Warped version of Terrorism act unlawfully used AGAIN!

[yorkie]

A mate was today stopped and searched under Section 44 by one of the resident BTP officers. He was taking pictures of a DVT on the XC runs when a NR bloke asks what is he doing. My mate explained that he was taking pictures, got the usual reply that this is not allowed, mate told him about the ATOC guidelines, NR bloke says he hasn't heard of such a thing and he is calling the police. Police turn up, search the lad (bag out on floor, frisking, checking what he was doing on his phone etc). The 'officer' said he wanted to confiscate the camera but my mate wasn't having any of it so the PC decided to delete the whole contents of the memory card. Got his official bit of paper at the end. Understandably, the guy was quite upset, and furious (so was I on hearing about it later) . The weird thing was that there were plenty of enthusiasts there for the 90 departures but he was the only one that got challenged...

They're not allowed to destroy the contents of the memory card.

A constable may seize and retain an article which he discovers in the course of a search by virtue of section 44(1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism."

Except the policeman did not want the photos to remain on the card as it would simply show that the photographer was not a terrorist.

So, you CANNOT trust all police to stick to the rules.

Of course, the vast majority will do, and do a good job! It's such a shame that a minority give them a bad name, and cause hassle for us.

Who to blame? The invididual or the draconian laws we have (Ultimately due to Bliar)? I say a bit of both.

BLIAR OUT NOW!

 

[Max]

How can Tony Blair be blamed for the actions of one policeman? I have to say that this is terrible, and NR staff should certainly know about the enthusiast guidelines. He certainly should have investigated it further before calling the police.

The actions of the policeman were obviously against the law itself, but Tony Blair is not responsible for every individual bobby. The responsibility surely lies on the shoulders of the chief constable of the force involved, to make sure that all policemen are fully trained and informed of the laws.

 

[Donny Dave]

How can Tony Blair be blamed for the actions of one policeman?

It is Tony Blair who has passed all these laws in the first place. It is then down to the police to enforce these laws, and then they get all the flack for enforcing them.

 

[Julian G]

no, it's the stupid Police that needs to inspected
last time a Policeman threw a boy into a bin in Hackney

 

[yorkie]

How can Tony Blair be blamed for the actions of one policeman?

It is Tony Blair who has passed all these laws in the first place. It is then down to the police to enforce these laws, and then they get all the flack for enforcing them.

Exactly. Tony Blair IS ultimately responsible, however sadly for the motions to be passed it means that many other MPs were misguided enough to vote them in. However they did so on the basis that the police would use them only when appropriate.

However a law is a law, and some police can, will and DO use them inappropriately.

What a mess!

At least Blair had a defeat today - let's hope there's many more to come!!

 

[Simming]

did the guy tell them on the station why he was there. We always do it now, saves any hassle.

 

[joy54.gen]

Well I doubt that Blair is to blame, as the law in principle works, but when it is used incorrectly (like this situation) then it doesn't work at all. how can Blair be blamed for the misuse of this law by the such police officer. That is down to him or the Police Trainers.

 

[yorkie]

Well I doubt that Blair is to blame, as the law in principle works, but when it is used incorrectly (like this situation) then it doesn't work at all. how can Blair be blamed for the misuse of this law by the such police officer. That is down to him or the Police Trainers.

But the laws are too draconian as it is, and he wants to make them more draconian. A law is a law, and at the moment they can simply say 'I think you're a terrorist', lock you up for a while and sieze your equipment.

What they can't legally do - but do anyway - is delete your pictures. This isn't the only case.

Think it won't happen to you? It happened to ChristopherJ from this very forum about a year ago.

 

[TheSlash]

I'm sure the guidelines say you should notify staff of your intentions on arrival, this can be done by having a quiet, informal chat with the senior person on duty.
I've had trouble from an RO2 trying to look big before. I was with a friend who was filming a steam special at normally unmanned station. When the RO2 thought he had an audience to act to, he came out and started struting his stuff about safety and permission. This involved a shouted conversation from 1 platform to another.
When i tried to explain i was a fully trained member of railway staff, he tried to make excusses, so i asked him for his name and the telephone number of his supervisor. I already knew both bits of information but he quickly backed down and apologised after i asked for the above information.

