Is Martin Parr correct!? Should we fight back?

The police have never been well trained in matters of law. It`s not in their interest.They need to rely on the ignorance of the public more often that not to get data and meet their targets.
I dealt with them a lot at one time and they would be forever quoting legislation at me in order to force me to give them information. These were in connection with serious personal crimes. I never did because the legislation which they quoted was selective. The next step would be to threaten a Court Order. Great ,go ahead. Never got one in three years. It`s bully boy stuff but if you are an individual it often works `cause you have to think carefully about the consequencies. I could afford to stand my ground. Joe public often cannot and the police know that. A sad situation for all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nonsense!

Civil servants are in their jobs for decades and meet many of their colleagues socially - they meet up at events like parties and dinners or just at the pub and talk work more times than they'd like to. These legal issues are known to all of them, new and old, and are talked about and discussed on lots of occasions, both at work and outside.

So please stop trying to forge the ludicrous idea into our heads that these people don't know the limits of the law and what they are allowed to do within these limits.

They know alright. It's part of their job. They're just pretending not to know when out on the streets, to try to trick photographers into voluntarily complying with illegal searches and questioning.
 
I don't think anyone has mentioned the US First Amendment for free speech in the Bill of Rights.

NYC's Mayor Bloomberg didn't exactly attempt a ban, but attempted to extract a fee from street photographers.

He failed 🙂 because of the 1st Amendment; there in increasing evidence that the Bill of Rights is really built from Native law.

wgerrard said:
So then, under Section 44, the police have no legal obligation to tell the BBC photographer or a court why he was singled out from all the other photographers taking essentially the same photo?
Click to expand...

It has been a decade since I was in London (I am in the US), but when I was there EVERYONE was cool, except the police, who were among the worst I have ever encountered. I thought that was pretty weird.

This coming from someone who has lived all over the South, Midwest, etc, and was a trucker.
 
Last edited:
john_van_v said:
...Actually now that I think about it, if anyone encounters a London "bobbie" outside of jurisdiction, or even better--photographing the Statue of Liberty, then he should beat his face into a blood pudding.
Click to expand...

That's what I love about the Internet, one gets to represent one's nationality with such flair! It's not like we don't already lead the world in crime and violence in general. And have the largest prison population on the planet, larger than the Soviet Gulag system. Thanks, John, for waving Old Glory so proudly!

~Joe
 
john_van_v said:
I don't think anyone has mentioned the US First Amendment for free speech in the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

Hardly relevant to a discussion about the UK.


...there in increasing evidence that the Bill of Rights is really built from Native law.
Click to expand...

Native law? Sounds like so much mumbo-jumbo.

It has been a decade since I was in London (I am in the US), but when I was there EVERYONE was cool, except the police, who were among the worst I have ever encountered.
Click to expand...

I'm interested in understanding the criteria UK police use to distinguish a photographer who may pose a threat from other photographers at the same location.

Actually now that I think about it, if anyone encounters a London "bobbie" outside of jurisdiction, or even better--photographing the Statue of Liberty, then he should beat his face into a blood pudding.
Click to expand...

Thank you for confirming the stereotype.
 
john_van_v said:
It has been a decade since I was in London (I am in the US), but when I was there EVERYONE was cool, except the police, who were among the worst I have ever encountered. I thought that was pretty weird.
Click to expand...

I just figure this out: London absorbs all its defectives in the its PD, so that the non-PD population is disproportionately normal. We should try that! Then make us some blood pudding!

Looking back on history a litte, I know that many English rebels came to the US to gather strength during the US rebellion, and then returned to, obviously, make major improvements.

It is fairly well known that Washington, and Englishman, betrayed the revolution, installed English common law, ripped-off the revolutionary soldiers, and preserved slavery--abolition being a major goal of the revoltion. Also very significant, he preserved the debtor prisons, a condition that led to Shays Rebellion that occured about ten miles where where I write.

Shays, and the mis-named Whiskey Rebellion, comprised the true revolution forcing the creation of the Constitution, and most importantly, the Bill of Rights, which is the template for all rights documents, especially the UN Charter.

The Whiskey Rebellion occured because Philly lawyers were drawing boxes on maps (Mumford's annexation), and calling the area inside the boxes their estates, and the people in these boxes their serfs. If you were inside a box, you had to buy your freedom from these, well, Philly lawyer defectives.

Ben Franklin was one of them.
 
Last edited:
Fighting for ones rights is a must. We will lose the rest of them, presently, otherwise.

We have already lost so many due to the hysteria and the fact that so many don't have a bone of protest (or is that well camouflaged chicken syndrome?) in them.

The state of the nation is such that I wonder if the terrorists have not won, and won in just the most insidious and thus damaging way. 🙁
 
When I was little and had first come to Canada after escaping from the Communists I was struck by how scandalized the Canadians were, as they were wringing their hands about how terrible it must have been for poor little ol' me to live under such a horrible regime.

I remember one day vividly. I spoke up in class, in grade four, when the teacher was speaking to the class about how great our country and freedoms were. I told her a few details of what it was like (in truth a mixed bag compared to the strictures I was discovering in Canada, which were different in detail but sometimes close in principle) and happened to mention two things that seemed to get a strong reaction from all. I mentioned that there the teacher can call and report suspicions to the police, in fact was bound by law to, and that one can not take photos of military installations.

The teacher was so proud of me. She made me come up to the head of the class and pointed at me two feet away as she stressed again how wonderful it is to be Canadian and have these freedoms. How terrible it must have to have been unfortunate like I had just been - and I guess by inference how graced I was now.

She was right - though it was an embarrassing experience for me the "unwashed - but now saved." It was something to not take for granted. Something to be appreciative of. Something for stand up for.

I wonder how she and the rest of the approving crowd there feel today. Do they get it - what has happened?
 
Pavel+ said:
Fighting for ones rights is a must. We will lose the rest of them, presently, otherwise.

We have already lost so many due to the hysteria...(
Click to expand...

Hysteria on either side of the spectrum is lamentable.

I have to say that I don't see my rights as being infringed in any way. I do what I want and go where I want. I'm indifferent to the ubiquitous CCTV in the UK because it doesn't stop me doing anything. No one in the UK has ever approached me when I've been taking photos. I've taken pictures of British cops and received only smiles in return.

What's going in the UK can be attributed to less-than-adroitly worded legislation and lack of effective supervision of amateurish police aides, and, perhaps, ineffective vetting and selection procedures. It isn't necessary to pin this on some kind of anti-democratic conspiracy. That's as much of an over-reaction, and just as dangerous, as hysteria about photographers.
 
i don't intend this as an attack but what is equally lamentable is the "well in my world all's good so what's the concern" attitude.
 
emraphoto said:
Well sorry if I misunderstood your point however it sure came across that way.
Click to expand...

How so?

I haven't condoned any of these police actions. Just the opposite, in fact.

I don't like all the CCTV use in the UK, but that has never infringed on my rights when I've been in the country and I have difficulty seeing how it might.

I don't think there is a conspiracy to trample on the rights of photographers because, frankly, people -- in and out of government -- aren't clever enough to pull if off.

The language in the British anti-terror legislation that gives these powers to police is imprecise. That imprecision means too much decisionmaking authority is placed in the hands of individual police officers, and too much reliance is placed on their individual judgement. Combine that with the use of amateur volunteer police support officers -- certain to attract people with an overwrought and fantasized view of a police officer's role -- and you have sufficient explanation for what's happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom