....and declining to give my details.

I believe I was unlawfully arrested. The Police were the ones being violent and breaching the peace and later fabricated a statement to justify the arrest.
I was there for about 8 hours, had my mug shot, finger prints and DNA taken without my consent.

Best bit is.......

I got it all on video ;^)

Must admit, the worst bit was when the arresting copper took my M9 off me and threw (yes threw) it onto the van seat.

I'll post more tomorrow as it's late and has been a long day.

I'm not at all upset about it though as I know I did nothing wrong.

I think I'll be phoning the Guardian about this one.

Next installment tomorrow.

Night folks.

B

Awesome - on the video. Sometimes it takes people to stand up and suffer a bit to make change for the rest. The exact opposite of China where people let other people screw them all the time and never do anything about it.... :-s

Good luck.

Once you get it up or get it online somewhere - be it youtube or what not, I'll link to it as well.

Was the M9 OK? You should try and make a point of that too. Police showing disrespect for personal property - especially when it is 11K USD worth.

Harsh start for your brand new M9....
Hope everything is well and good luck Bob.

Give em hell Bob. Once the vid is up we should spread the link round some forums etc.
What a crap thing to happen though. What were you photographing?

I just watched those other vids on the guardian site.

WOW

The UK is more fucked up than China. The Chinese police know their own law better than the British police do theirs and they never expect or demand this. It happened to me as well. I was only held up because there was an error on the computer system about my visa # - in China I do have to divulge my ID. But no one ever cared or did squat about the shots I too and the man who was angry because I did.

Even ones I took recently in the embassy district..... So UK more fucked up than China it seems. That is a sad state of affairs.

Don't they have a law in the UK where you have to have at least a bachelors degree and be 21 to become a police officer?

Send it to the Guardian: go for it. If they will not publish it put it on youtube. Write also to the BJP.

dna taken for taking photos??

Sorry for the delay folks. It's been a mad day with snow etc.

I'm just typing up the events of yesterday which I'll share with you later.

I'm just waiting for my friend to decide if he is happy to be in the video. Once I know and I've edited it I will let you see it.

I will be phoning the Guardian in the morning.

It's worth the wait. Honest.

B

OK. Here's the first installment.
I'm still working on it so the next bit will follow asap.

I know some people will say I brought the arrest on myself, but I was just standing up for my sovereign rights and I was prepared to go through the process to do so. If you choose to give your details, that your call and I respect that. Please respect my decision too.

Thanks
Bob
........................................

I met a friend at 2pm on the 19th December 2009 at the Howarth Art Gallery in Accrington, Lancashire, to see the exhibition of photographs by the Royal Photographic Society.

We had agreed that, following this we would go down into the town to do some ?street photography?. This is a genre of photography we had both become interested in recently and both wanted to master. I had just got a new camera that I was keen to try out and my friend was keen to see.

We shared my car down to town and I parked at the top of Warner Street. We got our bags and set off into town. I was taking more shots that I would perhaps normally as I was keen to see the images on the screen. We walked down through and arcade and then on to the market where we snapped the odd shot. We then heard a pipe band playing on Broadway and so went to investigate. There were lots of people about having a good time, several of whom were filming or photographing the pipe band with either compact cameras or mobile phones. I took about 5 shots in total in this area, capturing the everyday scenes for posterity. I had noticed a female Police Officer and a female PCSO near by, but thought no more of it as I was not doing anything unlawful. They were very close to and appeared to be watching a couple of men who were on a ?BNP? stand who appeared to be handing out literature.

I was approached by the Police Officer who asked me something about my friend. It was hard to hear due to the pipe band, but I pointed my friend out and said she might like to ask him any questions she may have as I had been focused on what I was doing and I wasn?t aware of what he had been doing. Whilst she did that I was approached by the PCSO who proceeded to ask for my details. This is where I decided to start filming the situation with my video camera as I had a feeling about what was to ensue.

I established with the PCSO that I wasn?t obliged to give her the information and that I was free to go so I made my way towards my friend.

We established the same with the Police Officer and made our way back towards the car as we obviously were not comfortable taking photos any more. The Police officer and PCSO followed us and stopped us again on Blackburn Road. As you will see in the video we again established that we were not obliged to give our personal details and we were free to go as the Police Officer was unable to state any reasonable articulable suspicion.

We carried on again back towards the car and was again followed. As we walked back up Warner Street a Police van pulled up and we were shouted at by a male Police Officer, who I believe is a Sergeant. He kept asking for our details and I continued to refuse as I believed that I had a right to privacy under European Human Rights, especially since I had not broken any law.

This is what was said on the video to the best of my knowledge leading up to my arrest.

PS = Police Sergeant
PO = Police Officer
Fr = Friend
Me = Me

(Referring to our unwillingness to give our details)

PS - OK. Yeah! That?s fine. That under law is fine, if we ask for details we?ve got no powers, however, due to the fact we believe you were involved in antisocial behavior, OK? i.e. taking photographs....

Fr - Taking photographs.....in a public place. That?s antisocial?

PS - No, it?s the manor of the way you were doing it and it?s come across that it is, then we do have the power under section 2 to ask for your name and address and for you to provide it with us. If you don?t then you may be arrested. We obviously don?t want to go down that route. We just want your name and addresses, it?s common procedure, we?ll get you checked out on the radio and then you can be on your way. You?re entitled to a record of the stop as well, alright?

Me - Are we obliged to give you that information Officer?

PS - You have to give.....under section 2, you have to give me because we believe you?ve been involved in antisocial behavior.

Fr - What?s section 2?

PS - Right, section 2 uh, it?s under the violent crime and disorder act, alright?

Me - Have we been violent?

PS - No, no, it just comes under that act and the police reform act as well, alright? I?m led to believe you have some insight into law. (directed at me) Do you work in the field?

Me - Am I obliged to answer that Officer?

PS - No you?re not, but you are obliged to give me your name and address now, OK?

Me - Well I decline, thank you.

PS - Right, OK. And are you videoing me now?

Me - Yes, but it?s only for my protection.

PS - OK. Right. Why are you declining to give me your name and address?

Me - Because I don?t believe I?m obliged to do so.

PS - Right. OK. I believe that you are being antisocial by your behavior, taking.... running around, my colleague thinks it?s antisocial as well. There?s people on the street that..... that have made it known that it is antisocial, OK?

Me - Have you had a complaint against us?

PS - Not to myself, alright? So, if you?d like to come and sit in the back of my van.

Me - So I?m being detained?

PO - Yes.
PS - Yes, until we can find out who you are, alright?

PO - Turn that off. (Referring to the video camera)

....................................

At this point my friend decided to give his details.

....................................

PS - Are you going to provide your details? (Directed to me)

Me - No.

PS - Right, OK. I?m arresting you for failing to provide me with your name and address, OK?

I?ll caution you.

Police caution that ends with the words ?do you understand??

Me - No, I don?t understand and I don?t stand under your authority.

PS - OK, and the necessary criteria this one, alright? Uh! Is to ascertaining your name and address, alright?

Me - Officer, for and on the record, there will be no need for force or violence, i will not resist arrest.

PS - Come on then. (Forcibly grabs my arm and moves me towards his van trying to remove the video camera from my hand)

Me - However, you are obliged to note that I will be operating under protest and duress every step of the way. I reserve all of my rights at all times and waive none of my rights at any time for any cause or reason. I do not consent to this arrest, I do not consent to the taking of DNA or blood samples or fingerprints, and I do not consent to being placed on any database.

...................................

I was then put in the back of the Police van and my video camera and camera were taken from me. I noticed that he was holding the camera in such a way that it could have easily be dropped. I politely asked if he would be careful with it, but he cut me off basically saying I was in no position to request anything. The camera is a brand new Leica M9 with a 50mm lens that costs approx. £7,000. According to my friend who was still on the street, he literally threw the camera onto the passenger seat of the van.

I was then asked to empty my pockets which I proceeded to do and hand over any sharp objects or the like. I realized that I had in my pocket a UK legal, self defense spray called ?Stoppa Red?...... http://www.stoppashop.co.uk/personal-attack-alarm-supplier/
This is something I bought for my partner for when she walks the dogs, but I had been taking it out with me due to the high value of my new camera, the idea being that should anyone try to take my camera from me, I would be able to mark them for later identification should they be apprehended.

When I handed it to the Police Sergeant he got quite agitated and he arrested me again for carrying a ?ballistic?. (Later referred to as a firearm)

I was then taken to Blackburn Police Station. I believe the Sergeant drove in a very aggressive manor with the intention of throwing me about in the back, but that is just my opinion. He may just be a very bad driver.

