Power crazed Bobby's? Or well within their right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAUan2DXBsk

 

How simple would it have been to just give his details? I believe he was just being deliberately obstructive.

But on the other hand I fail to see how taking photographs in a public place of nondescript events anti social or otherwise likely to cause alarm or distress.

 

well within their rights how do you know he don't get off on seeing kids sat on santas knee all the police wanted to do was check he wasn't of any interest i.e a registered nonce they will of had to give their details down the station anyway so imo they were a couple of thick annoying twats who fucked up their own day...

 

CSPOs gotta hate them

stand in the same spot for more than 2 mins, and they want to question you about everything? Guess they have targets to meet, and think they are being usefull.

 

first off, e don't know what he was doing while taking the photos, he could have being anti social as they were saying.

if he had nothing to hide, why didn't he just give his details?
he wanted to try and be clever. that worked well for him... lol

 

JOKE, it makes the police look like total CUNTS - imo



But all he had to do was give his details so its a bit of a catch 22 going on

 

Im not a lover of the police after the theft of my car but i can't see what they have done wrong, they asked for his details and he wouldn't give them, he caused this trouble himself and i would say went looking for it with his camera rolling etc.

Pete

 

I think the reason he didnt give his information as this sort of thing happens to photographers all the time and he's probably sick of it.

they are jobs worths. Would a terrorist take photographs of a xmas parade using a 35mm rollfilm camera??

 

My son had a sports day last summer and i wasnt even allowed to Take pics of him at sports day. i do feel this country is becoming a joke in some ways

 

What an absolute nob! He's clearly out to cause trouble and he found it and then acted a complete arse from start to finish! If your innocent and have nothing to hide, then co-operate and be on your way in a few minutes. Not that hard is it. These people obviously enjoy causing trouble for themselves and then kick up a stink when they then get hassle for causing hassle in the first place.

 

the joys of the terrorism act!!!

 

fail

 

the idiot was making trouble for him self why not just tell them who he was rather than try and spout the law to them,unless he was up to no good ,all he had to do was tell them his name and he would have been on his way

 

think you guys MISSED THE POINT,,,,,, he was within hes rights NOT to give hes details,,, they broke there own law or rather chose to interpret it as they seem fit EVEN THOUGH ITS NOT THE TRUTH

we live in a FREE WORLD.... we have laws to follow and abide by,,,, the problem is that the anti terroism act just gives them a free pass aswell as the anti social behavior act means that even inocent people can be classed as breaking the law if they dont do as they are told

even worse if you are arrested,,, even if you are inocent the police now are allowed to keep fingerprints and DNA on record,, not even the states allow that law !!!!

if we continue to allow this we will end up with no rights,,,, voting will be a thing of the past and the excuse for us to go to war in iraq is about to happen to us,,,, oh the irony of it !

yes they are anoying but thats not a legal reason to arrest them,, notice the " let go without charge",,, thats cause they done nothing wrong so should not have been arrested !!!

 

Glad it wasn't lost on someone....

That is totally the point.


This is another good one.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas

Been posted a while back - sorry about the really bad brummy accent.

 

If you have nothing to hide what is the problem

 

typical useless waste of space police force
check this areest out this one didnt go too well
http://www.spifftv.com/video.php?id=1717

 

jake you do realise that anyone who dares to question the police is branded as a criminal

did you know that the police can FORCE you to give evidence as a whitness too these days just for telling them what you seen,,,, SO NEVER HELP SOMEONE as the police can then,,,,,, and WILL raise a sumons to force you to give evidence,,,, though you cant force someone to give evidence if your the accused,,,,, unless the police agree this means that the police can force whitnesses to help there case and choose to ignore ones that prove your inocence,,,,,,, wounder how that would turn out should that happen ????

