This ruins the image of the Police, doesn't it..

[Steve]

Hi all,

I see the Police are being made to look foolish again.. this time by one of their local community Police Officers...

The story that makes me think that is here: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...auls-sunset.do

...the 'Police' stopped a photographer taking photos of London tourist areas as he might be a terrorist.

How STUPID can you get... MILLIONS photograph central London, and ANYONE who doesn't know that should not be working in any form of Police role, should they...?

This absurd attacking of folks taking photos should be stopped dead.. I've experienced it myself and that was a real full blown Police Officer, threatening me for taking photos in the street that I was 100% entitled to take.. when will this annoying the public on purpose end...?

Steve

PS: I support anti terrorist work 100%... and the Police.. I just don't support stupidity, nor this mass lessening of respect for our Police due to the actions of some very unwise folks who should obviously not be making these decisions...

[Bob]

Yes. I'm afraid this administration has no imagination. If people want to do something they don't understand or agree with they ban it.

The reason given will be "Health and Safety" or Anti-Terrorism" or "The Data Protection Act" or "Human Rights" or some other piece of inappropriate legislation.

We've seen laws that were passed to fight terrorism used to snoop on parents of school age children. And to ban photography - usually by pseudo-police who seem to never "have the training" to do anything useful. I always thought it was illegal to impersonate a Police Officer, yet these people do it every day.

We have more CCTV cameras than pretty much the rest of the world put together. Yet, when citizens request a camera to control gangs of young thugs it can't be done because it would infringe the human rights of the thugs.

One can only hope that a new administration in Westminster will be able to redress the balance just as soon as this parliament's term comes to an end - because we all know that Gordon won't have the guts to call an election before he is forced to. But the fiscal policies of the man who has been hailed as the greatest Chancellor this century will leave them powerless because the country is now destitute. He's sold off everything to pay for his government's uncontrolled spending.

What a mess.

Bob

[Nigel]

Right you lot! Everybody who took pictures of Beauvoir Castle, hand them, and, your names & addresses to the Police now! Margaret Thatcher has been there and you may have been doing a recce in order to assassinate her!!!!

Hold on. Aren't there pictures of London's sites on the internet? Can't one buy maps of all the government buildings "from any good book shop"?........

Septic of Spalding

[Ryan]

In my old job we had to do terrain analysis and this sometimes involved going down to a single building looking for entrance and exit points, blind spots, approach routes etc. As most of this was in other parts of the country the only way to get accurate info was via the internet and the best being Google Earth which enabled us to build up a profile using these applications.

I didn't need to get to the places physically as the info i require is already available at the click of a button.

Local authorities have abused the powers since day one and it has been loosely interpreted by these local authorities as an excuse to spy on people who leave bins out on the wrong day etc. What this has to do with terrorism I don't know.

I suspect that a lot of people don't understand the laws on photography in public places and the majority of them seem to be the one responsible for upholding the law. Maybe there is now a quota that has to be fulfilled during a set time period.

IMO things are starting to go a bit pear shaped and with a general election looming in the horizon, the current excuse for a government will no doubt promise change and attempt to leave us with a warm fuzzy feeling so that we might foolishly vote for them again and them renege on their promises again.

Maybe a spot of re training may be in order to put these misinformed officers on the same song sheet as everyone else.

[Touchwood]

This sort of thing really does make my blood boil!!

As far as I am aware, there is no law preventing the taking of photographs in public places. If I were challenged and asked to stop, I would politely decline, and make a point of continuing to take photos. I generally support the police, and feel they often get unwarranted criticism, but this does them no service at all.

I believe the police do have the power to insist on viewing the photographs you have taken (but not to require you to delete them) I'm not so sure about where I stand on this, on the one hand it seems to be an infringement on civil liberty, on the other it is a relatively small inconvenience and I suppose just might enable the discovery of nefarious intent - though exactly how I am not sure.

[Nigel]

Maybe there is now a quota that has to be fulfilled during a set time period.

There will be senior officers wanting to show how wonderful they are who will "encourage" junior officers to fulfill their own goals (NOT quotas koffkoff). I suspect that Bobbies in the relevant areas will use any available law in order to produce the required amount of "work." Although there were no quotas when I was working, I knew where the non existent book was kept that had the constables' arrests, FPNs, searches etc in it. Having said that, I believe there is now a points system in Lincolnshire where every piece of work has a score, and, a certain score must be achieved every shift/week/month or whatever.

Nigel.

[John]

In the Argus this morning is a story of a photographer stopped by 2 PCSOs for taking 'too many' photos of some Christmas lights in Sussex.

John

[Bob]

In the Argus this morning is a story of a photographer stopped by 2 PCSOs for taking 'too many' photos of some Christmas lights in Sussex.

John

Hmm

Under the 2002 Police Reform Act PCSOs have the power to demand the name and address of a person suspected of committing a criminal offence or for antisocial behaviour.

So what criminal offence had he committed? None that I can see. Antisocial behaviour? Nope, not that, either.

