Stopped, ID'd and verbally cautioned under the Terrorism Act today! - Page 2

**Damn Brit** · 10-19-2009, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Big G

I decided to retain my dignity and walk away.

I don't see how you've retained your dignity. You stood up for yourself and your rights to a point and then you backed down, that's the way I see it anyway. As you said - "If I had exercised my rights any further, it would have involved an arrest which means I would need to make a complaint for an unlawful arrest or allow it to go to court only for a judge to laugh his ass off and throw it out of court. ". That would have been how you retained your dignity.

You also gave the security guard and the policeman confidence. The next time, they might come down even harder on someone.

Mike L · 10-19-2009, 05:06 PM

I don't know the finer details of the terrorism act but I expect it is delibrately broad to give authorities powers to do things civil liberties safe guards built into other laws were designed to prevent.

The UK does have a history of Anglo Saxons carrying out bombings at pubs, clubs, gigs, airports, and restaurants so consider yourself lucky that you've never been hassled at any of those before. Imagine if you had a beard or were wearing the "wrong" sort of clothes you'd be locked up for a few days without charge and no access to a lawyer

Sounds like PC Plod did a good job of resolving the situation and saving himself plenty of paperwork. Being the UK the whole thing was probably recorded on 57 CCTV cameras.

little laker · 10-19-2009, 05:17 PM

If I was a terrorist I'd just use Google Street View

*Wheatfield* · 10-19-2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Damn Brit

I don't see how you've retained your dignity. You stood up for yourself and your rights to a point and then you backed down, that's the way I see it anyway. As you said - "If I had exercised my rights any further, it would have involved an arrest which means I would need to make a complaint for an unlawful arrest or allow it to go to court only for a judge to laugh his ass off and throw it out of court. ". That would have been how you retained your dignity.

You also gave the security guard and the policeman confidence. The next time, they might come down even harder on someone.

That was what I thought. When the going gets tough, the semitough bail before they've proven anything.
Personally, I have no problem with a person going out and looking for a confrontation with the authorities over photographer's rights, and I have no problems with a person standing up for their rights in a confrontational manner.
However, you have to carry it through, or whatever stand you are trying to make is wasted, and you have effectively taken one more step to making photography in public illegal.
You should have made them take you away in chains.

*Ash* · 10-19-2009, 06:44 PM

One just has to spare the time to do it.

Good points from you both.

I take the view that being argumentatively assertive is counterproductive and serves to strengthen the resolve of authority next time someone's caught taking photos in a private place with public access...

Oblige accordingly and wait for a better opportunity (when no guards are in view) to take the photo you want again...

**Adam** · 10-19-2009, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Big G

Un-fu**ing-believable.

I think that about sums it all up.

This part of the message is hidden and only registered users are able to see its contents.

*Wheatfield* · 10-19-2009, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

One just has to spare the time to do it.

Good points from you both.

I take the view that being argumentatively assertive is counterproductive and serves to strengthen the resolve of authority next time someone's caught taking photos in a private place with public access...

Oblige accordingly and wait for a better opportunity (when no guards are in view) to take the photo you want again...

The problem with this attitude is that it slowly but surely making photography in public illegal. The authorities will be as assertive as they need to be to get their way. If you acquiesce quietly, they don't have to exert themselves as much as if you acquiesce loudly, but either way, they have effectively made it illegal for you, at that point in time, to carry out what should be a legal activity.
To go out and be semi confrontational and them bail is no more the way to do things than to bail without a whimper.
The only way to make this sort of creeping horsesh!t to stop is to call them out on it and carry through on it. If that means spending some time to make your point, then that's what it means.

The alternative is being forced to take pictures of kittens and flowers in the privacy of our homes because cameras are not allowed in public. Once they aren't allowed in public, it is merely one more step to banning ownership entirely.

Mike L · 10-19-2009, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Ash

Oblige accordingly and wait for a better opportunity (when no guards are in view) to take the photo you want again...

Won't work in the UK, even if there are no guards around he will be on CCTV and now that they have his name and address, the old Bill will be round for a chat asap

*Wheatfield* · 10-19-2009, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by Mike L

Won't work in the UK, even if there are no guards around he will be on CCTV and now that they have his name and address, the old Bill will be round for a chat asap

Odd that the government can film with impunity, but the people who support said government can't.
You can't even ask what's wrong with this picture?, since pictures aren't allowed.
There is a very Orwellian bizarreness to the entire thing.

lurchlarson · 10-19-2009, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Odd that the government can film with impunity, but the people who support said government can't.
You can't even ask what's wrong with this picture?, since pictures aren't allowed.
There is a very Orwellian bizarreness to the entire thing.

I know that Gordon Brown was referring to the economy but if I was a conspiracy theorist, when he said a New World Order was emerging I'd be inclined to read WAY too deep into this.

lithos · 10-19-2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by Wheatfield

Odd that the government can film with impunity, but the people who support said government can't.
You can't even ask what's wrong with this picture?, since pictures aren't allowed.
There is a very Orwellian bizarreness to the entire thing.

That's how it was explained to me (for shooting in Australia, anyway.)

If you can see something when you're on public property, then that's no different to photographing it. Makes sense, doesn't it? Doesn't stop a terrorist making mental notes about stuff. No different. Naturally, there're exceptions for defence installations, Lucas Heights and the Olympic park.

If they're allowed to point a CCTV camera to film you, you can photograph them. That's fair, that is. Just because you own a business doesn't mean you get special exemption from being photographed from where everyone can see it anyway.

mischivo · 10-19-2009, 11:07 PM

My question to the OP: why on earth were you taking photos of an escalator? Boring! Maybe if you were photographing something of interest you wouldn't have been accused of taking photos of kids.

Security Guard: "Are you taking photos of those kids?"
Suspect: "No. I'm taking photos of... umm... that white wall..."

lithos · 10-19-2009, 11:36 PM

Yes, yes, mischivo, that's the real crime, isn't it? God forbid Big G take photos of something you don't understand or like.

If Big G can make an escalator interesting, more power to him.

**Damn Brit** · 10-20-2009, 01:40 AM

Originally Posted by lithos

Y

If Big G can make an escalator interesting, more power to him.

Not Big G but escalators can be interesting.

Note: I couldn't find ownership of this image to provide a credit.

Mike Cash · 10-20-2009, 04:48 AM

So we don't get to see the photos?