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. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    And now... what goes around, come around. :(
     
  2. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Funny that isn't it? Still, you can't blame me, I've never voted for either of them!
     
  3. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Right as well. But you will notice there is far less reaction to Labour sleaze now, which is indicative of rising complacency. In the '90s people cared that the Tories were sleazy, now everyone knows about lies over Iraq, spin with everything, burying bad news, flogging peerages to all comers, illegal donations, ministers resigning at about one a week, incompetence in the police, health service, railways etc, to say nothing of what Ken's mates get up to down at City Hall, but it ain't going to lose an election.
     
  4. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    [​IMG]

    I've tried, really I have, but even with ^these^ on things weren't so hunky-dory under the Tories as some would have us believe...
     
  5. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Shouldn't they be, blue tinted specs?

    [​IMG]

    :D
     
  6. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    Ooh, they're a bit 'mauve'... :eek:


    <font color="cfcfcf">As in, "Sherry!? Oh no, no, no, no. I'll fall straight into his trap. He's so mauve, we don't know what he'll do next." - Uncle Monty (Withnail & I)
     
  7. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Re: What is this country coming to?

    That'll teach me so save a CMYK file as sRGB without checking it first!

    Pasted your original into a file I was working on for print *sigh*

    error corrected now
     
  8. Scifibooknut

    Scifibooknut Member

    And, being a female photographer, I would probably be done with assault cos any plain-clothes coppers trying to take me to an unmarked car claiming to be police would probably get a knee someplace before I legged it!
     
  9. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    take the s and b out of sensible....... :eek:
     
  10. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    And who could blame you, or anyone really!

    Any sensible judge would throw it out of court. Trouble is, I'm not altogether sure there are any sensible judges! :rolleyes:
     
  11. Barney

    Barney Well-Known Member

    What, ensile? :D
     
  12. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    no... en lies ...french for c*b*l*rs :D
    (I think)
     
  13. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    Only just noticed this story.
    Now having been a cop for over 20 years (abuse me if you wish, i've probably heard it all before many times! :)), I must say this is typical of the way things have now gone.
    There is no common sense applied to anything that a lot of officers do (most being young in service and brought up in this strange PC, sensitive, fearful world).
    We are no longer allowed to use our discretion, everyone that comes into contact with us is a statistic and a performance indicator, where falling below a certain figure could ultimately affect the officers pay. Officers are scared sh*****s that if they didn't do something "right" they will be hauled over the coals, when if they stepped back and thought about it, they would realise that they are being pathetic, and thinking too black and white, and are potentially doing more harm than good.
    Yes there are circumstances where action would be appropriate, where potentially the incident fitted a certain stereotype (but of course we musn't use a stereotype, everyone, from every race from young to old could be a potential terrorist, just to show how diverse we are!!!) but as was mentioned earlier, just a few questions would eradicate any suspicion. That is good policing skills.
    But this incident and many like it (Not just relating to photographers) is entirely, in my opinion of course, the fault of this bloody awful government and their target driven world, where we cannot say what we want, or think what we want, in case we offend someone.

    Sorry about my rant, but you may have guessed that i am somewhat cynical, and counting down my last 9 years.
     
  14. beejaybee

    beejaybee Marvin

    Yes. What gets me is the hypocracy; apparently it's OK for the police (& sundry security agencies, some of them government., some of them private) to engage in covert photography of us plebs, but not OK for us to photograph objects which are in plain sight from public space.

    One law for them, one for us.

    Incidentally why were 20,000 off-duty cops allowed to march to Westminster the other day? Much smaller demos which have little potential for lawbreaking have been broken up ... another instance of what's OK for them isn't for us.

    Similarly traffic cops routinely driving dangerously and way, way above the speed limit under the protection of siren & flashing lights. Never hear of them getting nicked, even when their driving kills innocent bystanders. Sure they have a job to do, but so do some of us.

    I'll have a lot more sympathy for law enforcement agencies when they themselves stop flouting the laws they're all too ready to use to oppress us.
     
  15. Fen

    Fen Well-Known Member

    Sorry BJ, you're talking complete kybosh.

