DaFoot Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 "Where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect...." So he can only arrest you for not giving details where he believes an offence has been or is about to be committed by you. As taking photos is not (yet) an offence in public, it is still wrongful arrest surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verona Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 "Where a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect...." So he can only arrest you for not giving details where he believes an offence has been or is about to be committed by you. As taking photos is not (yet) an offence in public, it is still wrongful arrest surely? But the officer was saying that his taking of pictures amounted to harrasment, alarm and distress to other members of public. I think the officers grounds were a little thin though and they should have just given him some advice. They played right into his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I think the officers grounds were a little thin though and they should have just given him some advice. They played right into his hands. So thin no charges were brought what a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 But the officer was saying that his taking of pictures amounted to harrasment, alarm and distress to other members of public. I think the officers grounds were a little thin though and they should have just given him some advice. They played right into his hands. No member of public complained did they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verona Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 No they didn't. But for that type of offence the police don't need a complainant. As long as they can prove someone was likely to be caused harrassment is all that's needed. And to be fair, there was loads of people around who may have been harrassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 As soon as the cop said 'terrorism law' no way should he have given any details, i wouldnt be put on any database, its against civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 No they didn't. But for that type of offence the police don't need a complainant. As long as they can prove someone was likely to be caused harrassment is all that's needed. And to be fair, there was loads of people around who may have been harrassed. Oh so everyime somebody takes a photo in street are the police going to check if bystanders are being harassed - as I said there'd be a lot of American and Japanese tourists being arrested - police over-reacted and no charges were brought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 But the officer was saying that his taking of pictures amounted to harrasment, alarm and distress to other members of public. They made that one up as they went along. In law, harassment is not a single occasion, there must be many. Alarm or distress? Having someone take a photo is not going to cause sufficient alarm or distress, no one complained about it, and it's not what that law is intended for. She started by claiming she wanted his details "because of the terrorist threat". The "harassment" angle was dreamt up afterwards. What you've got here is a PCSO without a clue. They get around only around 4 weeks training so are quite ignorant about the law and just rely on being able to hassle people. Goodness knows why the daft mare thinks that someone taking photos must be a terrorist or why taking a (made up) name is going to save Blackburn from Al Queda. The hassling fails because the photographer knows his rights and knows that he he does not need to provide his details at her whim, only if he is under arrest. He asks repeatedly if he is under arrest and she does not answer. Rather than admit her mistake with grace, she gets a real policeman. By this time she has switched to this "harassment" angle rather than "terrorist", which the policeman falls for and eventually an arrest takes place. At the station, it all unravels when they realise no-one has been harassed, no-one is a terrorist and they have completely broken the police guidelines on photography that explicitly say that photography in a public place is not a crime. So they detain him for 8 hours to punish him anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Interesting film. The guy was obviously out to wind the police up. Just shows how some officers dig their heals in if you don't dance to their tune. Best to co-operate with the police in situations like this, after all, If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvp82 Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Interesting film. The guy was obviously out to wind the police up. Just shows how some officers dig their heals in if you don't dance to their tune. Best to co-operate with the police in situations like this, after all, If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. No its not, why should you co-operate when it is clear that the PCSO is making it up as they go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.