Rant Why I hate the police (more photography woes)

[Wazzerphuk]

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

They would, to be fair there are a few anti-police, super lefties here.

 

[Will]

They would, to be fair there are a few anti-police, super lefties here.

Hey, I haven't posted in this thread yet.

 

[rynnor]

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

If it causes the Police to lose the support of sections of the population then its completely counter productive and could lead to more terrorist acts.

 

[rynnor]

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.

In this country they need 'reasonable' suspicion - this legislation was not meant to be abused on the scale that it has been and is currently being used illegally.

 

[Ch3tan]

Wazz, being stopped and searched in public is pretty fucking embarrassing, and whether it is traumatic or not depends on the person.

I don't mind co-operating with the police, but only when they have a right to be questioning or searching you.

Stopping random people for no good reason, other than "oh noes, they might be taking pictures of children or a building", or some jumped up security guard reporting "suspicious activity", or "wearing a hoodie", is a shit replacement for actual Policing.

And Ctuchik, honestly, if you want to live in that environment you are more than welcome to. Just don't presume to tell us how we should live, when you don't have to.

edit:// oh and Wazz, I don't think most people here have anything against the police. My stance is more poor management by Labour and and poor training by those responsible within the police. Clearly the officers on the street need re-training and clearer guidelines so that they are no continually exposed to bad press and possibly sued by pissed off members of the public.

 

[inactionman]

To be honest ever since my sister, who got basically no qualifications at school bar a few GCSE's and an NVQ in Tourism FFS, recently became a police officer, I have lost any respect for police. She knows nothing of history or ethics and I know more about the law than she does. I had this very conversation with her, and she believed that she had to right to stop people taking photographs, but could not name any power that would allow her to do so.

What the police have to realise is they can only act in an Intra Vires manner, if there's no power they can quote to do it, they are legally just the same as a normal member of the public.

I hate the fact that the police are going against the peelian principle that the police are just a member of the public who dedicates their time to upholding the law, and are rapidly moving to the continental system where they are servants of the state with associated jackboots.

 

[- English -]

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.

protecting the public from paedophiles and such? dont you think they dont exist or something? They were just concerned and as they said they saw him acting suspiciously.. that is enough to check his details. WE havent seen the polices side to this story, and its too easy to assume we have seen the full story from that edited video on the news website. The media always seem to be against the police for whatever reason they can.

Thumbs up for the police in this case i say. I dont care if you wanna get personal and call people retards, but Id rather have an overprotected environment than a non protected one.

If you dont like it to kindly put go live somewhere else

 

[old.user4556]

protecting the public from paedophiles and such? dont you think they dont exist or something?

English, did you read my point about using long lenses from far away?

Skilled peado rings don't take a DSLR into a shopping centre in view for all to see, they're a lot smarter than that. They infiltrate the church, boys clubs, nurserys, schools etc. Even if they are photoghraping kids, they're using 300mm lenses from far away, out of sight and certainly not where the police are loitering knowning they can get stopped and searched under section 44.

Peados are your average respectible person in charge - your teacher, your doctor, your priest, your confident, your local policeman - not some DSLR owner weilding a Leica in a public place.

Get a fucking clue.

 

[- English -]

English, did you read my point about using long lenses from far away?

Skilled peado rings don't take a DSLR into a shopping centre in view for all to see, they're a lot smarter than that. They infiltrate the church, boys clubs, nurserys, schools etc. Even if they are photoghraping kids, they're using 300mm lenses from far away, out of sight and certainly not where the police are loitering knowning they can get stopped and searched under section 44.

Peados are your average respectible person in charge - your teacher, your doctor, your priest, your confident, your local policeman - not some DSLR owner weilding a Leica in a public place.

Get a fucking clue.

lol thats the most stupid thing ive ever heard, get a clue yourself.

 

[old.user4556]

Wow, that's an excellent argument. Thanks for playing.

 

[- English -]

Wow, that's an excellent argument. Thanks for playing.

Well come on... to say paedophiles are those types of people is just pure ignorance. You just hear about the majority of those people on the news. It doesnt mean they are the most common types or whatever.

And again, the thing about the lens stuff is rubbish.

The fact is the police were right to stop and search that guy for acting suspiciously (and they used the necessary means to do so). I appreciate your a photographer and probably innocent and its annoying/embaressing being searched.

The world isnt full of innocent people, sadly.

