Jump to content

All photographers are terrorists


Phil Rhodes

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

As I understand it, the really serious problem with this passed with the death of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It seems that the police sort of arbitrarily decided, among themselves, that Section 44 was carte blanche to hassle anyone they liked, for more or less any reason, or for no reason whatsoever.

 

Of course, Patefield wasn't ultimately arrested under that particular piece of law, so in many ways the problem theoretically remains - it's just less likely that the police will have that option in the forefront of their minds. It is of course iniquitous that we must modify our behaviour based on what the police happen to feel about a particular piece of law, or how much they have it in mind at that moment.

 

It is to an extent inevitable that law enforcement is affected by the proclivities of the police officers involved, and I suspect also that no officer wishes to be asked to explain why he didn't query the behaviour of a person who might later prove to be involved in some appalling terrorist incident - an that is really a universal excuse for almost any sort of excess, and really it's the root cause behind all of this current paranoia (and other, more immediately severe problems like McCarthyism, the situation in communist Romania, etc).

 

I certainly don't think any of this excuses the decision - presumably from on high, and not the fault of individual officers - to persecute professional photographers. If you want to treat this as a counterintelligence operation, it does offer potential miscreants a catastrophically obvious counter-counterintelligence option, which is simply shoot with a bloody iphone.

 

P

 

Edit - Hang on, did he say Section 2? The only Section 2 I know of that authorises a stop and search is part of - seriously - the Poaching Prevention Act 1862, which requires suspicion, briefly put, that someone's been poaching. Is this how he managed to take them to the cleaners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No offence, but in the defense of the police, I think they're fighting a full out war with crime and terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs. I'm amazed at the job they do when considering the conditions they have to put up with. I'll always cooperate with police if I'm stopped, not because I'm ignorant of my rights but because I know how much crap the police have to deal with so I try to support them as best I can.

 

Agreed, being stopped from taking photographs or filming is a pain, but I think it's what we all have to put up with in the current climate, and I don't think it's the fault of the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, being stopped from taking photographs or filming is a pain, but I think it's what we all have to put up with in the current climate, and I don't think it's the fault of the police.

And who's fault would it be then? I see no evidence that either criminals nor terrorists go around taking photos pretending to be tourists. None. And as for the difficulties the police have, perhaps it's because they're wasting their time pulling photographers up on nonsense charges rather than actually doing their jobs?

 

Surely the job of the police in any reasonable society is to protect it so that hobbyists can go about their hobbies in peace without being locked up, or bullied into moving on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And who's fault would it be then? I see no evidence that either criminals nor terrorists go around taking photos pretending to be tourists.

Just because you don't see any evidence of criminals or terrorists taking photos with malicious intent doesn't mean it does not exist. In my opinion, I don't believe it's unrealistic for potential terrorists or criminals including pedophiles to be taking photographs with malicious intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because you don't see any evidence of criminals or terrorists taking photos with malicious intent doesn't mean it does not exist. In my opinion, I don't believe it's unrealistic for potential terrorists or criminals including pedophiles to be taking photographs with malicious intent.

And even if they are, it matters not because they'll download a better quality image off flickr than they can take themselves. Again, I see no reason at all to stop photographers, although putting my cynical hat on, I'd say it's much safer and easier for the police to stop a photographer than to stop a terrorist, and that in doing so they're putting their own safety ahead of that of the society they're pledged to protect.

 

And if there was evidence it would certainly be touted as rationale for these police when they're made to be accountable for their anti-photographer acts, and it would also mean that the Metropolitan police advice to their police that photography is not a crime would not have been given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And even if they are, it matters not because they'll download a better quality image off flickr than they can take themselves. Again, I see no reason at all to stop photographers, although putting my cynical hat on, I'd say it's much safer and easier for the police to stop a photographer than to stop a terrorist, and that in doing so they're putting their own safety ahead of that of the society they're pledged to protect.

 

And if there was evidence it would certainly be touted as rationale for these police when they're made to be accountable for their anti-photographer acts, and it would also mean that the Metropolitan police advice to their police that photography is not a crime would not have been given.

So your argument is that police are avoiding more dangerous issues like terrorism by harassing photographers, for fear of their own safety?

