Groups

    A Warning to all HUKD Photographers.

    Bare this in mind next time your out shooting

    guardian.co.uk/uk/…her

    (clicky in next post)

    Would love your thoughts, especially yours DC.

    61 Comments

    Banned

    As a fellow photographer this sort of thing not only disgusts me, but scares me too

    Big Brother is watching YOU!!!

    he seems a bit dickish tbh, shes given the reason why she wants to take his details and he keeps saying are we detained are we detained, why not just give the details and then it would be done

    Guys sounds like a tadger tbh.

    I know there's a lot of consternation about this on AVForums, and it's fair enough - but she seemed perfectly civil about it.

    Why this clown thought it was therefore a great idea to cry to his local press about it is beyond me.

    I like the way the report says his identity was protected...what about hers?

    obviously we didn't see how he was taking photos, but the officer said he was taking them being his back...if that is true wouldn't anyone think wtf is this guy doing, he seemed to just be an idiot about it all, but others will probs say about rights etc etc, but surely if he gave his details he could have carried on with his friend, I think theres just some people out there, which have an agenda to **** people off and I think this guy is one of them

    I watched that all the way through and was pretty horrified as the situation escalated. As we saw, at least some of, the pics the guy had actually taken with the camera, for those, must have been in full view and I find it difficult to see how taking photos in town centre can be 'of an anti-social' nature.

    It looked to me like the community officer got it all wrong and then the police officers 'had to back her' up in sequence.

    So what's next a police check and details required each time you use a camera in public? How deep would suspicion be if you took pics in a number of town centres? Criminal record check before you can buy a camera?

    I think the police got it wrong and should have apologised rather that say that the officers were correct.

    The police were being perfectly reasonable. The video didn't actually show the manner in which the photographs were being taken, and I suspect his activity did give rise to reasonable suspicion. The fact he refused to give his name and address just added fuel to the fire.

    Banned

    numptyj;7970040

    obviously we didn't see how he was taking photos, but the officer said he … obviously we didn't see how he was taking photos, but the officer said he was taking them being his back...if that is true wouldn't anyone think wtf is this guy doing, he seemed to just be an idiot about it all, but others will probs say about rights etc etc, but surely if he gave his details he could have carried on with his friend, I think theres just some people out there, which have an agenda to **** people off and I think this guy is one of them



    I agree. As a photographer, it worries me that I could be stopped by the police and questioned as to what I am taking photos of. But I would never refuse to give out my details. I'd be doing nothing wrong so would have nothing to worry about.

    It's the fact that the police are actually concerned about photographers that's worrying and I can see why some are getting their pants in a twist

    chesso;7970112

    I watched that all the way through and was pretty horrified as the … I watched that all the way through and was pretty horrified as the situation escalated. As we saw, at least some of, the pics the guy had actually taken with the camera, for those, must have been in full view and I find it difficult to see how taking photos in town centre can be 'of an anti-social' nature. It looked to me like the community officer got it all wrong and then the police officers 'had to back her' up in sequence. So what's next a police check and details required each time you use a camera in public? How deep would suspicion be if you took pics in a number of town centres? Criminal record check before you can buy a camera? I think the police got it wrong and should have apologised rather that say that the officers were correct.



    thing is we will never get an answer to this as we dont know how he was taking some of his pictures...sure the ones in the film were fine etc but sides can easily be edited in. Also we cant see what the photographer looked like, he could have been racially profiled by the officer..harsh but it happens.

    what next will cameras be a thing of the past in public unless its cctv or police officers at the entrance of city centers taking details as people enter with a camera lol

    linuxlinks;7970119

    The police were being perfectly reasonable. The video didn't actually … The police were being perfectly reasonable. The video didn't actually show the manner in which the photographs were being taken, and I suspect his activity did give rise to reasonable suspicion. The fact he refused to give his name and address just added fuel to the fire.



    +1

    DanJackson;7970121

    I agree. As a photographer, it worries me that I could be stopped by the … I agree. As a photographer, it worries me that I could be stopped by the police and questioned as to what I am taking photos of. But I would never refuse to give out my details. I'd be doing nothing wrong so would have nothing to worry about. It's the fact that the police are actually concerned about photographers that's worrying and I can see why some are getting their pants in a twist



    exactly why not just comply with them, like I said some people have an agenda to try and milk situations and this guy was doing just that

    Banned

    linw;7970128

    what next will cameras be a thing of the past in public unless its cctv … what next will cameras be a thing of the past in public unless its cctv or police officers at the entrance of city centers taking details as people enter with a camera lol



    No

    Didn't watch all of it, but if a police officer said we need to take details of people taking pictures to me i would have said yes. Like Dan said, i would be doing no wrong so can't see the problem, i don't agree with it, but there's plenty i don't agree with.

