Rant Why I hate the police (more photography woes)

[Genedril]

If you have to give up 1 freedom to fight the terrorists then they're already winning the battle.

Or "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" as someone more famous than me once said.

 

[Krazeh]

ask yourself this. how much freedom are you willing to fight for if it means the terrorists gets the exact same freedom to do what THEY plan on doing.

yes those cops were idiots, but the photographer were no einstein either.

If we're asking ourselves questions then why not ask what exactly we're aiming to prevent with the various pieces of legislation that have been introduced? Does stopping photographers hinder criminals/terrorists in anyway when it's so simple to obtain detailed photographs and maps from the internet in minutes?

 

[DaGaffer]

ask yourself this. how much freedom are you willing to fight for if it means the terrorists gets the exact same freedom to do what THEY plan on doing.

yes those cops were idiots, but the photographer were no einstein either.

So be it. If freedom means a bus or a planeful of innocents every now and again, its a price worth paying (I'm happy to take my chances).

However, in the case of photography, its not even relevant to protecting against terrorism; no terrorist stands on street corners with an SLR taking shots of potential targets. There's no point (thank you Street View and the internet in general). So the only possible logic behind police behaviour (ignoring petty abuse of power) is "to be seen to be doing something", or (*dons tinfoil hat*) as an exercise in ongoing social control, neither of which make me "safer".

 

[Ch3tan]

ask yourself this. how much freedom are you willing to fight for if it means the terrorists gets the exact same freedom to do what THEY plan on doing.

yes those cops were idiots, but the photographer were no einstein either.

No no no, the point of living in a democracy is freedom. If you take that away the terrorists win anyway.

 

[rynnor]

200,444 people searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

66 people charged (like the Harry Potter actor with pictures of his home grown weed)

17 charged under Terrorism legislation...

Of 17 charged X convicted - most likely about 12 will be convicted.

Thats about 1 per 15,000 people searched...

Source: BBC News - Terrorism arrests rising in UK

 

[old.user4556]

However, in the case of photography, its not even relevant to protecting against terrorism; no terrorist stands on street corners with an SLR taking shots of potential targets. There's no point (thank you Street View and the internet in general). So the only possible logic behind police behaviour (ignoring petty abuse of power) is "to be seen to be doing something", or (*dons tinfoil hat*) as an exercise in ongoing social control, neither of which make me "safer".

Pretty much exactly that. I tried to reason with plod on those grounds but it fell on deaf ears. I also explained that if I was planning a terrorist attack, I'd dress up like a tourist, use a non discrete camera or use a 300mm from a distant hiding place, not in broad daylight with two camera bodies hanging around my neck one of which with a 10-20mm which is next to fuck all use for photographing anything in detail close up (unless you're right against it).

 

[Scouse]

ask yourself this. how much freedom are you willing to fight for if it means the terrorists gets the exact same freedom to do what THEY plan on doing.

yes those cops were idiots, but the photographer were no einstein either.

Slave. And deservedly so.

Stop watching the telly Ctuchik and look out of your window instead

 

[dysfunction]

UK Parliament - Early Day Motions By Details

That hasn't made much difference...

 

[Chilly]

So be it. If freedom means a bus or a planeful of innocents every now and again, its a price worth paying (I'm happy to take my chances).

However, in the case of photography, its not even relevant to protecting against terrorism; no terrorist stands on street corners with an SLR taking shots of potential targets. There's no point (thank you Street View and the internet in general). So the only possible logic behind police behaviour (ignoring petty abuse of power) is "to be seen to be doing something", or (*dons tinfoil hat*) as an exercise in ongoing social control, neither of which make me "safer".

Democracy is not the same as freedom.

 

[DaGaffer]

Democracy is not the same as freedom.

Where did I say it was?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

From Ch3ts post,

Below shows the state of the police force.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet they took the time to investigate a guy with a camera.

Pure joke.

Great, really intelligent comparison there. That's such a pointless thing to say it's plain silly. There are so many unknown variables and entities you might has well have just said nothing, it carries the same validity when there's no context AT ALL.

It's terrible that so many these incidents seem to be happening.

That one above (the RAF engineer) is a classic example. Guy in town happens to have his camera with him, see's a lot of police and thinks its unusual so takes a couple of photos. Policeman starts hassling him and demanding he delete the pics (which he has absolutely no power to do) and because the guy knows his rights and tells him get stuffed he gets the terrorism act thrown in his face and searched.

its pathetic

Pathetic? Yes. Terrible? Hardly. Being searched isn't exactly the most traumatic experience, it takes 5 minutes at most and is hardly violating your human rights.

Yes, some police are too eager to try and put a stop to photographers. I've NEVER come across this myself, and am regularly in central London. Every copper I've come across is warm and welcoming, normally up for a laugh and a quick chat if they have the time. In my experience, police treat you the way you treat them. If you're co-operative and nice, they are too. If you are awkward and unco-operative, then they will take a harder line with you. This is common sense and is good policing.

