Section 43 or section 44??
Thanks
Matt.
Sounds to me like the officer took a "you're not doing what I say so I'm going to make your life hell sonny Jim" attitude to the whole affair.
Who's willing to bet that the police will try (and possibly succeed) to cover up the whole thing?
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most
Owning a camera does not make you a photographer. It makes you a person who owns a camera. And, if the authorities are to be believed, a pedophile, a terrorist, and a pervert.
I understand that police are investigating why 'Section 43' was used.
They should also (at the very least) reprimand the officer for attempting to get the images deleted, which we all know is illegal.
Shouldn't that be "dismiss for breaking the law" as he's an officer of the law and therefore any breach of said law should surely be grounds for compulsory and summary dismissal.
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most
Owning a camera does not make you a photographer. It makes you a person who owns a camera. And, if the authorities are to be believed, a pedophile, a terrorist, and a pervert.
The PC quoted Section 42.Section 43 or section 44??
Stephen Russell has a detailed blog post about it here - seems he was manhandled a bit as well.
http://narrowboater.blogspot.com/201...terrorist.html
Which seems to be a prevailing attitude in the farce these days. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]Sounds to me like the officer took a "you're not doing what I say so I'm going to make your life hell sonny Jim" attitude to the whole affair.
TheFatControlleR
Resident Cynic
'But above all, he should be taught to yield to the truth, and to lay down his arms as soon as he discovers it, whether it appears in his opponents argument, or to himself in his own thoughts.' - Michel de Montaigne (on the education of children)
'Everybody is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.' - Winston Churchill
'Live fat, die young, and leave a self-basting corpse for the burn up...' - TFC
In which case he's got a case for assault, criminal damage (for handling his camera) and illegal detention, all of which carry a hefty prison sentence if it were a member of the public. Again, anyone willing to bet the police officers won't even get a slap on the wrist?
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most
Owning a camera does not make you a photographer. It makes you a person who owns a camera. And, if the authorities are to be believed, a pedophile, a terrorist, and a pervert.
HA! are you seriously saying that the police can break their own laws and also not be accountable for them!?? ( shock horror)Shouldn't that be "dismiss for breaking the law" as he's an officer of the law and therefore any breach of said law should surely be grounds for compulsory and summary dismissal.
no change there then ! as i said in another thread on here... its building up to a public roit as far as photographers and police are concerned !
i wouldnt mind if the law makers and government actualy looked at the potential concequences of what they are enforcing... at least the law is not subjective and it doesnt matter what the colour of your skin is... its just whether you HOLD a CAMERA !
maybe the manufacturers need to put a law guideline book in every single camera equipment box they sell in the UK !!! so we all know exactly where we all stand ?
plus a photographer can then throw section quotes back at the authorities on why they shouldnt be requested to erase any picture on their camera.
its seems like its the only way to go now..
i can see it now.. soon there will be a law passed to say that its illegal to operate a camera of any description!
its beginning to sounds like a hollywood scifi block buster!
Unbelievable !
* The world is like a ride at an amusement park! And when you choose to go on it, you think that it's real because that's how powerful our minds are!
There is a lot denial in this ride, the ride, in fact, is made up of denial *
Bill Hicks 1993
Well since the Home Office advice and two lots of circulars from ACPO's still aren't getting through perhaps AP should hae yet another meeting with the Home Office Minister.
Cavyslave
Start making these people accountable for their (illegal) actions and they will soon start thinking twice about acting illegally.Well since the Home Office advice and two lots of circulars from ACPO's still aren't getting through perhaps AP should hae yet another meeting with the Home Office Minister.
Owen.
"Thank God I'm an atheist"!
I wouldn't be so sure; a white (or rather 'non-black') S&S helps balance the books when it comes to the stats & percentages.... at least the law is not subjective and it doesnt matter what the colour of your skin is... its just whether you HOLD a CAMERA !
TheFatControlleR
Resident Cynic
'But above all, he should be taught to yield to the truth, and to lay down his arms as soon as he discovers it, whether it appears in his opponents argument, or to himself in his own thoughts.' - Michel de Montaigne (on the education of children)
'Everybody is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled. But some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.' - Winston Churchill
'Live fat, die young, and leave a self-basting corpse for the burn up...' - TFC
The officer concerned obviously had little idea of what he was doing. The Stop and Search "receipt" that Mr Russell was given cites s42 as the relevant legal power under which the photographer was stopped. Section 42 of the Terrorism Act 2000 authorises a Justice of the Peace to issue a search warrant for premises in which a suspect is believed to be hiding. OK, so a 'technical error'. We've written to the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police asking for her explanation of what transpired. Police officers do not ever have the right to take the law into their own hands - or invent grounds for doing so - just because someone refuses to give in to their unreasonable demands.
Whilst the photographer was on his way to get fish and chips, presumably this copper had just had a curry (the favourite meal of a large part of our police farce these days).
Dave
What is it with these coppersAre the Police only employing people with 'small man' syndrome. Do they not realise that their actions are just alienating the public more and actually probably doing more damage to the fight against terrorism, than good.
If they are not getting enough satisfaction in their current job, I suggest they nip down the local Army Careers Office and sign up. Then they can go to the Frontline in Helmand and really fight terrorism (However I doubt there would be many takers, as it would require a little bottle
Perhaps the Police ought to start carrying out psychological tests on their officers and the Chief Constables ought to get a grip of their officers
This seems to be yet another plod demanding that potential evidence be destroyed. Shouldn't they be be taking the card and issuing a receipt for it, or alternatively doing nothing? I suppose that making a decision about those alternatives would require the officer to make a serious justification of her/his actions if the decision later proved to be wrong.
heres a couple of links
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsear...ce_leaflet.pdf
might be a good idea to arm ourselves with the facts and keep in the camera bag.
:-)
* The world is like a ride at an amusement park! And when you choose to go on it, you think that it's real because that's how powerful our minds are!
There is a lot denial in this ride, the ride, in fact, is made up of denial *
Bill Hicks 1993
Anyone fancy a read? You can guess where it comes from by the URL
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/faq-answer?id=Q717
There does not seem to be a news item or press release relating to this.
Adrian
All part of the fun of extreme vintage photography
You'll be amazed at the carp I've posted here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gray1720/
Unfortunately, there are two things you need to bear in mind when reading this particular piece:Anyone fancy a read? You can guess where it comes from by the URL
http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/faq-answer?id=Q717
There does not seem to be a news item or press release relating to this.
1) It is a complete load of self-serving obllox for many reasons
2) TVP were the police force involved in the OP
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