So, these PCSOs - who aren't trained to rescue drowning children or take evidence (at least, not when I requested some to do so) are now REQUIRED to take contact details because they have stopped them? I don't think so. I thought they were introduced to help Police Officers - not to become some sort of junior gestapo...

Bob

[Nigel]

these PCSOs - who aren't trained to rescue drowning children or take evidence ---- are now REQUIRED to take contact details because they have stopped them? I don't think so. I thought they were introduced to help Police Officers

Nope. They were introduced to save money by showing a "Police" presence on our streets where the public want to see Police people but without the cost of having properly trained and paid Police men and women. I suspect the "requirement" will be to evidence the stop, and, as a nice little by product, show that they are doing something that can be counted.

Nigel.

[John]

Another incident today reported on the BJP website. An architectural photographer taking photos of a church was reported to police by security staff at a nearby bank building after refusing to tell them his name. No CPSO's involved this time, but 4 police vehicles sent to detain him.

John

[Nigel]

I suspect that the security guards enhanced their story a bit and the photographer was a bit more bolshie than he stated. There's always a minimum of two sides to every story. Having said that, I would not be surprised if the Bobbies having been called out decided to get a "number" for their efforts. It is unfortunate that successive governments have required more police accountability in the form of pieces of paper they can count and "prove" that they are doing a wonderful job of getting the country policed effectively.

Nigel.

[Nigel]

Found this today:- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6957646.ece

Nigel.

[Steve]

Nigel,

I saw that on the news earlier.. I think they said the Police released it to counter all the bad publicity they were getting for hassling the public doing totally legal things.

That terrorists will probably HAVE to look at their targets and may well photograph them is really obvious isn't it. Nobody ever said it wasn't as far as I know.

What folks complained about was what seemed to be idiotic behaviour, where a journalist was reported to have a camera setup for a sunset photo and pointing at St Pauls.. and the Police used anti terrorist laws to intervene. It simply seems to make those acting that way look none too sensible I think pretty well everyone generally agrees.

Two parts of the item you quoted caught my eye.. the one where the Senior Police comment is "The cops on the street are aged 21 and 22, it’s a big ask for them to identify who is behaving suspiciously and who isn’t".

Doesn't that really make the Police seem to be acting very very strangely..

Why are the people they choose to send out to spot terrorists totally unsuited to the work according to them?

Why aren't men and women of 50 and 60, with common sense, out on patrol - I suspect they actually are at times and that the comment was not correct.

The other part that meant something was the ending to the story I think.. where the Police explain they are changing their guidance to officers.. and that seems to be agreeing with everyone else, who say what they were doing in the cases everyone complained about didn't seem to make sense.

I've been stopped from photographing by a Police woman who said she'd take my camera if I didn't destroy any photos I took of the site of a car accident that happened quite some time earlier.

We often have such photos on here and I know of no law that either prevents that, nor gives that officer the right to act that way.. and like everyone else hassled in this way, I am very unhappy that Police training doesn't seem to stop hassling of members of the public who are acting legally... We now have no photos of that site as we were banned by the Police from taking them... I know of nothing that could make that right.

As for what that 'maybe/perhaps' terrorist type did... well.. looking at the details I dunno what they'd make of me. I was at the 2012 Olympics site recently and I had sticking out of my pocket a video camera... it had black tape covering the light indicating it was recording... and I shot video for hours. The tape was because I didn't want to be lit up and looking silly with a beam of light coming out of my outfit.

Millions will probably photograph and video the Olympics contruction site - indeed the government has spent a lot of money providing facilities to do so, even towers overlooking the site and without windows so as not to get in the way of the photographs...

What IS the policy... it is either fine to film and photograph a major risk of terrorism site like that, or it isn't. Personally I obey the law and if it was made illegal to film or photograph such sites of course I wouldn't.. but no such law exists as far as I know, and we need more sensible policies really don't we.

Steve

[Nigel]

Why aren't men and women of 50 and 60, with common sense, out on patrol

Coz they've retired!

As I said earlier, I believe that some of these stop/search things are just to produce numbers for the government to count and using anti terrorism law will make life easier because the Police do not have to suspect anything as per the "normal criminal laws."

Nigel.

[John]

What I don't understand about this whole business is why having a semi-pro or pro camera and pointing it at a building makes you more of a terrorism suspect than the next person with a camera phone or videocam snapping the building and therefore a particular target for stopping under section 44. None of the successful or intercepted terrorists have so far been found using such equipment - it is too conspicuous.

Do the counter-terrorist people have specific information to go on or are they squandering resources stopping the wrong people? One answer must be that they get a kick out of harassing genuine photographers and it is nothing to do with anti-terrorism, they are just exploiting the legislation.

There are now statements from Number Ten (in answer to an online petition), the Home Office, the Met and ACPO all saying it is a misuse of the anti-terrorism laws and beat officers should not use the act to stop photography, but every time they put in a caveat saying it may be necessary. This is a clear signal to continue.

John