At the end of the day it's a silly situation that's slowly being changed. The levels of outcry at what is in essence nothing more than an inconvenience is hilarious. I hate to think how you people would all react if we lived in a country where the police REALLY ARE ***** and abuse human rights... At the moment a lot of you come off as whinging anti police windbags.

No doubt none of your agree with me, since anti-police is all the rage here (instead of standing back and looking at the whole picture, rather than tiny isolated elements), but I couldn't give a flying fuck.

Continue.

 

[DaGaffer]

Pathetic? Yes. Terrible? Hardly. Being searched isn't exactly the most traumatic experience, it takes 5 minutes at most and is hardly violating your human rights.

Aaaand...way to miss the point, by a fucking country mile. And also wrong. Have been stopped and searched myself (on ridiculous grounds), for the typical law-abiding citizen it is traumatic. And it doesn't matter if it takes five minutes or five hours.

Yes, some police are too eager to try and put a stop to photographers. I've NEVER come across this myself, and am regularly in central London. Every copper I've come across is warm and welcoming, normally up for a laugh and a quick chat if they have the time. In my experience, police treat you the way you treat them. If you're co-operative and nice, they are too. If you are awkward and unco-operative, then they will take a harder line with you. This is common sense and is good policing.

So what you're saying is if you do as they say, they are co-operative and nice. Well, thanks a lot for the priviledge of being a good docile citizen. Most people are awkward and unco-operative about this becuase the police have no right to do what they're doing. So I'm kind of unimpressed with cops taking a hard line about something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

At the end of the day it's a silly situation that's slowly being changed. The levels of outcry at what is in essence nothing more than an inconvenience is hilarious. I hate to think how you people would all react if we lived in a country where the police REALLY ARE ***** and abuse human rights... At the moment a lot of you come off as whinging anti police windbags.

Oh for God's sake. I know you're an intelligent person, so I'm assuming you're just trolling. The "inconvienience" isn't the point; but the issue about police in other countries is valid, because its precisely because we don't want to be like those countries that people get so angry about this kind of shit, because as soon as you let public servants have power over you for absolutely no pracitcal reason, then they can extend that attitude wherever they like. When it comes to authority, the British are probably the most tolerant people on Earth, and more prepared than most to put up with bullshit for the greater good, but not when it makes no fucking sense.

No doubt none of your agree with me, since anti-police is all the rage here (instead of standing back and looking at the whole picture, rather than tiny isolated elements), but I couldn't give a flying fuck.

Continue.

I am looking at the bigger picture, you, on the other hand, clearly are not. And if you don't give a flying duck, why comment anyway?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I said I couldn't give a fuck if you agree with me or not, please learn to read.

Regarding it being "traumatic," here's a definition:

trau·ma
   /ˈtraʊmə, ˈtrɔ-/ Show Spelled[trou-muh, traw-] Show IPA
–noun,plural-mas, -ma·ta  /-mətə/ Show Spelled[-muh-tuh] Show IPA.
1.Pathology.
a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b.the condition produced by this; traumatism.
2.Psychiatry.
a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."

So no, being searched by police is not traumatic. It's annoying and inconvenient, it is not something that devastates people or causes them pain.

Why do people think that if someone disagrees with nonsense spouted by masses, they must be trolling? Aren't people allowed to THINK DIFFERENTLY TO YOU? Just because I view the situation differently does not mean I am missing the point. You say you have been stopped for it, other have too. This is fine. But why can't you accept that these problems are not endemic, since I have NOT experienced this when doing the same thing with police around?

Just because I'm not ready to jump on the anti-police "OMFGZ THIS IS SOOOOOO SERIOUS" bandwagon does not mean I'm trolling, or that I'm missing the point. It actually goes the other way round. It's NOT a serious issue. You may think it is, it might be in your opinion. It may make your blood boil, but it is not the major problem that has been made out in this thread, even if you FEEL it is a major problem. There are far, far worse things going on, particularly in the police that should be lambasted, but this is nothing more than a silly petulant inconvenience that is on it's way out. It certainly is not traumatic, and to suggest so is the epitome of exaggeration and dramatism to argue a point. Relying on such misuse of language to make your argument weakens it, as it takes away semantic validity.

 

[DaGaffer]

I said I couldn't give a fuck if you agree with me or not, please learn to read.

Regarding it being "traumatic," here's a definition:

trau·ma
   /ˈtraʊmə, ˈtrɔ-/ Show Spelled[trou-muh, traw-] Show IPA
–noun,plural-mas, -ma·ta  /-mətə/ Show Spelled[-muh-tuh] Show IPA.
1.Pathology.
a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b.the condition produced by this; traumatism.
2.Psychiatry.
a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."

