jibbs1977 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Apologies for the length of this video, you might want to get a cuppa before you watch it. This guy was taking photos in the street in Lancashire. The subsequent actions of the police are interesting to say the least. Are our civil liberties being eroded by giving the police these powers? Or are they necessary for our protection? I nearly got arrested early December for taking photo of security woman who was on taxi rank opposite John Lewis near city hall. She was extremeley rude and arragont so I took photo to make complaint in next few days. She got the police to pull me out and they told me to delete the photo. Im not going into what happened to get to this point but I ended up complaining about the security woman and the police. Anyway I got really nice senior policeman Acting inspector Allat who come to my house and he said the police dont have a right to stop people taking photo's. Anyone can take photos of anything in public and to show a point he said how does the star take photo's of murder scenes ets if its against the law. He appolagised and was very nice and was far from chuffed with the security woman for wasting police time which lead to a complaint what didnt have to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mart Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Originally Posted by pcspb1 If the person concerned is in a public place there will be no reasonable expectation of privacy, and any issues under Article 8 will only arise when it comes to the publication of the material. Prior to publication, any person with an objection to the footage being aired publicly, has the right to have their identity removed from the footage. Hence on Road Wars, you sometimes/often see faces pixelated. Thats not correct I've seen people put their hand in front of camera and police have made them take their hand down and told them that the cameraman is doing nothing wrong - its don't do as I do, do as I say with police sometimes DENLIN- pcspb1 is telling us that there is no reasonable expectation to privacy in a public place. You are saying that is not correct, and you then go on to basically say what he has just said, thereby contradicting yourself (the police stop a member of the public from putting their hand in front of the camera because there is no right to privacy in a public place) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoPests Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Some left wing driabble wanting to get a rise from the police, if he was there just to take photo's why not just give them his details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 You know what annoyed me? went all the way up to Keswick to see the car museum and take some nice pix. Guess what? due to "copyright" (aka you MUST pay for our pix or else) we where not allowed to take pix. Ruined my holidays it did, that place needs burning down with the owner stuck in one of his precious cars. Is this off topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcspb1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 You know what annoyed me? went all the way up to Keswick to see the car museum and take some nice pix. Guess what? due to "copyright" (aka you MUST pay for our pix or else) we where not allowed to take pix. Ruined my holidays it did, that place needs burning down with the owner stuck in one of his precious cars. Is this off topic? Photography is allowed in the museum on the purchase of the museums brochure with photopass. - LINK Slightly off topic, but not far... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeathAxe Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Photography is allowed in the museum on the purchase of the museums brochure with photopass. - LINK Slightly off topic, but not far... would have been nice if there was a sign up, or if the idiot behind the counter would have mentioned it. All he said was "YOU NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ANY PHOTOS! AND IT COSTS YOU FIVE POUND!" Seriously, the guy was acting like the place was a classified secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 ... She got the police to pull me out and they told me to delete the photo. Im not going into what happened to get to this point but I ended up complaining about the security woman and the police. ... Really hope they didn't manage to badger you into deleting the photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verona Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 He was obviously out to wind the cops up. Although he doesn't have to give his details, why not just give them and be done with it. If the police think his actions are suspicious, then they have a right to ask for his details and should be able to arrest if not given. He was arrested for not giving his details, not for taking pictures. As the terrorist theat is severe, I can't blame the police for being twitchy. If they didn't act on their suspicion and something went off, they'd be blamed for not stepping in. Damned if they do and damned if they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFoot Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 If the police think his actions are suspicious, then they have a right to ask for his details and should be able to arrest if not given. He was arrested for not giving his details, not for taking pictures. I didn't think you had to give details unless/until arrested. Therefore surely arresting him for not giving details before being arrested would be an illegal arrest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verona Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I didn't think you had to give details unless/until arrested. Therefore surely arresting him for not giving details before being arrested would be an illegal arrest? You are right, but you can be arrested to ascertain your details. Section 25 of PACE: Where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that any offence, which is not an arrestable offence, has been, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest any person where that name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by the constable or that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person is his real name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.