as i stated before DONT SAY A FUCKING WORD TO THE POLICE THESE DAYS,,,, they dont give a fuck about reality just about there arrests they make

oh and did you also know that they can caution you if you plead guilty,,,,,, yet if you refuse they take the evidence to the CPS and if they dont feel theres enough evidence they will have no further action,, that means you will confess to a crime,,, get a caution when in reality you may not have broken the law in the eyes of the actual law even though you have recived a caution cause YOU pleaded guilty

no evidence means no case,,,,,, hence they now have the rights to force others to give evidence against you so they can have a case

 

the problem is we live in a free state,,,, if you dont break the law you are doing nothing wrong,,,, next they will have the right to enter your home when they feel without a warrant as " whats the problem,,,, if you aint doing anything wrong"

the argument for ID cards is " only criminals dont want to carry these" when in reality,,,,, maybe we just like have freedom and we should have the right to it UNTIL we break the law,,,,, AND NOT BEFORE !!!!

 

exactly Ginge my dear man. exactly.

 

I was in court the other day and one of the guys before me was in for,,,,, wait for it

hes mate was having a row with hes mate,,, coppers get involved and he is taken to the ground,,,, whilst on the ground he managed to take the coppers pepper spray and spray the copper in hes eyes,,,,,, he was sent to the crown as " he assulted a police officer" and was told the dangers of pepperspray and the damage he caused the copper who he sprayed,,,, THE JUDGE DIDNT SEEM TO GIVE A SHITE THAT THE COPPER WAS THE OWNER OF THE PEPPER SPRAY AND THAT HE USED IT ON HIM FIRST !!!

though the bloke is gonna get serious time i recon for that

 

Makes me laugh when they say they've asked him not to film her... Yet on RoadWars and the likes, they film everyone.

Benni.

 

benni since people started to film the police doing ILLEGAL THINGS and posting them on the internet its now against the law to film the police whilst they carry out there duties,,,,,,, strange that aint it but they can film you against your wishes and show it on tv

 

Exactly... Although I don't see no reason why he couldn't give his address and name? I know it's not the point, but you know...

Benni.

 

They have to do that because many people refuse to give evidence despite a clear moral obligation to do so. Too many people are afraid to do the right thing for whatever reason.

And too many people just dont give a shit and are selfish.



Thing is we can whinge all we like about how its wrong but we, as a people, cant be trusted to restrict our behaviour then of course it was inevitable more of our freedoms would be restricted as we move towards a police state. Thats a major thing thats changed in our society over last 60 years, we are no longer to an extent self policing. Sure there will always be some bad eggs.

Car modifying is a prime example, people have been playing with cars since as long as theyve existed, so why only now do we need to have increasing laws and the threat to our hobby as a whole with legislation??? over zealous government yes, but they wouldnt be doing if it wasnt for an increasing significant number of bad behaved people ruining it for everyone.

 

Thats why they always say "Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used AGAINST You" its never FOR you. Always keep your mouth shut.

 

What a knob.

Yeah pretty innocent photo taking but what a total cock of a man, trying to be a smart alec.

 

What a wank. Deserved a good kicking for that. Deliberately being awkward and thought he knew better.

ps... i hate the police.

 

 

thats mint haha

 

have you read the comments on there?It just shows society is on the verge of the ignorant and stupid taking control of the streets!!!

and my views on the arrest of the man taking photos, if it was xmas time as mentioned there may have been more children than usual about at santas grottos etc, 2 middle aged men with a camera walking about, a parent probably did mention something to the police, if the police hadnt cited the terrorist act, and maybe used their intelligence and thought of another reason for questioning him it may have gone smoother, the police showed their ignorance / stupidity by not giving a blindingly obvious reason for asking, i mean you can teven film a kids football game without written consent from all childrens parents including the away teams, although in defence of the police, they were being recorded, i know how nervous i get when im being recorded and talking about things im 100% sure on, never mind something you havent heard since leaving the police college, so they may have went straight for the last thing they knew that was rammed into their heads most recently the terrorism act,

as said before a simple act of stating who he was, and he was an amatuer photographer, would have saved everyone hours of wasted time dealing with the akward prick,

 

He did state he was an amatuer photographer. He also said that his friend was as well that is why they are holding cameras and taking pictures of the local xmas event. It is not illegal to take photographs in a public area. Also the fact that he was using a roll film camera in this day and age might have shown that he was a photographer not a terrorist/pervert.
He wasn't being an awkward prick at all. He was the only abiding by the law and his rights. You dont have to give the police your details or for that matter say anything to them until they place you under arrest. Thats the whole point of the video, he was bullied into being arrested. He even tried to leave after being harrased twice by the police. That still wasn't enough.
Police can't arrest you for not giving them your name, they also can't arrest you for taking photographs in a public place.