So no, being searched by police is not traumatic. It's annoying and inconvenient, it is not something that devastates people or causes them pain.

Read your own cut 'n paste. Just because YOU only find it inconvienient (when its never happened to you) doesn't mean others feel that way. The emotions I felt were pretty similar to when I was burgled, and yeah, traumatic just about covers it.

Why do people think that if someone disagrees with nonsense spouted by masses, they must be trolling? Aren't people allowed to THINK DIFFERENTLY TO YOU? Just because I view the situation differently does not mean I am missing the point. You say you have been stopped for it, other have too. This is fine. But why can't you accept that these problems are not endemic, since I have NOT experienced this when doing the same thing with police around?

So 200,000 plus uses of Section 44 for a dozen convictions doesn't strike you as endemic then? And that's just Section 44. So yeah, you are missing the point, neither your or my personal experience is relevant to the scale of the problem.

Just because I'm not ready to jump on the anti-police "OMFGZ THIS IS SOOOOOO SERIOUS" bandwagon does not mean I'm trolling, or that I'm missing the point. It actually goes the other way round. It's NOT a serious issue. You may think it is, it might be in your opinion. It may make your blood boil, but it is not the major problem that has been made out in this thread, even if you FEEL it is a major problem. There are far, far worse things going on, particularly in the police that should be lambasted, but this is nothing more than a silly petulant inconvenience that is on it's way out. It certainly is not traumatic, and to suggest so is the epitome of exaggeration and dramatism to argue a point. Relying on such misuse of language to make your argument weakens it, as it takes away semantic validity.

I'm sure there are plenty of things going on within the police that need attention, but that's not what this thread was about. Fine, you don't think its important, I don't give a flying fuck. Please continue.

 

[Tom]

In other words Wazz, "think yourself lucky".

Well yes, I think myself lucky I live here and don't have to contend with third-world policing. I want it to remain that way, thanks.

 

[old.user4556]

What do you suggest Wazz? That photographers should just suck it up?

Do you feel that we're just a bunch of obstinate trouble makers making a fuss over trivia?

 

[Shagrat]

and it's not just 15 minutes anyway. One of those poor guys ended up spending 8 hours in a cell for "carrying his camera in an anti social manner".

I never said that every policeman is like this, but if nothing is done to stop this now it will just become worse.

 

[- English -]

dont understand why you guys are slagging the police off so much about this, they were polite and tried to explain why they were doing what they were.

If that man had been taking pictures of children etc, or lets say if those pictures were of your children, i think it would have been a different matter. The police were just trying to protect the other members of the public, and i felt the force used was reasonable. If the man had nothing to hide, or if the police were abusing their powers from the start, why was he trying to be smart and rufuse to cooperate.

He got what he deserved imo, the police have enough on their hands without time wasters like him.

 

[Tom]

So what if he'd been taking pictures of children? He's perfectly entitled to. Protecting the public - from what, exactly? You don't actually believe that photographs steal people's souls, do you?

In case you don't get it, the police can mind their own fucking business and stop hassling people who aren't breaking any laws.

I try and restrain myself, really, I do, but you're a retard.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

The suggestion is simply if approached not to act like a dick about it and you'll find you'll normally be on your way in just a minute or two.

I love the comparison to being burgled and being searched, they're NOTHING alike. One's an unauthorised, secret breaking and entering with the intent to steal. One's a clearly stated, regulated and authorised search to ensure illegal items are not being carried. Fair enough you were affected by both equally, but I've been searched near a dozen times (non photography related) and burgled, and being burgled is a nasty experience, being searched was nothing more than a few minutes on the side of a road having a friendly chat.

 

[old.user4556]

I try and restrain myself, really, I do, but you're a retard.

Yeah, that post was really the forum equivalent of a dribble.

 

[Bugz]

I love the comparison to being burgled and being searched, they're NOTHING alike. One's an unauthorised, secret breaking and entering with the intent to steal. One's a clearly stated, regulated and authorised search to ensure illegal items are not being carried..

Wazzer you seem to be missing the point.

You can only use section 44 if you have reasonable suspicion to suspect the person is engaging in terrorist activities.

Therefore, using section 44 to search someone without this reasonable suspicion is UNAUTHORISED.

Thus, your comparison does not hold any weight.

 

[old.user4556]

The suggestion is simply if approached not to act like a dick about it and you'll find you'll normally be on your way in just a minute or two.

Interesting you say that Wazz, my brother-in-law (policeman) says it's mostly an attitude test. Bad attitude, bad response from said plod.

Having said that, I fully cooperated both times I was stopped, both plod were pretty cool about it but that doesn't stop me being really quite fucked off about it. On the second occasion, the policeman did tell me I wasn't allowed to take photos - I did tell him I knew he couldn't stop me, but as Chris Rock says, sometimes you gotta let shit slide.

