Britain as a police state: What is happening there?

In rec.photo.digital Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:28 GMT, "MC" wrote:
Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" wrote:

mikeos wrote:

Bristolian wrote:

An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was
stopped while taking innocent photos in central London were
themselves quizzed while filming.

So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when
given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds
quite reasonable to me.

Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to demand
ID? It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if they
didn't have any?

You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section 44
you still do not have to provide your details. You only have to
tell them who you are if they intend to report you for a crime or
you are arrested.


All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
police database.



You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is happening
less and less as citizens become more aware of their rights under the
law and more people than ever making complaints to the Police
Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not only are more people
having their complaints upheld but PCs on the ground are finding it
such a hassle to be subject to complaints investigations, however minor
the hassles may be, that the days of arrest first ask questions later
are becoming fewer and fewer. It is just not worth the trouble to them
to arrest you because you have ****ed them off.


Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be -
is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police record.


You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with an
offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for a mere
arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the scene.

You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged, just for
withholding your details. You have a legal right to silence and thus
do not have to provide datails. To be arrested and charged there must
have been a good reason to cause the arrest in the first place.

Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and again.
My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.

Pragmatism? Do you often carry a big black camera around on the
streets of Britain? From the sound of your remarks you're an armchair
theorist who has little or no such practical experience. I speak as a
British photographer who is probably approached by police at least
once a week. A year ago they were usually hostile and sometimes pretty
threatening, but I was never arrested, asked for ID, or to see my
photographs, etc.. But I was nearly always told to stop taking
photographs. Since the recent guidelines were issued to the police
they have become very much more friendly. Now they usually ignore me,
and if they do approach me they're nearly always apologetic and
friendly, and have always been happy to let me continue photographing.

Of course there are still a few nasty incidents with ignorant and
officious bullies, but they're much rarer now.

--
Chris Malcolm

Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:28 GMT, "MC" wrote:

Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" wrote:

mikeos wrote:

Bristolian wrote:

An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who
was stopped while taking innocent photos in central London
were themselves quizzed while filming.

So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and,
when given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue.
Sounds quite reasonable to me.

Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to
demand ID? It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if
they didn't have any?

You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section
44 you still do not have to provide your details. You only have
to tell them who you are if they intend to report you for a
crime or you are arrested.


All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
police database.



You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is
happening less and less as citizens become more aware of their
rights under the law and more people than ever making complaints to
the Police Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not only
are more people having their complaints upheld but PCs on the
ground are finding it such a hassle to be subject to complaints
investigations, however minor the hassles may be, that the days of
arrest first ask questions later are becoming fewer and fewer. It
is just not worth the trouble to them to arrest you because you
have ****ed them off.


Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be
- is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police
record.

You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with an
offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for a mere
arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the scene.

You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged, just
for withholding your details. You have a legal right to silence
and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested and
charged there must have been a good reason to cause the arrest in
the first place.


Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and again.


Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.


My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.

If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers the
idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.

MC

MC wrote:
Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:28 GMT, "MC" wrote:

Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" wrote:

mikeos wrote:

Bristolian wrote:

An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who
was stopped while taking innocent photos in central London
were themselves quizzed while filming.

So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and,
when given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue.
Sounds quite reasonable to me.

Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to
demand ID? It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if
they didn't have any?

You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section
44 you still do not have to provide your details. You only have
to tell them who you are if they intend to report you for a
crime or you are arrested.


All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
police database.



You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is
happening less and less as citizens become more aware of their
rights under the law and more people than ever making complaints to
the Police Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not only
are more people having their complaints upheld but PCs on the
ground are finding it such a hassle to be subject to complaints
investigations, however minor the hassles may be, that the days of
arrest first ask questions later are becoming fewer and fewer. It
is just not worth the trouble to them to arrest you because you
have ****ed them off.


Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be
- is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police
record.

You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with an
offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for a mere
arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the scene.

You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged, just
for withholding your details. You have a legal right to silence
and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested and
charged there must have been a good reason to cause the arrest in
the first place.


Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and again.


Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.


My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.

If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers the
idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.

And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules like
"never obey the police when you think that your rights are being trodden
upon" are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to the
man" but for those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.


MC

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:13:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

MC wrote:
Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:28 GMT, "MC" wrote:

Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" wrote:

mikeos wrote:

Bristolian wrote:

An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who
was stopped while taking innocent photos in central London
were themselves quizzed while filming.

So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and,
when given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue.
Sounds quite reasonable to me.

Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to
demand ID? It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain. What if
they didn't have any?

You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section
44 you still do not have to provide your details. You only have
to tell them who you are if they intend to report you for a
crime or you are arrested.


All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them who
you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested, with an
automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details recorded on the
police database.



You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is
happening less and less as citizens become more aware of their
rights under the law and more people than ever making complaints to
the Police Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not only
are more people having their complaints upheld but PCs on the
ground are finding it such a hassle to be subject to complaints
investigations, however minor the hassles may be, that the days of
arrest first ask questions later are becoming fewer and fewer. It
is just not worth the trouble to them to arrest you because you
have ****ed them off.


Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world you
have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it may be
- is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on police
record.

You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with an
offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for a mere
arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the scene.

You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged, just
for withholding your details. You have a legal right to silence
and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested and
charged there must have been a good reason to cause the arrest in
the first place.


Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and again.


Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.


My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.

If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers the
idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.

And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules like
"never obey the police when you think that your rights are being trodden
upon" are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to the
man" but for those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.

Many people, like MC, talk a good game about how they would react if a
policeman asked for the ID. When it actually happens, they all of a
sudden remember that they have something very important to do
elsewhere and produce the ID in order not to be delayed from their
"important" errand.

I would. My schedule is pretty wide-open, but it doesn't allow for
wasted time arguing with a cop.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

mikeos wrote:
Bristolian wrote:

An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who was stopped
while taking innocent photos in central London were themselves quizzed
while filming.

So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and, when
given an explanation and ID, allowed them to continue. Sounds quite
reasonable to me.


Does it?

SG: Yes

It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was filming.

SG: On the surface it may have appeared obvious what these people were
doing but it could have been ne'er-do-wells using the set-up as a cover
for something else

Were they breaking a law?

SG: I don't know. Had the police not spoken to them and verified their
credentials we'd never know ... perhaps until a bomb went off

Why was it necessary to demand ID?

SG: I didn't say they demanded ID, just that it was provided and accepted

It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain.

SG: Quite right and long may that continue

What if they didn't have any?

SG: Who knows? Maybe the outcome would have been exactly the same but
just taken longer for the situation to be resolved.

The police are often criticised for their heavy handed approach to the
public but in my view (and it's only my view) individuals get what they
deserve. Treating every encounter with authority as if it were a battle
to be won at all costs is counter-productive and simply adds to the us
and them mentality.

Courtesy and cooperation costs nothing except your time :-)

--
Regards


Bristolian

J. Clarke wrote:


You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged,
just for withholding your details. You have a legal right to
silence and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested
and charged there must have been a good reason to cause the
arrest in the first place.


Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and
again.


Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.


My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.

If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers
the idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.

And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules
like "never obey the police when you think that your rights are being
trodden upon"
are fine for people who don't have any life beyond "sticking it to
the man" but for
those of us who have families and debts one needs a bit more
motivation.


We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by figures
of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.

People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are inviting a
situation which may find themselves manipulated and downtrodden.
However, in these situations please feel free to play the game however
you feel fit but I will not play by your rules, only by the rule of law.

MC

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:24:27 -0500, "Bowser" wrote:



"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
.. .
On 11 Dec 2009 04:19:16 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

RichA wrote:
I can't help but wonder if there isn't something happening in Britain
that would result is an almost daily occurrence of police arresting,
or hassling photographers? Has there actually been an uptick in
terrorist threats, and they simply aren't telling the public about
them?

I thought that rightards LIKE it when the government goes after
terrorists.

Are you really saying that 'leftards' don't?

Maybe. Some of us value our civil rights over everything. Once our rights
are limited, what's left? Once freedoms are taken away, the terrorists have
won.

You missed that my response entailed a change of subject. Saying that
"rightards LIKE it when the government goes after terrorists", with
all that that statement implies, is not the same as saying that
somebody doesn't value a particular civil right.



Eric Stevens

tony cooper wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:13:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

MC wrote:
Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:09:28 GMT, "MC" wrote:

Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:10:12 GMT, "MC" wrote:

mikeos wrote:

Bristolian wrote:

An ITN film crew covering a story about a photographer who
was stopped while taking innocent photos in central
London were themselves quizzed while filming.

So, the police asked a camera crew what they were doing and,
when given an explanation and ID, allowed them to
continue. Sounds quite reasonable to me.

Does it? It must have been blindingly obvious. A film crew was
filming. Were they breaking a law? Why was it necessary to
demand ID? It is not necessary to carry ID in Britain.
What if they didn't have any?