 

[Bugz]

They are using a police act which they have no legal groundings to do so - to search you.

It's the same as the Police having a warrant for a different house and bombarding into your house.

If you have a problem with the law re: public photography English then that is not for the Police to decide. You take that up with your local MP/politicians. A Police Officer who stops a person taking pictures in a public place, kids, buildings, anything under section 44 is misusing that right. If you honestly think that this is for the greater good 'if its a paedophile,' then what if someone else thinks its for the greater good 'if the person is black' or 'if the person is muslim.'

Incidentally are those that haven't been searched before by the police those who believe it doesn't affect you in any way? I bet so.

 

[Ch3tan]

Well come on... to say paedophiles are those types of people is just pure ignorance. You just hear about the majority of those people on the news. It doesnt mean they are the most common types or whatever.

And again, the thing about the lens stuff is rubbish.

The fact is the police were right to stop and search that guy for acting suspiciously (and they used the necessary means to do so). I appreciate your a photographer and probably innocent and its annoying/embaressing being searched.

The world isnt full of innocent people, sadly.

Yay, let's brand everyone a criminal, just incase they are!

 

[- English -]

They are using a police act which they have no legal groundings to do so - to search you.

It's the same as the Police having a warrant for a different house and bombarding into your house.

If you have a problem with the law re: public photography English then that is not for the Police to decide. You take that up with your local MP/politicians. A Police Officer who stops a person taking pictures in a public place, kids, buildings, anything under section 44 is misusing that right.

Incidentally are those saying they haven't been searched before by the police those who believe it doesn't affect you in any way? I bet so.

Ive spoken with someone about this. I shall'nt reveal his identity. But he says its not illegal to take photographs obv, but its what they do if they are acting suspicious, then they have powers.

if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being commited
under section 1 of PACE
the constable has to give certain details
the grounds for a search
the object of a search
he has to show his warrant card if in plainclothes
and state his own identity
and the station he is attached to
he has to explain that someone has an entitlement to a copy of the search record
he has to be told what legal power the search is being conducted under

 

[- English -]

Yay, let's brand everyone a criminal, just incase they are!

thats not the problem. The police thought he was acting suspicious. If i remember correctly she even said a member of the public has said something. Now wouldnt think warrent investigation to you?

 

[Bugz]

Ive spoken with someone about this. I shall'nt reveal his identity. But he says its not illegal to take photographs obv, but its what they do if they are acting suspicious, then they have powers.

if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being commited
under section 1 of PACE
the constable has to give certain details
the grounds for a search
the object of a search
he has to show his warrant card if in plainclothes
and state his own identity
and the station he is attached to
he has to explain that someone has an entitlement to a copy of the search record
he has to be told what legal power the search is being conducted under

Of which a lot of officers use section 44.

Thus, the photographer refuses, knowing full well they don't have suspicion to suspect them as a terrorist. Then the Police get itchy because they are refusing details. In one case, the lady obviously got her superior, they figured out another law they could nap the photographer for (anti-social law - again, not that easy to prove I imagine) & used that instead.

 

[Ch3tan]

She claimed that afterwards, and acting suspiciously could cover a huge range of situations, it does still not give the police the right to invoke section 44 powers. They are to be used when the police suspect TERRORISM.

They also then claimed anti-social behaviour - please explain how taking photographs is anti-social behaviour?

The reason there are so many complaints about stop and search and the anti terror laws is that the police are not using them as intended, you are blindly ignoring this fact, because you feel the police should be all powerful to ensure our safety.

 

[- English -]

Well its becoming an argunment of two halves. Im saying the police had the necessry right and powers to arrest him for acting suspiciously(which is fact). Your saying the police laws are wrong and thats not necessarily the polices fault but more of a law fault.

 

[Ch3tan]

No, your fact is wrong. Claiming someone is acting suspiciously is NOT a reason to arrest someone. They would have to justify what exactly they were doing which was suspicious. The only fact here is that the police officer and PCSO overstepped their powers, got angry that they were shown up and then arrested someone on very very ropey grounds. This is not a one off, there is a reason there is lots of media attention and talk about this.

 

[- English -]

No, your fact is wrong. Claiming someone is acting suspiciously is NOT a reason to arrest someone. They would have to justify what exactly they were doing which was suspicious. The only fact here is that the police officer and PCSO overstepped their powers, got angry that they were shown up and then arrested someone on very very ropey grounds. This is not a one off, there is a reason there is lots of media attention and talk about this.