Speaking of Chris Rock and attitude tests with the Police, here is a much needed humour injection for this thread

YouTube- Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police!

 

[DaGaffer]

The suggestion is simply if approached not to act like a dick about it and you'll find you'll normally be on your way in just a minute or two.

I love the comparison to being burgled and being searched, they're NOTHING alike. One's an unauthorised, secret breaking and entering with the intent to steal. One's a clearly stated, regulated and authorised search to ensure illegal items are not being carried. Fair enough you were affected by both equally, but I've been searched near a dozen times (non photography related) and burgled, and being burgled is a nasty experience, being searched was nothing more than a few minutes on the side of a road having a friendly chat.

The feelings of powerlessness, injustice and anger were exactly the same. I wasn't searched because of photography either, but I now I distrust the police intensly becuase there was nothing reasonable or rational about the police's behaviour when they searched me. And no, I wasn't arsey about it, they were before I'd even opened my mouth.

There's this incredible acceptance that stop and search is a reasonable way for the police to behave; its not, and it doesn't matter how friendly they are about it. The photography example is simply a particularly strong example of vague laws being used in open ended ways for abusive purposes. And how is alienating hundreds of thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens effective policework? They may as well pull names out of a hat for all the effectiveness it has and the ill feeling it causes.

 

[rynnor]

dont understand why you guys are slagging the police off so much about this, they were polite and tried to explain why they were doing what they were.

Are you really serious?

'Hi, I'm a Policeman - your not breaking any laws but I'd like to abuse section 44 without any cause on you because it makes me feel like a big man- you cool?'

I have no wish to live in a Police state - even the European Court says the way the Police are mis-using these powers is illegal and its pretty pathetic that our government has not enacted a change to the law by now just because this might undermine the climate of fear it wishes to promote.

 

[Scouse]

trau·ma
2.Psychiatry.
a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.

The overwhelming evidence in this very thread is that people do find inappropriate police intervention traumatic.

If it wasn`t on some level traumatic then people wouldn`t be angrily reacting and posting on here...

Simple really.

 

[Scouse]

The suggestion is simply if approached not to act like a dick about it and you'll find you'll normally be on your way in just a minute or two.

Or the police could stop acting like dicks and not approach people without any legal grounds to do so?


The fundamental principle of life without interference is being violated.


It`s pretty simple. If the police have no legal grounds to approach you (which is definately the case) then they shouldn`t. If people react "badly" then it`s perfectly understandable and completely appropriate.

Well done to anyone who makes the day a little bit harder for cops who aren`t performing their legal duties within the bounds of law.

(policeman) says it's mostly an attitude test. Bad attitude, bad response from said plod.

True G. However, police have no grounds for such. If they abuse their position by stopping and searching people they should expect bad attiudes and accept that it`s their own fault...

 

[Ctuchik]

200,444 people searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act.

66 people charged (like the Harry Potter actor with pictures of his home grown weed)

17 charged under Terrorism legislation...

Of 17 charged X convicted - most likely about 12 will be convicted.

Thats about 1 per 15,000 people searched...

Source: BBC News - Terrorism arrests rising in UK

and how many of those would have been caught if section 44 werent there?

none?

look at section 44 as the anti-terror version of the random alcohol beath test, you dont explode when you get pulled over for that do you? but its basically the same idea, just that theres alot more drunk drivers then terrorists so there wont be that many actually cetting caught (but still surprisingly many)...

ANY potential terrorist (or other criminal) that gets caught by this is imo a win and proof that its actually doing some good.

and its not like terrorist acts are rare in UK by any means, theres been (according to wiki) 54 publically confirmed acts of terrorism in UK since 1971 and the latest being only a few days ago aparently.

yes i bet its fucking annoying, but would you rather they didnt do anything at all just so you could take some photos?

 

[Ctuchik]

It`s pretty simple. If the police have no legal grounds to approach you (which is definately the case) then they shouldn`t.

but a suspicion is as good a ground as any, if a police see something they think is odd then they are legally bound to check up on it. NOT doing it would probably get them warned or fired.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Or the police could stop acting like dicks and not approach people without any legal grounds to do so?


The fundamental principle of life without interference is being violated.


It`s pretty simple. If the police have no legal grounds to approach you (which is definately the case) then they shouldn`t. If people react "badly" then it`s perfectly understandable and completely appropriate.

Well done to anyone who makes the day a little bit harder for cops who aren`t performing their legal duties within the bounds of law.





True G. However, police have no grounds for such. If they abuse their position by stopping and searching people they should expect bad attiudes and accept that it`s their own fault...

So everytime you meet someone that's a bit of a dick and doesn't have the best attitude, you should do your best to fuck them about?

Why not just be the bigger man, let them get on with it? This is what we do with other people, why treat the police any differently, or are they not people either?