You do not have to provide any ID whatsoever if you are merely
stopped. Even if they decide to conduct a search under section
44 you still do not have to provide your details. You only
have to tell them who you are if they intend to report you
for a crime or you are arrested.


All very well in theory, but in practice, refusing to tell them
who you are makes you significantly more likely to be arrested,
with an automatic demand for a DNA sample and your details
recorded on the police database.



You can only be arrested if the police have reasonable grounds to
believe you have committed an arrestable offence. This is
happening less and less as citizens become more aware of their
rights under the law and more people than ever making complaints
to the Police Complaints Commission aginst wrongful arrest. Not
only are more people having their complaints upheld but PCs on
the ground are finding it such a hassle to be subject to
complaints investigations, however minor the hassles may be,
that the days of arrest first ask questions later are becoming
fewer and fewer. It is just not worth the trouble to them to
arrest you because you have ****ed them off.


Whatever the principle, whatever the theory, in the real world
you have to decide whether that principle - however laudable it
may be - is worth giving your DNA for and having your name on
police record.

You will only have your DNA collected if you are "charged" with
an offence. You cannot and will not have your DNA collected for
a mere arrest. You can even be arrested and de arrested at the
scene.

You are very, very unlikely to be arrested, let alone charged,
just for withholding your details. You have a legal right to
silence and thus do not have to provide datails. To be arrested
and charged there must have been a good reason to cause the
arrest in the first place.


Yes, I know the theory. Thank you for repeating it, again and
again.


Again and again? Maybe it was not heard the first time.


My decision would still be the same. Pragmatism before principle.

If you want to give in to this form of authoritarianism that is
entirely up to you. However, those who bow down to overzealous
security officers, PCSOs and plolice officers, give said officers
the idea that they have carte blanche to bully the next person too.

And those who don't bow down sometimes end up in traction. Rules
like "never obey the police when you think that your rights are
being trodden upon" are fine for people who don't have any life
beyond "sticking it to the man" but for those of us who have
families and debts one needs a bit more motivation.

Many people, like MC, talk a good game about how they would react if a
policeman asked for the ID. When it actually happens, they all of a
sudden remember that they have something very important to do
elsewhere and produce the ID in order not to be delayed from their
"important" errand.


Actually, I have been there and done that. I have never given my name
as I am not obliged to do so and I do not carry ID as, under UK law, I
am also not obliged to do.


I would. My schedule is pretty wide-open, but it doesn't allow for
wasted time arguing with a cop.


No need for arguments, just a polite refusal to disclose your details
and let them do what they have to do. Unless they have reason to
suspect you of wrong doing you will normally be sent on your way within
a minute or two, especially as they realise they had no reason to stop
you in the first place. By showing ID or giving them your details you
are no more guaranteed to be sent on your way quickly than you are by
not not giving your details.

MC

Bruce wrote:

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:53:34 GMT, "MC" wrote:

We are not talking about a case of "never obey the police when you
THINK that your rights are being trodden upon" We are talking about
exercising your rights, as laid down in law, when confronted by
figures of authority who, themselves, think they are above that law.

People who do not exercise or stand up for their rights are
inviting a situation which may find themselves manipulated and
downtrodden. However, in these situations please feel free to play
the game however you feel fit but I will not play by your rules,
only by the rule of law.


To you, it is a game. You said so above, quite clearly.

To me, it isn't a game. It is real life, and it is my livelihood.


"Playing the game". It is a figure of speach. It means playing by the
rules



You state with absolute confidence what you *would do* in the
situation we are discussing. That makes it clear that you have never
been in that situation. So you can theorise just as much as you want.


Not necessarily under section 44 but I have been in similar stuations,
yes.



Those of us who have been in that situation, and are working in
photography for a living, see it rather differently. Like it or not,
you and I have very different points of view.



Which I respect. Everybody, deals with situations their own way. Mine
is to protect, as much as I can, my personal space and privacy.


You have every right to your point of view, and I have every right to
mine. The difference is, your point of view is unlikely ever to be
tested, except in theory and on Usenet newsgroups.


Again you can do it your way I will do it mine. We will just have to
agree to disagree.

MC

On 11/12/2009 11:25, mikeos wrote:
Bristolian wrote:

Why was it necessary to demand ID? It is not
necessary to carry ID in Britain.

Not yet, but it's only a matter of time.

--
John Ray