Hi Bob. Have police take you to a judge ? Some formal acusation ? That gas spray here in Portugal only under special autorization, i don´t know very well British Firearm Act. Gas spary is not a "firearm" but by European directives is included in Firearms legislation.

I don´t know why you don´t give your details to police when they aproach you first time, with that simple thing you can avoid all that mess.

All police in London is under severe warning of Terrorism attacks for end of this year/beginning of next. Scotland Yard has said that London faces threat of a Mumbai- style terror attack at key places early next year with the terrorists poised to strike the city using handguns, bombs and hostage-taking techniques.

The severest warning issued by some Intelligence agencies following the 26/11 terrorist attack on Mumbai has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early .

This is the reason for all that police actuation against tourists and photographers, and under Terrorist Act is enough to give police special power to identify everybody in streets whitout give special reasons.

I´m not here defending police, understend that. We live in a hell of a world !

Just found this :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/20/suspected-terrorists-film-london

I hope terrorists never consider little villages with goats as targets, or just ruin my "Rural Moments" project

Hi Rui.

I don't want to go into to much detail regarding my beliefs on these matters as I don't wish to upset anyone, but, in a few words, I don't believe the terrorist threat is anywhere near as great as we are told. I believe that fear is used through the media (terrorism, swine flu, etc etc) as a way to manipulate the population. To me, the real terrorists are the ones trying to control us and who take us into wars the majority want no part in.

Regards
Bob

A perfect example of what I was saying. A very fear mongering article with few facts, lots of 'mays' and 'possibly's'.

B

What is the purpose of this thread?

Bob,
it's incredible to read of such an abuse and I admire your decision to defend your rights. Please let us know if you decided to report the policemen to a court and how it ends.

Shure is, counter-terrorism enforcement detailed facts is not for public domain.

Ok, i don´t write more in this topic, not my business.

Welcome to the club Bob!:-) Start to get used to this. For keeping my shots i have always two memory cards with me and when i see they coming i just exchange it very fast!:-)))) But i never was 8 hours behind bars. 2 or 3 was the average:-)

Robert

Then why bother to be individuals any more or even have laws if they can be ignored or people ignore them for the sake of personal connivence.....dare I say "The Judendienstordnung" ?

Add global warming to that too. The press have a sense of self survival - especially since they were asleep at the wheel at the whole internet thing of the last 20 years and social media for the past 8....

Bob, I find your whole story here of great interest and the dialogue you rendered is awesome! I just read it almost without breathing! You were really brave!
Put it this way, it should concern any person carrying a camera in a public place, or just showing interest in architecture or street photography.
It is definitely about abuse and violating the basic human rights by those who are paid by the citizens to "serve and protect"...
So absurd, but it happens in others societies, too, that's for sure. Unfortunately this is no isolated case.
The way you defended your rights and your dignity as a person deserves admiration. If only more people had the courage, intelligence and will to oppose injustice the way you did...
Good luck!

What do you think the purpose is Lars?

Many thanks to those of you offering your support. It really is much appreciated.

I'll continue to type up what happened next later today.

Regards
Bob

Not that I disagree with this statement. But on a more pragmatic line - akin to the "martyred dolphins". Owning or being able to prioratise expenditure in life to own a camera - let a lone a 11K USD one is kind of telling in itself too about our society.

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to suggest a contradiction or dilution of the story. But some phrases or words are overly emotive. And this is a very black and white situation as it deals with those who enforce the law - not actually knowing the law. So no need for emotions. As Bob has demonstrated in his behaviour and conduct - almost clinical and matter of fact in it.

Bob you have my support in all of this I understand fully the intimidating circumstances in the whole saga for you. In the end I think the police have made this personal & is it not strange that section 44 hasn't even been mentioned so its nothing to do with protecting us from terrorism!!!

Hi Gerard.

Many thanks for that.

When you get to see the video, the first scene is of a PCSO saying they are taking the details of anyone photographing the town centre. I then mention section 44 and she agrees. After that there is no mention of section 44, I believe due to the recent negative publicity. My guess is that they are just doing the same thing, by using a different rule.

Regards
Bob

Contact the BBC too. Why do police waste their time on this stuff? Contact your MP as well.
Good luck with it all.

You'll hate me for saying so but I believe you screwed this up, Bob... sorry. Why was this necessary? To some extent it reminds me to Richard Ford's meeting with "the world's biggest hypocratic fascist". Another situation that could have been defused right at the start wth just a little bit of common sense from your side. And you should have. There's no human right to grant you immunity from over-zealous policemen anyway.
My point is: the rule is to cooperate with the police even if they are stupid and bothersome because they can ruin your day but you can't ruin theirs. Had you cooperated, you would have forgotten the whole thing by now. But now you have it all over you and there will be no benefit in the end.

Heii Balazs, maybe a bug, but logical is not me who write that :)

Do you really want to always have to cooperate with hostile policemen? It is possible that higher up the ranks your local police have not even heard your version of the story. It is all very well to contact the newspapers, but if I were you, I would also contact the Independent Police Complaints Commision:
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/

Filling a complaint can be made online and it will only take a couple of minutes. They will keep track of it and it will feed back to your local police, so maybe it is not the newspaper the first place were they hear about the incident, plus the newspaper can cite that you have put a complaint. As of late all these attempts to refuse to give details seem to turn into breach of peace or disorderly conduct.

Richard, since you honored me by selecting a part of one of my statements, let me return you the favor by a quote from you:


I do not live in a western civilized country but I still ask myself who would be entitled to give an answer... And as a matter of fact, it looks so much like some situations in an eastern country, I shall not name... somewhere I lived for so long, maybe too long... And I never said "enough", and I never dared to question those representing "authority", and I always accepted not to be treated as a real person, but as a "tolerated entity" by people who believed they had the right to "play God" with other's lives... Just because...

You know English is not my native language, so please accept my apologies if I wasn't able to express my ideas clearly: I just wanted to say that I sympathised with Bob whom I admire for his civic attitude, and I can feel he's in a potentially difficult and complicated situation...

Friendly, Dinu

Obviously a bug.



That's my point - you cooperate instead of getting arrogant and self-righteous, tell them what they want (for God's sake they were only asking for personal details - maybe it's a cultural thing but I can't understand why some people find it so shocking) - and forget about it. It is far better than getting upset and spend the next few days being pissed off.



His situation will be defintely difficult and complicated when he calms down and realises that he must press on with this issue he put in motion, even if it's a waste of time and energy and could have easily been avoided :) It's like airport security - when those brainless robots confiscate your half-empty bottle of mineral water you can either get rightfully upset and cause yourself a lot of trouble, or just discharge it and buy another one beyond security. It's all about not getting upset by stupid rules enforced by stupid people.

@Balazs: "for God's sake they were only asking for personal details"

Once I gave my details for basicly a non-incident. I didn't think about it twice as I had basicly been the person calling the police to clear up a misunderstanding. About nine months later I put a complaint against the police for a completely different reason (a guy had assaulted me and broken my camera, and a policeman didn't do anything about it), and the first thing that they brought up was this previous incident (that by then I had forgotten). Since this, although I have been always cooperative with the police, I do feel much more suspicious. If you give them your details, even if you did not do anything wrong, they will keep them. If you are involved in another incident minimally related, they will bring this up. I am sure that even if you had the bad luck of being stopped several times for not doing anything wrong and your details taken every time, it will just result in more of a headache and hopefully nothing more. I have personally changed from being cooperative to being cooperative but very very measured following this.

I don't want to live in a country, where police for no reason stops people asking for personal details which will directly lead to some memorandum inside some data warehouses. We got rid of this in the Eastern part of Germany only 20 years ago. It is an absolute contradiction to a freedom of speech, freedom of movement and respect of the private sphere which should be foundations of democratic and free societies.

You should not ask why not to show personal details but why are they asking for. What is the concept behind it?

/Stephan

95 % of the world's population would love to have your problems, Stephan. Besides, in my job I frequently run into this German obsession about data protection and sometimes, even more often than not, it is beyond reason. To me, it is just another feature of the Rechtsstaat that made the legal system a paradise for criminals. A cultural thing obviously, and we have to live with that...



No, that's political correctness you're talking about :)) Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread and only ask, what is wrong with providing your personal data when police asks for it? Do you have a right to refuse it? It seems no, and until Bob finds some solid legal argument for refusing he'll be the loser in this game. No matter how absurd the whole situation was, he let it escalate. Because as I see it it's not about stupid copper vs innocent photographer but law-enforcing police vs arrogant citizen. And I doubt he will be the Gandhi of street photographers.
Of course, again a cultural thing, in most countries we have something like an ID card which you have to show police when they ask for it but the British think if you have an ID card today, you'll have concentration camps tomorrow. But this is not the only thing I can't understand about the UK...

Hi Balazs.

