Police and photographer clash, yet again.

Well I know this thread has gone off on several tangents but in relation to the article and the use of s.44 I'm still not convinced s.44 is being used appropriately in these situations.

s.44 are powers for exceptional circumstances and shouldn't be used by default. s.43 provides powers of stop & search but to a lesser degree.

From the recently published NPIA advice on stop and search:

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.

If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered
Click to expand...

What's not clear is what constitutes reasonable suspicion and hostile terrorist reconnaissance. Is a bloke walking along a public footpath (regardless of location as above) taking photos enough "behaviour" to reasonably suspect hostile terrorist reconnaissance? And why go beyond a s.43 stop and search?

We don't know the reasons why s.44 is being used or what other factors led to suspicion enough to warrant s.44 but it's certainly a question that I'd like answering and perhaps one the Police should respond to as maybe then they could get a little more understanding and co-operation from those who feel it is over stepping the mark?

The other key point here is when officers are using s.44 is one actually in place? They only last 28 days max and aren't (shouldn't be?) handed out lightly or easily. Unfortunately information about authorisations doesn't seem to be availble to the public so it's pretty hard to check.

It is very easy to by cynical and say s.44 is the "best" answer a copper can give because it gives them the most power.

WRT rights, privacy, etc. I see both sides of the argument. My own feeling is that the powers do very little apart from cause a nuisance to innocent people. One set of figures from the past few years showed that out of tens of thousands of s.44 stops less than 2% were arrested and not a single person was charged. So why exactly were the powers introduced in the first place if they don't serve to catch the terrorists?

refs and further reading:
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/show.php?id=3429
http://www.knowledgenetwork.gov.uk/...bb4ed0b7608d0da780257512002ece58?OpenDocument
http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/Stop_and_Search_in_Relation_to_Terrorism_-_2008.pdf
http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog...-in-relation-to-terrorism-and-on-the-war.html
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/n..._procedures/pdf/stopandsearch_intermanual.pdf
 
fabs said:
Maybe you should use the red triangle button then! But just remember who made the first personal remark. ;)
Click to expand...

Oddly enough I don't remember making a personal remark:thinking: I simply underlined a part of a post...then directed you to toward it...because you seem unable, or unwilling to see the relevant part of a post from someone with a differing point of view than your own!

I didn't use the red triangle because I thought that the matter could be dealt with by offering some friendly advice.....obvously my mistake:shake:
 
Eric Mc said:
Oddly enough I don't remember making a personal remark:thinking: I simply underlined a part of a post...then directed you to toward it...because you seem unable, or unwilling to see the relevant part of a post from someone with a differing point of view than your own!

I didn't use the red triangle because I thought that the matter could be dealt with by offering some friendly advice.....obvously my mistake:shake:
Click to expand...

I believe you used the words "Even you". And I don't consider patronising and sarcastic remarks as advice. By quoting the forum guidelines at me you were insinuating that I was in breach of them, therefore you should have followed those guidelines yourself and reported the post.

And that is the last I have to say on the matter.
 
fabs said:
I believe you used the words "Even you". And I don't consider patronising and sarcastic remarks as advice. By quoting the forum guidelines at me you were insinuating that I was in breach of them, therefore you should have followed those guidelines yourself and reported the post.

And that is the last I have to say on the matter.
Click to expand...

I simply pointed you in the direction of a forum guideline....nothing patronising or sarcastic was inferred, as I've said before...please don't read between the lines as I don't type anything there. I've already stated my reasons for not hitting the "report post" button;)
 
pxl8 said:
Loads of stuff
Click to expand...

At long last...someone who sees the situation for exactly what it is:woot:

You sir are a breath of fresh air(y)
 
fabs said:
You can be asked for identification now. An ID card will make it easier.
Click to expand...

The difference is that you can be asked but are under no obligation to give it at the moment.

However with ID cards a demand to produce said card is a demand to produce ID.

A legal friend of mine did explain the huge shift in British law that this requires some time ago, please accept my hazy recollection: Basically, you're being asked for ID and are therefore under suspicion of a crime (the same as having been read your rights under PACE). Because of this, the whole thing changes the basis of "innocent until poven guilty" which as you can probably agree is the cornerstone of our legal system.

Don't forget that a section 44 also requires an authorisation from the chief of police and is not a blanket "right" of the police. and that in itself requires that:

"Powers should only be authorised where they can be justified on the grounds of preventing acts of terrorism".

Sorry, but the Police are too heavy handed in their use of s.44 and it's a shame but they're losing even more support from the general public (as they did from the majority of car drivers).
 
NathanJT said:
Slightly less stuff than pxl8
Click to expand...

Again it's refreshing to hear from someone who has a grasp of the situation as it stands instead of the " they are the police so they must be right" attitude shown by some(y)
 
NathanJT said:
Because of this, the whole thing changes the basis of "innocent until poven guilty" which as you can probably agree is the cornerstone of our legal system.
Click to expand...
Hang on a minute. Are you saying that, because we will have ID cards in our possession, 'innocent until proven guilty' can no longer be the accepted norm?

I find that very hard to believe to be honest with you!
 
It's not the possession, but the right of the police to demand you identify yourself via it and the implication that you must do so without being under caution or suspicion of a crime.

Like I said, It's a long time and my recollection is hazy. I'm happy to put my hands up if I've got or am remembering the wrong end of the stick. I'm sure someone with a legal background could confirm.

I find that very hard to believe to be honest with you!
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty is already out of the window with regards to section 172 "Notice of intended prosecution" from a speed camera, so why not this? Every time a law like this is allowed we do indeed become a little bit more of a police state.

t'is a shame!
 
fabs said:
Is that as opposed to "They are the police so they must be wrong" attitude shown by others?
Click to expand...