 

Call me biased, but being friends with a police officer who was stabbed several times in the back and nearly died after pursuing a criminal, I can't help but disagree with your doubt in the courage of police officers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your argument is that police are avoiding more dangerous issues like terrorism by harassing photographers, for fear of their own safety?

 

Call me biased, but being friends with a police officer who was stabbed several times in the back and nearly died after pursuing a criminal, I can't help but disagree with your doubt in the courage of police officers.

 

Your friend was doing what the police are meant to do - pursue criminals. Your friend was not harassing photographers pursuing their hobby. The police in the above video were wasting their time, and that of the photographers on meaningless and pointless effort. It seems pretty obvious that when they're harassing a photographer they're not exactly putting their lives on the line for public safety. They are not even doing their job which is to allow people to perform their safe and lawful hobbies in peace - to allow the people to get on with their lives free from criminal disruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think they're fighting a full out war with crime and terrorism with one hand tied behind their backs.

A full out war involves flying bullets, jet planes, bombs, and mass routine death. The police are not fighting any sort of war, on crime, terrorism, or parking on double yellow lines. It's offensive to people who actually are involved in war to suggest that the police are, in any way. The police are, when they can get away from the paperwork, enforcing law. Or, at least, they're supposed to be. One thing I do want to know is why the police seem so enthusiastic about the routine harrassment of photographers. Is this something that's being passed down from their chain of command, or is it something they're doing on their own initiative? What's the motivation?

The thing that's most offensive about this to me is simply the degree of police ignorance of the law. This has been a big news item for long enough that you'd have thought most coppers would have heard about it by now. Certainly the amount of grief they dish out in London would suggest to me that more or less every Met officer should have been in this situation by now, and will have been told what the law is by a much more clued-up snapper.

Daniel, what powers would you like the police to have? What powers would your police friend like to have? The authority to detain people for a few hours on a whim? The authority to tell people where they can and can't stand, with no evidence or suspicion of anything? That's what we're talking about here.

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having people argue about this is a perfect outcome for them.

 

It's been said a couple of times further up about how the police pledge to protect the public. If only this were the case. Inside the police force police officers swear an oath to protect two bodies. 1 - Elizabeth Windsor, and 2 - The Crown. People often wrongfully assume that 'The Crown' denotes Elizabeth Windsor and her family etc. The Crown consists of five families; yours and mine aren't in it.

 

It's important not to allow personal feelings get in the way of making assessments about police and their job etc. I've seen people beaten up by police for no reason and there have been several occasions I know of in which police have tried to plant drugs and stolen goods on another person. I have a family member in the police force who admittedly loves “nothing better than going out with the sole intention of putting someone in hospital, in or out of uniform” (he’s a black belt in a number of martial arts) Still I try not to let my own experiences get in the way of my perception of the world around me, because what you're dealing with is a human being and all the subversive psychological aspects that go with it.

 

Bob Patefields case above is a good example. There is a point that comes quite early on where you're not dealing with a person or a police officer anymore you're dealing with an ego. The subject allows him or herself to get quite comfortable with the power they're entrusted with. They get used with a certain perception and wearing the uniform soothes their subconscious ego. People act in a certain way around them i.e. respectful, and when the time comes that their opposition stands up for themselves much of the rational thinking is lost and it becomes a psychological battle. And you can see this in other roles. Take this bailiff for instance, his mind is working through exactly the same patterns as a police officer, only he has less powers much to his disappointment I'm sure :

 

 

Eventually the two lawful residents break him down somewhat and he becomes amicable, however he still has to be seen to be impervious to genuine human feeling in front of his superior and so you'll see him look around from time to time to make sure that his superior isn't listening to what’s being said. The mind of the police officer and in Bob Patefiled’s case the CPSO works in the same way.

 

So this is why the objective to get more and more powers by whatever means necessary is a welcomed one with anyone working in law enforcement or similar companies. The premise of ‘terrorism’ is an excellent vehicle to pursue this objective.

 

But in some of the more significant terrorism cases we’ve seen that the alleged terrorist (and which security services he works with is academic) is protected. Eg Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who (The Shoe Bomber) who was seen by dozens of waiting passengers being led by men in suits to the waiting plane and bypassing any security or check-in desks. Later we learned that Anwar Al Awlaki was used to fingerprint Abdulmutallab (meaning to create an electronic data-trail) which could then be used to incriminate him.

Nothings ever as it seems in this world.