Many thanks for your contributions to the thread.

I'm sorry you feel that I was being arrogant. Hopefully, when you see the video you will see that I was calm and polite. Adrenaline did kick in a little though. I'm not at all angry or wound up about this and I did what I did knowing the likely consequences. What I hadn't anticipated was that my self defense spray could be an issue as it is UK legal. That complicated matters a little. I am on Police bail at the moment and the only issue stated on the documentation is in relation to the spray. No mention of antisocial behavior or photography.

There are ways for me to proceed against the Police that would mean they would be accountable for their actions and, should they have to suffer a little, would think twice next time they decided to hassle a photographer just because they were bored and cold from standing out in the winter weather. I won't say much about how I plan to proceed as you never know who is reading, but I'm sure I can get remedy. My guess is they will drop any charges once they have checked the contents of the spray, which I will be billing them for BTW.

I know there are much more terrible things that go on in the world, but I have no control over them. This is something I can do something about if I so wish.

Many thanks to all other members too for their kind & supportive words.

Regards
Bob

That's so f*****g absurd, Bob. have the impression that they just want to pimp their statistics, to show how busy they are.
By arrogance I didn't mean getting angry and calling them names. Refusing to ID yourself and making reference to huan rights just doesn't seem to be the wisest thing to do in such situations. As a lawyer I wish they had broken your M9 - you could have sued them for its value plus non-material damages caused by their behaviour. In any case, after this bubble pops you should consult a lawyer if there is a way to make them pay for this mess; I doubt it but hopefully I'm wrong. Good luck to your crusade and make sure you can use your M9 in the jail. Great documentary stuff, you know.

The Guardian was very interested : )
Looks like I may have a civil liberties claim that might just pay for my M9.

B

i want to say one thing: if i read about problems like bob's i always think about people in third world countries, their problems and so on. for sure "our" problems may look small and nonrelevant. but then i see 2 points:

1. people in china, vietnam, romania dont benefit if we just shut up.

2. "our" problems are always the biggest. if we have no money to pay our flat we dont care about starving children in kongo. this might sound rude, but its our problems.... it affects us personaly and there is nothing to do about it.

it happened to me too, i was stopped by swiss police one morning when taking pictures in the street, because there was a protest planned for the afternoon. i had to give (again) my very personal datas like fingerprints and dna. i actually wanted to take pictures of the protest hours later, i then decided to go home. what kind of society is this i live in? if people go out on the street to protest, why am i not allowed to take pictures of it? what is the police and what are they afraid of? it can not be true that the police has an archive of dna of murderers, thiefs, rapists and photographers! thats more than absurd.

If so - I'll be off to London, photographing a little as soon as I step out of the Eurostar, give the coppers a lesson on human rights, make them arrest me with a pepper-spray in my bag and afterwards sue them out of their pants with a civil liberties claim. Saving for a new camera was yesterday! One has to LOVE the rule of law!

Yeah, it's bad. I'm also afraid of providing them with my DNA and finger prints. Because once they have it, I couldn't become the mysterious serial killer I always wanted to be. This society seriously hinders my self-realisation!

@balazs: I don't think that being cynical / sarcastic about this is going to help much. Are you a photographer? Do you want to live in a society where your hobby / profession is taken suspiciously both by the public and the government? At least in the UK these issues should be taken seriously and tackled as soon as possible, as they seem to get more and more widely spread. Even Martin Parr recently said that "shoot while you can", because in the future it might not be allowed to do so. We should pretty much all be in for this. If some photographers think that those who complain about the estate of affairs are just being a bit silly, well, it's just going to get worse...

Just to be totally clear, I did not have a pepper spray on me. These are illegal in the UK. I was carrying one of these which it totally UK legal.

http://www.stoppared.com/page3.htm

B

Balazs,


this is absolutely no reason to lower the standards. I would more say vice versa. :-) It is also not the problem to offer my identity to the police if needed. But not just because I was somewhere and took some photograph.


No, absolutely not. The question is a very fundamental one. Once authorities have more or less arbitrary access to everything they like it will get worse and worse. Why not stopping people then, because they buy suspicious newspapers?

/Stephan

It is some sort of red dye spray can... seems somehow nasty, though :o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDcIyOGfmfw

"Why not stopping people then, because they buy suspicious newspapers?"

... or because they look too long at the wrong buildings... they might be trying to memorize the number of access points, the distance between them, etc... I mean, if you really want to get insanely paranoid, there is still plenty of room

OK folks.

Here's the video footage.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ixmfHXCXGc

Regards
Bob

Bob "enjoy your day in court". Personally I hope they sentence you to accompany a police detail to show you what "peace officers" deal with on a day to day basis. These people work hard to do their job and deal with some very serious stuff day to day. And how do you show your respect for these hard working folks? You throw a child's tantrum in the street. In your video I see a few officers who patiently and fairly dealing with an uncooperative citizen.

I hope that when the day comes (and it will) that you need the police in your life to help you that you think of the time and resources you've wasted because you wouldn't give your name. But when that day comes they will be professional and do everything to assist you despite the way you have treated them.

Thank you so much for giving police officers another excuse to distrust and be suspicious of photographers. Well done.

Scott

"Just to be totally clear, I did not have a pepper spray on me. These are illegal in the UK. I was carrying one of these which it totally UK legal."

Bob bleach is legal in the UK but spraying it over someone is not. IM sorry to say you may get unstuck with that spray even if its legal to buy. IM behind you on the rest of the stuff though :)

Hi Scott.

I used to work alongside the Police in my days as a Paramedic and know all to well what they have to deal with.

As you say they are indeed 'Peace' Officers and should uphold their oath.

hey were the ones who breached the peace and were violent in their actions.

I was just trying to go about my lawful business without being intimidated and harassed.

No law was broken. There were no complaints about us.

Regards
Bob

Hi Andrew.

Bleach would cause someone harm.
The stoppa spray is inert. I've never used it and never wanted to have to.

Regards
Bob

They're freaking out of their minds.

@Bob: I would love to see your way of shooting or some of your photographs of this scene, not because I suspect you, but to know what can they consider "antisocial behaviour"

I don't know about British police, but when Belgian police valiantly punish me for parking my car 5 minutes in a non-parking area, and then I read that young Arabs practically gave them a chase in "their 'hood" and police ran away with shit in their pants, and when I report that my car window was smashed the third time in three months and they tell me they can't do anything, and when I have to warn my wife to wear something like a headscarf to avoid being harassed when she comes home at night - frankly Scott, it's hard to have any respect for this kind of police and the resulting safety. It's not their fault, but it would be far too off-topic to discuss why our world became like this (and probably you don't want to know my opinion anyway because it'd be too blunt). Now, photographers are not as good lobbyists as certain communities who can cry "racism" and "discrimination" whenever police comes within one mile of them, so what can police do - they harass those who can be harassed. And whenever I read a story about a photog contra police situation, the word "victimology" comes to mind.

But I admit you have a point. There's always a human on the other side. Therefore we shouldn't vision a bad bad Fascist state who's limiting our precious rights but deal best with a situation when we are confronted with rules we find stupid and the people who enforce them, because that's their job. Such people can bend a rule if willing, looking the other way and all, if we don't piss them off with arrogance and self-righteousness.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54162036

I just love it when folks think this kind of video and behavior is representative of all police and authority in America. For every 56 minute video like this, you could produce dozens of 56 minute videos showing police doing their job properly and under great personal abuse and danger. This kind of "cherry picked" video is certainly not representative of the truth. Yes, there are police and other authority figures that abuse their power, there always have been and probably always will be. And this video shows some of them. BUT, they are a tiny minority and the vast majority are good, honest and hard working folks in a very difficult and dangerous job. AND, we should be thankful they are there!!

Is it right for you to be hassled for walking around with a camera, NO! Is it right for you to turn around and hassle the police for trying to do their job, NO! You wanted this to happen the way it did, period! And apparently you were successful, you now get your few moments of internet fame. Those police who you hassled will be out there tomorrow and the next day, protecting you and the rest of us! I for one am glad they are!

Hope your shiny new camera is OK. Hope you all have a safe and happy holiday season!

Hi Clyde.

I agree with much that you have said.

I honestly didn't go looking for this situation, but I knew that if it did happen I would decline giving my details if I had done nothing wrong.

I have worked with many Police officers, good and bad. Some are still friends while others I would not trust in the slightest.
I've seen some be wonderful and kind and I've seen others break the law. I've listened to many of their conversations.
They used to come in our ambulance station for a brew and a skive pretty much every day.
They are just like the rest of us, human beings doing the best they can in any given situation.
On the few occasions I really needed them in my life the experiences were not good, but I know that's not necessarily the norm.

