Photographer harrassment still continues..

[Mojo]

What kind of police force would even start to investigate such a case like this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8413787.stm

My view; the real problem is not that there isn't enough Police, there are some 30,000 more than 15 years ago (although many of them are tied up with paperwork), the sentencing is way too lenient. Sending someone to prison for 7 days is just going to teach them now to commit more crime.

 

[jon0844]

I'd like to see more police on the streets (and less paperwork for them to do - so give them more PDAs and other technology to speed things up), and less PCSOs.

The idea is that the PCSOs build relationships with the community, but that's pointless when the police are the ones who have the powers and become totally distanced from the community - helping extend the 'them and us' problem. The only people they deal with are the criminals, and as you say, the legal system then lets them off with pathetic community sentences that sends out the message that you'll be okay.

To keep on topic, this morning BTP were assisting FCC at Finsbury Park. They got someone who refused to give his details, and usually that's grounds to be arrested until the police can confirm your identity. The guy was either incredibly stupid or quite clever - he kept giving random names and then settled on a birthday of new years day.

He kept going on, clearly teasing the police, to the point where they got annoyed and sent him on his way. I guess they didn't want the bother of taking him to the station, but that doesn't exactly send out a good message to fare evaders does it! Actually, it sends out a fantastic message - just be as awkward as possible and you'll be sent on your way!

 

[Ferret]

If I was FCC staff I'd be furious!!! What the hell do TOCs fund the BTP for?! That's absolutely disgraceful.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I would like to point everyone to this:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...otential-Targets/Article/200912315500789?f=vg

See. It works. Sometimes.

 

[GB]

This also might be of interest...

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/polic...ers_and_staff_re_stop_and_search_photo_policy

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Might be worthwhile printing a copy and taking it (along with NR guidelines) with you.

Note that it says Police officers DO have the power to view images on cameras or on phones, unless you happen to be a journalist.

 

[jon0844]

I don't think they seemed that bothered. The lady that checked my Oyster couldn't even get her 'wand' to work and let me out after she opened the ticket wallet and saw a ticket that wasn't even valid!!

I did have a valid ticket, but she couldn't have been seen it from her own check!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would like to point everyone to this:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...otential-Targets/Article/200912315500789?f=vg

See. It works. Sometimes.

What, the police decide to use their PR department to issue a release to the media to try and say 'Look, it really is okay to harass members of the public and media'.

These stories released to the press are as well timed as the ones saying we must go after Osama Bin Laden just days/minutes/seconds before trying to justify sending more troops to Afghanistan!

Still, the story has already got a few comments, including the obligatory one;

If a Police Officer stopped me in the street for a search, i would not be bothered, im not doing anything wrong and i totally agree for Officers to stop and search anybody, if they are not doing anything wrong they have nothing to worry about. Why is everybody slagging the Police off all the time, they are just doing there job and keeping us safe from terrorists and other criminals out there. Just leave them to carry on doing the good job they are already doing. (Too many do gooders in this country shouting about human rights).

 

[Ferret]

I find the info on the Met Police site wholely unsatisfactory. Andy Trotter makes it clear that S43/S44/S58 should not be used ordinarily against members of the public, yet the Met suggest it's business as usual, claiming they can do this and that! So who is right?

 

[Burkitt]

I would like to point everyone to this:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...otential-Targets/Article/200912315500789?f=vg

See. It works. Sometimes.

Just watched the video he recorded - was he planning on bombing his own thumb?

 

[Mojo]

Note two things about that and accompanying article:
a. no further action taken
b. discreet filming, using a mobile telephone, not a professional camera

I still don't see what benefit the videos would have had though.

 

[jon0844]

He wasn't a terrorist either, but had links to a terrorist organisation (apparently).

I guess the police need more proof that they need to stop anyone with a camera, a couple of mobile phones, a dodgy face - so they can finally justify ignoring ACPO advice.

After all, if we're told that stopping anyone at any time (and why stop at people having a camera? Why not just random people anywhere?) would save lives - we'll have everyone saying 'Well if it just saves one life'.

Best suggest that life saved is of a young blonde baby for maximum impact too.

No bloody wonder I'm so cynical - this is exactly what they're doing!!

 

[Old Timer]

The individuals do not fit the profile for railway enthusiuasts but they do for a section of the population that would destroy everything we hold dear.

I doubt they would have been searched in the ordinary scheme of things becasue they fit the profile and there would be a myriad of "organisations" ready top spring into action claiming racism.

Unfortunately, as yet the railway enthusiast is not an endangered species, but could be soon.

I wonder if anyone will set up a support group ready to shout discrimination when that happens ?

 

[eos]

Now a wedding photographer gets stopped for terrorism photography.

http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672

Well respected photojournalist pursues complaint to the IPCC after being stopped whilst working by police who tell her we can do anything under the terrorism act

Police officers, who were aware that a wedding reception was taking place at the hotel in London Docklands and had seen Ms Hurd filming guests as they were leaving, approached her to see ‘what she was doing’. Although Ms Hurd could see no legitimate reason for their interest, she wished to co-operate and resolve matters swiftly, and explained to the officers that she had been professionally engaged to cover the wedding and was an accredited photojournalist. She offered her Press Card so that her credentials could be checked by the police, there being in force nationally agreed Guidelines between the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and media organisations (see resources at the end of the press release). Each accredited NUJ member has a unique PIN number and photographic ID, and the police have access to a 24 hour ‘hotline’ that they can call to verify the personal details and identity of a legitimate member of the press. The Guidelines set out that the police will recognise the holder of a valid Press Card, issued by the UK Press Card Authority Limited, as ‘a bona fide news gatherer’. The Guidelines are comprehensive and should be known and followed by all police officers.

Ms Hurd told she could be doing ‘hostile reconnaissance’

 

[GB]

That is absolutely disgusting!!!

If they can do that with a legitimate jounalist what hope has you, me or anyone else got.

Officers in this case need to be severely disciplined!

 

[jon0844]

Usually the police shut up when you produce a press card, as they should know that at this point their supposed powers are going to be 'called'.

 

[Ferret]

Please tell me somebody has sent a link to the editor of the Grauniad! They'll love it!

 

[Old Timer]

I know Bindman's reputation.

They will take the Met apart and put them back together again as Bindman's see fit if they DO contest it.

They really are in deep, deep pooh, and I think there will be a rapid settlement out of Court on this one, which is a shame because what IS needed is a judgement in Court.

 

[jon0844]

Cue another story given to the press in a few days showing more reasons why the police need these powers... maybe not a photographer this time, but someone else that turned out to be a potential terrorist and how section 44 could have saved many, many young children.

 

[motherwell334]

should this be the time to start charging the police for travelling on the trains including the civilian police lol

im joking by the way

 

[u10207420]

After reading this topic, I have done some research on the BTP website on they clearly state:

"Photography

You are allowed to take photographs on stations if it is for personal use. For any commercial photography, you must seek prior permission from the appropriate train operator or from Network Rail at their 17 major stations. On busy stations using a tripod may cause a dangerous obstruction to passengers so you may be asked to remove it. You must also keep tripod legs away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. You are not allowed to use flash photography on platforms as it may distract the attention of train drivers and train dispatch staff and is therefore a potential safety hazard. You are also not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment such as CCTV cameras. "

I am confident that every single of us (Photters), would abide by this, providing that platform staff would not interfere.

I have attached the direct link, should you wish to link at the webpage, possibily for printing for proof, that it is well within our rights and the LAW !!

http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/...thusiasts.aspx