Rant Why I hate the police (more photography woes)

[DaGaffer]

'I don't think you have the right' all the fucking time.

Just do what the officer asks, she wouldn't have a problem if she just showed him the film and gave some ID then moved on.

No. Fuck off. When did people start thinking that we are the servants of the police, not the other way around? And by the way, we have no obligation to carry or display ID.

I really wouldn't mind all this shit if there was any practical justification for any of this anti-photography stuff, but there isn't, its just stupid in a world where pretty much any information you want about a building is freely available on the internet, or if you did have a nefarious purpose, its completely trivial to hide a camera anyway.

As for this absurd "can't take photos of kids because you may be a pedo" crap, I'm sorry, are all these kids in playgrounds and shopping malls taking their clothes off? No, they are not. So basically, even if you were some kind of perv, taking a photo of a fully dressed child is not going to harm the child anymore than if said perv got his rocks off to the kids section in the Next catalogue. Its all insane.

 

[Raven]

It would be far easier to just refuse to the point that they attempt to take it physically and then make an official complaint.

They have absolutely no legal right or grounds to take your camera off you or get you to delete anything. Certainly not without a warrant. So long as you don't act aggressively or give them any other excuse to be dicks then legally you are fine.

As for the jumped up little security guards, just tell them to go fuck themselves and walk off. If they try to stop you, then complain to the police of the assault, they have no more right to physically stop you doing anything than any other member of the public.

There would be no way they would get any sort of argument of reasonable suspicion to fly in court, it wouldn't even make it that far.

 

[Himse]

No. Fuck off. When did people start thinking that we are the servants of the police, not the other way around? And by the way, we have no obligation to carry or display ID.

I really wouldn't mind all this shit if there was any practical justification for any of this anti-photography stuff, but there isn't, its just stupid in a world where pretty much any information you want about a building is freely available on the internet, or if you did have a nefarious purpose, its completely trivial to hide a camera anyway.

As for this absurd "can't take photos of kids because you may be a pedo" crap, I'm sorry, are all these kids in playgrounds and shopping malls taking their clothes off? No, they are not. So basically, even if you were some kind of perv, taking a photo of a fully dressed child is not going to harm the child anymore than if said perv got his rocks off to the kids section in the Next catalogue. Its all insane.

I'm not saying that, but it's a simple request by an officer to present some identification, why take it out of context? As soon as he threw up Section 44 I thought it was all a bit bullshit but you should just respect a Police Officer's polite requests. They aren't all out to be cunts, but that lady was quite frankly rude, the guy certainly asked politely and she just comes across herself like a cunt, then wonders why she gets treated like one.

I'm not saying the Police are upstanding fantastic citizens or brilliant people, but they must get tired of people throwing around 'YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT' all the time when trying to perform simple tasks.

I've been stopped and searched, I don't care, I just let them search me, it takes all of a minute, then i'm on my way. They're not asking you to bend over and let them ass fuck you. It depends how you want to take it, if you just tell them to leave you alone or whatever that's your choice, but it'll probably end up with some disputes.

 

[MYstIC G]

Obviously for customer service, they should have signs. I understand why it may be annoying, but if someone is acting on behalf of that establishment and they ask you to do something you don't really have a say in the matter.

This whole thing seemed to blow up into a PR issue which is why they amended the rules. I suppose they had to because they are in the business of bringing customers in rather than forcing them out.

I think the problem in this instance is the level of bullshit.

They should have simply asked him to leave, not called the cops or demanded he do x, y or z.

 

[Scouse]

No. Fuck off. When did people start thinking that we are the servants of the police, not the other way around? And by the way, we have no obligation to carry or display ID.

This.

It's another case of jobsworth idiot wankers acting, naturally and exactly, as the people they are - morons.

 

[DaGaffer]

I'm not saying that, but it's a simple request by an officer to present some identification, why take it out of context? As soon as he threw up Section 44 I thought it was all a bit bullshit but you should just respect a Police Officer's polite requests. They aren't all out to be cunts, but that lady was quite frankly rude, the guy certainly asked politely and she just comes across herself like a cunt, then wonders why she gets treated like one.

I'm not saying the Police are upstanding fantastic citizens or brilliant people, but they must get tired of people throwing around 'YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT' all the time when trying to perform simple tasks.

I've been stopped and searched, I don't care, I just let them search me, it takes all of a minute, then i'm on my way. They're not asking you to bend over and let them ass fuck you. It depends how you want to take it, if you just tell them to leave you alone or whatever that's your choice, but it'll probably end up with some disputes.

