Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

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

2

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    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.

    Well that's the crux of the issue though isn't it. You should be nowhere near someone for littering. You shouldn't be asking them for their details. Want to deal with litter? Then hire a street sweeper. It's not difficult, is it? Do you honestly think that you represent good value for money in the fight against litter? Do you think that in the case you mentioned, it represented good value to the taxpayer to bring someone through the courts for dropping something on the floor that someone could be employed to pick up? That's the whole problem with the way local government is run at the moment. It's always about fining people and arresting people, rather than just providing a fucking service that means they don't commit the "crime" in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So we should all be free to drop litter, let our dogs shit everywhere, grafitti property, get pissed in the street, piss in the street? These are all non-violent offences, so why not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 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.

    Fuck off pig.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    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.

    I would not allow you to think that you have the right to restrain a young girl because she took a photo in a public place. I would not allow you to have the power to prosecute a journalist for taking a photograph of you. I would not allow you to have carte blanche power of arrest for anything you see as an infraction.

    For civil offences like dropping litter, the only long term solution is to change entrenched attitudes and behaviours. You as a Police officer cannot do that.

    Because you shouldn't be dealing with that; and your implicit argument that you should be allowed to use violence for it is indicative of the wider attitude of officers that any infraction is justification for deprivation of liberty.
    Fuck off pig.

    Not a helpful comment, but Police can't demand respect if they don't give it.

    The Police are not 'damned if they do or don't' because they've literally gotten away with murder on multiple occasions without any form of redress. Accountability is virtually non-existant, especially compared with other professions.

    The force seem to forget that actually 'policing by consent' means they have to earn trust. The Met in particular have not covered themselves in glory in recent years (the G20) or other forces like Kent (the atrocious fascist behaviour at Kingsnorth); nor have they endeared themselves to particular communities historically (Black People, Bangladeshis, the Irish, support the Blackshirts in the 1930s @ Cable Street - killing Blair Peach and turning a blind eye to the NF; Battle of the Beanfield and the supression of evidence of rampant Police violence; Battle of Orgreave and the repression of evidence of rampant Police violence which subsequently led to a huge compensation bill for the Yorkshire Force involved; Steven Lawrence; Ian Tomlinson).

    And you'll have to forgive me if I'm sceptical of a Police force that has more tolerance for football hooligans than they appear to have for peaceful protest; although I'm beginning to see why - Millwall fight back...

    The actions at Kingsnorth were straight up fascistic - a group many police officers hold in utter contempt were subjected to the most outrageous behaviour, because actually most officers there just thought they deserved it.

    It isn't a new thing - this superior and authoritarian mindset has been with alot of rank and file officers since the year dot - it's just that they've now found a willing government and the technological resources to do what they've always wanted - which is to act as they please.

    It's not the way the Police deal with violent drunks, thieves, murderers and rapists that is the problem - it's the way they deal with civil liberties when dealing with members of the public exercising their democratic rights and some who are involved in trivial civil matters - many appear to have one mindset, and that isn't sufficient to Police a democratic society.

    Until the evidence changes I'm afraid that bleak view will remain with me...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Now, now Scrote - don't resort to personl insults.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote: »
    Now, now Scrote - don't resort to personl insults.

    I was talking about the swine flu I have at the moment, whowere's comment just reminded me how sore it is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    I was talking about the swine flu I have at the moment, whowere's comment just reminded me how sore it is.

    Whatever. Always funny to see people resorting to pointless insults from the safety of a computer screen. Considering you're 23 it's even funnier.

    And Martin, I'm not talking about photography. I couldn't give a toss if someone took my photo as I've said previously in the topic. You're the one who's changed the tone of the topic to include offences that you don't think you should be arrested for, not me.

    And as for long term solutions, we've been telling people not to drop litter for decades. If you think you've got a better way of dealing with it, and in the meantime just let people carry on smashing glass on the pavement and letting dogs crap on football pitches then let's hear it. In the mean time when I see someone chucking a chip wrapper complete with kebab and chips into the pavement I'll have words with them if that's alright with you.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're the one who's changed the tone of the topic to include offences that you don't think you should be arrested for, not me.

    Eh? I was making a valid point about sweeping powers granted to Police forces only too willing to use them in extremely questionable circumstances.

