My fellow criminals...

[visiondr]

Let's say I don't like someone, this is a pretty easy way to hassle them, cause some trouble, and create a cloud of suspicion around them (word gets around that the police are looking around about some suspicious activity).

That kind of behavior may very well be actionable. You can sue that person's ass off for Slander. Yeah, it's cold comfort when your reputation is trashed. But, people just can't go around doing the kinds of things you describe just to "cause some trouble".

 

[bmattock]

What, pray tell, is behaving suspiciously? Who determines that? You don't seem to have a grasp of fear and paranoia. A certain mainstream political party in the US does, however.

I worked in law enforcement for many years. I believe I have a grasp of what 'behaving suspiciously' is and is not. Most people do. And the courts of the US have held that police officers can act based on their mere suspicion - to the extend of stopping an individual and asking them to identify themselves and what they're about.

So what don't I grasp? I suspect that most of the Perry Masons in this thread have not got a clue what is legal and what is not.

 

[Trius]

Bill: You miss my point. The OP calls on citizens of the entire range of knowledge, intelligence, judgment, etc., to call in what they consider suspicious behaviour. I admit to not being a legal expert. So you are ... big whoop. That leaves gazillions of people of who will get jacked up on their new-found calling to call me in when I simply walk around with a camera and make a stupid bokeh test shot of a fence around some building THEY think is high security. And chances are some cop of far less training and intelligence and expertise than you will attend to the situation.

The issue here is not whether one should report suspicious behaviour. It's the silly-damn-effing POSTER, and the fear-climate that accompanies such campaigns.

 

[Trius]

Not to be pedantic, but, the FDR quote (part of his first inaugural address) had nothing to do with foreign aggression, crime or terrorism. It had to do with fear of a collapsing economy - i.e. the Great Depression. And for good reason—by 1933 the depression had reached its depth.

I am well aware of the context of the statement and speech. It changes nothing.

 

[bmattock]

Bill: You miss my point. The OP calls on citizens of the entire range of knowledge, intelligence, judgment, etc., to call in what they consider suspicious behaviour.

Correct. Calling in what any person considers suspicious behavior is a citizen's duty. The police will sort out whether it is or not.

I admit to not being a legal expert. So you are ... big whoop.

I am not an attorney, and what legal knowledge I have is admittedly dated and subject to error.

That leaves gazillions of people of who will get jacked up on their new-found calling to call me in when I simply walk around with a camera and make a stupid bokeh test shot of a fence around some building THEY think is high security.

And I contend that there is nothing wrong with them doing that. What might be wrong is what happens after they do that, depending upon how the police handle it.

And chances are some cop of far less training and intelligence and expertise than you will attend to the situation.

I've been complaining about that very thing for years, if you recall. It absolutely galls me that some police officers believe they have the right to make up laws as they go along, and we're seeing quite a lot of that lately. You and I are on the same side of this fence.

The issue here is not whether one should report suspicious behaviour. It's the silly-damn-effing POSTER, and the fear-climate that accompanies such campaigns.

It comes down, in my opinion, to a citizens's duty to report suspicious (yes, by their own terms, whatever those might be) behavior and circumstances to the police, who should be better trained to deal with people like photographers, who are behaving in a legal manner.

When I was in law enforcement, we had an old lady, a typical snoopy old busybody, who called every day. People were doing things she didn't like or approve of, and she was constantly bothering us about this or that. However, we were not permitted to blow her off - her call might not be the highest priority, but we always responded - we'd have been sued if we had not. One day, she called in a burglary in progress of her neighbors next door who were on vacation. We rolled one unit, just to check it out and let her see the cruiser and know we were listening to her complaints - it was real. We got the guys.

Like it or not, when I was in law enforcement, we urged people to call us if they saw or heard anything they felt needed to be investigated by the police. If there was nothing to it, then there was nothing to it. We caught more than one guy breaking into his own house after getting locked out by the missus, or who came home drunk and lost his keys in the bushes and busted out a window. Sure, we could not arrest them, they had done nothing wrong (except DUI, but past the fact, we could not arrest them). However, it might have been a real burglary, so thanks to the neighbors who called because they heard glass break at 2 a.m.

We don't ask citizens to be legal experts or diviners of what is and is not worthy of investigating. We ask them to be our eyes and ears and to let us know when they think we should become involved. So if I am taking photos in a public place and someone reports me to a police officer, I don't have a problem with that. I'll happily provide my ID, explain why I'm there and what I'm doing. Once I've done that, I don't expect to be further detained, hassled, or forbidden - because I am breaking no law. As long as our encounter stops there, I feel the police are doing their job and good on them. No harm, no foul.

When they step over the line and try to make me stop doing something that is completely legal because they feel they have the power to do that - then we have a problem.