 

This is the beauty of the ‘War on Terror’ (which isn’t grammatically correct anway. If it was ‘War on TerrorISM’ it would be what you’re lead into believing all of this is about. As it stands the word ‘Terror’ must be taken in its context from the Latin, so the buzz-term literally translates as ‘War on Earth’) because the ghost is never caught and freedoms are trapped in ever decreasing circles as more and more powers are bestowed to the police in an effort to destroy the bogeyman, that never really existed.

 

But then, much of this is covered in the doc I embedded into my comment further up.

 

These are particularly interesting times in the 'War on Earth' because we've got polticians on the one hand pressing on us the importance of destroying al-Quaida (a militant organisation we created and funded) and on the otherhand openly admitting to arming al-Quaida militants to facilitate the coup we recently witnessed in Libya and funding the torture of 'terror suspects' within the country.

 

 

 

No, protecting the public and in-turn the photographer isn't in the brief I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with the member Phil Rhodes. Who also asks

 

One thing I do want to know is why the police seem so enthusiastic about the routine harrassment of photographers. Is this something that's being passed down from their chain of command, or is it something they're doing on their own initiative? What's the motivation?

 

I think it is yes. Most significantly they don't want themselves being filmed.

 

Darren Plloard's experince is a great example of some of the things I said about ego above :

 

 

You can almost feel how difficult it is for them to just walk away. Had Darren turned his camera off here, he may well have been arrested. His language is very strong too. Ordinarily this pair wouldn't have been so easily overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Bit difficult to sympathise with people who are being clobbered because they haven't paid their taxes, and I don't submit to the grand unified conspiracy theory about terrorism - I doubt that most big public institutions have the competence to pull it off.

 

That said, there does seem to be an absolutely huge amount of ego at play in some of these police situations. I suppose it's inevitable, really; they're human, but you'd have thought that each of them would, at some point, have made a mistake that would be enough to remind them of their own fallibility. Anything else is just narcissism.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting because If I know someone hasn't paid their taxes I've immediately got more respect for them.

 

Edit - That's not counting corps like Vodaphone who were excused from paying their 6 billion in taxes owed for the year of 2010.

Edited by Rex Orwell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your friend was doing what the police are meant to do - pursue criminals. Your friend was not harassing photographers pursuing their hobby. The police in the above video were wasting their time, and that of the photographers on meaningless and pointless effort. It seems pretty obvious that when they're harassing a photographer they're not exactly putting their lives on the line for public safety. They are not even doing their job which is to allow people to perform their safe and lawful hobbies in peace - to allow the people to get on with their lives free from criminal disruption.

Firstly, police don't and shouldn't have to be risking their lives before they are doing their jobs properly. Secondly, is it really that obvious the officers in the above video were not putting their lives on the line for public safety? The threat in approaching any potential criminal or terrorist is or at least should be fairly obvious to anyone.

 

[/size][/color]

A full out war involves flying bullets, jet planes, bombs, and mass routine death. The police are not fighting any sort of war, on crime, terrorism, or parking on double yellow lines. It's offensive to people who actually are involved in war to suggest that the police are, in any way. The police are, when they can get away from the paperwork, enforcing law. Or, at least, they're supposed to be. One thing I do want to know is why the police seem so enthusiastic about the routine harrassment of photographers. Is this something that's being passed down from their chain of command, or is it something they're doing on their own initiative? What's the motivation?

The thing that's most offensive about this to me is simply the degree of police ignorance of the law. This has been a big news item for long enough that you'd have thought most coppers would have heard about it by now. Certainly the amount of grief they dish out in London would suggest to me that more or less every Met officer should have been in this situation by now, and will have been told what the law is by a much more clued-up snapper.

Daniel, what powers would you like the police to have? What powers would your police friend like to have? The authority to detain people for a few hours on a whim? The authority to tell people where they can and can't stand, with no evidence or suspicion of anything? That's what we're talking about here.

P

My argument isn't regarding police powers, nor detaining individuals on whims or telling them where they can and can't stand, it's about the support or lack thereof, from the public and media who make it impossible for police to perform their duties efficiently either way.

 

If they fail to approach potential suspects, they fail their duties in defending the public and it's all over the papers. If they approach potential suspects, a video entitled 'police brutality' or 'unlawful arrest' is all over YouTube with themed contributor comments of the 'pig scum' and 'fight the power' variety. Although laughably, these comments are often from white liberal middle class kids who want what money can't buy them, a lower class image.

