Kent Police clamp down on tall photographers

And I thought I was very non-threatning ...

But as I too am 5' 11" and 12(+) stone then clearly I am a scary big dude with whom you do not wish to fuck.

How exciting this is to discover. I also own a CAMERA! Bwwwwwaaaaahahahahaha!

Are *they* ever in for a shock!

RE Corrupt as ever #

As for the WPC saying she was intimidated, that comes under the public order act, not the terrorism act. She has to give a warning advising you to stop the action and only if you refuse does it become an offence.

But how do you stop being tall?? or do you just need to walk round on your knees??

Too tall? that's nothing, try going too fast on a bicycle...

Bournemouth police have taken it upon themselves to use a radar gun on cyclists on the beach front. Go over 10mph and they'll stop you and warn you that you're speeding.

Fucking ludicrus.

Bicycles are not required by law to have a speedometer, so how the hell are you supposed to know when you're going faster than 10mph?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191607/Police-waste-taxpayers-cash-stopping-speeding-cyclists-seaside-punishing-them.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1195870/Nine-police-officers-swoop-speeding-seafront-cyclist.html

Is an Unlawful arrest, an arrestable offence?

If an unlawful arrest is indeed an arrestable offence then I would place the Office under Citizens Arrest.

Police are not above the law, On or Off duty, there is nothing special about them that gives them immunity from Citizens Arrest if they break the law them selves!

Is this what Britain has come to?

once the hub of a bright and proud empire, now can't get enough real police officers so has to employ place holders to swell the ranks.

frightening list of powers and very disturbing lack of consistancy in uniform and scope, and created as a knee jerk reation rather than well thought out policy. Sounds like a recipie for disaster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Community_Support_Officer

When I left the UK the Police still had a lot of respect for doing a tough job well. On my visits back in the last few years it's felt like the old place is spiralling into some third world banana republic... only without the bananas.

Every country has the government it deserves"

-Joseph de Maistre (1753 - 1821) Written on August 15, 1811 ... and very true today

Just a thought about PCSOs

and their forerunners.

A classic example of the pilar of society, salt of the earth type of person that would volunteer for such a community spirited position is the ever so respectable

John Reginald Halliday Christie

I wish I hadn't remembered that, it's made me quite thirsty for a cup of tea.

"Suspicious" Refusal to Give Unrequired Details?

"When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious."

"As a result, he was arrested and asked to wait in a police vehicle while his details were checked."

So, refusing to give details he wasn't actually required to give was "thought" to be "suspicious"? So they arrested him, and took the details he wasn't required to give? They are taking the flipping mickey, aren't they? The flaw with that "logic" is so, so obvious, it's hard to express just how obvious it is. They should be done for abduction, false imprisonment, or whatever fits the bill.

That statement they issued plainly confirms that this was an unmistakable abuse of power, and is exactly the sort of nonsense that ought to be criminalised (if it isn't already a crime). At the very least, Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas, et al, should be sacked. They clearly have contempt for us, the public, the citizens they are supposed to protect and serve, as well as for truth, justice, and the legitimate rule of law.

They, and people like them, are very, very much a part of the problem.

I just knew a hobby bobby would be involved

That update from the police is ludicrous. If you read the original blog, he was prepared to explain *why* he was taking photos, but was aware of his legal rights in that you are (mostly) not obliged to prove identity unless under arrest or being reported for an offence. Becuase identity has nothing to do with intent.

The police statement clearly states that his refusal to identity himself was seen as suspicious enough to effect an arrest. But his behaviour was perfectly legal.

The irony is that the bullying private security numpties who started this, the wimpy PCSO and the officers who arrested and searched him failed to indentify themselves. Which in the case of the hobby bobby and the police is actually illegal.

wtf

This is getting stupid, being of a law abiding sort I normally respect police officers and all members of our justice system in general, but its incidents like this that make me reevaluate my natural inclinations of respect when they can harass photographers going about there normal business.

Oh and I'm 6'5'' and armed with a camera phone, which even takes video...I must be on a watch list somewhere....