    This is the crux of it - either you're with the Police, or against them; the fact that you appear to perform your role admirably does not erase the fact that significant numbers of your colleagues have continually failed to do so.

    We'll have made some progress when every police officer doesn't take public complaints about one of their number assaulting or killing a member of the public as a personal unwarranted attack on themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Eh? I was making a valid point about sweeping powers granted to Police forces only too willing to use them in extremely questionable circumstances.

    This is the crux of it - either you're with the Police, or against them; the fact that you appear to perform your role admirably does not erase the fact that significant numbers of your colleagues have continually failed to do so.

    We'll have made some progress when every police officer doesn't take public complaints about one of their number assaulting or killing a member of the public as a personal unwarranted attack on themselves.

    In that case we've lost something in translation I think lol.

    I'm not saying you're wrong. We've been given a lot of powers and there are a huge number of cops (particularly in the MET) who misuse them. I've stopped a handful of people under S.44 and I like to think it was entirely justifiable because of the locations they were in. Being a keen photographer myself I've never stopped someone taking picture, or deleted photos or got arsey with someone although I've asked people about what they're doing a couple of times then left them to it.

    But at the same time there is a requirement for cops to do some of what they do. People taking photos of security installations, or entry points at train stations, or building layouts of power stations, is to me quite suspicious. I can't see any artistic merit in doing so, and any person doing it as part of a genuine project should be happy to, and quite easily able to produce evidence that it is part of a project. They could even (god-forbid) tell someone beforehand what they are doing, which is what I do when I'm doing college work. At least then they know I'm there, leave me alone and don't call the police on me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    In the mean time when I see someone chucking a chip wrapper complete with kebab and chips into the pavement I'll have words with them if that's alright with you.

    So, I'll say no, that's not alright with me. I don't want you imagining that you act on my behalf, thanks -glad you asked. Do you need to know how old I am to know whether I mean it or not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    So, I'll say no, that's not alright with me. I don't want you imagining that you act on my behalf, thanks -glad you asked. Do you need to know how old I am to know whether I mean it or not?

    I don't particularly care how old you are and can't quite understand why you think I would. And if you want to live in a place where people can chuck their crap all over the floor then why don't you start at home? Maybe throw up on your rug and dump a washing machine on your bed? You seem to think it's ok to allow people to do it in the street.


    Seriously can't believe the numbers of people who think dumping couches in laybys and mcdonalds tat all over the floor should be allowed, all because "someone will come and pick it up".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't tell you what I do or do not think is acceptable behaviour apart from that I don't want you stopping/accosting people in the street under the impression that you do so with my approval.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    I didn't tell you what I do or do not think is acceptable behaviour apart from that I don't want you stopping/accosting people in the street under the impression that you do so with my approval.

    I stop people who are fly-tipping, dropping their crap on the floor and letting their dogs shit on play parks because it's disgusting and illegal. Wether I've got your approval or not is irrelevant, you don't live where I work.

    The people who do live where I work want clean streets and want people prosecuting for fly-tipping and leaving dog shit everywhere so whilst I might not actively seek their approval, I have it regardless.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    I've stopped a handful of people under S.44 and I like to think it was entirely justifiable because of the locations they were in.

    I was going to keep out of this but that comment has drawn me in.

    I've been stopped under the auspices of Section 44. I'm a Kent resident and so come under the "control" of Kent Police, who have already been mentioned in reference to their facist approach at Kingsnorth (although I'd probably have used the term totalitarian rather than facist :p ).

    So, why was I stopped? To this day I really don't understand. I was actually eating a takeaway whilst sitting in my car. I was parked in a public car park. The engine wasn't running.

    Nothing there suggests any crime committed in my view (although thte fact that it was McD could always be used against me I suppose!), nor would I have thought that those action marked me out as suspicious or even that I might have been a terrorist. You'd think that such suspicions would be the basis for applying some of our terror legislation.

    So what, you may ask, was the basis of their suspicions? What, in those actions, had me marked as a possible terrorist?

    Location.

    I was, for my sins, parked in an empty car park which overlooks the Port of Dover. Clearly being in an empty car park, in a parked car and eating a meal is what terrorists do these days. To be honest I wonder if the police actually took a serious risk in approaching me without an armed response team to support them. I could, after all, have used my french fries as lethal weapons. The fat content might be high enough to cause obesity and kill them with a heart attack sometimes in the future. It's worth considering this next time you approach someone armed with a bag of chips Whowhere.