 

For police, getting the balance right has become nigh impossible. In my opinion the law abiding public ought to begin realising we are on the same side, instead of diverting the attention away from the non-law abiding minority. Maybe without the hassle and backchat from a few photographers moronically believing their civil rights are at dire risk and all democracy is coming to an end should they dare hand over their name and address to a young police lady, police would have more time to concentrate on real criminals - potential pedophiles taking pictures of kids at a public event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel -

 

Cops, they're like humans in general (funny that) - some are cool (both in a general and inspiring way), some are right c%nts (and I'm not talking exceptions). Sooner or later you'll be exposed to both.

 

Maybe revisit this thread in 5 years - possible that in that time you'd have bumped into someone from school you'd thought a bit dim wearing a uniform.

 

Solution for me is not to be a twat (or if I'm going to be a twat, I'm aware of the implications) and the rest is out of my control (as in day to day events that is, I dont mean to sugest that having a voice about the larger context is 'out of my control') - but part defending them like you are ... where does the motivation for this er, voice of yours stem from? Are you doing some gen-ed subjects for your broadcast degree?

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think the reason people get a bit nervous about giving out their details is that it gives the police the means to keep bothering you about it for the rest of eternity. For example, a friend of mine was stopped while driving in September last year on the basis that he had no insurance. He did have insurance and had paid for it; it was a database error, and the police, the database agency, and his insurers have since admitted this. But even now, four or five months later, he's still having to waste his time communicating with a bureaucracy that quite simply will not leave the matter alone, that will not stop bothering him with demands for paperwork, that will not stop threatening him with sanctions for a crime that it is absolutely accepted he did not commit.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of the police, what's certain is that there is an absolutely massive government bureaucracy behind every police action dedicated to making people's lives hell, regardless of what they've done or not done, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid it. I'm sure your police friend will confirm this picture of the situation as that same bureaucracy wastes a lot of their time as well.

 

What he may be less eager to admit is that a lot of these photographer-hassling incidents are evidence that at least a few police officers are capable of being very, very stupid. As I've said before, I'd really like to know what the actual motivation for doing it is, because it certainly isn't anything to do with crime prevention. Almost all of the incidents on YouTube involve people being stopped for doing absolutely nothing more than taking photographs, with no aggravating circumstances of any kind. In this situation, absent reasonable suspicion of something beyond just taking photos, as I understand it the police have no authority beyond what a normal citizen has. They can come and talk to you, ask questions, and you are perfectly within the law if you tell them you'd rather not discuss it. Whether there's anything bad going on is immaterial. The police are not allowed to hassle people only for taking photos and that's it. If terrorists are casing the joint, tough. That's life. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place in the UK. Welcome to the free world, it's awesome, even if it does occasionally mean getting bombed. It's worth it.

 

This being the case there is some other motivation at play and it strikes me that several may exist. First is the issue that many police simply don't seem to know the law on this matter. As I said ages ago I don't expect them to, but when they challenge a card-carrying NUJ or BECTU member who has some very domain-specific knowledge of the rules, they're obviously operating on very thin ice. I have seen police, both in person and on video, attempt to bluff their way out of situations like this, which is extremely stupid as they just end up digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole that their ego will never let them climb out of. And that's problem two: I don't know if it's briefed to them or if it's just an ego thing, but no matter how well you prove your case, a police officer will never, ever, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, regardless of absolutely anything else, back down and admit their mistake. Ever. No matter how much you wave an actual computer printout of the act they're misusing at them. With the relevant parts in yellow highlighter.

 

Ever.

 

And then there's the bad apples - a few, but not a tiny few - who are in the police on a power trip, and will hassle anyone for anything. These people are usually quite easy to identify as they'll be the first ones to shove their hand in your lens (which is possibly assault and maybe criminal damage) and bark at you like a recruiting sergeant, as if that makes them any more intimidating while they're wearing a bright yellow anorak.

 

All of which results in photographers being hassled, police forces paying compensation, being forced to make embarrassing public apologies, officers being disciplined and given "words of advice", and has generated an atmosphere of mutual animosity and suspicion between photographers, cameramen and police.

 

Well done, coppers. I hope you're pleased.