    Banned

    numptyj;7970133

    exactly why not just comply with them, like I said some people have an … exactly why not just comply with them, like I said some people have an agenda to try and milk situations and this guy was doing just that



    Yep, exactly. I don't agree with the fact that they can stop you for taking innocent photos in a public area. But it is the police, you don't wind them up by being an idiot about it.

    If he'd wanted to get his point across, he could have done so just as well be videoing what happened AND complied with them. I am sure more people would be on his side if he had been more reasonable.

    obviously this was not the first time this guy has been arrested in my opinion

    the guy was a rear, but the point he was trying to make was correct. If there was an incident in the vicinity over the next few days, he may well have been treated as a suspect, and once you get tarred with the brush, it could escalate all from taking a few pics.

    Unless he was trying for 'upskirts'

    Banned

    DAMNOME;7970157

    obviously this was not the first time this guy has been arrested in my … obviously this was not the first time this guy has been arrested in my opinion



    Yes, but in your opinion what you've just posted makes sense.

    It seems to me the point was never simple details, it is about the thin edge of a very large wedge.

    Anybody like looking at old pics of their area? shots of people in ever day life in years gone by. People taking these shots are usually only hiding (clarify hiding, I mean holding the camera in a discrete way in between shooting) from the immediate subject of they shot so to others they look ultra silly/suspicious. If people who do photography as a passion are scared off then future generations and historians will not have this source of information. An art form will be lost.

    This guy and his friend were obviously prepared and standing up for a ]principal.

    He was polite and gave no physical resistance.

    The man is clearly is right nob,he is arousing her suspicions by not giving her his details as any law abiding citizen would not refuse to do this.

    Also the story is in The Guardian,enough said

    Full fault goes straight at the feet of the bloke, not the police. He was behaving like a plum, and if he was taking photographs why was he also carrying a video camera to "protect" himself.

    Proper nob.

    Banned

    I think the guy was right. If when you take shots of people you have the camera in full view, then everyone is going to look at it and perhaps hide their face, meaning your shot is going to be pretty useless, so you hide or become more discreet.. He was making a stand by not giving his details, although it may make little difference if everyone did it, then maybe it would. Just the stupid pc world we live in today

    Original Poster

    pinkleponkle;7970266

    Full fault goes straight at the feet of the bloke, not the police. He … Full fault goes straight at the feet of the bloke, not the police. He was behaving like a plum, and if he was taking photographs why was he also carrying a video camera to "protect" himself.Proper nob.



    New high end DLSR now have the ability to record video too.

    IC, I stand corrected. He still deserves a sound beating for behaving like a tool though

    LOL

    http://i47.tinypic.com/oplia.png

    Plum;7970201

    It seems to me the point was never simple details, it is about the thin … It seems to me the point was never simple details, it is about the thin edge of a very large wedge.Anybody like looking at old pics of their area? shots of people in ever day life in years gone by. People taking these shots are usually only hiding (clarify hiding, I mean holding the camera in a discrete way in between shooting) from the immediate subject of they shot so to others they look ultra silly/suspicious. If people who do photography as a passion are scared off then future generations and historians will not have this source of information. An art form will be lost.This guy and his friend were obviously prepared and standing up for a ]principal.He was polite and gave no physical resistance.



    They'd never think i was hiding

    http://juve.ro/blog-files/photography/01136075857/canon_75-300.jpg

    Googled image, but that same as what i have

    I just thought this guy is trying to stand up for your rights.

    When someone in a position of power tells you to jump you do not have to in UK law . Under the SS yeah you had to produce your papers or be shot but Id cards are not fully here yet.

    If it was one of you and you knew fine well that all you were doing was trying to capture a natural shot and the Police came up to you and told you under sectionX then because they used the wrong section you were now acting in a suspicious way and because of that you surrendered your details name etc because they thought you were up-to no good when you were not, you are eroding your rights by answering them. There was no need to answer.

    You are not under arrest or breaking the law and there were no reasonable grounds to require you to answer . Yes It might be easier to just say yes officer 3 bags full officer and give in and give your details to the power tripping person who is undoubtedly abusing their power.

    Banned

    dontasciime;7970495

    If it was one of you and you knew fine well that all you were doing was … If it was one of you and you knew fine well that all you were doing was trying to capture a natural shot and the Police came up to you and told you under sectionX tehn becasue they used the wrong section you were now acting in a suspicious way and because of that you surrendered your details name etc because they thought you were up-to no good when you were not you are eroding your rights by answering them as there was no need to answer. You are not under arrest or breaking the law and there were no reasonable grounds to require you to answer . Yes It might be easier to just say yes officer 3 bags full officer and give in and give your details to the power tripping person who is undoubtedly abusing their power.



    How are you "eroding your rights"? You're answering a question. You're giving a police officer your name and address.

    That's all.

    I am a photographer and as I've already said, I'd be very annoyed if it happened to me but why on Earth would I inflame the situation by being stubborn?

    What rights am I giving away? By the time they stop me, my right to take photographs in a public place has already been taken away so giving them my details isn't going to take any more rights away from me.