I am very thankful they are there when acting in their true role of Peace Officer, not Policy Enforcement Officer.

The camera is ok thanks although it has lost its shine a little due to the events. I knew I should have taken your advice and bought that $10 Nikon on Ebay.

B

Clyde I concur 100% All that I have to add is that after looking at your video Bob is that to me you seemed confrontational! I never saw the officers get out of line and To me at least it looks like you set yourself up (as you did) I am sure that the small female police officer felt a little more than intimidated by you. Yes it is the pits to have officers ask these things but it looked like if you just gave some information you could have been on your way. We have many more freedoms here than does the UK but it is still good to be non confrontational when approached as they come up against some nasties more often than any of us. Here in Tennessee we can carry a firearm for self defense if properly trained and licensed and you damn sure show your card if an officer makes a traffic stop and they are cool with it. You lost that freedom years ago and have to resort to spray paint in life or death situations. just my 2 cents I think you may be surprised at the out come of this as they may use your video as evidence. At least they did not take your camera or video.

Thanks for your contribution Will.
The Small female wasn't a Police Officer. She was a PCSO (Police Community Support Officer)
They don't have any real powers. It's a kind of policing on the cheap.
I was polite to her. There were things that happened before that point, but I only got my camera out when I realized things were escalating.
I did try to be calm and respectful, but adrenaline is released in these situations.
I'd be happy to give the video over for evidence if required along with the 5 images I took.
Regards
Bob

Not really picking at you Bob as you know I really appreciate being able to photograph the things we love. To my eye (most probably not to many others) not giving the information could have been construed that you were up to no good and here in Memphis that would not be good.JMO will

I believe that most problems can be simply avoided by a little cooperation, mutual understanding, friendliness and openness.

A while back, I was stopped by two police officers that had been following me while I was walking and photographing along a railroad that ran along the back of some houses and enterprises. They asked what I was doing and what I was taking photographs of. I said that I was walking without any real reason other than walking and taking pictures, and that I was photographing whatever caught my attention. They asked to see my camera and I gave it to them. They gave it back after a very short inspection. I asked them politely about the reason for stopping and checking me out. They politely clarified that there had been a whole series of burglaries in the vicinity and they had received several calls about a 'suspect' prowling around the back yards with a camera. Then they asked if I could identify myself; I gave them my ID card. They looked at it and gave it back without taking notes; no need for looking up or putting my personal data in a database. Often it is more than enough that you are willing and able to identify yourself; they will be satisfied without taking note or registration. They apologized for the hassle. I asked if everything was alright and if I could go on with my business. They told me I could. And we parted in the best possible understanding.

I think those officers had a legitimate ground to stop me and check me out. If I had been robbed and saw a suspect walking along my backyard, I would expect the police to take action.

Refusing to identify yourself and to cooperate in a reasonable manner will often, if not always, result in making you look suspect. I mean, just try to put yourself in their shoes for one moment.

What would I have gained by refusing any cooperation?

Is this the same Karanka from HCSP on Flickr?

EXACTLY!

The thing is police are OUR SERVANTS and they answer to us - not the other way around. I asked the question before - because a famous Scottish (I think) police commissioner (Peter Ryan) was hired to fix up NSW police in Australia. One of his first agendas was to make policeman a cut above the bare basic trash of society. So be 21 years old and have any old bachelors degree. Nothing really hard about those two requirements.

The police union shot it down - because - well they know deep down that the only difference between most of their ranks and the people they lock up are the uniforms they wear.

Those brainless robots wanted me to put 400 USD worth of film through an x ray scanner and claimed it was "China Regulation" in ShenZhen airport. Even though Beijing and tiny little Urunqi airport had swap and test machines on site.

I made a fuss, missed a flight, had a security guard push me (whom I then happily submitted into the concrete floor) and at the end of the day had the airport security head apologise to me and the police get me on a flight with another carrier (my airline was booked out) for no extra charge for the ticket swap.

Did it was 6 hours? Yes.

Did it freak out my secretary? Yes?

Do I feel proud about it? No.

Would I do it again? Yes.

That's not really true Richard. In the U.S. the people elect city/state/federal officials. Those officials then represent those people, a.k.a. you and me. Those officials hire and swear police and military to an oath to uphold laws and the constitution. Those sworn police and troops then answer to the officials that hired them and who represent us. We cannot hire nor fire a policeman. We, also have no authority to reprove or correct a policeman's actions. Only our elected representatives have those duties and responsibilities. Our only input is to re-elect or not. That's what a "representative democracy" means.

That's more a problem with Civil law that is stoooooopid. The issue here you can see from Bob, mine and others answers is all about setting a "PRECEDENT". The heart and soul of Common Law that keeps things level, consistent and repeatable once fixed.

And not prone to - well administrative UN style policy grid lock.... helloooooo "Civil Law". As the Germans use. Why? Out of stubborn resistance (or two world wars and a world cup) to using the legal system of the most successful modern day empire? Resulting in the top countries to live in in the world - though the UK is under my question mark now....

And the Australians... the national card was killed about 20 years ago. And the USA and the Canadians and the New Zealanders.... notice a trend on who bucks these things and who has the most successful and sovereign countries of the last century?

It is because of the people. And Bob's actions are what adds up to the spirit of Churchill and defiance to live a life based on ones own ideals and not have them imposed by a state - local or foreign.

OK Bob - maybe too big of a comparison - but I am imaging you standing in a a harsh environment - others cowering to the cold and defeat and like a Second Lt in Gallipoli ordering his troops to once more dive over the parapet and attack - bugel sounding....

Oh the romance...

On a related note - why is the Symbol of the Australian Army a Kangaroo? It has NOTHING to do with it being an Australian animal - I can asure you that. But it is for the same reasons that has led it to victory against insurmountable odds in may wars from the Boer up through to Iraq. And Bob's actions embody the same spirit which is the reason for choosing a Kanagroo.

Hint - it has something to do with it's inability to do something backwards.....

But Remo you have elected to live in that sort of society.

In Scandinavian countries Government takes care of everything over there, it?s all regulated and mandated, how many women should be in government, how many hospitals and schools per 1000 people, how many people should study such and such degrees, how many dumps you are allowed per day etc..?.. communism nicely packaged if you ask me?. And by taking away your money (taxes?.) they keep everybody on a short leash?


True.

All actions even those that are tacit have flow on effects. Standing idly by, while watching a crime being committed is almost as bad as committing the crime.

Dreams can still come true. Just be more careful... maybe some acid on the finger tips. Maybe take a study too to Columbia and see how the pros evade capture for so long....

PLEASE READ THIS POST IF YOU HAVE TIME.

I've had to re-upload the video so here's the new link.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zvttx4ztwI

Now a little time has passed and having now watched it a couple of times I can see how it may be construed that I was not being co-operative or being arrogant. I'd like to try and explain a little background and why I said what I said based on my understanding of the situation. This may seem a little strange, but please read on an keep an open mind.

Probably the most important things the realize are that the law has its own language called 'legalese'. This is the language of the law society and words that we use every day have a totally different meaning. For example, when I am being arrested and the Officer says at the end 'do you understand?' this doesn't mean 'do you comprehend?' as we might think. It means 'do you stand under my authority?' It's an invitation to contract and that is what this is all about, getting you to contract with them, because once you do, you are having a meeting of minds and you have agreed to 'stand under' them. As it turns out, despite me trying very hard, I did actually contract with them unwittingly. There were several occasions when they tried to get me into contract with them. When the PCSO fist asked me if I would like to go and speak with her officer, that was an invitation to contract. That's why I said I'd be happy for them to come to me to talk. I wasn't just being moody. They asked for us to give our details. Had we done so we would have entered into contract and the same applies to being invited to go and sit in the back of his van. All I did throughout was try to disengage from them and I did so politely by asking if I was obliged to give the information - which I was not, if I was free to go - which I was and what her reasonable articulable suspicion was. This is a legal requirement and she was unable to articulate what her suspicion was.

If I break it down as much as possible this is how I see the situation........

My friend and I were taking pictures of a Father Christmas and a pipe band. No buildings or anything that could be deemed as being used for terrorist purposes. The way we were doing this is what caught their attention. We were trying to take creative photos and so were looking for interesting angles etc etc whereas you average Joe would just point and shoot.
We were approached by two women in costume who, believing they had some kind of authority over us, went on a data fishing exercise.
This is the oath that Police Officers take..........

" I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the ?Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding?fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offenses against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law."

