than being shot by some brainwashed maniac.

and I don`t think that these actions actually stop any terrorists.

It's not easy to fight terrorism. Police do their best. And it's not an easy job to do. We should rely on them and assist them. They are not enemy....
And what I'm now saying sounds exactly the way we usually try to convince our children that the doctor is not evil... so...

**pauland** · 22 February 2010, 03:02 PM

I think this is really more about people being happy (or not) to tell the police who they are rather than photography rights.

I suspect that the police are probably a bit over-zealous about photographs because I'm sure the bad guys do reconoitre their targets. I think that if I were a bad guy I'd just be subtle about it and not attract attention. it's easy to criticise, but huge organisations like the police need straightforward guidelines that will be ridiculous in some circumstances.

I don't have a problem giving the police my name and I think it's reasonable for them to ask. I think that it's the fact that people refuse that makes them step up the ante to try and get compliance.

I think we'd all look stupid if the police had asked a suspicious bomber his name and taken "no" for an answer.

Do I think the photographer is a potential terrorist? No. Should the police be using terror laws to get his name? No. Would I do so if I were a policeman? I might be tempted.

The photographer wasn't denied the opportunity to go about his business, but he made himself the subject of attention when he wanted to do it anonymously.

I suspect that some parents would also be very happy to know that the police did take notice of people with cameras too, and none too fussy about how the police find out who they are.

I'm not down on photographers and don't want them to be restricted, but I'm happy to let the police ask their name.

On one occassion I was chased by a security guard after taking a picture of an empty office building (just a silly project I never saw through). His orders were to stop anyone taking photographs. Fortunately I took the precaution of taking the photographs from outside the property boundary, but that didn't stop him running into the road to try and stop my car.

We had a discussion where I explained he had no jurisdiction on the public highway and no authority to stop me from taking the photographs. He backed down and I went my way. he was just doing what he'd been told to do, as I guess the PCO was doing with the photographer.

On a similar vein our local council asked for my wifes school to take pictures of the christmas lights in the local town centre. Cameras supplied as well. Class sets off to photograph the decorations, only to have security intervene again quoting the "terrorist" threat and my wife and all the children had an interesting discussion with the shopping centre manager who knew nothing about the arrangement made by the council. Of course, they saw sense and allowed them to continue.

Of course, if I am a bad boy, I just say my name is "Steve" or "John". I always get a knowing look.. ;-)

**zaphodeist** · 22 February 2010, 07:54 PM

Originally Posted by pauland

Of course, if I am a bad boy, I just say my name is "Steve" or "John". I always get a knowing look.. ;-)

My surname is Pratt, so, when stopped, I get more than a knowing look when I look straight in their eyes and reply with it

Hasn't happened for years unfortunately ... I'll take my camera into Manchester tomorrow and report back

**cursor** · 22 February 2010, 10:49 PM

The [presumed necessary] anti-terrorist police tactics (whether supported by formal policy or not) in [over-]policing ordinary citizens in their natural right to photograph national monuments (or anything else, for that matter) is WAY out of hand. Its extremeness is, frankly, insane.

**steve.ledger** · 22 February 2010, 07:04 PM

Originally Posted by covoxer

No, the problem is that he is not an anti social photographer. He was not even charged in anti social behaviour. How can you state he's guilty?

With all due respect John, the problem is you keep misreading my words.
The line you quoted proves this. I'm really not sure why you are making this thread about me??

**covoxer** · 22 February 2010, 07:24 PM

Oh... I am sorry for misunderstanding your words and for making it look personal, which it was not intended to be.

I was not trying to make this thread about you or any one else, really.
I was just trying to discuss this obviously controversial subject.
Take it easy!

**handrawn** · 22 February 2010, 07:40 PM

its a lot of fuss for the sake of giving less information to the authorities than he would actually have to give to fly to New York at the moment

so I guess he was trying to making a point, or just giving his mates good copy

personally I would like to travel overland from calais to china along the old spice route, just like a friend of mine did half a decade or so ago but I don't see it happening anytime soon [with or without a camera

] - the times they have a changed