Kent Police - Not Surprised

We were staying in a pub in Chatham for the weekend a few months back. Went down to the bar at about 5.30 on a Friday afternoon and the place was crawling with plod, uniforms, dog handlers, dogs, plain clothes, WPCs outside the Ladies. and probably a SWAT team outside as well. When they all finally left, we asked the manager person what the frikkin hell was going on. "They're just checking my licence" came the answer. I can't imagine what they'd do if they had to go in to break up a fight.

The pub is described as one of the jewels in the brewer's crown. If that's a jewel f*** knows what the rest of them must be like. OK, the pub was the Ship and Trades and the brewer is Shepherd Neame. Not going back while I've still got a pulse so don't care.

The legal side

Oh, and when it comes to the legal reasons for the arrest they appear to be making it up as they go along.

The officer objected to a legal photograph being taken, claiming it constituted an "unlawful obstruction". Apart from it not being an obstruction (unless he's holding her down and taking pics in order to steal her soul), that's not a terrorism offnce.

Now "causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway” is one of the criteria for arrest under SOCPA, which since 2005 makes all offences arrestable if certain very broad criteria apply. ie it's the change in the law which allows the police to arrest you for anything they damn well feel like and get away with it.

However he's arrested under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which confers powers of search not arrest. That's Section 44 which allows the police to search you on a complete whim provided you are in a designated area and get away with it. Section 43 allows them to search you on a complete whim in all other areas and get away with it.

Given they have total power to search and arrest you without consequence, you'd think they'd have the grace to screw you under the right legislation.

2wo things

Thing 1. They made him take off his shoes, this is not legal in a street search, is it?

Thing 2. The WPC first said she was arresting him because he was "obstructing" her, then later on said it was because he was "intimidating", yet he was actually arrested under section 44. Exactly what does either being obstructive or being intimidating, have to do with section 44?

Thing 3. Ok, 3 things. He refused to give his name at the start because the officers were unable to tell him under what authority they were asking. Turns out they were glorified dog-turd and litter monitors and they do have a right to demand people's details IF they are suspected of dropping litter or letting their dog foul the pavement. But I guess they were just feeling a bit above their stations and didn't realise what a pair of dickheads they were going to look half an hour later.

This was a catalogue of errors by the police from start to finish; a textbook example of how not to deal with an incident like this. The only way the police could have screwed it up worse is if they'd shot him thinking his camera was a firearm.

--

Flash Mob!

Why not have someone "look suspcious" in Chatham High street by taking a few photos, then, as soon as Plod starts taking exception, have another 50 photographers all grab cameras out of their bags etc and start taking pictures of the PC/ PCSO...!

The flip side

of this attitude of the police that Everyone is a Terrorist is they do their best to avoid doing anything at all about real, albeit low-level, crime that affects ordinary people on a day-to-day basis.

Last year I was robbed in the street by a Gang of Four that was incompetent at basic pickpocketing. Reporting this took a hour's wait the following afternoon in an empty Police Station, where the only other two callers were persuaded to go away. The main issue for the Plod on duty was the exact location, because it was on a police district boundary, so there was a buck-passing opportunity.

This made me so angry that I filed a complaint online. However, as they are unable to distinguish between complaints about jobsworth behaviour and being beaten up, shortly afterwards I was visited by a vanload of coppers. I explained what had happened, and suggested that this was out of proportion, and was persuaded to sign a form saying that it "could be dealt with locally".

Hint: make use of the facility to report complaints online.

The other week my walking boots were stolen by a scam pseudo-charity called "SCH Collections". After much persistence, I managed to report this theft online. However, when I suggested that they might look up SCH on the Police National Computer, I was told by a police officer that (and here is the IT angle), ...

> Unfortunately a company name cannot be looked up using the Police National Computer.

He's just lucky

They could have clubbed him to death and would have got off free. It was self-defence, see...

@Martin 6

Well spotted that he's now got a criminal record. However the police don't even need to arrest and charge you to get one of those these days.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5818422/Mother-who-left-children-playing-in-park-is-branded-a-criminal.html

Uniform Up

"How do the police prevent streetcams from seeing officers?? I'd like to see that technology."

