Home Politics & Debate
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Despite clear guidance Met still don't get the message on photography

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming

Probably NOT reflective of the too many PCSOs but this guy is a piece of work (and quite clueless) - and for someone who allegedly suspects an Al Queda operative (or some such thing) he's remarkably nonchalant; chewing, hands in pockets, not making eye contact.

Almost as if that's not the reason at all - but rather that he's nervous.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What a fucking joke, he might as well accused her of being a terroist.

    I wonder how far they will go with regards to invading our privacy, as much as I believe anti terroism laws are needed it is getting beyond a joke in how they are used in such a easy way, god I bet they could do anything they liked and just say "under anti terroism laws" whats next raping and plundering?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I also like the fact that he looks like a younger, slightly plumper version of Rimmer...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I also like the fact that he looks like a younger, slightly plumper version of Rimmer...

    yeah lmao,

    I just got home and watched the video. the guy has a fucking "god" complex, what an utter twat. honestly I'd smack that podgy little fucker i the gob.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »
    yeah lmao,

    I just got home and watched the video. the guy has a fucking "god" complex, what an utter twat. honestly I'd smack that podgy little fucker i the gob.
    He probably got turned down for the job of bouncer from the looks of it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Am I the only person who thinks that NOT questioning somebody who is filming the location of CCTV cameras is a dereliction of duty?

    I'm sorry, but there are times when stopping photographers is a bit pointless, especially when they're armed with a DSLR and tripod and stood next to something that has been photographed millions of times, ie houses of parliament. When they're discreetly filming CCTV cameras on a on-descript, non-touristy public building and the best answer they can come up with is "it's for fun"? I think that qualifies.

    The police are damned whatever we do. If he didn't stop her and later on there is footage released of him just walking past and it later turns out she is responsibile for something, he'd be getting a proper arse-reaming right now.

    I've seen lots of films of PCSOs and PCs acting way outside their remit, hassling genuine photographers and tourists when it's obvious they're not doing anything in the least bit dodgy, and having been on the recieving end myself (from a council warden, not police I might add) I think that a lot do need lessons in common sense. This guy? Nope.


    I also think it's quite convienient that her arrest has been edited out, so we'll never get to see how she was when the cops turn up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Am I the only person who thinks that NOT questioning somebody who is filming the location of CCTV cameras is a dereliction of duty?

    I'm sorry, but there are times when stopping photographers is a bit pointless, especially when they're armed with a DSLR and tripod and stood next to something that has been photographed millions of times, ie houses of parliament. When they're discreetly filming CCTV cameras on a on-descript, non-touristy public building and the best answer they can come up with is "it's for fun"? I think that qualifies.

    The police are damned whatever we do. If he didn't stop her and later on there is footage released of him just walking past and it later turns out she is responsibile for something, he'd be getting a proper arse-reaming right now.

    I've seen lots of films of PCSOs and PCs acting way outside their remit, hassling genuine photographers and tourists when it's obvious they're not doing anything in the least bit dodgy, and having been on the recieving end myself (from a council warden, not police I might add) I think that a lot do need lessons in common sense. This guy? Nope.


    I also think it's quite convienient that her arrest has been edited out, so we'll never get to see how she was when the cops turn up.

    Bollocks, I appreciate your a cop and I am not tarring all police or PCSO's with the same brush but just for fun is a valid excuse imo, "just for fun" "its a hobby" she was interested in filming buildings like a trainspotter goes out to spot trains, or people look out and film eddie stobart lorries, that PCSO had a bloody god complex, there is no way in hell she was "cocky" for answering truthfully, she did it FOR FUN, it is clear after 20seconds the women poses no threat but no the PCSO wanted his big power fix of the day,

    if someone asked me why I played a game, "Just for fun" someone asks me why I go for a random drive "just for fun" does that mean I am going to pack my car with explosives and drive it into a building.