    Joking aside, they seem to have given suspicion by doing something totally normal. Yet I was questioned and, just to make my day, given one of those lovely slips of paper which required me to report to the Police station within seven days just so that they could check my vehicle documents were all up to date. Apparently Kent Police cannot do this using their computer or by cross referencing my driving licence (which I produced) with the registration of my car.

    So there you have it. Someone who values the role that the police have, who understands that there are element of society who need to feel the "long arm of the law" was given a very good reason to feel inconvenienced and bitter.

    The laws are there to protect us, not to be used to harass us. The old adage of "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear" is bollocks when this kind of thing happens. I had nothing to hide. By the same same token, they had no reason to ask either.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Wether I've got your approval or not is irrelevant, you don't live where I work.

    I live in the same country.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd have all the little Hitlers who work as PCSOs fired
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »

    Location.

    The person I stopped was wandering around the supposedly secured emergency services entrance of a powerstation with a camera taking photos of the fences and cameras not long after the 7/7 bombings.
    Whoever stopped you was obviously a moron with nothing better to do.

    Katralla, not the same part of the country, which is what I meant. Unless of course you realised that and you're just being pedantic.

    Big Gay, fine, whatever. Lucky for me you're not in any position to fire anyone.


    You're all labouring under the illusion that I spend my days accosting people in the street because they're parked illegally or because they're armed with a rucksack in a shopping centre, along with the assumption that all cops are bastards that spend their days finding ways to piss people off and that all PCSOs are obviously the same as Hitler and deserve to be sacked. Well I'm not, they aren't and we're not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    (although I'd probably have used the term totalitarian rather than fascist)

    I'd agree with totalitarian but I used fascist intentionally, because there is a section of the Police service which is inherently uncomfortable and hostile to people they perceive to be on the left/hippies. This has been demonstrated consistently across the previous century and Kingsnorth was just the latest example of a massive disparity between the treatment of benign leftists and actively violent right-wingers.

    The EDL still don't get it as bad as they did at Kingsnorth or on Bishopsgate; or at Orgreave, or at the Beanfield.

    Anyone who speaks out against state or corporate power in these situations is instantly seen as an enemy who is fair game.

    The Stephen Lawrence enquiry provided evidence that even where officers themselves may not have been overt racists; there was institutional racism within the Police service. I do believe that certain sections of the service are institutionally fascist, even where individual officers wouldn't describe themselves as so.

    Edited to clarify that the Stephen Lawrence inquiry found evidence of institutional racism - not facism. I was making a comparison.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Katralla, not the same part of the country, which is what I meant. Unless of course you realised that and you're just being pedantic.

    I did realise that but, I'm not being pedantic.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Big Gay, fine, whatever. Lucky for me you're not in any position to fire anyone.

    Oh, so you are a little Hitler then? I thought you were one of the PCSOs that did it to make the country better.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    Oh, so you are a little Hitler then? I thought you were one of the PCSOs that did it to make the country better.
    Well, let me put it this way. He wasn't best pleased when I referred to him as one of Blunkett's Bobbies. :p

    This is a case of the law being not just an ass, but a complete and utter arse. It needs changing. Now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    Oh, so you are a little Hitler then? I thought you were one of the PCSOs that did it to make the country better.

    No, and no. I do the job because I enjoy it, and I'm trying to make my quite small part of the country better. My part of the country has seen decreases in crime that are bucking the trend.

    And the way you wrote your first comments seemed like you were implying that I was a little Hitler by the nature of my job. If you didn't mean me then fine, my apologies for assuming you were.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    So we should all be free to drop litter, let our dogs shit everywhere, grafitti property, get pissed in the street, piss in the street? These are all non-violent offences, so why not.

    I'm saying if they replaced you with someone who actually cleans it up, it would be far more effective. It's interesting that you lump all of these things together. Graffiti is an extension of vandalism, and so by definition is an action that causes harm. Dog shit is a bit inconvenient, and can potentially be a bit unhygienic, I guess. But ultimately, the basis for the rest of these "crimes" is just that people don't like them. That's it.