Me too but stretching this point a little.. CCTV could not record any of the people mentioned here because it would intimidate them - being on large poles - and probably infring their human rights - the right to arrest without fear of recrimination.

Soo.. maybe if we all walked round in police gear we'd be technically invisible and could pull off any job we wanted. With the added bonus that the police would rally round a presumed comrade and stop anyone trying to record us breaking into the nearest LLoydsTSB and recovering the £6000 we each apparently own in them as a law abiding taxpayer.

Seriously, keep Mark Thomas away from any surviving Pythons as the results could be as unforseen as the Spanish Inquisition.

Midget mafia..

I can't wait until I'm down in London in August.. 6' 10" and 18st you better believe I'm gonna be filling my SD cards with cops, cops - nothing but cops.

Seriously what the hell is wrong with these people. Even if you had a known terrorist taking photos of the security arrangements at Canary Wharf or Parliament or something it's highly debatable if you could reliably use that as evidence in an effort to get that person of the street long-term. So why bother random people taking photos of stuff?

The military don't mind you taking photos of sensitive equipment, personnel and buildings up close & personal. I have some very high resolution photos of the SIS building, but if you take a few photos of the underground and they freak out.

The underground is public property right? I'm usually a bit shy about taking photos of such spaces but there's a line and the too tall stuff has really crossed it, gone round the planet and come back again with me.

This heightist shit is really getting on my nerves.

If police want to protect the public ...

they can start by laying charges against their criminal colleagues for assault and kidnapping.

But that would require at least one honest police officer with the public interest foremost in his or her mind.

Re:Update

***""A formal complaint has subsequently be made in relation to this incident which has been recorded and an investigation has commenced.""***

Which will cost £1000's (and then some).

All because what I assume were a pair of officious council knobheads took exception when someone (quite rightly) didn't take them as seriously as they'd like and called the cops.

Its that pair of tossers who should be prosecuted for wasting public money by kicking off this absurd episode. Let us hope the 'investigation' identifies those arseholes.

So which is it?

"When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious."

Or

"As a result, he was arrested and asked to wait in a police vehicle while his details were checked."

Those would be the details he refused to give, would they? Or was the suspicious element th fact that a copper deed something suspicious, like perhaps he failed to simply do as he was told when commanded by Those In Authority?

There IS indeed a pattern emerging here; the police are now so mentally denuded by chasing their own self fulfilling targets that they no longer understand what crime, suspicious behaviour or reasonable conduct actually are, unless it's a figure they are trying to hit/avoid. Like a father who's belted his his kid once too often, they (in the immortal words of Lemmy) just confuse respect with fear, attempting to garner public "respect" by coming down on anyone who might have an opinion of their conduct.

If they'd stop behaving like arseholes, they might get a btter response when they do ask questions.

Never, ever, EVER ...

... put a shortarse in a position of power. It is a recipe for exactly this kind of thing happening routinely. (However, a fair percentage of the population is a shortarse compared to me, so perhaps my viewpoint is tainted, because I've never been given a hard time by anyone taller than me ...)

Seriously, having worked previously in an environment where aggressive situations were more likely than average (psychiatric nursing), I can state that this WPC shames women. My female colleagues, many of whom were small and petite, would volunteer to go in first, because either the presence of a female would calm the (usually male) distressed person. If not, the bloke would be less likely to hit a woman, giving the backup team chance to restrain him without harm to anyone. The point? Well, if you are in a job where you might have to face down a bloke with attitude, you cannot be intimidated by mere height. She is clearly either a) in the wrong job, or b) just serving her time until politically correct policies get her into the upper echelons of the police ... and then she can become the new Cressida Dick!!

Jobsworths

,Always wondered about the Council Jobsworths, much as everyone hates littering etc exactly what power do they have? If one of the Jobswoths asks me by my name & address etc in a public place I would politely tell them to get stuffed and mostly likely just walk away. ,What exactly are they going to do then? (I guess they ring the plod who will respond in seconds instead of the length of time use mere mortals seem to get).

@ Iggle Piggle

Didn't you miss:

"Crossing the road to avoid me"

Which seems to be the way Kent police are going.