One of both the Tory and LibDem manifesto promises was no ID cards. We. Don't. Have. To. Carry. ID. What part of that do you not understand?

I've been stopped and searched as well, and I can tell you I was fucking livid. One of the best things about not living in the UK anymore is not putting up with that shit; the Gards can be fucking idiots about other things, but there's none of the really stupid stuff going on over here.

 

[soze]

One of both the Tory and LibDem manifesto promises was no ID cards. We. Don't. Have. To. Carry. ID. What part of that do you not understand?

I've been stopped and searched as well, and I can tell you I was fucking livid. One of the best things about not living in the UK anymore is not putting up with that shit; the Gards can be fucking idiots about other things, but there's none of the really stupid stuff going on over here.

It is all down to frame of mind. I got stop and searched because I fit the description of a man who stabbed his wife. The officer was very polite I showed him my drivers licence got my form to complain if I want to and was on my way in 3 minutes. I will never understand the people to mess them about. I do not have to show him my ID but if I had got the arsehole and told him I was not telling him my name I get arrested it is more arse ache than its worth.

With a lot of these photographers I wonder how many times it all starts with a civil request to stop taking a picture because it is making people uncomfortable and ends up being a big deal because the photographer will not back down so the police pull out every trick they have.

Right or Wrong your right to take a photo should be no more important than someones rights not to have their photo taken so if you are asked to stop then just stop.

 

[DaGaffer]

With a lot of these photographers I wonder how many times it all starts with a civil request to stop taking a picture because it is making people uncomfortable and ends up being a big deal because the photographer will not back down so the police pull out every trick they have.

Have you heard yourself? You're captured on CCTV 300 times a day, but some random person taking photos "makes you uncomfortable"?

First of all, when did "being made uncomfortable" become a criminal offence? Thought not. What you're really saying is, "I wonder how many times it all starts with a civil request to stop taking a picture because it is making people behave completely irrationally and ends up being a big deal because the photographer will not back down so the police pull out every trick they have". People being stupid because the Daily Mail has made them into terrified fuckwits shouldn't be pandered to.

 

[Raven]

That's a valid reason for a stock and search though, one that the policeman told you before the search. It's not like he just came up to you and said. Stop, I want to search you and then get all evasive as to why, or come up with some made up on the spot law.

As for the ID, I carry my drivers licence with me (The plastic card part, the important paper one is at home) because its logical to carry ID with you, what if you were in an accident? Or assaulted? It would be far easier on you if the people who found you, knew who you were. That's not to say it should be compulsory though.

 

[Raven]

Also, if I don't wish to show it to a policeman then I wouldn't, unless he has pulled me over and asks to see it.

 

[soze]

Have you heard yourself? You're captured on CCTV 300 times a day, but some random person taking photos "makes you uncomfortable"?

First of all, when did "being made uncomfortable" become a criminal offence? Thought not. What you're really saying is, "I wonder how many times it all starts with a civil request to stop taking a picture because it is making people behave completely irrationally and ends up being a big deal because the photographer will not back down so the police pull out every trick they have". People being stupid because the Daily Mail has made them into terrified fuckwits shouldn't be pandered to.

I knew it was pointless posting in here. If a random guy was stood there and appeared to be taking photos of my young child I would ask him to stop. I would also stop taking photos if asked. I would not off like I have been told I am not allowed to breath.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

One of my work mates recently ousted a paedo taking photos of kids on a train.

Whether they're clothed or not is irrelevant.

 

[DaGaffer]

I knew it was pointless posting in here. If a random guy was stood there and appeared to be taking photos of my young child I would ask him to stop. I would also stop taking photos if asked. I would not off like I have been told I am not allowed to breath.

But its context isn't it? The situation you're describing is almost never what actually happens. In the Braehead example, the guy was taking pictures of his own daughter and other people complained to the security guards. How is that rational? They had no context to go on so assumed the worst based on ridiculous hysteria. Same with all the stories you hear about people taking photos of navity plays or kids in the playground; the chances of someone taking a photo for malicious reasons are vanishingly small, but we've been so screwed up by the media that the default position is to think the worst, not the best of people. And no, I don't subscribe to the "better safe than sorry" mantra.

 

[DaGaffer]

One of my work mates recently ousted a paedo taking photos of kids on a train.

Whether they're clothed or not is irrelevant.

Well, yes, it is actually. What's he doing? Stealing their souls?

 

[megadave]

You can barely even look at a kid in the street these days without their mother sneering at you.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Have you heard yourself? You're captured on CCTV 300 times a day, but some random person taking photos "makes you uncomfortable"?

