Police harass bloke filming a station/"planning an al Qaeda attack"

[Roadkill]

Meanwhile - a photograph I took last weekend whilst scoping out terrorism opportunities at Kings Cross:

Oh, you were there too, were you?

^ One of my efforts...

 

[TheDave]

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.

This. And while we're at it we could do with getting rid of hate speech laws too. You can prosecute people stirring up violence against others in more appropriate ways that doesn't make people cry foul every time somebody says something they feel offended by.

 

[rikwakefield]

It's like when that fuckwit "investigative reporter" wandered round Brixton with a flash mobile and a sign round his neck saying "Rob me, rob me" to attract the attention of the local bad boyz ...

You're comparing the police to Brixton bad boyz? Interesting. I personally would have expected those two demographics to behave in completely different ways.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

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 ...)

As dylans points out below, there are two sides to this. Being approached by cops, especially if they have an attitude themselves and/or are hassling you about something only someone with very little sense of proportion would think was worth bothering you for photographing (as in so many cases) is very likely to put people's backs up. Almost anyone is going to think they are behaving unreasonably in vast majority of these cases and it would be nice if they kept this firmly in mind if they really felt they had justification and behaved accordingly.

Many professionals just have to deal with people who don't immediately accept their authority on whatever. I get it fairly frequently from customers when my profession requires me to be the bearer of bad news and I simply have to deal with it because getting arsey simply isn't an option for me.

Cops are different though, they have, in practice, a wide variety of arbitary powers over citizens. As we saw at the G20, at the extreme they can beat up and even kill citizens whose attitudes displease them without, again in practice, being subject to quite the same constraints as normal people are if they attack their fellow citizens. Without resorting to such extremes they can certainly make someone who 'gives cheek' have a seriously horrible time as we saw in the video.

The rest of us don't enjoy such privileges, we just have to deal with it if people don't respect our authoritay or get the hump when they don't like what we have to say.

 

[detective-boy]

If they're planning murder, prosecute them for murder; if they're playing with bombs, prosecute them under explosives laws, and so on.

I have never quite understood the need to have a whole raft of different legislation. By all means there are some additional offences (such as proscribed organisations and support for them) which may be necessary ... and there may be some argument for slightly extended investigative powers ... but nothing too major.

(Every time the debate about detention periods comes up I point out that serial killers and rapists have to be dealt with in 4 days ... and many such investigations are just as complex and involve people who are just as dangerous ... and which are done by far smaller investigation teams with far more budgetary and resourcing restrictions ...)

 

[detective-boy]

As we saw at the G20, at the extreme they can beat up and even kill citizens whose attitudes displease them ....

You just can't help the inaccurate hyperbole can you?

I agree that the situation they are in has a very different power differential to most others and that is why I totally agree they should moderate their approach to this sort of situation. They need to understand the perception of citizens and be ready to deal with, to have thought through their approach to the responses they are likely to get, to be ready to be patient and to thoroughly understand the actual law and be capable of clearly explaining it.

 

[dylans]

As dylans points out below, there are two sides to this. Being approached by cops, especially if they have an attitude themselves and/or are hassling you about something only someone with very little sense of proportion would think was worth bothering you for photographing (as in so many cases) is very likely to put people's backs up. Almost anyone is going to think they are behaving unreasonably in vast majority of these cases and it would be nice if they kept this firmly in mind if they really felt they had justification and behaved accordingly.

Many professionals just have to deal with people who don't immediately accept their authority on whatever. I get it fairly frequently from customers when my profession requires me to be the bearer of bad news and I simply have to deal with it because getting arsey simply isn't an option for me.

Cops are different though, they have, in practice, a wide variety of arbitary powers over citizens. As we saw at the G20, at the extreme they can beat up and even kill citizens whose attitudes displease them without, again in practice, being subject to quite the same constraints as normal people are if they attack their fellow citizens. Without resorting to such extremes they can certainly make someone who 'gives cheek' have a seriously horrible time as we saw in the video.

The rest of us don't enjoy such privileges, we just have to deal with it if people don't respect our authoritay or get the hump when they don't like what we have to say.

Yes, and it's precisely this authority, this power, that means when cops do approach someone it is all the more important that don't act like cunts. Yet they usually do. The cops on that video were behaving like dickheads.

