Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm well aware of how terrorists intend to operate, thanks.

The point of asking for your name/address isn't so that they automatically can find out "THIS MAN IS A TERRORIST". It's a measure so that they can correlate data later. They don't just look at one simple thing in regards to counterterrorism.

This measure is, in my opinion, set up to build a database of suspicious activity that when looked at against other things, as an example:

So we have this Steve Rogers character who was spotted photographing the Parliament building.
He claimed to be a photography student, but when asked--we got no records of Steve Rogers as a student anywhere. He was very cooperative...in fact, almost too cooperative(Police tend to get a bit suspicious when you seem to be trying to put them on their way as fast as possible).
And now, in addition to that we have bin Laden claiming there will be an attack to make Britain quake. There could be a connection worth pursuing there.


I would also like to point out that the vast majority of terrorists we're seeing these days are idiots. It's pretty clear that Al Qaeda and its siblings are reaching pretty down in the pot and trying to keep the 'smart' terrorists safe, while sending the fanatics out there as often as they can.

Which brings up a whole new set of problems, because the fanatics tend to do targets and attacks of opportunities, rather than specifically planned strikes.

don_mondo wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:http://maps.google.com/maps?q=buckingham+palace&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&hl=en&hq=Buckingham+Palace&hnear=Buckingham+Palace,+Westminster,+London,+UK&ll=51.501043,-0.141728&spn=0.003319,0.009645&t=h&z=17

I don't see your point, don_mondo. Are you saying that Buckingham palace should be blocked from view? I could find better photos than I could take, from professional photographers. There is very little reason that any terrorist would even need to take photos themselves.

All this action by the police seems to promote, is a false sense of security, as FITZZ noted. There is little to no reason, to pick people out of the crowd, without articulable reasoning. Why would one tourist be more suspect than any other? What could possibly give the impression of 'suspicious behavior', in the setting of Buckingham palace, one of England's most memorable landmarks.

Here is a better photo BTW...

No, my point is the photoprapher should not have been an ass when there is a legitimate secrurity concern.

There wasn't a legitimate security concern. It was a couple of 'rent-a-cops' acting out.

Thanks to their ignorance of the law they used the wrong Act, then stalked the civilians for a couple of hours and picked them on a completely different pretext. The second charge was also specious, as proved by the fact that the arrested man had to be released without charge.

Authoritarians do not seem to understand is that telling people to do stuff 'just because', only works on authoritarian minded people. If you want to get the co-operation of the general public it is best to do it by being polite and reasonable and explaining things.

The kind of behaviour demonstrated by the CPOs is completely counter-productive.

And you STILL wouldn't get the cooperation of the general public due to the fact that the general public is a bunch of braindead loons who seem to think anytime the police do something it's to cover their asses.

Kanluwen wrote:And you STILL wouldn't get the cooperation of the general public due to the fact that the general public is a bunch of braindead loons who seem to think anytime the police do something it's to cover their asses.

Hahaha because 9 times out of ten they are

A lot of the time the police do do things to cover their arses.

There are some well documented cases involved in UK anti-terrorism law enforcement, the most obvious being the De Menezez shooting.

Kilkrazy wrote:A lot of the time the police do do things to cover their arses.

There are some well documented cases involved in UK anti-terrorism law enforcement, the most obvious being the De Menezez shooting.

Except in this case it IS NOT the police doing things to cover their arses.

It's simple, I've explained it multiple times but you lot seem to want to keep arguing that the police are in the wrong yaddayaddayadda.

Also: I find it funny that the guy feels 'so persecuted by the police for being an amateur photographer' that he doesn't want his face/name known...but has no problems airing videotape of the officers giving him a talking to.

What a spanker.

Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it IS NOT the police doing things to cover their arses.

Yup, you're right. They aren't. They're harassing a citizen... There's a massive difference. It doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's a massive difference nonetheless.

It's simple, I've explained it multiple times but you lot seem to want to keep arguing that the police are in the wrong yaddayaddayadda.

They WERE in the wrong, it doesn't matter if the guy was being a spanker or not, he was acting within his rights. You've explained that, if you take the authoritarian view of things, the cops won't bother you so much, which is really quite obvious, as the workings of a superiority complex WON'T target those who are cowed into submission by the presence of a shiny badge.

Also: I find it funny that the guy feels 'so persecuted by the police for being an amateur photographer' that he doesn't want his face/name known...but has no problems airing videotape of the officers giving him a talking to.

I dunno, having evidence to back one's claims seems like it lends credability to the gentleman's complaint.

Dronze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except in this case it IS NOT the police doing things to cover their arses.

Yup, you're right. They aren't. They're harassing a citizen... There's a massive difference. It doesn't make it any less wrong, but it's a massive difference nonetheless.

Harassment would be if they pulled him off the street the first time he mouthed off, or stood in front of his camera the entire time he was filming because of some perceived slight they concocted for no reason.

Refusing to give information and the ability to be able to quote a law back at an officer, while having no press badge makes you an immediate suspect--especially if you refuse to cooperate and just sit there filming the entire conversation.