 

I just still can't believe that every police officer in the UK hasn't been told about this yet. We all know, for crying out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"potential pedophiles taking pictures of kids at a public event" - I mean, it's a few years since I was back in the UK, but do such events that photographers appear at feature naked children, or children involved in sex acts? If so, I'm utterly shocked. If not, your statement is ludicrous. Or is it just "potential paedophiles"? What about "actual paedophiles" or are you not as concerned about them?

 

"The threat in approaching any potential criminal" - surely there is no more threat in approaching a potential criminal than approaching any randomly picked person. I can see that approaching an actual criminal could indeed produce a violent situation, but potential criminals are just probabilities, and when it comes to a street photographer, a probability as close to zero as that of any other random person in the street.

 

"moronically believing their civil rights are at dire risk" - but as the video above shows their civil rights were trampled on, and not just in that case, but in many others. It's their civl right to peaceably go about their lawful and peaceful hobby of photography without being accosted by Police. "they dare hand over their name and address" - because they don't have to and their right to privacy is just that, a right in any civilized society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... but no matter how well you prove your case, a police officer will never, ever, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, regardless of absolutely anything else, back down and admit their mistake. Ever. No matter how much you wave an actual computer printout of the act they're misusing at them. With the relevant parts in yellow highlighter.

 

Ever.

 

Any highlighting of lines cant compete with a cop - they are literally highlighted themselves in those vests :rolleyes:

 

But, there is that example of Rex's above (the short one, the others were too long to watch) - it's true they didn't admit their mistake, but you could hear the reversing beeps as they sauntered off back to the van.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reason people get a bit nervous about giving out their details is that it gives the police the means to keep bothering you about it for the rest of eternity. For example, a friend of mine was stopped while driving in September last year on the basis that he had no insurance. He did have insurance and had paid for it; it was a database error, and the police, the database agency, and his insurers have since admitted this. But even now, four or five months later, he's still having to waste his time communicating with a bureaucracy that quite simply will not leave the matter alone, that will not stop bothering him with demands for paperwork, that will not stop threatening him with sanctions for a crime that it is absolutely accepted he did not commit.

Regardless of anyone's opinion of the police, what's certain is that there is an absolutely massive government bureaucracy behind every police action dedicated to making people's lives hell, regardless of what they've done or not done, and I don't blame anyone for wanting to avoid it. I'm sure your police friend will confirm this picture of the situation as that same bureaucracy wastes a lot of their time as well.

 

What he may be less eager to admit is that a lot of these photographer-hassling incidents are evidence that at least a few police officers are capable of being very, very stupid. As I've said before, I'd really like to know what the actual motivation for doing it is, because it certainly isn't anything to do with crime prevention. Almost all of the incidents on YouTube involve people being stopped for doing absolutely nothing more than taking photographs, with no aggravating circumstances of any kind. In this situation, absent reasonable suspicion of something beyond just taking photos, as I understand it the police have no authority beyond what a normal citizen has. They can come and talk to you, ask questions, and you are perfectly within the law if you tell them you'd rather not discuss it. Whether there's anything bad going on is immaterial. The police are not allowed to hassle people only for taking photos and that's it. If terrorists are casing the joint, tough. That's life. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place in the UK. Welcome to the free world, it's awesome, even if it does occasionally mean getting bombed. It's worth it.

 

This being the case there is some other motivation at play and it strikes me that several may exist. First is the issue that many police simply don't seem to know the law on this matter. As I said ages ago I don't expect them to, but when they challenge a card-carrying NUJ or BECTU member who has some very domain-specific knowledge of the rules, they're obviously operating on very thin ice. I have seen police, both in person and on video, attempt to bluff their way out of situations like this, which is extremely stupid as they just end up digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole that their ego will never let them climb out of. And that's problem two: I don't know if it's briefed to them or if it's just an ego thing, but no matter how well you prove your case, a police officer will never, ever, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, regardless of absolutely anything else, back down and admit their mistake. Ever. No matter how much you wave an actual computer printout of the act they're misusing at them. With the relevant parts in yellow highlighter.

 

Ever.

 

And then there's the bad apples - a few, but not a tiny few - who are in the police on a power trip, and will hassle anyone for anything. These people are usually quite easy to identify as they'll be the first ones to shove their hand in your lens (which is possibly assault and maybe criminal damage) and bark at you like a recruiting sergeant, as if that makes them any more intimidating while they're wearing a bright yellow anorak.