I've never been stopped for photography in the UK but I was once stopped while walking up the hill to university. It was like the sweeney. A car swerved onto the pavement right in front of me. Two cops jump out and they just know they have their man. They just fucking know.
"Whats in the bag, sunshine?" I told them it was my Uni books and stuff and, of course, I am commanded to open it. I had a bit of pot in my bag and great I was about to be busted on the way to school.It was drizzling and I told the cop I didn't want to get my books wet (yeah, lame I know) The fucker grabbed my throat and snatched my bag off my shoulder. He opened it and mooched through the bag. He handed it back, satisfied and said "put that in your dissertation." He was a wanker.

On pressing him what it was all about he didn't want to say anything but eventually he mumbled something about a shoplifter that fitted my description. He got into his car and drove away. No apology, nothing.

As he drove off I had the last laugh, he didn't find the pot.

My point is, pot or not, those cops approached me, got in my face, an innocent guy. They left me shaken from beginning to end. Their approach didn't have to be like that. My all and every contact with the police has been negative. Without exception

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think I'm quite accurate in saying that police who beat up and even kill their fellow citizens are not subject to the same constraints as the rest of us would be if they did that. For example, the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson has not yet been charged as far as I'm aware. I strongly supect that few people here would claim to believe that if he ever is, he'd be tried and conviced as the rest of us would be. Sure that's an extreme case, but it's the far limit of a whole spectrum of nastiness that is available to them for 'teaching a lesson' to citizens who have pissed them off. If they just stick to petty nastiness like the PSCO in the video and don't abuse their power too much, there's a very good chance of them being able to exercise their vindictiveness with zero penalty.

As long as the cops are privileged in this way, the 'power differential' which you acknowledge above is an extremely serious problem when coupled with active encouragement from the government to stop and question people for doing things that the vast majority of people are going to see as totally innocuous.

 

[Pickman's model]

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 know what they're doing. the case studies and literature and tv programmes about cctv control rooms describing such are readily available.

 

[dylans]

i know what they're doing. the case studies and literature and tv programmes about cctv control rooms describing such are readily available.

Yes and there is a political argument here. The state is watching us. Who is watching them. The balance of civil liberties has to be that we can watch them too.
When they can watch us but we can't watch them, I start to fear something Orwellian is possible.

Who watches the watchmen?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Yes and there is a political argument here. The state is watching us. Who is watching them. The balance of civil liberties has to be that we can watch them too.
When they can watch us but we can't watch them, I start to fear something Orwellian is possible.

Who watches the watchmen?

Well yes. Here's an interesting statement by one Commander Broadhurst on the distinction between legitimate journalists and people 'out to make mischief'

“Photographers such as yourself had free access and free movement around that. The problem is, so do the protesters’ own photographers, because they bring their own photographers in the same way that they bring their own lawyers. Our guys and girls cannot differentiate between those people who are out to make mischief, and those who are genuinely there to take pictures.”

Asked as to whether this was an issue that the National Press Card was designed to address, he added “The Press card is fine, if you’re in a controlled situation. In a situation like the one I described, in a melée of people we can’t start to differentiate between members of the press, members of the public and anyone else with a camera.”

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Indeed Cdr Broadhurst (who appears to be in charge of public order policing, god help us all) has made some other rather worrying statements, statements which reveal a fairly disturbing attitude.

Commander Broadhurst also told the NUJ conference that he had no faith in the validity of the National Press Card, a UK-wide identification system for journalists.

“I don’t know what vetting system there is … can anybody apply for a card?” he asked during the debate at the NUJ’s Photographers’ Conference. “Who is doing what, either legitimately or otherwise? How do we know what [journalists] motives are? … Can any people have one? Anybody? What’s the vetting?" <snip>

Broadhurst’s statement was angrily received by those photographers at the conference, who were stunned both at his ignorance of the press card system – which was first established 18 years ago at meetings initiated and chaired by police representatives – and outraged at his belief that it was the job of the police to judge the motives of accredited professional journalists.

source

Is it just me or does it sound to anyone else like he thinks that photography by people sympathetic to demonstrators or by accredited journalists with 'motives' that he doesn't approve of is not 'legitimate' ?

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes and there is a political argument here. The state is watching us. Who is watching them. The balance of civil liberties has to be that we can watch them too.
When they can watch us but we can't watch them, I start to fear something Orwellian is possible.

Who watches the watchmen?

me, quite a lot of the time.

 

[dylans]

Indeed Cdr Broadhurst (who appears to be in charge of public order policing, god help us all) has made some other rather worrying statements, statements which reveal a fairly disturbing attitude.
source

Is it just me or does it sound to anyone else like he thinks that photography by people sympathetic to demonstrators or by accredited journalists with 'motives' that he doesn't approve of is not 'legitimate' ?