    Our country is turning in to big brother, we can not do anything without being questions, *sneezes* SHIT I must have a biological weapon. I believe he had a right to ask the girl about it, yeah thats valid but being an utter cunt about it because he is a PCSO is a fucking disgrace, I clearly think they need to select who gets into being a PCSO a bit better, hes not helping the public he's doing it to boost his own self importance,

    with regards to her being assaulted n arrested by officers I have not and at present without further evidence will not comment on it. The days of us being able to walk down the street and mind out own business is over, why the fuck do you think I moved to where I am, PRIVACY is dead in the United Kingdom and a long with it is British pride,

    AM I proud we have a Government who believes they can use Anti Terrorism laws for anything they want, HELL NO and do not say they don't because any rozzer with half a brain could link anything to Terrorism,
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    PCSOs are the people who do it for love. That for half of them the love in question is fulfilling their god-complex is unfortunate. But it's how we get our policing on the cheap.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The police are damned whatever we do. If he didn't stop her and later on there is footage released of him just walking past and it later turns out she is responsibile for something, he'd be getting a proper arse-reaming right now.

    Then that's a structural problem - I'm sorry but everything about this person's behaviour suggests that he isn't doing this for any type of legitimate concern but because he wants to assert his authority over someone he appears to believes to be insubordinate.

    If you honestly believe you've got a possible Al Queda operative (or some such thing) in front of you; I'd expect him to be acting with more vigour and decisiveness; not with annoyance and attitude.

    Also you've got several witness statements in the artricle.

    The Police aren't 'damned if they do or if they don't' because they are hardly ever prosecuted for anything - a bollocking is about the limit for any kind of transgression - so while the guidance might be off, it doesn't excuse the attitude; and there is often a limit to how far they can fall even on the gravest of matters.

    It doesn't make it right, and from what you are saying it sounds like a structural problem as well as an attitudinal one; but I don't think they are quite in a 'no win' situation.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Everyone always attacks the police officers or the PCSO's (rightly so in individual cases), but the problem is the law. This is exactly what everyone said would happen, because this is what always happens when you give rights to any authority figure. One or two will abuse them, and it only takes a few of these incidents to destroy people's confidence in the police. It was exactly the same with the new "anti-terror" powers being used by councils to check school catchment areas, or to freeze the assets of Iceland.

    And no, I don't think the police should ask people who are taking photos of things. What do they think a terrorist is going to say? "Alright, you caught me. I was planning to blow it up." :rolleyes: Give me a break. It serves absolutely no purpose and just wastes people's time and ruins people's already terrible trust in the police.

    You get it all the time. "Have you got a permit to film here?" No, go fuck yourself. It's a public road, I'll do what I want.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Then that's a structural problem - I'm sorry but everything about this person's behaviour suggests that he isn't doing this for any type of legitimate concern but because he wants to assert his authority over someone he appears to believes to be insubordinate.

    If you honestly believe you've got a possible Al Queda operative (or some such thing) in front of you; I'd expect him to be acting with more vigour and decisiveness; not with annoyance and attitude.

    Also you've got several witness statements in the artricle.

    The Police aren't 'damned if they do or if they don't' because they are hardly ever prosecuted for anything - a bollocking is about the limit for any kind of transgression - so while the guidance might be off, it doesn't excuse the attitude; and there is often a limit to how far they can fall even on the gravest of matters.

    It doesn't make it right, and from what you are saying it sounds like a structural problem as well as an attitudinal one; but I don't think they are quite in a 'no win' situation.



    I am going to concede a point to you and the others. That PCSO's attitude was disgraceful. I've stopped and checked people who were taking photos on 2 occasions, at sensitive locations. But, the first thing I did (which this guy didn't, all he did was bleat on about S.44) was explain fully to them my reasons for stopping them, and why I thought it was a bit susp them being there. I did so politely, and because of that both people I stopped were polite and co-operative in return. Within about 3 seconds they both convinced me they weren't up to no good and I left them to it. I didn't need to argue with them, or quote scripture about the law or anything. I'm a great believer that a little courtesy goes a long way.

    However, I still think they had a valid reason to ask her to account for herself. She was filming the security features of a non-touristy, public building. The only people who ever do that are generally students/indymedia types doing a project or criminals of various sorts. The former, if approached in a way like above will generally tell you they are a student/indymedia type and it's for a project. The latter, once you name check them will generally come back with a huge list of prior offences and it's safe to say they're there for other reasons.