No its not wrong. It is an arrestable offence to refuse to give your details to the police, when they suspect you are doing something wrong. That is why he got arrested.

If it was wrong, why arent they being sued and such.

In a statement, Lancashire police said they and members of the public were "concerned about the way in which [Patefield] was using his camera". It said police felt they had "no choice" but to arrest him because he was refusing to co-operate.

Now your just arguing for the sake of it.

 

[Ch3tan]

LOL? I'm arguing for the sake of it? It's an option for the police to arrest someone for anti-social behaviour. They should have used that law in the first place if that was the case, not question him under section 44. They also state his anti-social behaviour was "using a camera". Highly anti-social. As for being sued, we will have to wait and see. He was released without charge, and no ABSO, so obviously he was not actually being anti-social.

Sounds like a few over-paranoid daily mail readers got upset that someone would dare to use a camera in a public place.

 

[Bugz]

Section 44 without reasonable suspicion is NOT authorized to stop and search someone etc.

Is reasonable suspicion holding a camera & taking pictures in a public place... no?

"You don’t have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you’re stopped and searched unless you’re being reported for an offence."

Since the Police Officer's in question knew they could get jack shit on said photographer with section 44 - they used another section for anti-social (section 60 is it?)

But even use of this section isn't fully justified 'for holding a camera' and 'taking pictures of children in a public place' (both of which are legal).

I love your argument of 'if it was wrong, why aren't they being sued.' Let's thank the lords not everyone has such a short-minded mentality.

 

[Gumbo]

Arresting people for taking photo's strikes me as pretty similar to arresting joggers because they must be running away from doing some crime somewhere.

 

[Tom]

protecting the public from paedophiles and such? dont you think they dont exist or something? They were just concerned and as they said they saw him acting suspiciously.. that is enough to check his details. WE havent seen the polices side to this story, and its too easy to assume we have seen the full story from that edited video on the news website. The media always seem to be against the police for whatever reason they can.

Thumbs up for the police in this case i say. I dont care if you wanna get personal and call people retards, but Id rather have an overprotected environment than a non protected one.

If you dont like it to kindly put go live somewhere else

Go live somewhere else? Arse.

Witness the child of the labour revolution, compliant and unquestioning.

 

[pcg79]

Section 44 without reasonable suspicion is NOT authorized to stop and search someone etc.

Is reasonable suspicion holding a camera & taking pictures in a public place... no?

"You don’t have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you’re stopped and searched unless you’re being reported for an offence."

Since the Police Officer's in question knew they could get jack shit on said photographer with section 44 - they used another section for anti-social (section 60 is it?)

But even use of this section isn't fully justified 'for holding a camera' and 'taking pictures of children in a public place' (both of which are legal).

I love your argument of 'if it was wrong, why aren't they being sued.' Let's thank the lords not everyone has such a short-minded mentality.

section 44 does NOT require reasonable suspicion. section 44 is a provision whereby specific areas are designated within which police can stop and search for any reason, as long as such actions are deemed 'expedient in the prevention of terrorism'.

section 43 allows for stopping and searching in any area, where the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person in question is involved in terrorist activities. the problem is that the definition of terrorist activities/terrorism is ridiculously broad.

 

[Bugz]

Aye - sorry - I'm getting the two mixed up here.

I think different videos on this thread used different ones.

 

[- English -]

Go live somewhere else? Arse.

Witness the child of the labour revolution, compliant and unquestioning.

I guess your a torie then, says it all.

 

[Krazeh]

I guess your a torie then, says it all.

Wow, what an amazing retort. You've blown his argument clear out of the water with that one...

 

[- English -]

Wow, what an amazing retort. You've blown his argument clear out of the water with that one...

Ive nothing more to argue. His personal insults due to losing an argunment say to me he is not worth my time. Now he assumes because I dont agree with his opinion that I am a labour voter. And he has lost, ive spoken to someone in the police which i quoted that they had the right to arrest him etc.

I dont understand some people, its like some Americans think they're the savour of the world & they know best, and if you dont agree with them, they get personal. I guess all his general section cronies are coming to stick up for him now though .. whatever, i couldnt care less. I said before if you dont like the countries laws which protect the majority.. leave, i don't care. Bye.

 

[Garaen]

I think Big G knows a little too much about how paedos operate tbh!

/joke