 

I'm surprised at the number of people that are saying that the two amateur photographers were just being "awkward pricks".

IMO they are heroes for knowing their rights, and sticking to them - unlike most other "ignorant" people that seem happy to have their rights constantly eroded. At this rate, we'll all soon be required to carry an ID card by law whenever you leave your house, and to produce it on demand for any reason at all. Police state, anyone?

I don't wish to give my personal details to anyone that asks for them - I have a right to privacy and anonymity when going about my lawful business, and I too would stick up for my rights.

 

trying? he looked clued up to me, unlike the police

 

Can i urge all the cynics on the thread to have a look at www.fmotl.com and www.fmotl.com/forum.

Some of it is a little bit like rhetoric, but look past that at try to understand the basic point of the site: the police are presently enforcing statutes, statutes are nothing more than 'legislated rules of society' (different to LAW), and you are within you rights (which are intrinsic and inalienable as a humang being and need not be granted/affirmed by laws/statutes) to NOT CONSENT to be governed by any or all of them.

The law i.e. common law, not statutes, which aren't law, says that no-one shall be arrested/detained/incarcereated/transported etc unless they have caused harm or loss to another human being.

So he was within the law, they were outside it. You have a right (in law and statute) to privacy and to exist and go about your peaceful business. How was he being anything other than peaceful? All he asked was why he should give his details. He wasn't even playing the 'common law card', but the police officers couldn't give substantiated reasons why he would be required to give his detail even under statutes.

Chris

 

he was a bit of a tool, but the police were out of line as well. Its heading towards them having a bit too much power. Love how the lady copper gets a bloke copper over to help her too lol

 

as you seem to know your stuff quoted from another website about this..

"You dont have to give the police your details or for that matter say anything to them until they place you under arrest. " - Wrong....please look at PACE

 

I think people are missing the whole point here. Whether they are 'within their rights' is not really the point here. By refusing to simply give the police their details, even though they may not have to at that point who knows, they instantly give the police something to be suspicious about. Because of this, the police will want to persue it as they are clearly now acting suspicious, even if they were not before. They instantly made themselves a target by acting like nobs. There simply the sort of arkward people that like to cause trouble and hassle for themselves and others. You look for trouble and you often get it and this is a perfect example.

Basic morals and human nature say you should always do your best to difuse a situation, not esculate nothing into something. The police have a job to do, and if you fail the attitude test with a simple request, then you instantly become a target because you raise suspicion and look like you are guilty of something and have something to hide. Not hard to understand surely? Act a nob, and get treated like one, guilty or not.

These are the type of people that you'd just love to smack around the chops!

 

But why do the police need their details? What were they actually doing wrong? The police exist to 'preserve the peace', not go about questionning and harassing people for no reason.

I understand what you're saying, and if he'd been e.g. speeding, _actually_ acting suspisciously, implicated in a crime etc, then they'd have a valid reason to stop him. Stopping him for no real reason other than because a jumped-up PCSO was inappropriately practising what she learnt at her last training course amounts to harassment, NOT 'upholding the law'.

@danneth:

The police never provided any evidence or even explanation of how their actions could have been anti-social or suspected-terrorism, and afaik there is no statute prohibiting taking photographs in public - otherwise newspapers would be out of business! So surely their actions come under this part of PACE which explicitly says that unless there are specific statutory provisions to the contrary, the person is not required to give their personal details.

HTH
Chris

 

at the end of the day all he had to do was tell them his name not ahard thing to do or does he not give his name to anyone at all