 

[yorkie]

I'm sure the guidelines say you should notify staff of your intentions on arrival, this can be done by having a quiet, informal chat with the senior person on duty.

Not always practical, and it's not in the NCoC or any bylaws so it's just them requesting it, it's not required. It's only requested of enthusiasts, and only mentioned on the NR website. It doesn't actually ask casual travellers who just want to take a few shots between changing trains to ask permission, which is normally what I'm doing anyway.

Say I am changing trains at a station, I have 10 minutes. Do I spend 10 minutes getting a couple of shots, or do I spend 9 of those 10 minutes trying to ask someone if I can take photos?

Also at some stations, particularly smaller ones, that may involve queing at the ticket office to ask the only member of staff: the ticket seller.

Unless it becomes a byelaw or a rule in the NCoC, I am unlikely to notify.

 

[TheSlash]

I'm sure the guidelines say you should notify staff of your intentions on arrival, this can be done by having a quiet, informal chat with the senior person on duty.

Not always practical, and it's not in the NCoC or any bylaws so it's just them requesting it, it's not required. It's only requested of enthusiasts, and only mentioned on the NR website. It doesn't actually ask casual travellers who just want to take a few shots between changing trains to ask permission, which is normally what I'm doing anyway.

Say I am changing trains at a station, I have 10 minutes. Do I spend 10 minutes getting a couple of shots, or do I spend 9 of those 10 minutes trying to ask someone if I can take photos?

Also at some stations, particularly smaller ones, that may involve queing at the ticket office to ask the only member of staff: the ticket seller.

Unless it becomes a byelaw or a rule in the NCoC, I am unlikely to notify.

Well, you've just destroyed your own case there.

 

[yorkie]

I don't see how. I'm being realistic here, and that's not in breach of any laws or rules.

Show me a rule that states 'Permission/notification must be taken before taking photographs at a station', currently there is no such rule or law (and why should there be?).

 

[Mojo]

I don't see how. I'm being realistic here, and that's not in breach of any laws or rules.

Show me a rule that states 'Permission/notification must be taken before taking photographs at a station', currently there is no such rule or law (and why should there be?).

And even if there was, I'm sure the station supervisor wouldn't be very pleased being disturbed every 5 mins at somewhere like Clapham Junction dealing with trivial matters like this.

 

[Tom B]

Utterly stupid.

Blair is accountable. If you havn't noticed, he is the prime minister. Thus ultimately he is responsible to such events.

 

[OTS]

Show me a rule that states 'Permission/notification must be taken before taking photographs at a station', currently there is no such rule or law (and why should there be?).

All depends on who is considered to own the station. Although they're used by the public, they are owned by a company, so they can say what people can do when on or about a station.

 

[Tom]

They are owned by Network Rail / National Rail - they are then leased to the company.

 

[Angus]

Although the laws are abused by enforcement and they are Blair's laws, whilst he is technically therefore accountable he can't realistically be held to blame for all the misuses. In fact I almost feel sorry for him - the idea of preventing terrorism is right, and desperate times call for desperate measures, but where it goes wrong is that the idea is that these measures are used against the guilty/preventing the guilty terrorists, not innocent people!

On the subject of accountability, the Prime Minister and the government have a difficult job - they are seen to be accountable when something goes wrong, yet have no real power to make sure things work . Classic responsibility without power case - he/they can make laws but they can't ensure that they are enforced in the right way and that's where the problem lies. Who'd want to be Prime Minister? Not me, that's for sure.

 

[Bighat]

How can Tony Blair be blamed for the actions of one policeman? I have to say that this is terrible, and NR staff should certainly know about the enthusiast guidelines. He certainly should have investigated it further before calling the police.

The actions of the policeman were obviously against the law itself, but Tony Blair is not responsible for every individual bobby. The responsibility surely lies on the shoulders of the chief constable of the force involved, to make sure that all policemen are fully trained and informed of the laws.

Sorry to say it Max,

But if we had to rely on the integrity of YOUR former Chief Constable AND the former Chairman of your police authority, we WOULD be in a right mess!

 

[yorkie]

Similar abuse of power happens in America too:

http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/uptotheminute.cfm?recid=595&userID=22735