Anti social photographer is arrested

**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, 11:14 PM

I think the point of these videos and news stories is just that and to point out that the terrorists may have already won.

Please note, that I have not stated which side of the fence my opinion rests in this thread. It's for current affairs interest only.
There is always two sides to stories like these, both of which can make sense but we should not take either the journalist's report or the length and content of video as the complete story.

**handrawn** · 22 February 2010, 11:37 PM

Originally Posted by sledger

we should not take either the journalist's report or the length and content of video as the complete story.

no - that would be frankly......

**Magnatude** · 23 February 2010, 05:18 AM

Wow, I can't believe the response here is lay down and take it???
We people have rights, our natural laws that protect us from harassment from authorities. And it seems a few of us are willing to have our rights trampled for this obscure "terrorism" excuse.

Hitler did the same thing, it was a process that took a couple of years before people started willingly being led to the furnaces.

The Governments are in real trouble, why? because if you actually read about some of the crimes they have committed, and if people realize the fraud they have committed, the people would up-rise and tar/feather them like they did in the old days.
And I believe people are waking up to this and the Government need to take action against a potential up-rising, under a guise of "protecting" us from terrorists.

You think the police are your friends? I'm in Canada where the RCMP themselves dress up in black balaclavas and bust windows in order to make it look like legitimate protesters are anarchists. (Yes they have been caught and charged, as well as charges dropped, due to the fact that RCMP cannot seem to charge their own officers, which the people are trying to change).
And yes, I even have a brother-in-law in the RCMP... boy I bet he is getting a reality check.

Thing is, there should be no reason for this type of police behavior. There are ways to actually pursue to charge this gentleman with the camera, however the Judiciary that they need to gain the warrant from would likely ridicule the officer for wasting his time and the public's money.

**pauland** · 23 February 2010, 08:17 AM

A few bad apples within a police force doesn't make the whole force criminals. It's a bit of a stretch going from a policewoman trying to get a photographers name and the association with hitler, goverment abuse and the whole of canada policed by criminals.

I should imagine that your brother in law is a bit shocked, but still confident he is one of the good guys.

**handrawn** · 23 February 2010, 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Magnatude

Wow, I can't believe the response here is lay down and take it???

My answer to that is - if you want to win a war, fight the right battles

We people have rights, our natural laws that protect us from harassment

Pie in the Sky - we people [and that is all of us no matter who we are] have responsibilites that provide us with priveleges if we abide by them

Hitler did the same thing, it was a process that took a couple of years before people started willingly being led to the furnaces.

out of context hyperbole

The Governments are in real trouble, why? because if you actually read about some of the crimes they have committed, and if people realize the fraud they have committed, the people would up-rise and tar/feather them like they did in the old days.
And I believe people are waking up to this and the Government need to take action against a potential up-rising, under a guise of "protecting" us from terrorists.

good old fashioned 'them and us' posturing the curse of mankind throughout its entire existance

You think the police are your friends? I'm in Canada where the RCMP themselves dress up in black balaclavas and bust windows in order to make it look like legitimate protesters are anarchists.

I don't know if this is true - but if it is, it only shows that this sort of thing can happen anywhere

There are ways to actually pursue to charge this gentleman with the camera

indeed

I think Steve is right - 'divide and conquor' goes back a long, long way....