    Litter can become an issue, depending on the scale, which is where we come to the real issue. I never said that you shouldn't be allowed to arrest people for non-violent offences. How would you prosecute fraud if that was the case? I said that the law needs to reflect the fact that we cannot rely on individual police officers to use their common sense, just like we cannot rely on individual MPs to decide what is a reasonable expense, or local councils to decide what is an appropriate use of anti-terror surveillance laws. On the spot fines remove accountability to the individual officer, and make the whole process almost entirely subjective, which is why it is my general opinion that if something is not important enough to go through the courts, it's not important enough a crime to deal with. It's far less likely that someone ends up in a court room for dropping an apple on the floor than it is that they'll get an on the spot fine for it. Whereas a factory dumping its rubbish in an abandoned piece of land next door would probably be considered important enough to bring to court. But I'm sure it wouldn't be beyond our lawmakers to make a law that recognises the former as something that's better dealt with by a road sweeper, and the latter something that the police should get involved in.

    People object to being hassled by the police for what they see as doing nothing wrong, and so things like this just create resentment. Particularly given the subjective nature of the way such powers can be applied, which I have no doubt will be used more often against people of Middle-Eastern ethnicity, just like the power to pull cars over randomly is overwhelmingly used against young me. We can criticise the individual police officers involved all we want, but the real issue is that police have the power to dictate people's photography habits in the first place.

    Just a quick question though. When you're on your rounds and you see pieces of litter (I know it must be rare what with all these anti-litter laws), do you pick it up?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    No, and no. I do the job because I enjoy it, and I'm trying to make my quite small part of the country better. My part of the country has seen decreases in crime that are bucking the trend.

    Crime is down everywhere btw.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    Whoever stopped you was obviously a moron with nothing better to do.

    Or two police officers given powers way beyond their abilities by a Govt and Chief Constable seemingly support of a police state.

    My point being that the actions of those officers have affected my opinion of the police in to the same extent that a very good Inspector I know. Difference is that one makes me feel supportive, the others had the opposite effect. I know which is more likely to be on the street with the time to harass people too. Also apparently with the inclination.

    You, as an officer, need to support of the population if you are to do your job to it's best effect. Alternatively you will have to rely on force.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'd agree with totalitarian but I used fascist intentionally, because there is a section of the Police service which is inherently uncomfortable and hostile to people they perceive to be on the left/hippies. This has been demonstrated consistently across the previous century and Kingsnorth was just the latest example of a massive disparity between the treatment of benign leftists and actively violent right-wingers.

    The EDL still don't get it as bad as they did at Kingsnorth or on Bishopsgate; or at Orgreave, or at the Beanfield.

    Anyone who speaks out against state or corporate power in these situations is instantly seen as an enemy who is fair game.

    The Stephen Lawrence enquiry provided evidence that even where officers themselves may not have been overt racists; there was institutional fascism within the Police service. I do believe that certain sections of the service are institutionally fascist.

    Okay, that makes sense now.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not often I agree with most of a Daily Mail article and I'd want to check his figures but "Why did it take foreign judges to stand up for our liberties?" makes interesting reading.

    ETA

    So that article above talks about 197,000 people having been stopped under these laws

    This one suggests that the Police view walking along a cycle path as a terrorist activity

    Apparently being a Tory MP isn't enough to warrant respect either

    That was a simple search. To suggest that we are talking about bad apples starts to feel a little hollow when you read this sort of story.

    Oh and the icing on the cake...

    This article refers to 58 under tens being stopped under terror laws. FFS.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »

    You, as an officer, need to support of the population if you are to do your job to it's best effect. Alternatively you will have to rely on force.

    The last time I had to use force to achieve a goal was over 12 months ago when I arrested a shoplifter. Since then? The last 2 people I dealt with were 2 lads who'd been caught damaging property. With the support of their parents they repaid and repaired the damage with a little extra work thrown in at the parent's suggestion as a punishment.

    The victim is happy because the damage has been put right. My boss is happy because a crime has been dealt with to the victim's satisfaction. The parents of the offenders were happy because they were punished but in a fair way that wouldn't land them with a criminal record.

    The lads themselves? Well, if having to do menial work as a punishment stops them comitting more crime then they can thank me for it later.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    The person I stopped was wandering around the supposedly secured emergency services entrance of a powerstation with a camera taking photos of the fences and cameras not long after the 7/7 bombings.

    You used Section 44 to do that?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    MoK wrote: »
    You used Section 44 to do that?

    Possibly. It was 5 years ago.
Sign In or Register to comment.