Dronze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It's simple, I've explained it multiple times but you lot seem to want to keep arguing that the police are in the wrong yaddayaddayadda.

They WERE in the wrong, it doesn't matter if the guy was being a spanker or not, he was acting within his rights. You've explained that, if you take the authoritarian view of things, the cops won't bother you so much, which is really quite obvious, as the workings of a superiority complex WON'T target those who are cowed into submission by the presence of a shiny badge.

His rights are to stop filming when an officer says "she doesn't want to be filmed". No matter who you are(cop, private citizen, furry extraordinaire), if you say I DO NOT WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR FILMED--you have to fething stop then and there.

And as I've said, repeatedly:
If you're going to be a dick and refuse to do something as simple as give a name/address so they can check fast--you're going to get treated like a suspect.
That's how it works.

(By the by: if you take the tinfoil hat brigade view of things, the police can be stopped by shouting "FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH!")

Dronze wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Also: I find it funny that the guy feels 'so persecuted by the police for being an amateur photographer' that he doesn't want his face/name known...but has no problems airing videotape of the officers giving him a talking to.

I dunno, having evidence to back one's claims seems like it lends credibility to the gentleman's complaint.

What credibility? That he's a spanker?
Yeah, he's got that down pat. Along with a persecution complex that rivals Perez Hilton's.

Kanwulen wrote:What credibility? That he's a spanker?
Yeah, he's got that down pat. Along with a persecution complex that rivals Perez Hilton's.

I am having an awful hard time taking you seriously now, Kanwulen. You seem to have spiraled into name-calling, against the photographer as your main argument. You have also made it clear that you have little regard for the man's actual rights, and anyone who is not instantly obedient, is a moron of some kind; which still falls within the realm of name-calling as before.

...if you say I DO NOT WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR FILMED--you have to fething stop then and there.

You have said this two or three times now, and I am still quite sure that you are simply incorrect. In a public place, people can be filmed and/or photographed without their permission. I am sure there are some complications when it comes to using the images for profit, but I am not very well versed in those rules.

In short, no... you almost definitely do not have to stop filming. The officer could have arrested him right there, if that were the case. He acted within his rights, and you appear to take great offense to that, seemingly by authoritarian mindset alone. Public officials have to deal with all kinds of nonsense, this guy was the least of their problems in reality.

Great, another "wanna-be" cop who doesn't understand how the law works...

What, you just wanna drive fast and shoot people?

PROTECT and SERVE.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Kanwulen wrote:What credibility? That he's a spanker?
Yeah, he's got that down pat. Along with a persecution complex that rivals Perez Hilton's.

I am having an awful hard time taking you seriously now, Kanluwen. You seem to have spiraled into name-calling, against the photographer as your main argument. You have also made it clear that you have little regard for the man's actual rights, and anyone who is not instantly obedient, is a moron of some kind; which still falls within the realm of name-calling as before.

I've "spiraled into name-calling against the photographer" because I've made the point, repeatedly.
The law is sound, the way officers are enforcing it seems to have issues.
It doesn't give John Q. Public the right to badmouth officers or act surprised that the officers take offense when they talk back.

Wrexasaur wrote:

...if you say I DO NOT WANT TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED OR FILMED--you have to fething stop then and there.

You have said this two or three times now, and I am still quite sure that you are simply incorrect. In a public place, people can be filmed and/or photographed without their permission. I am sure there are some complications when it comes to using the images for profit, but I am not very well versed in those rules.

In short, no... you almost definitely do not have to stop filming. The officer could have arrested him right there, if that were the case. He acted within his rights, and you appear to take great offense to that, seemingly by authoritarian mindset alone. Public officials have to deal with all kinds of nonsense, this guy was the least of their problems in reality.

In a public place, yes. But when you're focusing on one person in particular(as he was)--you DO need their permission, especially if you then air the tape.

Commissar Molotov wrote:Great, another "wanna-be" cop who doesn't understand how the law works...

What, you just wanna drive fast and shoot people?

PROTECT and SERVE.

Notice which one comes first.
"Protect". The police have to put the public's safety first, not the capacity to serve them.

Kanwulen wrote:In a public place, yes. But when you're focusing on one person in particular(as he was)--you DO need their permission, especially if you then air the tape.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

Not exactly what I am finding, but you may have some point to your assertion.

As far as I can tell, the photos have to fall under the assumption of harassment, which would include paparazzi style hawking (the one handed, crane fist photo of doom), and/or stalking. I saw neither of these occur in definitive terms, at any point during the OP's clip. There was no charge of any kind, following that he was required to stop filming in the first place. Frankly, I just don't believe you.

The law is sound, the way officers are enforcing it seems to have issues.
It doesn't give John Q. Public the right to badmouth officers or act surprised that the officers take offense when they talk back.

It seems that you are again, taking offense to the simple questions that were asked, simply because they were asked. I am no fan of being treated like a child by authority figures, and I would submit that is exactly what you are promoting.

I would like to see the actual quote, in which the photographer 'badmouthed' the officers BTW.

What do you mean by '...or act surprised'? I don't get it...