    Hostile reconnaisance isn't just carried out by terrorists, it's carried out by criminals of all sorts. A lot of them have been caught out over the years because they've been identified during the opening stages of their enterprise.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I am going to concede a point to you and the others. That PCSO's attitude was disgraceful. I've stopped and checked people who were taking photos on 2 occasions, at sensitive locations. But, the first thing I did (which this guy didn't, all he did was bleat on about S.44) was explain fully to them my reasons for stopping them, and why I thought it was a bit susp them being there. I did so politely, and because of that both people I stopped were polite and co-operative in return. Within about 3 seconds they both convinced me they weren't up to no good and I left them to it. I didn't need to argue with them, or quote scripture about the law or anything. I'm a great believer that a little courtesy goes a long way.

    However, I still think they had a valid reason to ask her to account for herself. She was filming the security features of a non-touristy, public building. The only people who ever do that are generally students/indymedia types doing a project or criminals of various sorts. The former, if approached in a way like above will generally tell you they are a student/indymedia type and it's for a project. The latter, once you name check them will generally come back with a huge list of prior offences and it's safe to say they're there for other reasons.

    Hostile reconnaisance isn't just carried out by terrorists, it's carried out by criminals of all sorts. A lot of them have been caught out over the years because they've been identified during the opening stages of their enterprise.

    Am I right in thinking though that regardless if it is recon for another crime Sec44 can not be used for it, as I believed/understood S44 only allows them to stop/check/search etc if they believe it is a "terroist" a bank robber as far as I know could "theorectically" go around casing a bank and say "I'm going to rob this place" but he still has not commited an offence? has he? or does S44 allow you if you believe ANY crime is taking place?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking though that regardless if it is recon for another crime Sec44 can not be used for it, as I believed/understood S44 only allows them to stop/check/search etc if they believe it is a "terroist" a bank robber as far as I know could "theorectically" go around casing a bank and say "I'm going to rob this place" but he still has not commited an offence? has he? or does S44 allow you if you believe ANY crime is taking place?



    If you think it's recon for a general crime then S.44 can't be used, it's only for terrorism related offences. The cop/PCSO just has to get by using whatever other offences might come to light.

    If a PC reasonably suspects a crime is about to be committed because of somebody's actions then they have an option of making an arrest, a PCSO (depending on force) can detain someone until a cop arrives. Now if someone is blatantly telling a cop that they are going to commit a crime (ie your robber) or they're doing something like walking towards a jewller's window with a brick, Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 comes into play which enables any person to use reasonable force to prevent a person comitting a crime.

    A member of public wouldn't be expected to know that power exists, however lots of people do it every day without realising, either by intervening in a fight, chasing off a thief e.t.c. A PCSO would be expected to detain the person, and a PC would then be able to further arrest for an offence of threats to commit damage or conspiracy.

    PCSO's can't ever use S.44 unless accompanied by a cop, which this PCSO has got around by using the offence of cycling on a pavement which then gives him a power to detain her if she refuses under Section 50 of the police reform act 2002 (power to demand name and address from person comitting antisocial behaviour, relevant offence, or offence for which a fixed penalty can be issued), which I think was quite smart of him, in a knowledge of the law sort of way, even if it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

    He might have been an arrogant douche, but his knowledge of the law was fairly good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    See, yes it was legal smart, but someone like me who is doing a law degree would be classed as "above average" in my knowlege of laws/legislation.

    He was smart by diverting from one tactic to another, but by what you are saying he cannot use section 44 even though he stated "I can look at your video camera under section 44" he was lying as HE CANNOT (no officer was present) and he did try originally using this to look at her camera (therefore he can not be THAT smart) personally I think he strung things together and actually got lucky, he picked up on the bike because she was refusing to give in to his outragious demands)

    I understand your points and agree, he is legal smart as he moved to the point of cycling, however he ONLY mentioned this after she refused to give her name and address, surely if he asked for her name and address under the "the power to demand name and address" he should of AT the time of asking stated the offence of cycling the wrong way down a one way street. instead he failed to mention the offence until several minutes or moments after, AFTER she refused to give details, at the time as she was unaware she had commited an offence she had full right to deny him this information. It may be uncoperative but it was still her right.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »
    See, yes it was legal smart, but someone like me who is doing a law degree would be classed as "above average" in my knowlege of laws/legislation.

