http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

Interesting (and worrying) video and article about police arresting a photographer for taking pictures in a public place.

I'm very much in two minds about this video.

In my opinion the police didn't like being told no when they used the Terrorism Act so concocted an anti-social behaviour charge to punish they photographer for challenging their authority.
Equally, however, the photographer was being deliberately confrontational to make his point.

So, would you have given up your name and address or stuck it out till the bitter end (the photographer spent 8 hours in a police cell) as a matter of principle?

It depends. If I was over here I wouldn't think twice about not volunteering the information, but if I was on holiday and my time was limited I'd firstly state that I'm not legally obliged to volunteer any information, then I'd ask for the officers name and warrant card number and make a note of them before finally giving my name.
I'd then make a formal complaint.

Mark

I was wondering if you meant on holiday in England - I think the PSNI would be a much safer bet than English forces in terms of how you'd be treated, just as a gut reaction

I'd have stuck it out. And, if I was him, I'd now be pursuing the police under a claim of wrongful arrest and harassment. I don't see how it is being 'deliberately confrontational' to simply stick to what the law says. I also think it's very dodgy that the police kept coming back after him with a different story each time until they basically got down to a completely made up assertion as a pretense to throw him in the cells. People were bothered by him taking pictures? really? I wonder how many people they asked, if any, before they found someone daft/paranoid enough to give them the excuse they needed.

The police continue to have an appalling record on the application of the new anti-terrorist powers, the main difference these days with the web and other social media and the ubiquity of cheap high quality recording equipment they aren't being allowed to get away with it.

If they simply applied the laws in a reasonable way, there would be few problems. The very fact they thought it was a good idea to claim someone taking photographs of christmas celebrations justified action under anti-terrorist legislation makes any other argument they may have moot - they've already stepped over the line. The really sad thing is they weren't smart enough to stop digging :-



So let me get this straight - the police can approach you, demand something they're not legally entitled to and if you refuse to comply, they can then arrest you on the basis that you didn't? This is rubbish, frankly. They did have a choice, they had the choice to leave the guy alone.

gestapo lol, I wish this happaned in scotland so I could have some fun with the corrupt pigs

I would just smile in an unnerving way knowing that I would sue the police for unlawful arrest and wrongful imprisonment and seek tens of thousands of damages as such. If the police find that they lose hundred of thousands in damages and legal fees they would soon have problems if they did this repeatedly.

[LIFTED] disgrace. Not to mention the fact that the good old catch all "anit social behaviour" bollocks is wheeled out yet again to criminalise any activity that the coppers decide they don't like.

To be quite fair, farting on the bus is anti social, as is marching outside parliament making a noise, letting off fireworks on 5th Nov, anti-gay protesters on a Pride march, etc etc. Deciding that it's criminal is NOT down to individual officers of the law, it's down to society as a whole to make a NEW law forbidding it specifically.

I ponder how we managed to vote in a left wing democracy 13 years ago, only for it to turn into a right wing tyranny without anyone noticing.....

They were never left wing to start with!

They just managed to bamboozle sufficient people into believing they were.

Back on topic, I was thoroughly appalled by the way the rozzers kept coming back and switched from terrorism to ASB without any reason or evidence that they were prepared to give to the photographer. There had either been a complaint about the photographer or there hadn't. The fact the guy was released without charge shows the police had naff all reason to hold him in the first place.

And the police wonder why they have lost the respect of so many people.

If there had been a complaint then I would have made sure that my legal team brought them in as co defendants and bankrupted them/

The fact that he was released without charge is still enough for them to demand a DNA sample.

My local cop shop has some interesting sculptures on its boundary wall. Wonder how they would come out in moonlight at 03:00.

Just don't go trying to photograph them when they are doing armed response unit sniper training.

Guy used to live next but one to me was an ARU officer. He was a sound bloke. Him & the colleagues of his I met are proper coppers (not 'community support officers') and they understand what proper terrorists are too. Doubt very much one of them would get involved in pulling a stunt like this.

Jon

[LIFTED] outrageous! This is nothing to do with which party run the house of commons. This is flat out [LIFTED] from twats who think they can do whatever the hell they want. Hobbyists are a massive part of the problem, but the "real" officers are clearly bored and feel they can wave a big stick around to scare people. How about [LIFTED] you?!