Chilling stuff.

 

[Pickman's model]

Well yes. Here's an interesting statement by one Commander Broadhurst on the distinction between legitimate journalists and people 'out to make mischief'

source

the quote about 'we can't differentiate' is a load of bollocks: many press photographers keep their cards on display at demonstrations, and the cops seemed to differentiate all right at the g20 when they ordered journos out of the area.

 

[dylans]

me, quite a lot of the time.

That's the point though, isn't it? All attempts to criminalise something that, as Ian Tomlinson's killing showed, can be an essential weapon for civil liberties, should raise the hairs on the arms of people who value their freedoms.

Orwells nightmare is possible.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

the quote about 'we can't differentiate' is a load of bollocks: many press photographers keep their cards on display at demonstrations, and the cops seemed to differentiate all right at the g20 when they ordered journos out of the area.

Perhaps he meant:

'we can't differentiate after the red mist descends, so we're just going to smack the shit out of anyone with a camera in case one of them photographs us smacking the shit out of people'

 

[Pickman's model]

which is why it's a good idea to invest in a camera with a reasonable zoom

 

[Refused as fuck]

I have done. Here's a picture I took of the only "bad cop" in history, who is to blame for all police brutality ever doing what he does best:

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Here's a curious news piece.



But reading on there appears to be no evidence whatsoever that they were linked to any terrorist groups at all.

Could be this be the Met trying to turn pubic opinion after the recent grief it's been getting about cops hassling photographers?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...-police-say-they-foiled-an-al-qaeda-attack.do

I expect so. I was stopped a couple of years ago for filming Greenwich station, despite having asked the council (which I don't need permission for anyway). The cops were not happy about me taking badge numbers (as I recall I think one was even trying to cover his up) and questioning their actions. Eventually there were about five of them there, ready to confiscate my film and arrest me. It was quite a long time ago so I put it down to them not really knowing what they were doing.

 

[Refused as fuck]

Authority fuelled cunts not knowing how to behave shocker.

 

[detective-boy]

Their approach didn't have to be like that. My all and every contact with the police has been negative. Without exception

Indeed it shouldn't.

I assume you formally complained.

 

[detective-boy]

I think I'm quite accurate in saying that police who beat up and even kill their fellow citizens are not subject to the same constraints as the rest of us would be if they did that.

I think you're talking bollocks. YOU are assuming they are guilty of a criminal offence and suggesting that the process of investigation and consideration of prosecution that every suspect for homicide goes through should be abandoned because YOU think they are guilty based on your prejudices.

This attitude does your usually well reasoned and argued position no favours at all. Unless you are privy to some information that is not in the public domain you cannot second guess the decisions made by IPCC / CPS, etc. in a particular case. You can bemoan the processes. You can argue for increased transparency or whatever ... but you cannot second guess the decision they made.

And you must accept that there may not have been a criminal ofence committed, most certainly not a homicide - there are hundreds of similar situations every year in which people die following some form of minor assault or disturbance and in which no homicide (or sometimes any) charges are ever brought.

As long as the cops are privileged in this way, the 'power differential' which you acknowledge above is an extremely serious problem when coupled with active encouragement from the government to stop and question people for doing things that the vast majority of people are going to see as totally innocuous.

So I assume you would agree when I suggest that anyone who is subject to any sort of inappropriate behaviour should complain as loudly as they are able every time ... (against the system / organisation if it is a policy, against the individual officer if it is how they applied it).

 

[detective-boy]

Who watches the watchmen?

The public ... but they usually can't be arsed doing so in any formal way (e.g. complaint) and rather just whinge and froth on bulletin boards ... something which makes absolutely no fucking difference at all.

No senior officer or politician in the world can supervise every fucking police officer all the time. They rely on you complaining about anything you are not happy with. Every complaint is logged. Even if nothing much can be done in an individual case, the stats will eventually force changes to be made.

Complain formally. Every time. If you can't be arsed, don't be surprised when things continue as they are / get worse.

 

[N_igma]

Indeed it shouldn't.

I assume you formally complained.

Complain to who fs? I have met one or two sound cops, rest have been biggoted cunts!

 

[detective-boy]

Indeed Cdr Broadhurst (who appears to be in charge of public order policing, god help us all) has made some other rather worrying statements, statements which reveal a fairly disturbing attitude.

...

Is it just me or does it sound to anyone else like he thinks that photography by people sympathetic to demonstrators or by accredited journalists with 'motives' that he doesn't approve of is not 'legitimate' ?