 

[xayraa33]

It has all been going downhill in this world after the demise of this man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCrovnNGdSg

 

[jonmanjiro]

Spotted here!

 

[ruben]

Hi Bill,
Would youi mind to contact me ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Keith Cocker]

It's getting mad, I blame the USA for having the worst foreign policy in recorded history and the UK for being so pathetic we just follow along.

But, where to go?

Hear Hear.

 

[amateriat]

Huxley. Orwell. Our esteemed Mr. McGoohan.

But I'm thinking of an exchange in a scene from a movie that more or less put it all together, and is far more relevant now than when it was first released:


(Frame grab from Brazil)

Jack: How much do you know about this?

Sam: Um, not much.

Jack: What does B58-732 mean to you?

Sam: Buttle.

Jack: I knew it. You were always bloody quick, Sam. Who else knows? Warren? Helpman?

Sam: I don't know. I only know you got the wrong man.

Jack: Information Transit got the "wrong" man. I got the right man. The wrong one was delivered to me as the right man, I accepted him on good faith as the right man. Was I wrong?

Sam: You killed Buttle...

Jack: Sam...there are very rigid parameters laid down to prevent such things happening...it wasn't my fault Buttle's heart condition didn't appear on Tuttle's file.

Sam: What has Tuttle done?

Jack: We suspect him of freelance subversion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so it goes. We do come up with fanciful new terms for things (think of Ansel Adams' quip about taking sharp images of fuzzy ideas), create huge new "superagencies" to deal with these things (this, from the same guys who championed "smaller" government, but nobody's hands are exactly clean there), money changes hands, and...well, exactly what is happening? I get wanded every time I go into almost any building reomtely having to do with governmental function (except the DMV...I have my own theory about that, but I'm fresh out of Reynolds Wrap...)


- Barrett

 

[Sparrow]

"The value of insipid opponents. At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." ----Nietzsche

Yep, that’s it in a nutshell

 

[Sparrow]

When the time comes my room 101 will have a copy of The Negative and nowhere to sleep



:angel:

 

[Kim Coxon]

Having read this thread, I don't think I have come across such disinformation and paranoia for some time.

If many of the posts are to be taken at face value, the British Police are conducting a campaign against photographers and trying to ban photography. Furthermore the governments of the world are trying to induce mass panic in order to control us and turn us into Zombies.

Had the police targeted cameras only then there may have been some small justification. However, the posters also cover mobile phones and even houses. Are they also trying to stop the use of mobile phones in public and stop us living in houses? Many of the UK members will probably remember what was happening in the UK about 15 years ago when there were frequent attacks by the IRA. There were various campaigns then asking the public to be vigilant. Around that time most of the rubbish bins in London and other major centres were either removed or sealed especially on railway stations because it was a favourite place for bombs. The public were asked to report any suspicious activity. There are quite a few people in the UK who spend their time at the end of railway platforms and collec the numbers of the trains or photograph them. It wasn't banned then or indeed now but you could be expected to be asked who you were if you did this. Nobody stoped you but there were many attacks against the stations.

If an attack takes place, the first thing that is asked is why didn't the police stop it. Why didn't they find out about it before etc etc. Very many areas in the UK have Neighbourhood Watch schemmes which encourage people to phone the police if the see something suspicious in order to reduce crime. Should this be banned because we are asking people to help turn the country into a big brother state?

One of the posters (http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/counter_terrorism/ct_door_2008.pdf) "targets" houses. If the curtains are always drawn, maybe something is going on. Perhaps the occupants have had an accident. However, it dosn't mean we should go round flinching past everydoor. Maybe we should duck everytime we see someone using a mobile phone. http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/counter_terrorism/ct_phone_2008.pdf

If there is paranoia, I don't think it is caused by the police or indeed the government and certainly not as a policy. Rather I think much of it comes from sensationalism in the press and equally from threads susch as these. Remember a short while ago, someone put a petition on the governement website asking that cameras should not be banned. Within a short space of time all the forums were full of angry threads about the UK government trying to ban photography in public places. None of it had any basis in fact. Most of it was based on the posters trying to express their pet political view or rant against Nation/ Belief/ Political Party/ etc etc.

There is a threat- history shows that. If the police did nothing we would complain. However, as soon as they try to do something, everybody complains about infringement of liberty's etc etc. (Unless of course it only affects a different group from us and then it is OK )

Kim

 

[Spider67]

Would someone explain to me what is wrong with a person reporting something that they think might be suspicious?

Would someone likewise explain to me what is wrong with a police officer asking a photographer what he or she is about?

Actually not as long as it's just asking and Ithe British policemen I remember were outstandingly friendly.......BUT some guys in the force will take thata s an opportunity to simoly prohibit things that are allowed by using their authority.