The photographer sounds like a pretty standard "build" to me. If a police officer is intimidated by someone of that size, stone cold sober in broad day light ,with no offensive weapons, then may I subtly suggest that they go and find a job somewhere else, like in a BT call center? Because its obvious that they are going to be sod all use when it comes to facing a drunken yob on a Friday night, or someone who is actually, shock horror, commiting a REAL crime.

As many others have said. Its no wonder people no longer respect the police and I really hope that someone from Kent Police has been forwarded this article to see just what a bunch of stupid arrogant morons they come over as.

@Jonathan 6

If you apply for a job which requires an Enhanced CRB your police record will be sent to your potential employer. Alongide any convictions will be listed arrests, allegations, and even rumours that you may never have been made aware of. (see my earlier post in this thread for a particuarly fine example).

Now legally it's a 'police record', not a 'criminal record', but it's treated as such for around 11m jobs in this country. Google the case of John Pinnington for further evidence. Baseless accusations are treated as convictions and render you unemployable in certain fields.

I'm more worried about joe public

We're surrounded by petrified ignorant thickies that'll 'report' anything that they don't like.

Also why did this guy hang around when the plain clothes guys stopped him. I'd have walked off. Sometimes people do themselves no favours and allow themselves to be led. Sure, officers only have certain powers, but it's no good complying with an illegal request and then crying your eyes out afterwards ("Yeah but they would've arrested me..."). People need to be better at knowing their rights and defending them at the time, not afterwards.

Title

Someone should start a twit/book campaign for a national "photograph the police" day, if everyone is doing it, they can't stop us all

Chavy

So all he had was pictures of buildings and a few chavy skanks.. wow

@ Jonathan 6

Strictly true yes, however the current rules state that even if you're stopped and searched it goes on the database which is also used for CRB checks. This is as a direct result of the Soham murders, because while Ian Huntley had never been prosecuted for a crime he had been accused of a crime previously. So yes, the mere act of accusing someone of a crime is enough to have them deemed unsuitable for working with children or vulnerable people.

What makes this whole thing a complete farce however is the simple fact that nearly every potential murderer or paedophile working in schools will actually pass their checks. I went to a school where 5 teachers were eventually charged and prosecuted for child abuse. Not one of them had a criminal record while teaching and so every single one of them would have been cleared for working. All the new legislation does is make it easier to prevent them ever working with kids ever again, but it does NOTHING to actually prevent them working with kids in the first place, instead it creates a situation where the kids have the balance of power. You don't like the teacher? "Dad, my science teacher asked me to play with drs with him today"

Instant loss of career, even after the claim is proven false.

When refusing to identify yourself...

Is grounds for suspicion and arrest, we truly have crossed the line. :(

Suspicious

>> When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.

The Police need to take a long hard look at themselves, if they think refusal to co-operate is suspicious. There may have a time when only criminals had something to fear from the Police and refusal to co-operate could reasonably be considered suspicious. In this day and age of CRBs and cautions, you would be mad to co-operate with them unless you were certain they didn't suspect you of committing some non-existent offence - better to trapse down to the station where everything is recorded and you get hold of someone who actually knows what the law is (i.e. a solicitor, not the police).

High Visibility Jackets and Clip Boards

Long ago, I heard that one of the teachers at our school liked to go for walks around the school grounds. To ensure he wasn't interrupted, he would carry a clip board around with him, with just a sheet of paper on it. Everyone assumed he was busy, doing something important, and left him to it. He was just going for a walk.

Mine's the one with bits of tape stuck on it. The tape doesn't cover anything, but everyone will think I'm hiding my official ID.

Targets, Targets and more Targets.

This is what happens when you bring in a load of hokey laws and give those that are there to uphold them performance targets to meet.

All they do then is take on any easy pickings to tick off another 'offence/caution/arrest on their work forms.

If they can call in a few colleagues thats more ticks on more forms.

"Excellent I've hit my 20 cautions and 5 arrests for this week and its only Wednesday! Yayyy!"

good news for those who are short but look shifty!

Always hang out with a tall friend as a distraction for the police who got nothing better to do.

why can't reg do a good looking terminator avtar? we like machines that look good (doesn't matter if they kill us later).