First of all, when did "being made uncomfortable" become a criminal offence? Thought not. What you're really saying is, "I wonder how many times it all starts with a civil request to stop taking a picture because it is making people behave completely irrationally and ends up being a big deal because the photographer will not back down so the police pull out every trick they have". People being stupid because the Daily Mail has made them into terrified fuckwits shouldn't be pandered to.

nonsense..
what happened to the rights of those people that dont want to be on your photo's?
you are saying because of cctv you shouldn't have a problem with it, what about those that do already have a problem with it? They get ignored, by you and the government. Atleast the cctv has a point and is controlled by people you can vote for (hopefully). your rights end at a certain point and it sure end at taking my photo (too damn ugly )

 

[ECA]

nonsense..
what happened to the rights of those people that dont want to be on your photo's?
you are saying because of cctv you shouldn't have a problem with it, what about those that do already have a problem with it? They get ignored, by you and the government. Atleast the cctv has a point and is controlled by people you can vote for (hopefully). your rights end at a certain point and it sure end at taking my photo (too damn ugly )

There is no right for people who don't want to be in a photo in a public place.

Because it can be seen by anyone, thus it can be shared with anyone.

 

[Ch3tan]

I love these people creating rights that don't exist in law, just like the officers creating laws that don't exist.

 

[DaGaffer]

nonsense..
what happened to the rights of those people that dont want to be on your photo's?
you are saying because of cctv you shouldn't have a problem with it, what about those that do already have a problem with it? They get ignored, by you and the government. Atleast the cctv has a point and is controlled by people you can vote for (hopefully). your rights end at a certain point and it sure end at taking my photo (too damn ugly )

Very simple. Ask the photographer politely not to, rather than getting law enforcement to make shit up to protect a non-existent "right". And CCTV is controlled by people I can vote for (or against) is it? Riiiight.

Bottom line, you're being photographed all the time; there are actually far more cameras in the UK than people, its only the ones you actively notice that are getting your back up, but given the number of times you're being photographed anyway, that's not a rational response.

If someone is behaving like a paparazzo and sticking a telephoto in your face, fine, its perfectly reasonable to regard that as a breach of your privacy; there's a clear element of personal "conflict" for want of a better word; but that's not what the real issue is here.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Well, yes, it is actually. What's he doing? Stealing their souls?

So if you saw a paedo taking photos of your kids, you'd just sit there and think "hey good job they're not doing anything illegal"?

 

[ECA]

So if you saw a paedo taking photos of your kids, you'd just sit there and think "hey good job they're not doing anything illegal"?

Right because you can identify a pedo at 20 yards?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

We're talking sat in a train, watching them do it. It's not a case of seeing through their paedo dress code.

Besides, most paedophiles these days disguise themselves as schools.

 

[ECA]

We're talking sat in a train, watching them do it. It's not a case of seeing through their paedo dress code.

Besides, most paedophiles these days disguise themselves as schools.

I'm still having troubling wondering what your scenario is and how you would know they were a pedo

 

[Tom]

I think you'll find that most paedophiles don't need cameras, they just abuse the children in their family.

 

[Raven]

Well, yes, it is actually. What's he doing? Stealing their souls?

So you would be quite happy to have a peado take photos of your child then? Really?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I'm still having troubling wondering what your scenario is and how you would know they were a pedo

It wasn't my scenario! And he knew when the guy broke down crying repeatedly saying "sorry, sorry, sorry" and unable to look at anyone.

Plus he was dressed as a school.

 

[DaGaffer]

So you would be quite happy to have a peado take photos of your child then? Really?

Of course not, and when I see one hove into view, y'know, wearing his official Guild Of Peadophiles pointy hat and trench coat, I put a stop to his evil shenanigans.

 

[Mabs]

i thought,and i may be wrong.. that you have no right to your image in a public place?
so if your walking down a road and someone takes a picture of you, or with you in it, you cant object or claim ownership etc ? and this extends to cctv etc.
i presume its a cover-all thing though, for legal reasons.

not 100% sure on that though

 

[DaGaffer]

It wasn't my scenario! And he knew when the guy broke down crying repeatedly saying "sorry, sorry, sorry" and unable to look at anyone.

Or, he was a terrified Train Spotter in fear of his life from a bunch bloodthirsty Sun readers. If this guy was such an obvious pedo, were the cops waiting for him at the next stop? When's the court case?

Tom hit the nail on the head, the reality of child abuse has very little to do with shifty blokes with telephoto lenses. Its far more prosaic and all the more terrifying for that.

 

[Ch3tan]

I can't believe you've actually shared that story with us wazz.