Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
Are the people in your photos the main focus of the picture? or are they just part of the scenery(sp)?
Photographer arrested for...wait for it...being too tall!
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
What does it matter? I am still taking a photo of them without permission.
Some of the responses from surfer crack me up. The guy was approached by 2 randoms in plain clothes and asked for ID. They didnt provide any ID. They said they would get the police if he didnt and as such he said thats fine.
I also wouldnt give my details to 2 randoms on the street who wouldnt show me id, maybe you would hurray for you.
I also wouldnt give my details to 2 randoms on the street who wouldnt show me id, maybe you would hurray for you.
If he was instead a group of chavs, some drunk imigrants, or someone in a burkha, all acting suspiciously, do you really think any of them would have been arrested. Errrr, no. This paragraphs has no point other than to point out (pointy point
) how a person standing up for themselves and having done nothing wrong has been abused by those with no power, very limited power, and the police who have power. Maybe you should tell all the people acting suspiciously and not considering others feelings when you're out and about what you think. See how long your argument lasts before you get a punch in the face for trying to be a moral policeman.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
By the photographer's own admission the "randoms in plain clothes" identified themselves as employees of Medway Council.
The photographer did not recall in his account of events requesting these individuals to identify themselves, and the council workers were under no obligation to provide identification. He only asked them under what authority they were requesting he identify himself, to which he states he did not receive a clear answer, because as we all know they had no extraordinary authority in this regard.
Just as the photographer was within his rights to take photographs in a public place, the council workers were within their rights to converse with him, and ask him to provide identification, although they could not compel him to do so.
I'm hazy on this.
Any random council jobber can ask you to prove your identity? What happens if you ask to see their papers first, which, by rights they should be obliged to do? Afterall if they refuse that, you've no way of knowing if they're imposters or not!
Any random council jobber can ask you to prove your identity? What happens if you ask to see their papers first, which, by rights they should be obliged to do? Afterall if they refuse that, you've no way of knowing if they're imposters or not!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Not really.
Uniformed officers are not obliged to produce a warrant card when speaking to someone although if they are asked then it should be produced.
They do not routinely show ID to persosn they speak to.
CID and non-uniformed officers are another matter.
The question is, where are the pics of this WPC ... he is a photographer afterall
EDIT ... read the blog link, ugly PCSO
Last edited:
No wonder this society is going wrong, when people are complaining about using there rights to being a human being.
How some people survived berth is beyond me.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,688
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
I can't see anywhere in that story that he WAS arrested for being too tall.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
Anyone can ask you to provide identification. Based on the photographer's account, it seems that is all the council workers did in this case, albeit with the threat that failure to provide identification would result in them reporting him to the police.
In this case, my understanding is that both the council workers and the photographer were within their rights to ask the other party to provide identification, although neither were obliged to provide identification when asked, and neither had the authority to compel the other party to do so. Both parties duly failed to provide identification — although it is unclear from the photographer's account whether the council workers were even asked to identify themselves — and everyone was within their rights to do as such.
Nevertheless, the council workers quite understandably interpreted the photographer's failure to provide identification as suspicious behaviour and saw fit to report him to a passing PCSO, invoking a chain of events that culminated in him being arrested and searched using powers granted to the police by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000.
This is the thing that's sad. Refusing to provide ID to someone not authorised to demand it of you is not suspicious activity; it is simply exercising your right to maintain privacy of your details unless someone has good reason to suspect you of wrongdoing.
It would appear that the article is spinning the story in a way which makes out that the WPC arrested the man because she was intimidated by his height.
Sorry i don't understand that Act, is that the one were they can use it for any reason, arrest you for anything, deem you a terrorist, stop and search you for no reason and lock you up for 48 hours without charging you.
If so, i feel much better knowing that bit of information.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,712
surfer said:
Perhaps, but under the law he is not obliged to identify himself. It may not be good manners to be difficult - he would have made things easier for the council workers and police had he identified himself, but he is under no obligation to do so. He shouldn't be put in the position of feeling he has to give ID to police (who fail to do the same), despite his rights, simply because the police may be liable to abuse their powers and arrest him if he does not. That's not how the law works, and manners don't come into it.
So if it isnt enshrined in law then we dont do it? We refuse to budge on the most simplest of matters at increasing expense to the taxpayer?
Look at it from the perspective of the police. They get a report of a man behaving suspiciously who is taking photographs of buildings and people in the towncentre. Now in my view purely taking a few photographs outside seems fine (otherwise do PCSOs and council workers spend much of their time questioning every single person who is taking pics? )
So if we assume that generally such activity is normal and that is was this man's behaviour that was noticeable. In other words he was acting suspiciously. We dont have the details of that. He could have been causing an obstruction or harassing other members of the public.
Of course the respective authorities didnt cover themselves in glory by refusing to identify themselves to him. But does that warrant exchanging in a silly tit-for-tat game at cost to the taxpayer?? No it doesn't But it does allow a load of people to jump on the "rights" bandwagon. Wouldn't surprise me if the whole thing was staged.
you've gone from saying 'photography in public is illegal' to 'it's only illegal sometimes' and now you're saying 'it's the guys fault' but 'it's the PCSOs fault'. why don't you try to post in a coherent manner and run what you post via your brain before posting it.
Where did i post photography in public is illegal? Or are you making things up to justify your little tirade in classic GD fashion?