Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
or because the cop's a wanker.
always worth suing if you're nicked and not charged - could be a couple of grand in it a year or so down the line.
Police harass bloke filming a station/"planning an al Qaeda attack"
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
always worth suing if you're nicked and not charged - could be a couple of grand in it a year or so down the line.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i'm told that was the old stasi slogan.
There are certainly some instances of that ... but by no means the majority of the situations we are talking about. If the person is not cooperative in answering initial questions and allaying suspicions within a few seconds then other, more time consuming checks will need to be made before taking the risk (and it is a risk - what if (against all the odds) the place goes bang tomorrow and it turns out to be the guy you were talking to and who you let go ...) of letting them go - things like checking with SB if there is any intelligence which fits description, if there have ben any other similar incidents nearby or at similar locations or whatever. A couple of minutes chatting to someone almost always allays suspicions and renders anything else unnecessary.
Sorry, I must have missed the agreement which had outlawed all other types of terrorist attack apart from the suicide bombing ... and I must have imagined that Haymarket / Tiger Tiger car bomb ...
Oh, I agree! But they're out there this week ... next week they'll have forgotten all about it ...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
you've certainly missed something. i never said that terrorist activity meant suicide bombs. but as it has been the most common mo of prominent recent terrorist attacks and attempted attacks, it is likely that future attacks will be carried out by suicide bombers. the days of people leaving bombs in the left luggage offices of tube stations are long gone.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
The general climate doesn't help, of course. It's a climate that leads to the things Roadkill describes. But if the sweeping terrorism powers (especially Section 44 of the TA 2000) were repealed, it could only help to calm things down. Their combined effect is probably as responsible as any individual section.
There is certainly an argument to be made that it is irrational, that it is an interference in daily life and our rights (societies, not coppers, in case PM is watching ...) which is not justified by it's usefulness ... but, by focusing on the symptom of the issue (police confrontations) the opportunity to discuss the cause is missed.
At present there is no doubt that the government want the police to be alert to people tking photos of potential targets and to question them if necessary. Police officers (by and large) agree that that is a reasonable thing to do and the pluses outweigh the negatives.
Do you really think that the media would support a decision by the police or Home Office to go "OK then, you've convinced us, we won't bother any more" and then not go off in a foaming rage when the next set of attackers were subsequently found to have been taking a few snaps a few days before their murderous attack!
Oh, I agree! But they're out there this week ... next week they'll have forgotten all about it ...
Oh yes, I'm sure that now the bandwagon is rolling people will try and jump on it. However, if it opens up part of the debate about security and civil liberties, and better still if that results in frontline police, security staff etc being told to back off a bit and stop being quite so suspicious of photographers, then IMO it's a good thing.
you said, implying that there would be no reason for anyone to go round taking pics of anything like CCTV cameras not clear on Google Earth ...
Without doubt ... but it is a bit worrying that this seems to be the only way the police can get accurate law / policy out to the cops on the street ...
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
no, implying that people who want to top themselves in a bomb explosion are less likely to be interested in the location of cctv cameras than others with nefarious objectives. not that there is no reason for people to take pictures of cctv cameras - if people running cctv schemes have nothing to hide then they've nothing to fear from people like me taking pictures of their cameras.
Oh I completely agree that it's a facet of a wider question over privacy, civil liberties etc. Hopefully the controversy over it will help to open up that wider debate again - sorry, slightly repeating previous post here.
I'm sure that if any of the papers was induced to call for photographers to be left alone, and that if one of said photographers subsequently made something go bang in a public place, the paper would go rather quiet on the issue for a while before performing a neat volte face and joining the others in baying for tougher 'anti-terror' laws.
There's no getting away from the fact that people are increasingly concerned about privacy, and perhaps less concerned about security than they were a few years ago. That's why the incidents with photographers have become controversial. There's also a lot of cynicism over whether stopping a tiny proportion of photographers is likely to deter any serious terrorist, especially given how much is readily availabvle on the internet that he might find useful.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Yes but, it's quite clear from the footage above that the stoned-sounding italian student had begun cooperating after the initial backchat about her rights, but by then the PCSO had evidently decided to teach her a lesson for 'being cocky'.
One look at the G20 footage should be enough to tell anyone that a citizen cannot count on police officers to behave reasonably if they think someone is 'giving cheek' or is otherwise fair game for being 'taught a lesson'.
Some might, perhaps even a majority, but as a citizen you have to assume a significant risk exists that the officers will take offence at anyone querying the legality of their actions or simply 'giving cheek' and will get nasty to whatever degree they feel they can get away with.
Add to this the all too frequent 'fuckwit factor' that you yourself mentioned above, where PCSOs and police officers are ignorant of the law and hassle photographers even where no reasonable grounds for suspicion exist and you have a recipe for a situation in which a great deal of hostility is generated.
newbie
undisambiguated
cue interview with pcso at the door to the archives.
And if you have the right to ask what they are doing (which you have through the DPA and FoI) then it is reasonable to ask you what you are doing if it appears suspicious / unusual ...
I understand the official term for the manaoeuvre is a "reverse ferret" ...
You seem to think that the normal rules of human interaction don't apply to interactions with police officers ... they do. Anyone challenging any professional's actions, judgements or statements without thinking about how best to do that is likely to get a bad response. Think of your last encounter involving a challenge to a call centre operator ("If you raise your voice [in frustration] I'll terminate the call"), bus driver ("Get off the bus then"), restaurant chef ("F*** off and f***ing die you c***" (it was a special treat, we'd gone to Foxtrot Oscar ...
)), etc. etc.It would be nice if police officers and PCSOs were different ... but they're not and so any "in your face" challenge, especially is accompanied by an inaccurate or (more usually) incomplete "I know my rights" type diatribe is likely to lead to another turning of the attitude - behaviour cycle. (Something I would like to see more training in given to police officers - their conflict management training is absolutely minimal ...)