    He was smart by diverting from one tactic to another, but by what you are saying he cannot use section 44 even though he stated "I can look at your video camera under section 44" he was lying as HE CANNOT (no officer was present) and he did try originally using this to look at her camera (therefore he can not be THAT smart) personally I think he strung things together and actually got lucky, he picked up on the bike because she was refusing to give in to his outragious demands)

    I understand your points and agree, he is legal smart as he moved to the point of cycling, however he ONLY mentioned this after she refused to give her name and address, surely if he asked for her name and address under the "the power to demand name and address" he should of AT the time of asking stated the offence of cycling the wrong way down a one way street. instead he failed to mention the offence until several minutes or moments after, AFTER she refused to give details, at the time as she was unaware she had commited an offence she had full right to deny him this information. It may be uncoperative but it was still her right.



    I do agree with you, he started off on the wrong footing and realised he was on shaky ground so he changed his tactic. Legally he was smart, again his courtesy or lack of leaves a lot to be desired.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An officer of any description citing the incorrect legislation to claim powers he does not have and then backtracking does not strike me as 'legally smart' so much as 'deeply worrying'.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    An officer of any description citing the incorrect legislation to claim powers he does not have and then backtracking does not strike me as 'legally smart' so much as 'deeply worrying'.

    This is my point excatly, he demanded her name and address without giving any legal reason and also cited he could view her camera under S.44

    how is this legally smart?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »

    how is this legally smart?



    because he knew what other legislation he could use instead. Most cops would keep hammering on about S.44.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So is that legally smart even though he used at least two laws/legislation INCORRECTLY and illegally
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »
    So is that legally smart even though he used at least two laws/legislation INCORRECTLY and illegally



    Erm, I don't believe he was making it up about her riding on a pavement. He used the first one incorrectly, the second one correctly.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Erm, I don't believe he was making it up about her riding on a pavement. He used the first one incorrectly, the second one correctly.

    He used Section 44 incorrectly as you agreed with

    and as far as I can tell he used

    Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 incorrectly as when he demanded her name an offence he failed to say/inform her off

    1 - The offence she had commited (she mentioned the cycling incident several minutes afterwards and once she refuses
    2 - What piece of law he was using to demand her name and address eg "Under section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 I require your name and address under the offence of......."

    (correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the officer have to state what laws he is using when he demands information/anything from a member of the public)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hellfire wrote: »

    (correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the officer have to state what laws he is using when he demands information/anything from a member of the public)



    You're right, although it doesn't have to be so formally. With me it's normally along the lines of "you don't look old enough to drink, what's your name, address and date of birth...." or "if you don't stop riding that moped like an idiot I'll seize it. Now give me your details please".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Law Enforcement Officer over reaches remit - shocker
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/18/antiterrorism-police-stop-painter-airport

    And please - someone - give me a rationale explanation other than 'Lots of Policemen are idiots with authoritarian tenancies' - for this.

    (as an aside and possibly backing the above; ostensibly well-meaning ex-Services bod gets 12-months suspended for handing in a fire arm).

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8421485.stm
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (as an aside and possibly backing the above; ostensibly well-meaning ex-Services bod gets 12-months suspended for handing in a fire arm).

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8421485.stm



    The first one is laughable. The second....I'm not so sure. I think it's one of those stories with more to it tbh. I could be wrong, but if it was just a simple case of man finds gun and hands it in, I can't see a judge even entertaining it in court, let alone passing sentence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (as an aside and possibly backing the above; ostensibly well-meaning ex-Services bod gets 12-months suspended for handing in a fire arm).

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/surrey/8421485.stm

    The conviction is entirely in accordance with the law. although naturally it's an arse. The minute you touch a gun you are guilty of this offence.

