Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Exclusive 25% off Affinity Photo: Professional photo editing with no subscription!

The water feature and the law.

franken Plus
15 4.6k 4 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 2:59PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 3:02PM
The problem is some people are so insistent on proclaiming their rights that they cannot (or refuse to) see that the other person actually has a valid reason for doing what they did - and in some cases (not necessarily this one) their rights are equally valid.

I think you handled it superbly, jester.
franken Plus
15 4.6k 4 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 3:03PM

Quote:Ken, once again, you're not getting the point; we'we all got a copy of that and/or other similar documents.
The point here isn't that either the PCSOs or myself didn't know all of that.
The point is that the officers concerned dealt with a situation which, for all they knew, could have become an 'incident,' professionally, efficiently and correctly.
I'm not trying to stir up a hornets' nest of 'little cards' and strident cries of "I know my rights."
I'm trying to put a positive spin on the situation.

Why would anyone using a big camera around children be considered suspicious? Bit like saying everyone who's driving a car is over the alcohol limit so lets pull them all over.

I'm not missing the point.
mikehit 8 8.0k 13 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 3:07PM
I agree with you, Franken. But the sad fact is we do not live in the wonderful suspicious-free world.
When I catch a flight I am checked on the assumption I may be a terrorist or smuggler.
When I go into some museums I have to put my bag in a locker on the assumption I may try to steal something
Any clothes I buy have security tags on the suspicion I may be a shoplifter
Jestertheclown 9 7.7k 252 England
2 Aug 2012 3:07PM
Thanks Mike.

Ken, I don't think that you've read that last post of mine, which you've quoted.
NEWMANP 10 1.6k 574 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 3:14PM
in the world i grew up in there was a thing called "habeus corpus".

im sure that said in there that we had the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
it seems we are now assumed guilty and need to prove our innocence.

first thing they told us at college was read it, remember it and treasure it because it was what made England Great and to defend it forever.

i read now its under threat. but everything above suggests its long gone
franken Plus
15 4.6k 4 United Kingdom
2 Aug 2012 3:23PM

Quote:Thanks Mike.

Ken, I don't think that you've read that last post of mine, which you've quoted.

I have actually and this is my last input.

I'm assuming that the incident took place in a public area?

If so so there's no justification in this:

Apparently, someone in a control box somewhere had seen on their CCTV, a man (that would be me) with what was described as a big camera, taking photographs of a girl (that's Chloe) playing in the fountains.
Jestertheclown 9 7.7k 252 England
2 Aug 2012 3:37PM
If you say so Ken.
monstersnowman 12 1.7k 1 England
2 Aug 2012 4:49PM
Just a thought to those who think the CCTV did the right thing - every time I, as a lone male, sit near a group of children in a park or play area, should I have a police officer or pcso team sent to investigate my motives. This would easily constitute the same level of concern. They obviously did not 'investigate' the CCTV footage enough to see he was actually with the the girl. Maybe they still could not ascertain if he was with her when they were together or just talking to each other ... but then this could be levelled at most men sat talking with their child anywhere ... It's all a bit hysterical and would not be tolerated if this level of automatic assumption was levelled at most other sections of society. Just because they are polite doesn't really excuse anything either. If this is acceptable social monitoring maybe we should be stopping anyone in any number of situations were anything illegal could potentially be happening or about to happen but I doubt we or the police would ever get anything else done.
2 Aug 2012 5:59PM

Quote:In the world i grew up in there was a thing called "habeus corpus".

I think that you have mistaken Habeus Corpus (produce the body) with Magna Carta.

Habeus Corpus prevents detention without trial or charge, otherwise than is prescribed by law (Bail Act etc).

Presumption of Innocence is quite a new phenomena in criminal law. Until about the mid 19th Century a defendant was not allowed to give evidence on oath in his own defence. Assumption that breaking the oath would damn a mortal soul and be more heinous than the crime for which being tried. Obviously no help when one persons word against another.
thewilliam 9 6.1k
2 Aug 2012 6:53PM
Getting hassled by security guards is nothing new.

Some 30 years back, I was doing some industrial landscapes, using some long lenses and a heavy trripod while my first wife waited in the car. Within a few minutes a security guard came up and asked what I was doing so I just shrugged my shoulders and continued working. Then my wife walked up to us and started speaking to me in (her fluent) Russian. I most I can muster is a passable "Da" or "Nyet" so the conversation was a bit one-sided. My wife then told the security guard that I'd finished taking pictures and we'd be leaving.

Pity we couldn't hear what he said to his controller on the radio.
Carabosse 15 41.1k 270 England
2 Aug 2012 7:22PM
PCSO powers can be found here , in case anyone is interested.
Jestertheclown 9 7.7k 252 England
2 Aug 2012 8:15PM
Thanks CB.

I wonder if anyone will actually read that and have second thoughts.
kaybee 14 5.8k 25 Scotland
2 Aug 2012 9:15PM
During my many years in the police I generally found that those "I know my rights" folks generally didn't and tended to get on their high horses as soon as they were spoken to.
This thread has done nothing to change that perception.
monstersnowman 12 1.7k 1 England
2 Aug 2012 10:21PM
Well, kaybee I also am an ex-police officer and I do know my rights reasonably well but also know that for either 'noble cause', ignorance, arrogance or corrupt practice will at times step outside their jurisdiction and impose powers they just do not have on the basis of unreasonable or non-existent suspicion. In my experience police officers also tend to 'get on their high horse' very quickly when someone knows their rights and rightfully questions the officers very authority in a particular situation. Somewhat like a parent having their child point out that it is in fact them that are wrong. I am sure many parents here remember that moment when your own child puts you in your place :0)

You are quick to generalise everyone here on this thread who wishes to stand up for their rights by telling over-zealous officers of the law that they also have laws and procedures to adhere to and that our liberty and freedom to go around innocently without being harassed is an important one ... In fact it is fundamental in a free society.

P.s. kaybee - I do strongly support the police when they do their job and I am often one of the first on here to jump to their defence.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.