I'm not sure it was quite so clear cut ... but I think the hours of (otherwise boring and crap) footage of tube stations, etc. does rather suggest some nefarious purpose and there does appear to be a link between them, their fraud and the purposes for which the fraudulently obtained money appears to be have been directed ...
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's enough to have you brought up on a charge of "acting without due reverence to an officer of Her Majesty's Constabularies", so I hear.
Doesn't carry as long a potential sentence as "taking photographs in a manner likely to enable an officer to add an extra nick to his tally sheet", though.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm seriously thinking of having some business cards printed, so that when I get hassled by old bill I can just hand them a nice piece of embossed pasteboard that reads:
DANIEL V. APTON.
Professional Cunt-at-Large.
Fuck with me, and I'll fuck with you.
Leave me alone and I'll return the favour.
Professional Cunt-at-Large.
Fuck with me, and I'll fuck with you.
Leave me alone and I'll return the favour.
Should be good for at least an arrest.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
You seem to think that the normal rules of human interaction don't apply to interactions with police officers ... they do. Anyone challenging any professional's actions, judgements or statements without thinking about how best to do that is likely to get a bad response. Think of your last encounter involving a challenge to a call centre operator ("If you raise your voice [in frustration] I'll terminate the call"), bus driver ("Get off the bus then"), restaurant chef ("F*** off and f***ing die you c***" (it was a special treat, we'd gone to Foxtrot Oscar ...
It would be nice if police officers and PCSOs were different ... but they're not and so any "in your face" challenge, especially is accompanied by an inaccurate or (more usually) incomplete "I know my rights" type diatribe is likely to lead to another turning of the attitude - behaviour cycle. (Something I would like to see more training in given to police officers - their conflict management training is absolutely minimal ...)
This is bullshit though because the cops know. They know that when I am going about my lawful business and they get in my face I will be pissed off. If a random cop asks me for ID I am going to refuse.
They can fuck off and catch criminals. Leave me alone. There is absolutely no possible security risks of anyone randomly snapping photographs in public..
It actually happened to me. There I was, admiring the architecture and snapping away with my new olympus, and a couple of cops came up to me and asked me what I was doing. Not satisfied with my answer, they took me into a room and spent 40 minutes going through my stuff with a fine tooth comb. Before shaking my hand and letting me go.
I was in Iran.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
You seem to think that the normal rules of human interaction don't apply to interactions with police officers ... they do. Anyone challenging any professional's actions, judgements or statements without thinking about how best to do that is likely to get a bad response. Think of your last encounter involving a challenge to a call centre operator ("If you raise your voice [in frustration] I'll terminate the call"), bus driver ("Get off the bus then"), restaurant chef ("F*** off and f***ing die you c***" (it was a special treat, we'd gone to Foxtrot Oscar ...
It would be nice if police officers and PCSOs were different ... but they're not and so any "in your face" challenge, especially is accompanied by an inaccurate or (more usually) incomplete "I know my rights" type diatribe is likely to lead to another turning of the attitude - behaviour cycle. (Something I would like to see more training in given to police officers - their conflict management training is absolutely minimal ...)
I agree with most of this in principle.
However, the problem is that if someone queries me for taking photos in a public place, it does rile me, and I'm a pretty even-tempered person. On the occasions where I have been challenged, I've just been a bit grumpy, not aggressive or anything, but nevertheless quite angry underneath. The reason being that the whole premise of their "suspicion" seems to be so fundamentally stupid-headed.
If I really wanted to blow up a train station - would being challenged about taking photos stop me? No. All it would change would be to make the reconnaissance slightly more difficult. Either I would use some kind of concealed camera, or make several visits and take notes, or take pictures openly put a little bit of effort into a convincing story and props to explain why I was there.
I think the police really need to rethink their policy on this - I just don't believe that stopping people taking photos in public places can have any meaningful effect on any terrorism risk. It's just paranoia - or something to appease the paranoid portion of the public.
(By the way - I read in the paper that the Algerian guy was supposedly filming with an N95 cameraphone and was using one hand to cover the red "recording" light. Well, I used to have one of those and I know that there is a way to disable the red light by cutting some connections, because that's what I did to mine. So if he was a terrorist, he wasn't a very good one.)
That is a valid point and it is why I say police officers and PCSOs should have more and better conflict management training, so they (a) recognise they are likely to cause conflict going about their duties and (b) so that they are better equipped to deal with that conflict and reduce it instead of ratcheting the situation up by poor reactions.
There is a low security risk, not absolutely none (as last nights case confirms). They are trying to catch criminals ... and you make the standard mistake of assuming that they know what you know about you. They don't until they talk to you and ask some questions. If you do not cooperate then any suspicions they have remain unallayed and, possibly, increased.
I agree that the policy needs to be re-thought (and comments by Andy Trotter and Joh Yates over the last couple of weeks suggest it is being) ... but whilst it remains the case that officers (and the public) have been asked to look out for and challenge suspicious (which will inevitably be subjective) photography or other behaviour you are not going to get anywhere by causing a scene with an individual PC, let alone an individual PCSO - they do not make the policy (though you may make them think about how they implement it individually).
Fortunately lots of terrorists are not very good ones ... but, if not stopped, even they can kill lots of people ... and you're just as dead whether a good or pisspoor terrorist kills you ...
^ well said
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
The whole concept of "terrorism" needs to be removed from our law. It's a nebulous bogeyman that can be endlessly redefined to bracket people who write nasty poems in with people who commit mass murder.
If they're planning murder, prosecute them for murder; if they're playing with bombs, prosecute them under explosives laws, and so on.
Similar threads