The cop walking up to me and saying "may I ask what you are doing here sir" has many possibilities to make a threat ouf this harmless question.
Maybe there's nothing wwrong with the people but with the times we live in

 

[fgianni]

Ah, Brazil, i haven't watched in a while, time to get the DVD out again.

Best Bloody film ever, "George Orwell meets the Monty Phyton", pure genius from Terry Gilliam.

Huxley. Orwell. Our esteemed Mr. McGoohan.

But I'm thinking of an exchange in a scene from a movie that more or less put it all together, and is far more relevant now than when it was first released:

- Barrett

 

[Florian1234]

Let's say I don't like someone, this is a pretty easy way to hassle them, cause some trouble, and create a cloud of suspicion around them (word gets around that the police are looking around about some suspicious activity).

This actually reminds me of the pilgrim fathers' settlements in America where all the evil witches were creeping around.

No, I don't want to make fun about, since I'd love to get to the UK in the near future. So this whole initiative makes me feel a bit bad and makes you think about it.

 

[kully]

You're right Kim.

bmattock,

The reason this sends a shiver or two down my spine is when it is taken in the context of contempory Britain - the fear of doing something suspicious.

This Wednesday I was outside a supermarket around 9:30pm, there was a small pre-nursery girl walking around and her parents were no where to be seen.

A group of 'adults' formed to discuss what should be done, but no-one wanted to actually go over and talk to her in case it was considered 'inappropriate', so one of them sent their daughter to ask where her parents were... Then a security guard was called but he wasn't comfortable and sent for a female member of staff.

Last summer at the beach with my fiance - lady told me not to take a photo of her because the womans children were behind her...

Last summer again I was in a B&Q toilet when a child ran in by accident - I was terrified.

I wouldn't expect to understand the zeitgeist of where you live, and what you say makes perfect common-sense, but there is a certain atmosphere here, propogated by the 'gutter press' which I don't know how can be reversed.

 

[Sparrow]

Kim, what you neglected to mention is the attitude of the government in all this. During the IRA’s campaigns; every single statement from government and their spokesmen, of whatever party, contained a plea to “maintain normality” whatever the threat.

It is that which is missing from this add-campaign and from all of the politicians, I had never been challenged when taking photos, not even in Northern Ireland during the troubles, until this last year. Twice now I have been told “the law says you can’t…..” by members of the public; now they are getting that idea from somewhere, and emphasizing the threat I would suggest is one way to plant the seed of that idea.

 

[projectbluebird]

Would someone explain to me what is wrong with a person reporting something that they think might be suspicious?

Would someone likewise explain to me what is wrong with a police officer asking a photographer what he or she is about?

I have no problem with reporting suspicious behavior. I do with singling out anyone with a camera as potentially suspicious.

Here in the U.S. the police have to have a valid reason for detaining you, but there are ways of making sure you aren't a threat that don't involve detaining or arresting you.

One of the local police departments here was somewhat "overzealous" a few years back (post 9/11) and they arrested a photographer who wouldn't give them ID. It went to court, and it cost the department over $30,000.

The photographer was perfectly within their rights, they weren't doing anything illegal, but they were arrested anyway.

I used to laugh when people said we have to do these things to protect ourselves because otherwise, "the terrorists will have won."

I don't anymore, because once you start thinking that way, they have.
(quick, alert big brother! double plus ungood thoughcrime in progress!)

 

[bmattock]

You're right Kim.

bmattock,

The reason this sends a shiver or two down my spine is when it is taken in the context of contempory Britain - the fear of doing something suspicious.

This Wednesday I was outside a supermarket around 9:30pm, there was a small pre-nursery girl walking around and her parents were no where to be seen.

A group of 'adults' formed to discuss what should be done, but no-one wanted to actually go over and talk to her in case it was considered 'inappropriate', so one of them sent their daughter to ask where her parents were... Then a security guard was called but he wasn't comfortable and sent for a female member of staff.

Last summer at the beach with my fiance - lady told me not to take a photo of her because the womans children were behind her...

Last summer again I was in a B&Q toilet when a child ran in by accident - I was terrified.

I wouldn't expect to understand the zeitgeist of where you live, and what you say makes perfect common-sense, but there is a certain atmosphere here, propogated by the 'gutter press' which I don't know how can be reversed.

Fair enough. I don't live in the UK and don't know what the conditions are. It shoulds like everyone is creeping about on tenterhooks, scared of their own shadows. If the government is encouraging that sort of fear, that's not a good thing, clearly.

I won't say we don't have our share of that sort of paranoia here, but I hope it hasn't gotten as bad as all that. I have never feared the police here - I simply dislike it when they make up their own 'laws' to keep people from doing perfectly legal things which they just don't happen to like.