Now, neither of us had done anything to warrant suspicion or broken any law and yet they chose to waste their time and ours by tryng to contract with us. There isn't a requirement to carry ID (yet) in the UK so, even if we had given details, they could have been false and they would have been none the wiser and they would have just let us go. At any point they had the discretion to just let us go peaceably on our way, but their egos wouldn't allow it and they felt there was a need to make us comply and teach us a lesson for being naughty children. I use the term children because, in law we are actually considered children of the state. Once they had gone so far they had to save face by following through the threats of arrest despite there being no complaint against us. I to, being human have an ego and chose to stand my ground. At this point I was unlawfully assaulted, kidnapped, assaulted again by the violent manor I was driven to their den. I was locked in a cell for about 8 hours, interrogated and then assaulted again by having my hands forcibly pressed on to a faulty machine in order to steal my hand and finger prints and had living tissue scraped from inside my mouth and stolen in order to ma my DNA and place it on a database - all against my consent. I was also interrogated and they attempted to poison me with a microwavable vegetable chilli (that last bit is a joke of course). They then forced me under duress to sign documents saying I would not harm myself once released. I was then ejected from their building into the middle of an industrial estate on the outskirts of a town (bear in mind that in law we are considered children) with valuable camera gear on my back, no way of defending myself as they had stolen my self defense spray, in freezing conditions, with no way to get home and about 6 miles from my car.

The really funny bit is, I knew that most of this was likely to happen to me when I declined to give my name and address : )

I love life. It can be so interesting. It's 5am now, I can't sleep and the stars look amazing. Looking at the night sky just puts all this into perspective. We are all just people, using words. It's just some back that up with sticks and tazers.

Back to bed me thinks.
Thanks for reading.

Bob

Happened in Sydney after the "Cronulla Riots".

The police came cracking down on the so called "White racists" for fighting and abuse. But when 1 week later scores of cars were trashed and middle eastern gangs retaliated - they did nothing. Out of fear or some crazy PC fear.

Why is it that Texas has the lowest crime rate (or one of) in the world? Because people are smart and empowered enough to realise that each individual should and can be responsible for their own protection - and not out sourcing it to inept baffoons whom seem to think they can have a monopoly of protection.

Why do I even bother to wipe my own arse then?

And there in lies the problem.

They should be above us - so at least 21 and a degree. And like the BBC folks no overweight either. How would those cops catch anyone. They can't even keep their personal being in shape due to low will power and inner strength (which we all suffer from) - but shouldn't they be a little "harder, tougher, stronger, fitter, smarter, better" then us anyway?

Of course.

My point is still valid though. They serve at our pleasure.

Hi @all,

from 1933 until 1945 people in Germany where educated to look away on such things. I guess everyone knows what came out of this. It was Police which enforced this, because of utterly stupid reasons. Like a threat due to a minority (Jews, Gypsies and people who where different). No threat ever was proofed though.
Later on, the people where asked why they just watched, why they did not stop it in the beginning.

Today we again have a situation alike, today it is called terror. UK survived the whole issue with the IRA, Germany hat its last terroristic attack in what we called hot/german autuum I guess 1977. As we know now, we survived with much less threats to our society due to the affects we currently have. Currently they take away freedom rights.

What happened to Bob is troublesome because of they took a right away from him. If there is a law that you have to comply, no problem. But here Police is interpreting the law in their own common way. A way which suits them most. That is the problem and that is something which should never have happened in Europe / the educated world after 1945.

So Bob - hopefully everything goes out well for you - and hopefully UK gets theses things sorted out soon. It is a beautiful country where I spend much of my time. But currently - no way.

Oliver

Bob, after seeing the video, I think you're right, in principle. It seems to me that the cops did not want to be embarrassed, especially as you were filming.
However, maybe it might have been wiser to give in when he threatened to arrest you, and then file a complaint afterwards.
Anyway, good luck!

Cheers Oliver.

You have it on the money for me. This is the thin end of the wedge.

Regards
Bob

Thanks Andrei.

Giving in is not the British Bulldog Spirit ;^) - I'm joking again.
I can at times be stubborn. I think I get that from my Mum.
It did me good to go through the experience. I would no what to expect should anything like this ever happen again.

Regards
Bob

I've had to take the video offline now on the advice of a civil rights civil rights solicitor.
Apologies to anyone who hasn't seen it who wanted to.

Regards
Bob

Have read all posts with more than just interest.

Now, let your lawyer do his job.

Happy holidays to you and your family.

I know what you mean, but there are two exceptions: girlfriends, and people carrying more guns than you do.
Otherwise you'll have a lot of sleepless nights. :)

"I can asure you that. But it is for the same reasons that has led it to victory against insurmountable odds in may wars from the Boer up through to Iraq"

I'm afraid you picked the two worst examples from the long and otherwise dignified military history of Britain, Richard...



I can't watch this now as I have a problem with my Flash player, but to react on what you wrote: that's all nice and very civic but from a legal point of view it doesn't make any sense. The problem is, you don't "contract" with police. The legal relation between citizens and police is totally different from that between citizens. The basic difference is that you - unless certain rights of yours are clearly and presently violated, or the police breaks it's own rules of procedure or the law - you have the obligation to comply. (Otherwise, it wouldn't make much sense to have police, would it?) As I see it, the problem is that you can't point out exactly what right of yours was violated. They didn't use excessive force, didn't damage your property, didn't put you in prison without a court's order, and last not least they didn't rape you. So if you're going to court, what exactly is your argumentation? That you found the whole thing humiliating and intimidating? Come on, you knew you're not in for an oily Thai body massage. You saw it coming.


It's legally quite pointless to call their action "data fishing", just as arresting is not kidnapping :) And if you call those officers "women in costume" you'll end up being called a sexist pig. Besides, it shows a certain lack of respect which you better not communicate in your oncoming battle with HM law enforcement. (I can understand you - female police officers or whatever they are called in PC are a much worse than their male colleagues but you better don't menton this openly...)

After all, I'm afraid it got psychological here. Let's get back to this:



It's always shocking to be confronted with people who don't take photography as seriously as we do, isn't it? We must be intelligent enough and look beyond our big photographer's ego to understand that our most holy religion is just a nuissance for some others. This we have to live with and the sooner we realise this, the better we will cope with situations like yours or Richard's encounter with the "fascist" father.

Britain. Indeed.

I was talking about Australia.


I shouldn't have to cope it he doesn't think he doesn't have to "cope" either with me shooting.

We are talking about photos here. Not smoking in public, not rape, not spitting, not littering, not avoiding taxes, not feeding children fish and chips 24/7 and ........ I could go on all night.

Just what is the reasonable and articulate problem that a photographer/photo presents?

Bob,
Thanks for this thread.
I'm sorry I logged in too late to see the video as it would have been interesting. Even without seeing it though, I'd like to offer my support for what you did. I detest bullies regardless of their age, gender, race or religion. . . or uniform they wear.
I work full time as a paramedic and work with the police regularly. As has been mentioned, there are some great ones and some, not so great, ones. Regardless or this, we should not ignore, or worse, submit to the inappropriate demands of the egotistical few as a favour to the greater good. Acceptance of this rot allows it to slowly spread and it will become the norm. I for one, am grateful that you were willing to stand up for your rights in a civilised manner and continue to invest your time, effort and intelligence to hold them accountable. I wish you the best of luck.

Yes, sorry. Next time please refer to the Kokoda trail for us lesser mortals :)

Again, I think you are a bit naive about what is going on in the U.S. and in Texas. Yes, the "individual" attitudes you cite are in play in Texas re the crime rate. But,they also have the most aggressive police and courts in the U.S. too. You simply don't f' around in Texas without knowing that they will hunt you down and juice you up, more likely than anywhere else. Since the U.S. reinstated the death penalty in 1976 Texas has executed 447, the next highest state is at 105.

So, the "baffoons" you cite are actually part of the solution.

Hi Balazs.

I'm not going to do much more with this thread as I need to switch off from it for a while and focus on other things.

I'm not sure what aspect of law you are involved in, but I'm sure you know all about the differences between.............

Legal & lawful
Living flesh & blood man and a Person
Common law and Maritime law etc etc.

The later stages of my last post were my interpretation of what happened to me as a flesh and blood man. I referred to the PC & PCSO as 'two women in costume' I was referring to them as flesh and blood women and what I said was in no way sexist or derogatory.

The reason the police are so keen for you to give your details is that once you have done so, you have identified the 'person' (a corporation or legal fiction - created when your birth is registered) and the person can then be acted upon by another legal fiction/person/corporation (in this case the Police)

So, when they acted upon me, they were 'acting' (ties in with the costume bit) to apply a statute on a flesh and blood man, which you can not do unless they have caused harm, injury or loss to another flesh and blood man or woman. Statutes or acts are given the weight of law with the consent of the governed. At no time did I consent.

I am new to all this and have much to learn, but all I would say is, much of what we take for granted these days is nothing more than an illusion.
As they say, the world is a stage.

I've said before, there's a very good reason that they don't teach you law at school.

Regards
Bob

Many thanks indeed Pam.

I'll PM you.

Regards
Bob

Bob, this is all OK and very philosophic but the basic question is: which of your fundamental rights did the police violate, and if they did so, did they act unlawfully? Because this is what you have to build your claim on and the court/magistrate will judge, no matter how smart you are and what your opinion about this whole mess is. Sentiments and philosophical thoughts are irrelevant when it comes to law.
Anyway, I hope I can watch your video tonight.

I presume the police are stopping and questioning photographers as a result of some directives from 'above'. That being the case, creating the maximum negative publicity is important in order that those giving the directives can see that said directives are not having the desired effect, whatever that was. . . So although Bob may have been digging his heels in like a good northern awkward bugger ;-) and the police may have been polite and professional in their conduct, the behaviour of the parties is irrelevant in this case. It is plain that what the Police were being asked to do was just plain wrong. The sooner this can be sorted out at a high level the better for all of us.
Jon

Again, i don´t know very well the penal law in UK, but if this case happens in Portugal or in most European countrys, the titul of this topic:

"I was arrested today for street photography....."

Is more correct as :

"I was arrested today for qualified disobedience"

And all ends in court with Bob condemned ... Also i see yesterday the video, and Bob do the best delete it, because if i´m the judge and see it, will be worst for Bob, so i believe is bether a UK judge don´t see it and i think Bob´s solicitor thinks the same.

I see only very professional police agents and very polite in first aproaching to a citizen, very nervous citizen, and nervous citizens with no aparent reason is allways suspect in all world at police eyes.

Please remember everyone Bob has been stopped under section 2 & the principle behind this law is so vague they could stop my grandmother for taking pics of little Jonnie on his first birthday!

To ensure that generally accepted standards are applied to the content of television and radio services so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.

See for more detail go read it Bob!

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/ifi/codes/bcode/harmoffence/

I do see what Rui & Balazs is saying after watching the video better call him a c u next Tuesday but give your name & be done with than get trapped into litigation! After all you still had the video as a fallback to claim unfair arrest but without the bit that just may incriminate you for obstructing the law!

Good luck!

With this case of Bob, i realise a small study of UK law about "stop and search" defined in "Terrorism Act 2000" and found some intersting considerations :

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000 gives police the power to search vehicles and people for items that could be used to commit a terrorist act. Police can search anybody anywhere under this law, and they do not need reasonable suspicion to do so.

A police officer, or a police community support officer can "stop and search every citizen, but the police community support officer must be in uniform. A police officer does not have to be in uniform but if they are not wearing uniform they must show you their warrant card.

If a specific area have an Autorizhation from a senior police under the nº44 of Terrorist Act, a person commits an offence under section 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if they:

obstruct a constable in the exercise of a power under section 44(1) or 44(2). Refusing to give identification, name, adress, caming from, go for, etc is "obstructing justice" crime.

Now i found a very intersting article about PHOTOGRAPHY :

"The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.
If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the TerrorismAct 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cardsmay be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged. "

So, Bob, in face of law, i think you are confronted with a "stop and search" action from police.

But ever police don´t have an Autorizhation from a senior police under the nº44 of Terrorist Act for "stop and search", they can do it under Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

So everybody, when go to UK and police stop you, cooperate and have no trouble at all. Never repeat what Bob have done :)

Shure you can continue taking pictures after a "search and stop" and police see you are a non-terrorist photographer :)

Is exactly that, that video is a prof against Bob !

I read this post only now. Seems that we have nothing further to discuss then (you can go on bashing the system and concocting conspiracy theories and so on, as far as I'm concerned I go and get my baby out of the washing machine).

At least you didn't get beat up and peppersprayed during a non-violent demonstration: http://www.alexandrebuisse.org/galleries/reclaim-power/

Alexandre, the police just did their job as they were being asked for by the danish politicians.
It's easy to get sympathy for critizising the police. But its egoistic and unsympathetic in my eyes.That goes for Bob too.

Lars

According to the danish law you have to give your name and date of birth to the police if they ask you, and that is a very intelligent law - as they also have in UK.

They only ask you if they have a reason - of course you can argue A LOT for hours if that reason is good enough, and sometimes you could say it is not, but police officers are only humans and can do faults also, and therefore they ask sometimes without a reasonable reason - in our eyes.

But if they ask and you will not give it to them, what should the police then do ?

Say "sorry we interrupted you" ?

Of course they have to think - that is what they are PAYED for by us - ; "He will not, then maybe there is something bad here - maybe he is wanted"

Of course it is wrong not to take care of your camera, but that is another story.

I have a few questions related to what I read in this thread and I would love to receive some explanation (if you have any):

1. how killing a human being can be either a crime or a way to apply the law?
2. who is going to be harmed by a photograph other than governments, individuals or organizations who have something to hide?
3. Why is it that I cannot take photos in shopping malls without an official authorization while they can take a video of me going around?
4. Do you believe that criminals need to take photographs of security cameras in order to commit their crimes?
5. Do you think that stopping random photographers who "look" suspicious is a good way to prevent crime and terrorist attacks?

Searching without suspicion? Without a warrant?
Search for "items" that "could" be used for terrorist acts? Define the word "items".
Arrest under "suspicion" of photographs being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance???
(Have you ever heard of friendly terrorism?)

Gee, how could such a stupidly dangerous law be approved? The beginning of Fascism, if you ask me.

You must ask British politicians, not me, Marcello :-)

These things i write in that post is not my personal opinion, but British law, and i haven´t the right to discuss British law, i´m not British :-)


Marcello, Fascism is a word i not like at all, and i think never can be compared to a some rights restrictive law created for protect citizens from massive death.

By the way, this is a photography forum and website, is good discuss here International Politics ?

Thinking maybe the 1st half of this question may be a typo. killing a human being is a crime in almost every country in the world, isn't it???
Is killing a human being a "way to apply the law"? Well, only if the law allows for the death penalty. I was not making any statement about the efficacy of the death penalty in Texas. I was only pointing out to Richard that there was more to Texas's low crime rate that the "individualistic" mindset of many of it's citizens as he had stated.


One example, children in a playground, seen in online photograph by a pedophile and then abducted.

Well, except if you are in the army. Then you get decorated when you kill people.

My friends, there are something i think about all this and i have doubts if it´s good for 1X.

As you know, there are people from many countrys in this website, diferent cultures, diferent laws, diferent laws about free opinion, diferent laws about site restritions when sites have "political", human rights, etc etc discussions contents inside.

If we enter in this kind of discussions, a photography site like 1X can be blocked in some countrys and the 1X members of that country can´t came here anymore. There are a lot of foruns in all internet to discuss this mathers, i like very much 1X be a website about photography and not one about human rights, politics, law, etc. We must remember 1X is a worlwide photography website.

Do you agree ? Please don´t acuse me of "Fascism" or to be against free speech :-)

I am asking myself how the citizens of such a great democratic country like Great Britain could accept a law that so massively restrict human freedom and empowers police.

You may not like the word fascism, but this is what any fascist or totalitarian (if you prefer the word) country is dreaming of doing: restricting people freedom and giving limitless powers to the police in the name of a supposed better protection of their citizens.

To me searching randomly people who look suspicious and arresting those who seem to act inappropriately is a terrible waste of the limited resources that governments have and definitely an ineffective way to fight terrorism. It is a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack.

I think that a better way to fight terrorism is through intelligence and through prevention.


We are discussing how a law in one of the states of the EU can affect photographers who are going about their business. I am a EU citizen and incidentally go very often to that country and so it may affect me, too. So I do care also at personal level. These international political issues are not just theories, they affect our owns lives and what disturbs me is that this law sets a dangerous precedent. Put this law in the hand of the wrong government and then you are f****d!


This is a very long shot, Clyde! ;)

(Regarding death penalty, etc because it is off topic I would stop it here. We can discuss it elsewhere if you wish.)

Could it be that we take ourselves just a little bit too seriously?

Marcello, all of this actions cames exactly from intelligence and prevention. The world in this moment deals with very very complex situations and there are no exact formula to deal with it. We all must cooperate, is hour duty as citizens, and we helps if we don´t make more troubles to authorities with minor questions like give or don´t give name and adress when tey ask for it.

I think we are see this problem in a selfist way as photographers, we must think in all non-photographers citizens, that ones who can walk around in all European citys with no cameras and don´t have this kind of troubles, and that ones agrees if police just ask names and adress to all people carrying cameras in special places that are potentialy targets for terrorist attacks.