    There is a perfectly legal way around the 'no demos' ruling and that is for the people involved to be in a queue!

    Yeah, you read that right! If the people on the march say they are queue!

    Stop the War coalition used this loophole last year for their march.

    The police using this loophole was even in the news on the day - see here
     
  16. TheFatControlleR

    TheFatControlleR :Devil's Advocaat: Forum Admin

    Has the tosh, bosh, balderdash & piffle thread moved here now? :eek:


    <font color="cfcfcf">Good firm of lawyers, BTW... but they don't handle sedition cases.
     
  17. Tacitus

    Tacitus Well-Known Member

    Phew! For a moment there I thought you were an retired PC-Plod (his term) who now works for me! He has exactly the same views. But he also sees the demise starting when he stopped being a beat officer with a "daily plod" which took him, and younger recruits, out into the real world and gave them local knowledge, insights and understanding of both normal people and the neighbourhood villans, etc.

    The worrying issue is that if the individual police officer isn't allowed to use their common sense and intelligence - or if they choose not to - they become even more of an (unthinking and/or unwitting) instrument of political agendas and, of course, "the state".
     
  18. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    To respond to a couple of comments..

    Without going into the details regarding law and procedure, you would not believe the hoops we now have to jump through to carry out covert obs on subjects, whether visual aids are used or not. This was brought in to protect the criminal, sorry I mean Joe public.
    I as a cop and a photographer would love to take my camera on duty to photograph sights (not job related) but won't do so in case I am seen and a complaint is made, and then trying to justify my actions.
    I suppose if you were the victim or intended victim of a serious crime, you wouldn't want the police to carry out covert observations on the suspects, because you believe you are not allowed to photograph things in the public domain (which is NOT against the law). Good you stick to your principles! But then again I suppose you'd moan then that they didn't do anything!
    I like it when people have a bit of an idea regarding the Law. Have you ever thought that there may be laws and Acts that enable the Police to carry out their duties, so in fact they are not breaking the laws, but working within specic laws and Acts of Parliament

    As to cars speeding, I know officers who have been convicted of offences. However the law is there to allow emergency services the right to break certain laws in regard to the road traffic act, in certain conditions.
    We can't win. Joe public complains if we don't get there soon enough and also complains if in their opinion we drive too fast or too dangerous. Bear in mind my self and lots of other officers have had intense 4 week driving courses, driving at speed etc. You would be surprised how many idioyts think it is funny to pull out, or jump into the path of an oncoming car with all its eqpt on. But God forbid we hit one, its all our fault!
    People get killed by idiots in stolen cars, drink drivers, drugged drivers, booy racers etc, but if we try and stop them and a pursuit starts, and the worst scenario happens its all of a sudden our fault.
    To give an example, if I begin to pursue a car which then gets away, or the pursuit is stopped owing to the danger, that car several miles or many minutes later crashes it is still investigated as a crash involving police, where ultimately the great British public blame us.
    Many officers because of this don't even bother. It is not worth the trouble.

    Also bear in mind, we are also members of the public. I like many others have points on our licence for speeding in our own cars when caught by the dreaded cameras. We are not exempt then.
    But hey, what are the police there for if not to have everyone elses anger taken out n them.

    And as for the march, yeah right. Noone else has marched through London have they?
    I was on that march. we didn't hide our faces, we did not chant, we were not rowdy, we didn't trash Trafalgar Square or break McDonalds windows, didn't even throw anything at the police marshalling us. How boring. Good job the other marches that there are are more exciting.
     
  19. dream_police

    dream_police Well-Known Member

    You are right, the main part of the March from Hyde Park corner was totally within the law. We were not allowed to March to Parliament, and that didn't happen, the march stopped over the bridge. Protesting at Parliament is against the law. Queueing to see your MP is lawful, which is what many officers did. Me I was in the pub! ;)
     
  20. Chris Cool

    Chris Cool Retired

    Well said Nige, in all your posts :cool:

    You can do me for speeding anytime :eek: ;)

    First pints on you :cool:
     

Share This Page