    Banned

    pinkleponkle;7970309

    IC, I stand corrected. He still deserves a sound beating for behaving … IC, I stand corrected. He still deserves a sound beating for behaving like a tool though



    I'm guessing you're not at uni, studying to be a lawyer.:thinking:

    DanJackson;7970523

    How are you "eroding your rights"? You're answering a question. You're … How are you "eroding your rights"? You're answering a question. You're giving a police officer your name and address. That's all. I am a photographer and as I've already said, I'd be very annoyed if it happened to me but why on Earth would I inflame the situation by being stubborn?What rights am I giving away? By the time they stop me, my right to take photographs in a public place has already been taken away so giving them my details isn't going to take any more rights away from me.



    If you cannot see how then there is no point.

    You do not need to answer.

    Banned

    dontasciime;7970535

    If you cannot see how then there is no point.You do not need to answer.



    I did need to answer because I am one of those people in the article that can be specifically affected by this. Just because my point flew over your militant left-wing head doesn't mean it wasn't valid.

    DanJackson;7970549

    I did need to answer because I am one of those people in the article that … I did need to answer because I am one of those people in the article that can be specifically affected by this. Just because my point flew over your militant left-wing head doesn't mean it wasn't valid.



    And mine yours


    You do not need to answer was not directed at you it is why the guy refused to give his details he had done nothing wrong.

    en.wikipedia.org/wik…les

    there is no general duty to assist the police with their inquiries

    DanJackson;7970549

    I did need to answer because I am one of those people in the article that … I did need to answer because I am one of those people in the article that can be specifically affected by this. Just because my point flew over your militant left-wing head doesn't mean it wasn't valid.


    I really don't thinks its "militant left-wing" to expect the right to go about you lawful business with interference from the authorities. It's one of the important things that separates us from a Police state. I am not saying it's the only thing, but if you give up this right, then why not all the others?

    So you are happy for the police to continue to stop and request your name address at any given time without a valid reason (not a made up one) and this does not bother you or take your right to a fair procedure away from you ? OK

    If that's what you want. It's your right.

    Banned

    dontasciime;7970626

    So you are happy for the police to continue to stop and request your name … So you are happy for the police to continue to stop and request your name address at any given time without a valid reason (not a made up one) and this does not bother you or take your right to a fair procedure away from you ? OK If that's what you want. It's your right.



    She said he was acting suspiciously - without seeing how he was acting then it's impossible to judge whether she was being reasonable on not.

    FilthAndFurry;7970637

    She said he was acting suspiciously - without seeing how he was acting … She said he was acting suspiciously - without seeing how he was acting then it's impossible to judge whether she was being reasonable on not.



    That is true.

    However I make my point on the Basis that he was not acting in the manner described because he was telling the truth

    Same as in if it was you this happened to and you said to me you were not acting in that manner. I would believe you.

    The fella sounds a jockey.
    /thread.

    Banned

    dontasciime;7970670

    That is true.However I make my point on the Basis that he was not acting … That is true.However I make my point on the Basis that he was not acting in the manner described because he was telling the truthSame as in if it was you tis happened to and you said to me you were not acting in that manner. I would believe you.



    I wouldn't.

    The guy went to the guardian - the more anti-authority, the more it will appeal to a not inconsiderable chunk of the guardian's readership.

    He does come off as a bit of a jerk, one of those 'I know my rights' when he almost certainly doesn't.

    Not that it excuses the police abusing their powers (if they did), but it does make him slightly less than trustful.

    (How's that for fence-sitting):whistling:

    FilthAndFurry;7970637

    She said he was acting suspiciously - without seeing how he was acting … She said he was acting suspiciously - without seeing how he was acting then it's impossible to judge whether she was being reasonable on not.


    This was extremely unconvincing and lets remember, her much more experience reinforcement basically dropped this reason and went on the (I assume easier to "prove") anti-social behavior legislation.
    Interesting how that legislation was supposed according to the Sun etc to protect the old and vulnerable from young people and it was being used to lock up what sounded to me like a couple of near pensioners.

    FilthAndFurry;7970703

    I wouldn't.The guy went to the guardian - the more anti-authority, the … I wouldn't.The guy went to the guardian - the more anti-authority, the more it will appeal to a not inconsiderable chunk of the guardian's readership.He does come off as a bit of a jerk, one of those 'I know my rights' when he almost certainly doesn't.Not that it excuses the police abusing their powers (if they did), but it does make him slightly less than trustful.(How's that for fence-sitting):whistling:






    I take things at face value If he said there was no hidden agenda and he thinks the police abused their power then based on the video and his word I believe that he thinks they did.

    The Police do have a hard job but the majority outshine the bad ones.
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. What do you feel like whinging about today?1927365
      2. What would be HELL to you?1314
      3. Just heard this...2 ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ congrats to all on 392k ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★7767287
      4. The HUKD Student Discount code sharing thread (most codes on Unidays are si…7141346

      See more discussions