The world changes, and maybe in a long time we don´t have same freedoms agains as photographers. I try to answer to one of your questions :

4. Do you believe that criminals need to take photographs of security cameras in order to commit their crimes?

Yes, Marcello. Most of last terrorist attacks are prepared before with videos, photos etc taked by terrorists. That have happened in NY, Madrid, London and many places. Terrorist organizations have a "modus operandis" based in most modern military tactics. A terrorist group can´t stop in a landmark in any city to study an attack without be noted, so, a special "comando" goes there first to study the ground, with photos, maps, etc. in a dissimulated whay, undecover as normal tourists, photographers, journalists, studants, etc. This in not a "movie", is the reality. This lack of understending this actions is because most of us don´t know at all what happens and the reality of couter-terrorism (inteligence) activity daily, because that can´t be of public domain, so, most of us live losing time with conspiracy theorys. In this terror warfare, the bad guys are normal "citizens", they hide inside the inocent citizens, so there is very hard to catch them without give some troubles to other inocent citizens.

And all this season security measures, this threats most of the time is not true, because also terrorist are specialists in counter-information, and giving false clues to police, in order to cause the terror and fear in people. But who knows when we have a real threat ?

So, you think is bether have no surveilance at all, and give free way to bad guys to take photos of his targets, and take inocent lives from European citizens ?

I think poeple losing too much time after a massive terrorist attack saying government do nothing, and after that government aprove laws to protect citizens and same people say government are building a fascist regime.

And some times governments aborts a attack and nobody knows that, because gov don´t want to cause fear and panic.

Marcello, we are talking about a very very complex situation and there are no definitive answers to all this.

Absolutely. Maybe we should also delete all photos which might not be in line with such governments, and everything which is not in line with all cultures, religions, or political opinions.
Who needs freedom of expression anyway?
And why would anyone want to take photos in the street? Photos of flowers (or goats ;) are so much nicer.

NO F' ING WAY!!!@ How could you say such and insensitive thing like that. That's so not true. You should really be ashamed of yourself!!!!!! I just don't know how to respond to such a ridiculous statement!!! I'm embarrassed to be a part of such a forum that would allow comments like THIS!! You owe every single one of the 1x members an apology, each one separately by oemail, PLEASE!! You even owe that to those that will join over the next few months and have the unfortunate experience of being insulted by your shameful comment when they read trough this thread!!

SHAME ON YOU BALAZS......

I'm amazed the big camera companies have not jumped in to defend photographers. I know their main concern is sales but still, they should offer some support against this harassment.

On a personal note, I'm glad I no longer live in the UK. It seems like a complete nightmare for photographers nowadays.

Sean, not all photographers, but just street photographers. So, i think street photographers need to learn to deal with this situation. Me, as a goat photographer have no problem at all and i´m not in UK, and i think is a lack of time i write in this topic and try to teach everybody the "man legis" of all this legal actions (is not me who create it and i don´t sayd i agree with it) and try explain people, so i return to my goats now and you and everybody can continue the discussion in order to change this world :) .

I already bought my ticket to Uppsala, where I will spend four weeks on my knees flagellating myself in front of Jacob's apartment begging for 1X's forgiveness of my sins.

:))) a good oportunity for street photographers, Balazs ;-)

is it really true that people here think that policemen can be rude and rassist just because they have a hard work, a bad day or whatever? i have hard work too somethimes, it can happen that people tell me they want to kill me because i build a new house next to their, people send me dirt from their flat because they have to pay more... i always have to smile and be nice and i do not get 50% of a policeman's pay. come on, police get paid, they have a hard work and sometimes its dangerous, but they get money for it, also nobody tells them to be a policeman.

balazs, thats a typical black/white thinking. if i refuse to give dna, fingerprints and so on something's gotta be wrong with me- thats an accuse to modern society and law. if your not with the good you have to be with the bad, thats bull...

if i do nothing wrong i dont cooperate, if i know i did something wrong i do cooperate.

Hi Rui.

Our views on this are at opposite ends of the spectrum. (And I still love you ;^)

I believe that's exactly what governments want to cause as it creates a scared and complaint population who give up their rights and liberties based on a media created illusion. Terrible terrorist events have indeed happened, but the question is 'Who are the real terrorists?'
Should we believe what we are spoon fed through the 'tell-a-lie-vision'?

This documentary sums things up for me...... (which was also on the tell-a-lie-vision so must be watched with caution)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HOfsS3Dlvc

Regards
Bob

Yes, probably because I prefer black and white photography too... I think we shouldn't confuse civil courage with paranoia. Because "civil" means to know what we can do and what not. (This is the big problem with human rights - any system of law is built on rights and obligations, and a legal system consisting entirely of rights but no obligations is no law but chaos.) And paranoia begins when you feel your right to something, that you can't even properly describe, is being threatened by someone you can't even properly describe.

Everybody can have things to hide. Every citizen have the right to be free to do what he wants with his own image.
And I always take images of people...That is my paradox. I just hope to have enough chance not to harm anybody.
This chance is my main good reason to go on doing that without asking myself too many questions.

So you going to this meet up Bob? http://photographernotaterrorist.org/2009/12/mass-photo-gathering/ and anyone else who lives close to London?

Hi Rui, hi @ all

you wrote


and with all respect - simply no. They do not, it is a boom-time for security consultants and security advisers who have as a majority been in the military and are in search of a more lucrative job. You do not need photos other than what you can get anyhow. Most of the maps are available due to city and traffic maps etc. There is no need to take pictures and especially not as obvious as they are claimed here see - www.spyshop.com if you want to see something less obstrusive.

In addition to this, google is a very helpful tool used very often to design security but can be misused as well. Non of this actions come from Intelligence and Prevention. They come at its best from intelligence agencies and vague ideas.

The world has already changed very much due to the media which the idea of photography is affiliated to. Terror has been dealt with all the time. From my point of view never as unprofessional as it happened now a days.

When Erich Mielke - Chief of the Statssicherheit had his last talk in front of the parliament, he was crying, telling that all he did was for the good of the countries people. Well guess what, we think quite different on this today.

UK is very special about surveillance. It is actually two groups, the one who think survillance is critical for success (Counter Terrorist Institutions) and the other side Scottland Yard. One of Scotland Yards Studies proved that survillance (CCTV) is more or less useless. That is why they use it to identify wrong parking today. It did not prevent the death of an innocent caused by the police last year.

All of this does not give security - security awareness of the people does. An establishment of a trustworthy security force does it as well. This is where I see Bob's Problem. Police has got a bad reputation and has not been trustworthy due to wrong behavior. I would guess, without all these incidents in the past, the unlawful collection of DNA Samples which is a trend currently in UK, has brought us to where we currently are and to a discussion we currently have.
Some time ago, without all this bad reputation by the police, Bob would probably have given them his ID cheerfully and would have asked them for a nice shot. I encountered the Bobbys as very friendly. Their argue indeed is horrible, anti social behaviour sounds to me very much like ... being different. That has a very bad taste in Germany.

For sure there are a few issues from a security side which one can take as given:

- Criminals do not need to hang out as street photographers to get pictures
- Police should not separate itself from the people they should protect, that would increase security significantly
- Panic and Fear are very bad counselors
- Stupid and useless anti-terrorism laws damage the legal system, the reputation of the police

I think the important issue is how to behave on these issues. I would have been more cooperative in the first step, other than Bob did. On the second step I would have checked if this was unlawful and would have acted accordingly.

Anyhow - each culture would behave different in such a situation and of course we have to play by the rules of the government of the country where we are currently in. Isn't the difference it what makes us so rich?

Hopefully everything sorts out well and all of us can enjoy a nice christmas time.

Cheers

Oliver

First point: you are absolutely right. Second point: this is exactly what Bob had run into, a kind of local community police. It made things even worse in this case. Third point: you're again right, and many people having visions of government-promoted terrorism in order to cut down our precious civil rights should take your advice seriously :) And to point four, it goes in my opinion just the other way - it's the legal system itself that produces stupid and useless anti-terrorism laws. Why? Because the legal system doesn't allow to focus on the ethnic and religious community where terrorists come from, therefore everyone is put under general suspicion. Controversial as it sounds, we all suffer because the law wants to be tolerant and non-discriminative at any cost in civil rights. That's why everything is screwed up.

Balazs you are right, everybody is suspicious. lets have a look at the "ethnic" and religious terrorism we know: christian terrorists, muslim terrorists, jewish terrorists hindu terrorists, buddhist terrorists. we know left wing terrorists, nationalist terrorists, green terrorists... so i wonder where to focus on?

i am very proud to live in one of the most free society i think. well, we ban minarets by law, woman in switzerland earn 30% less than males. but still... if you are a male christian in switzerland you can be very very free... ^^

Pls. Stop discussing... It's very interesting hear all of your points... but it is Christmas time, so be happy and tolerant.

