1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Police issue statement on covert photos

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Jan 23, 2008.

  1. CSBC

    CSBC RIP (News Editor)

  2. pachinkofan

    pachinkofan Well-Known Member

    could they have made his picture any bigger? [480 x 631, 1890.42 kB (1935785 bytes)]

    you can tell it wasn't posted on the forum ;)


  3. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Well, they had to post it big enough for the police to print out to put on the wanted posters!
  4. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    With my experience in the advertising business, I can say that unless photographers robustly defend their right to do what they do, their rights will be progressively be taken from them.
    Reason is that authority in general is powerless to solve a whole range of social problems, so they take refuge in restricting things that they can restrict, whether they have any effect on the problem or not. Chiefly they focus on "safe" things where there will be little backlash because the majority of people don't do or value it and where there might be some superficial credit to be gained.
    Advertising is always characterised as acting in covert and invisible ways (which for something that by definition tries to attract attention to itself, is somewhat strange)and it will not be difficult to characterise any photography short of setting up a tripod as somehow covert. Setting up a tripod however is already banned in a vast number of places because it might be a commercial activity. Or might it be a covert activity disguised as a commercial one? Better ban it just in case. Better safe than sorry, you know. Just try erecting a tripod in any shopping mall and I give you 30 secs before you are arrested. The fact that any criminal with half a brain "cases" places these days with a phone seems lost on officialdom. But whoops what have I said? Surely using a phone might be covert photography and should be banned? And some people have photographic memories, don't they? Better get everyone to sign a form saying they have terrible memories before entering a public place.
  5. mark_jacobs

    mark_jacobs Retired

    Mr Cheesman is adjusting his content management system as we type :)

    edit: Well, the content appears to be the same - but it has been managed differently :D
  6. Mark101

    Mark101 Well-Known Member

    Meanwhile, in London, 18,000 suspicious looking individuals dressed in baseball caps to hide their faces and attire normally associated with 16 year old thugs held a rally. The Met were out in force photographing ring leaders and conducted stop and search excercises on suspicious participants of the rally who were taking photos with mobile phones and compact cameras. Nearby streets hid police reinforcements in riot gear and paddy wagons for the tens of arrests expected.

    Meanwhile, Jackie Smith MP went into hiding fleeing the Home Office for the House of Commons with the words ' I have important work in the house which means I'll not be at the Home Office when these people come calling'.

    Elsewhere water canons were spotted moving into position as were helicopters taking videos of every individual in the rally. Those in the rally simply pulled their baseball caps down over their faced to avoid idenification.
  7. Lounge Lizard

    Lounge Lizard Well-Known Member

    What is this country coming to?

    Are we developing into a police state where the police can interpret any circumstance, no matter how lawful, into a justification for their over-reaction by a stop, interrogation and confiscation procedure? Then they say that they expect any officer to react "in the same manner if given a similar situation" i.e. taking photographs in a public place.

    Is this the level of policing today? With gun and knife crime on the increase and more and more 'no go' areas in the larger cities, do the police really have to show that they have power by cracking down on innocent members of the public pursuing a legal and commonplace hobby? Just what is this country coming to? :mad:
  8. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Have been since the 80s, IMO, only moreso now... :(
  9. Matt_Hunt

    Matt_Hunt Well-Known Member

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Sadly, yes.

    Of course, trying to prove that a more effective target reccie can be made using a small camera phone, pacing distances, sitting around drinking lager whilst observing the coming and goings would probably prove to officialdom that you need holding for 28 days whilst they decide which cracks in the pavement to charge you with standing on.

    I too wondered if the marching Police would be photographed, held in cordons and only released in dribs and drabs etc etc. Guess not....
  10. Hotblack

    Hotblack Dead Horse Flogger

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Since about 1984, perchance? :rolleyes:
  11. weasley

    weasley Well-Known Member

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    I have to admit to having some sympathy towards the police on this one. Apparently covert photography could be a cause for suspicion. However, once the subject has been stopped and questioned there is no need to confiscate film if the circumstances turn out to be apparently innocent.

    Imagine if there were some terrorist attrocity in a public place and the police found photographs at the offender's house, taken in the street and used for 'scoping' purposes. If only someone had thought to have a chat with that bloke with the camera - a well-trained officer should be able to detect a tall story in a face-to-face encounter.

    I'm all for the right to carry out our hobby/passion/art/profession in the street but we really ought to accept that we have to do so responsibly and, if we're questioned, be open, honest and patient. If we demand the right to a free rein then the ne'er-do-wells will soon be taking advantage of our status.

    As I've said before, it is neither the police nor the photographers at fault here, it's the scum that use photography as a tool to satisfy their own, deviant ambitions. Unfortunately we all suffer.
  12. Tacitus

    Tacitus Well-Known Member

    If non-uniformed police acted against such 'abberant' photographers - possibly whisking them into an unmarked car for "questioning" - we might reasonably infer that we live in a virtual (if not actual) police state.

    However, until that happens - and while there's a real threat to our way of life, <u>and</u> especially while we are policed by the creme-de-le-creme (the yellow-jacketed Community Support Officers) - we really don't need to be concerned. As the saying goes "if you haven't done anything wrong there's no need to worry" .....

    Wahey! three pigs just flew over in formation.

  13. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    There's 'covert' and there's covert. This guy, according to the TV report, was employing a fairly standard technique for Street Photography. The camera was in view, just not held up to the eye.

    A true 'covert' photographer wouldn't even have the camera in view!
  14. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    ... in a black-and-white chequered helicopter.

    Ah, well, I knew we were being cr*pped on from a great height; now at least we know who the culprits are.
  15. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin


    New Scotland Yard Declared Londons 5th Airport
  16. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    That joke's so old I remember when it was 3rd Airport... :D
  17. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    I initially put '3rd', then had to update it! :eek:
  18. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    And I dare say some round here recall when it was 2nd - after Croydon - eh, David? :D
  19. Bettina

    Bettina Well-Known Member

    You mean after Heathrow, Luton, Stansted, Gatwick and London City ...? Or somewhere in between?
  20. Per

    Per Well-Known Member

    Now why didn't I think of that? :)

Share This Page