I think it's more like "They're the police and as such are now nothing more than a pawn in a political game".

[when I was a lad] I remember having respect and a true sense of foreboding of having any interaction with the police.

Now, however I just find them an annoyance thanks to even more "laws" and restrictions which stop me from going about my perfectly normal private business.

Yes they have a hard job to do these days, but their focus seems to be in completely the wrong place.[/when I was a lad]

Just my 2p
 
fabs said:
Is that as opposed to "They are the police so they must be wrong" attitude shown by others?
Click to expand...

No it's as opposed to "They are the police...but that doesn't make the infallible"attitude shown by others! I hope I've made that clear for you as I wouldn't want you to misinterpret what I've written in any way.
 
AliB said:
Any time I've been togging near a train station I've actually gone and got hold of the nearest BTP (British Transport Police) officer and let them know who I am and what I'm doing. Saves them the hassle then, no paperwork required, everybody happy.
Click to expand...


33L said:
Ali if everyone was as forward thinking as you it would be a better place for all.
Click to expand...

I have a cunning plan for the terrorists out there.
Go ask nicely if you can take your recon pics first and then you won't get bothered by the police :naughty:
 
this has turned into a school yard, but this ... but that... argument and to be honest if a bit of plastic and the odd question here and there stop attacks and stop other illegal activity then its a small price.

to the other side of the coin i am intelligent enough to wonder what next wil lbe introduced and also have to ask if the s.44 and the ID cards are working/will work. all that we get on here is of reports of heavy handed police. I dont see post of s.44 stopped this and stopped that so its a debate on one side of the story. we are only squabbling about the negative side of whats happening. wouldn't these arguments need to re-thought out if the merits outweigh the small sacrifice of providing a card or agreeing to local authorities have a quick gander in your bag.
 
pxl8 said:
edit to add, s.44 authorisations seem to be a secret so not much hope of finding out if a stop was in accordance with the law :(
Click to expand...


As far as the police are concerned it will always be in accordance with the law if the person they stop has no hope of proving otherwise :shake:
 
33L said:
I dont see post of s.44 stopped this and stopped that so its a debate on one side of the story. we are only squabbling about the negative side of whats happening. wouldn't these arguments need to re-thought out if the merits outweigh the small sacrifice of providing a card or agreeing to local authorities have a quick gander in your bag.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately s.44 stop and search doesn't seem to be working for detection, only deterrent as stated by the Met. Police Authority. See the above links for further details.
 
pxl8 said:
Unfortunately s.44 stop and search doesn't seem to be working for detection, only deterrent as stated by the Met. Police Authority.
Click to expand...

Which makes this point made by Liberty all the more relevant(y)

" However to rely on deterrence as
justification for random searching without specific intelligence is extremely
questionable. Indeed, the very legality of a search is dubious when the principle
motivation seems to be stopping others from committing offences."
 
BBC 1 London news should have an article broadcast this evening about photographers and the police. Should air some time in the next 20 minutes. I have no idea what the content will be. It was announced at the beginning of the programme.
 
fabs said:
Well it was an enjoyable debate at first, but then someone felt the need to constantly throw in sarcastic remarks aimed at me,
Click to expand...

So your "Well thanks for your contribution" remark was ok when it was you aiming at someone else....but not when it was aimed at you:thinking: How odd!

fabs said:
It's just a shame that some people need to make things personal.:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

Well at least thats something we can agree on(y)

fabs said:
And you appear to have difficulty comprehending mine, but I really don't want to dumb down! ;)
Click to expand...

Or perhaps not:shrug:
 
i tend to use the race card when i think the police are being unfair to me. then they often calm down.
 
Ashers said:
i tend to use the race card when i think the police are being unfair to me. then they often calm down.
Click to expand...

Sorry Ashers, not knowing you or what race you are, the race card causes segregation amongst people and it can backfire as i have see it happen to people who have played that card and later had a slander claim against them for calling someone racist.
 
Ashers said:
i tend to use the race card when i think the police are being unfair to me. then they often calm down.
Click to expand...


this was done a lot when i worked for the UN it enabled certain people to get away with all sorts of misdemeanors/incompetence and lies.it upset me and many others who strived to do our best honestly. it also changed the views of a lot of us to many things.

i remember one person begging me,telling me he was qualified for the job he was employed for,his family where starving etc. etc.so i put my reputation on the line went to see the boss told him to give him a chance.we soon found
he had bribed his way in couldnt do the job put peoples lives in real danger[warzone].

so when they tried to get rid of him he accused everyone one of racism how do you think i felt then after i had tried to help him?

this was prevalent in the UN
 
back to the police

i went to my local station yesterday and asked for leaflets on photography in public places.

said they didnt have any ,didnt know what i was talking about then start going on about photographing children.

i said what are you going on about i just want the facts as your officers are often getting things wrong and have made me delete images of a accident i was invoved in [evidence]

talk about narrow minded


now if you realy want to know the facts i cant walk far or stand long.

there were no chairs they wouldnt get me one

both disabled bays were taken by there staff without blue badges [i couldnt use them]

his answer to that this is public property,totaly uncareing arrogance do as i say not as i do

dosent that just say it all,i have seen them in uniform breaking the law themselves and acting in a manner that in the army would lead us into being charge with bringing the army into disrepute.
 
From the original link:
A police source said: 'An MP is still a member of the public and if we feel someone is acting suspiciously then we will stop and search them. Nobody is immune, whether they show a pass to the House of Commons or not.'
Click to expand...

How about those people who refuse to be sniffed by police dogs in airports, what is the police going to do about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top