Being tolerant is the best way to have a more civilized citizens and politics. I hope so for the next year.

Happy Holidays and do not stop shooting!!!

a discussion has nothing to do with intolerance or hate...

i dont have holidays and i dont have christmas by the way.... :)

Miguel, you're in the wrong thread, mate. The Christmas thread is two levels down.
We're trying to solve here some serious world problems, so why don't you sit down and have some popcorn and wine like everyone else here (or is it just me?)

You are very wrong my friend. All this discussion is about intolerance.

Hehe. World Problems? Where? It's a discussion about being or not being tolerant. Police with photographers and photographers with police.... where is the world problem? The climate, the world governance, hungry, poorness, hope...

Happy holidays... anycase. :)

discussions are the key to tolerance my friend ^^

Sure, very right. But also the seed of the fight.

To be frank, in most situations it's the photographers who have to be tolerated by others. Everybody must understand how important it is for us to put our camera into their face and upload their photos to websites like this for whatever artistic reasons, in 99% of the cases without even asking the model. Everybody must get out of our field of view when we photograph landscape, everyone is kicked aside when we take a zoo shot of our child caressing the monkey. And if we"re not tolerated, we feel hurt and misunderstood and see our fundamental human rights torn to pieces. Maybe once in a while we should make an exemption and tolerate the others, be it eager-beaver police?

Tolerance have to be always in two ways.... as in critique section ;-) Give and take!!!

If there's one thing I can't stand, it's intolerance! ;-)) I can't remember who coined that one.

Balazs, I think you would enjoy this article by the late Bill Jay.

http://www.billjayonphotography.com/PhotographerAsAggressor.pdf

about the fear and loathing stirred up by the first hand held cameras and their intrusive operators in the late 1800s. It's nothing new, that's for sure. Some great essays on the site too.

Happy Christmas to all who celebrate it, and good wishes to all who don't. Sometimes I'm not sure if 'celebrate' is the right word, Christmas is just something we 'do' it seems ;-)
Jon

Thanks for this. There is something to it, yes - it will give me more than enough to think about on my long drive tomorrow to Hungary. Blessed holidays for you all.

I couldn't agree more with you Bob. And I understand the point made by others about cooperating and end up hassle free, but what can I say? I sympathize with the way you acted. Having been complacent with the police would've been another way to surrender ourselves to their excessive use of power.

happy holidays!

Where is the video? I am really curious to see it.

Sorry, but it has had to be removed for the time being. It will appear again at some point.

Many thanks once again for the support via OEmail and in the thread.

Regards to all.

B

Well, that was a read and a half. Apart from and because of the obvious naivety of many posters I would like to make a few points.

Christmas, like all such 'holidays' is an invention to divert the divertable from the obvious futility of living a life as a cog in the machinery of consumerism! When you're not engaged in some activity you can feel it calling from the depths, a ragged emptiness that demands action.

Kokoda is just one of the many battles where the Aussies fought above their weight - to face such fear, and though I am an honorary citizen I am of the traditional stock, can't stand the sheep like conformity of the 'cultured' societies, though sometimes miss the organised resistance that comes from experience - which Aus doesn't have. The Diggers have a saying that applies no matter the cause, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".

I say let those that live with the reality of enemies kill each other and I'll always fight for the 'good' guy, should it come to me, or not all. I am not aloof from the fray but I don't define myself that (or any) way, But I am discriminating, no matter the commonly held politele -wisdom.

Bob Patefield has taken on a course of action which if he follows through will cause him no end of difficulty. Whether he connects the dots or not they don't forget. That's what the status quo demands of its servants, that they continually remind anyone that questions it there are consequences.

One of the fundamentals of human nature is to rise to the top and stay there, whatever the cost. Self preservation, the motivation of all living things, knows no bounds in the human sphere.

I don't say there is anything wrong with this, how can you deny human nature - beyond individual transformation, but its naive to think otherwise and good will prevail - childish wishful thinking.

When the circumstances are right, like now, and photographers are deemed to be an unnecessary distraction to the security forces - as they presently are, they will come for you if you persist. :) :) To send the message, and it seems to be working.

It's happening and still people argue it may not be so, typical of all times when people hope against the obvious. The more who resist the less they will deploy, it is still a relatively free press and a law ruled justice system. But fear is the basis for all sorts of argument to inaction.

And of course it may all come to nothing, when the endless war on terror ends. But who believes that?

Just my 2c worth.

Spoken with a mature and arrogant naivety typical of those who have no faith...and btw, Merry Christmas!!

Cleverness doesn't change the fact, only amuses your immature audience and helps perpetuate the condition with your response to your perceived offence - all in the mind.

Faith in what? Certainly not a particular almighty? Give us a break from the absurdities please ... If you can't see it you're obviously too involved, that' s called naivety, the lack of enough separation required to see the true nature of a process dooms you to repeat it until you do see it. So Merry Christmas and I'm sure if you don't insist on fooling yourself you will see the not so merry that goes hand in hand with it. It never ceases to amaze me the trivia people will go to war for until I realise the limited understanding behind it.

Still suffering that hangover? :)

What "facts" have you cited??? Absolutely none, only opinions. The FACT is that Christmas WAS founded by people of faith, faith in Christ. And people of faith did found many of the other "such holidays" that you say are "all" invented to "divert the divertable". (btw, correct spelling is " divertible") Have many of these holidays been corrupted and exploited over time, sure. But to people of faith, they are important and very valid expressions of that faith. Your opinions, although perfectly appropriate in your mind, are just that, your opinions. There was nothing in my first comment that was particularly clever and certainly nothing that was absurd!

Still obfuscating because you know there is no defence for religion except by the ignorant. And not clever? You deceive yourself. BTW Christmas wasn't founded by people of faith, it was hijacked by people adept at exploitation. Look mate if you can't see it just say so . Faith in Christ? That icon of suffering used to corrupt and bind the innocence to the stagnance of belief they then can only expiate through an exploitative pseudo authority, and then they must come back for more - sounds like a form of addiction to me = money or forced service. It's the same logic that put the Gnostics to the sword or worse, gave us the inquisition and any other number of atrocities, in whose name? Christ! Because they wouldn't bow to a false man made god that demands subservience and disallows self realisation outside a narrow definition. It's called exploitation, plain and simple.

Really, who cares what the 'correct' spelling is if the meaning is known, just to make a point? Point scoring? Small minded indeed.

It's not a case of which religion is right it's a case of how to get rid of them all, for the sake of an inner freedom that might allow the realisation of Gnosis. Direct knowledge of god - no priest or ritual/holidays necessary. You heard of the Gnostics no doubt, they are alive and well despite your Christianity. How can people be intelligent unto themselves?

Can you not see a possibility?

Please state a "fact" and document the source. If you know any facts. So far all you have said are your opinions. You sound very angry and arrogant.

Obviously not. Still obfuscating. If you don't like the message attack the messenger. An inept response. Don't you know your own Christian history? Do you have no understanding of the psychology of belief? Or the reality of exploitation. Oh well! I had been led to believe you had better argument in you.

Angry? No, forceful enquiry and you can't stand it. Arrogant? That's the preserve of believers, pretending to be humble and set upon. You simply can't argue against my logic and you seek a way to save face.

And, after insulting me were you expecting to get away with it and have a a nice polite tête-à-tête where we end up agreeing with each other to be different and go our seperate ways. The PC way? Your way? That's your prison and such a crowded one it is.

You lost your way mate. Sticks and stones!

No, actually I knew right off you were an arrogant jackass that I would never agree with! And, btw, I never said anything about what I believed. Where did I state that I I just get fascinated by those who think they can use big words in big sentences and expect folks to accept their opinions as "facts".

would love to read a forum moderator right now just suggesting you guys to maybe continue this bilateral dispute on a private email basis... this's still a forum about photography, isn't it?

Yeah, after a user complaint, forum moderator think "jackass", "ignorant", and religion ofending are unpolite in this foruns, so, please continue this bilateral dispute in private, as sugested by drinking_eye ! :-|

Just a little update for anyone interested.

I had a 'special visit' to the police station today as I have been on bail for 2 months now.

I was told that there was 'NFA' (No Further Action) being taken and therefore I am no longer on bail.

Last week a reporter and camera man made a 400 mile round trip to interview me and the story should run sometime in the next few days (probably Saturday).

Keep an eye out here.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/

Next week I'm zipping down to London to set the ball rolling with my legal case against them.

Hopefully in future, the police will have a better understanding of our rights as photographers and how to use the laws created for extreme situations correctly.

Regards
Bob

PS. If they show the pics I took in the video, don't laugh. It was the first time I used the M9 ;^)

I can't believe they actually let you out on bail - what sort of inane legal system do you live in - hmphhhhhh!!! :))))