    Having said that, I do wonder why someone wouldn't just call the police...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In relation to the first point, I'm reminded of a famous BBC series;

    "You want me to sit, in no mans land, painting pictures of the Germans...'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2009/jul/09/police-detain-mobile-phone-camera

    Another member of the public (a young woman) apparently assaulted by fascistic Police officers from the Met for doing absolutlely nothing wrong.

    But 'they're just doing their job' - right?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2010/jan/26/what-price-liberty-cornwall

    Above article sets out why I don't think this is a problem of Senior Officers, but of incompetent & vicious junior officers. The entry criteria in terms of qualifications for the complex job that is UK policing is way too low (it's nothing - except passing a basic written exam).

    There appear to be lots of officers who have neither the intelligence nor the temperment to provide the neccessary level of Policing. I have said before and will say again; I believe that the complexities of modern Policing require skills of the level one might expect of other professions, and should be paid as such.

    Policing is a career that people should have a degree of prestige and aspiration attached to it. At the moment it is, in my view, being degraded by poor quality officers who behave with viciousness and impunity in the most mundane of situations; and are unable to exercise discretion in the manner required.

    As an addendum to this point; here's an excerpt from a letter published last year by the an ex-chief-inspector of constabulary.
    Section 110 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 was 'tacked onto' an otherwise acceptable piece of legislation and allows ANY police officer in England and Wales to arrest, (i.e. physically detain, handcuff and take to a police station for a DNA sample), ANY person, for ANY offence, no matter how trivial and whether or not a power of arrest previously existed for that offence.

    People can now be, (and have been), arrested and detained under Section 110 for not wearing a seatbelt; dropping litter; shouting in the presence of a police officer, climbing a tree, and building a snowman. Whereas police officers used to have to justify every arrest and be aware of whether or not a particular piece of legislation gave them power, they no longer have to do so. The power to deprive someone of their liberty should only be exercised in the most extreme circumstances, yet young and inexperienced police officers, (and soon, PCSO's), are being trained that arrest and detention of a suspect is the first option in most encounters with the public.

    This sweeping power is being roundly abused on a daily basis in all of the 43 police forces in this country and puts you, your wife, husband or partner, your children and your friends at risk of arbitrary action by the police.

    The fact that I no longer trust or respect the Police as an institution worries me; because I should have no reason to think of them in any other way than a force for civic good and protection of the vulnerable. Instead, the evidence from my own deadlings with them, as well as other recent events, compells me to believe that actually they aren't.

    The few times I've run into a pleasant Police officer I've been surprised - it should be the other way around.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The police have been able to arrest for any offence for several years now, it's nothing new since PACE was amended in 2005, the only time I've heard of someone being nicked for a minor offence is because they refused to give details. I particularly enjoyed the story of the chap a couple of years ago who was detained by a PCSO. He dropped some litter, refused his details, refused to pay the fine and ended up being physically restrained and ending up in court because of his sheer bloody mindedness.

    And as for PCSOs, I've been authorised to detain people for about 5 years now, and I've never actually had to use it. I've arrested a fair few people over the years for theft and damage e.t.c. but never something like dropping litter or refusing details. My experiences are echoed throughout the force amongst PCSOs and PCs.

    We arrest as a last resort, I spend most of my time sorting crimes out through reperative/restorative justice. Repaying damage and keeping people out the justice system, as do quite a few of my colleagues. Now the police in the MET might be totally incompetent, but they're the exception not the rule.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm afraid I don't see non violent civil offences like littering as requiring any form of 'restraint'.

    Also I think that those ammendments to PACE need repealing as soon as possible. What some officers appear to deem 'non-compliance' is at a pretty low threshold.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm afraid I don't see non violent civil offences like littering as requiring any form of 'restraint'.


    People think they can do whatever they want. They think they can drop their shit all over the floor without punishment. How would you propose dealing with someone who has comitted a non-violent offence if you don't know their name and address and they won't tell you......? Or are you under the belief that they'll just tell you because they "have" to. :rolleyes:

    And littering is a criminal offence, not a civil one and has been for at least 20 years in it's current form.
Sign In or Register to comment.