He's talking about NUJ cards which journalists seem to think allow them all sorts of rights which they do not. There are limited security checks on them and so they are not really worth the plastic they are printed on in terms of proof of identity or whatever.

And there is a very practical problem of differentiating between people during actual disorder - it simply isn't practicable to "check passes" and, even if it were, there will be times and places where no-one is going, journalist or not.

As for Cmdr Broadhurst, he is by far the Mets most experienced public order senior commander. I do, however, think that his approach has become too confrontational and his emphasis is too much on the enforcement / restriction side. His predecessor, Mike Messenger who was there for donkeys years, was far more measured in his approach, his briefings and his public messages.

If Stephenson wants to make a difference, it may be time to move Broadhurst on to something else... The same applies to a certain extent to AC Chris Allison (the most experienced public order very senior officer and Broadhurst's boss).

 

[DotCommunist]

The public ... but they usually can't be arsed doing so in any formal way (e.g. complaint) and rather just whinge and froth on bulletin boards ... something which makes absolutely no fucking difference at all.

No senior officer or politician in the world can supervise every fucking police officer all the time. They rely on you complaining about anything you are not happy with. Every complaint is logged. Even if nothing much can be done in an individual case, the stats will eventually force changes to be made.

Complain formally. Every time. If you can't be arsed, don't be surprised when things continue as they are / get worse.

I know of case where a female acquaintance of mine was stalked by her ex, a copper from liescter CID. Two other women came forward and the case proceeded to a trial, and a conviction. Turned over on appeal because the police internal investigations folks fucked up (You must know what they are called, I cannot remember).

So very many times, courts and forces back the police, and in my honest show unacceptable bias.

 

[detective-boy]

Complain to who fs? I have met one or two sound cops, rest have been biggoted cunts!

The local police commander. The IPCC ... copies to MPs, councillors, media ...

 

[detective-boy]

I know of case where a female acquaintance of mine was stalked by her ex, a copper from liescter CID. Two other women came forward and the case proceeded to a trial, and a conviction. Turned over on appeal because the police internal investigations folks fucked up (You must know what they are called, I cannot remember).

So very many times, courts and forces back the police, and in my honest show unacceptable bias.

I'm not sure that is an example of the point you claim it illustrates ...

It sounds more like an overzealous investigation / prosecution by Professional Standards who, in order to get then conviction they succeeded in getting, breached the rules protecting any suspect (e.g. PACE) and thus the convicted defendant ended up winning on Appeal. (There have been lots of similar cases in the Met where PSD got carried away and rode roughshod over the rights of suspect officers, resulting in all sorts of problems (the failed Ali Desai prosecution being perhps the most high profile).

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think you're talking bollocks. YOU are assuming they are guilty of a criminal offence and suggesting that the process of investigation and consideration of prosecution that every suspect for homicide goes through should be abandoned because YOU think they are guilty based on your prejudices.

This attitude does your usually well reasoned and argued position no favours at all. Unless you are privy to some information that is not in the public domain you cannot second guess the decisions made by IPCC / CPS, etc. in a particular case. You can bemoan the processes. You can argue for increased transparency or whatever ... but you cannot second guess the decision they made.

And you must accept that there may not have been a criminal ofence committed, most certainly not a homicide - there are hundreds of similar situations every year in which people die following some form of minor assault or disturbance and in which no homicide (or sometimes any) charges are ever brought.


So I assume you would agree when I suggest that anyone who is subject to any sort of inappropriate behaviour should complain as loudly as they are able every time ... (against the system / organisation if it is a policy, against the individual officer if it is how they applied it).

I 'must' must I? Well, sure in any individual case there may be room for doubt, but taken as a whole I think the facts support the case I'm making.

I was arguing that the average citizen when confronted by police, for example while doing photography in public, has sufficient reason to be genuinely concerned that the police may abuse their powers to a greater or lesser degree if that citizen pisses them off by, for example, insisting on their rights under the law or otherwise showing 'disrespect' for police authority.

That perception is supported by the aggregate of police behaviour and of the law's treatment of unacceptable police behaviour (e.g. their violence at G20, which regardless of quibbles in any individual case should, if the same standards were applied to police as ordinary citizens, have resulted in large numbers of them charged for assault and in some cases more serious crimes)

Equally, if they make a complaint, a law-abiding citizen may very well have the concern that they'll be singled out for harassment by their local force.

That's the way many of us perceive the police and getting aggressive because you don't like it is unlikely to make any of us change our views.