 

All of which results in photographers being hassled, police forces paying compensation, being forced to make embarrassing public apologies, officers being disciplined and given "words of advice", and has generated an atmosphere of mutual animosity and suspicion between photographers, cameramen and police.

 

Well done, coppers. I hope you're pleased.

 

I just still can't believe that every police officer in the UK hasn't been told about this yet. We all know, for crying out loud.

 

I can emphasise with the point you make about records having an impact on somebody's actions later down the line. Some years back a friend of mine drove a 1988 Ford Fiesta, and naturally, when you're aged 21 and drive a Fiesta, you're obviously breaking some kind of law. However, records were kept every time he was stopped and those in themselves were often enough to raise suspicion in other officers. I think in total he was stopped about 12 times in the course of a few years, without causing a single offence.

 

It was actually this friends father who I referred to earlier who was attacked, Independent Article. He's retired now but I'll ask him for his insight of the situation regarding photography in public places next time I see him.

 

"potential pedophiles taking pictures of kids at a public event" - I mean, it's a few years since I was back in the UK, but do such events that photographers appear at feature naked children, or children involved in sex acts? If so, I'm utterly shocked. If not, your statement is ludicrous. Or is it just "potential paedophiles"? What about "actual paedophiles" or are you not as concerned about them?

 

"The threat in approaching any potential criminal" - surely there is no more threat in approaching a potential criminal than approaching any randomly picked person. I can see that approaching an actual criminal could indeed produce a violent situation, but potential criminals are just probabilities, and when it comes to a street photographer, a probability as close to zero as that of any other random person in the street.

 

"moronically believing their civil rights are at dire risk" - but as the video above shows their civil rights were trampled on, and not just in that case, but in many others. It's their civl right to peaceably go about their lawful and peaceful hobby of photography without being accosted by Police. "they dare hand over their name and address" - because they don't have to and their right to privacy is just that, a right in any civilized society.

Police officers develop a sharp eye for potential illegal activity over years of experience. More often than not I'm sure there is nothing wrong, but it's the few times that there really is something wrong that in my opinion, makes it worth it. I don't think we're going to agree here, best leave it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Police officers develop a sharp eye for potential illegal activity over years of experience. More often than not I'm sure there is nothing wrong, but it's the few times that there really is something wrong that in my opinion, makes it worth it. I don't think we're going to agree here, best leave it.

 

When I was younger the UK Police behaved themselves, they got & deserved the respect of the majority of citizens. Today they behave very badly & don't deserve any respect, it's there own fault. I have zero sympathy for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"potential pedophiles taking pictures of kids at a public event"

 

See how they've poisoned our minds?

 

The perverse nature of desire within the mind of the child abuser is on the one hand promoted, nurtured and encouraged by mainstream media very subtly indeed, and on the other used as a tool openly and indiscriminately to instil a continual and escalating state of fear in the minds of the rest of us.

 

The war trully is a psychological one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going too far off-topic. I think my point was that as law abiding citizens we sometimes need to be more lenient towards police tactics, whether we agree with them completely or not. If you've done nothing wrong, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about. But I agree the police need to be educated more clearly about the rules surrounding photography and filming in public places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going too far off-topic

Yes.

 

If you've done nothing wrong, then there shouldn't be anything to worry about.

Agree, but there are things to worry about - that is the issue.

 

But I agree the police need to be educated more clearly about the rules surrounding photography and filming in public places.

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think thats the problem, no common sense & low intelligence. The army is not recruiting, the police are!

I don't have any experience of the police in Switzerland simply because I've never been there, but I don't think it's fair to brand an entire force as being incompetent. You will find idiots in any workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't have any experience of the police in Switzerland simply because I've never been there, but I don't think it's fair to brand an entire force as being incompetent. You will find idiots in any workplace.

 

I am takling about the UK police especially in London, I lived there for over 30 years.

The Swiss police behave well & get respect of their citizens

 

I remember when my car got towed away, I was parked in one of the very few streets without yellow lines in W2, however it was snowing so the policeman ASSUMED there were yellow lines! When I complained at the local police station they said you cant make a complaint about a ticket, I said my complaint is about "an attempt to pervert the course of justice". At that point they started to take the matter seriousely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...