Police vigilance ?

[futureTom]

I don't know what is meant by "grauniad".

A little clarification, Dugald.
Grauniad = Guardian, a British broadsheet newspaper with a fine journalistic tradition, albeit with appalling spelling . . . see page 96 for details.

[Marlon]

Haud the horses! The discussion isnt about chiild pornography or doctored pics but about being able to take photographs outside.
I was out yesterday and saw a nice 50's style primary school now if I took a photo of the building would the headmaster be right in condemming me as a prospective paedo and alerting the police? Are we all classed as prospective criminals? What percentage of the population actually take photos of children for dodgy useage?

My kitten, I realise the discussion was originally intended to focus simply on being able to take photographs outside. However, future Tom's mention of having "weaved past local schoolkids", suggested to me he was in the vicinity of a school, and this changed somewhat, the innocence of simply taking photographs outside. It's not simply taking photographs outside, it could very well be, taking photographs of schoolchildren. I think the headmaster would be right in informing the police about you, without labeling you as a prospective "paedo".

I think a more pertinent question than what you pose, might be:

What percentage of the population actually take pictures of a nice 50's style primary school?

I cannot answer your question, but I'd hazard a guess that there are more scumbags around taking pictures of children, than there are ordinary people taking pictures of a nice 50's style primary school... but that's just a guess.

You say that the headmaster was right in informing the police about him without labelling him a prospective paedo?

Well I dont know about others but that sounds like a contradiction to me, if you phone the police about someone hanging round near a school with a camera then YOU ARE labelling him a PROSPECTIVE PEADO

This world is going to the dogs, we can't go anywhere, do the most innocent things etc etc etc without our human rights being taken away, this country needs a social revolution but we are too busy watching our REALITY TV SHOWS to care

M

[DVF]

I think you are all missing the point. The camera and the taking of pictures is irrelevant. The only reason the Police bother stopping people randomly like that is that they look suspicious (which could be for any number of reasons):wink:

Asking about the camera was only to see how you would react. They could have asked you where you got your jacket from, or anything. Once they gauge your reaction to the questions and your attitude towards them as being honest (and probably confused), you're good as gold

"I'm sure you can understand my suspicions, with a big camera like that near a school, sir"

That's just funny that is, trying to get out of the hole they just dug and making it worse.

[Sunflower]

Isn't this all part of the same overreaction that on the 'elf 'n safety' front stops kids playing conkers in the playground?

With any luck it's all getting so ludicrous now, that the pendulum's due to swing back a bit to a more balanced position. With respect Elgee, it's possible for the vulnerable to be looked after without the rest of us being treated as guilty till proved innocent while doing very ordinary things.

Having said that, it was back in the supposedly more sensible 70s that I was walking quietly home from a party very early one June morning carrying some speakers in a bag (- adds hastily - the same ones I'd earlier taken TO the party) when two cops leapt out of their car and grilled me pretty intensively about where I'd been, was going and what was in the bag.

[futureTom]

I think you are all missing the point. The camera and the taking of pictures is irrelevant. The only reason the Police bother stopping people randomly like that is that they look suspicious (which could be for any number of reasons)

This is only the second time I have ever been stopped by police, the first time being about twenty years ago, strangely enough carrying a speaker. I probably did look suspicious in those days, but now I'm the model of bland decency. Maybe I should stop wearing the monkey suit.

[Apollo]

I haven't had any problems in public, but then again, I usually try and be discreet, if only because I've also come up against some folk that are best described politely as 'nutters'.

The opening post is the key element in this thread, regardless of the various 'beliefs' that appeared on some of the subsequent post (not that they're not relevant, but would be better served in their own threads, rather than introducing unrelated items).

The key element that seems to have been glossed over is the fact that you are free to take photographs almost without any restrictions in the UK - end of story - and the police have no authority to demand anything of you as you are not committing any offence. That's no reason to get stroppy with them, however they're the ones that have to justify their actions if they wish to take it further if you do anything less than be courteous to them.

Your one, big, hassle, considering the original location, would be if you were on the premises/land/property. Once you've done that, you need permission, to be there, and to take photographs.

I've posted this link here before, but it is UK based (as opposed to most of the American debated) and is handy to commit the useful bit to memory for when you're out and about:

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

[glasgowken]

Interesting article, thanks Apollo.

From that, it looks as if the police only have powers to stop, or investigate, photos of subjects, or sites, which "may be of use to terrorists" (which on it's own is very wide ranging, and worrying), but photos with subjects such as have been discussed here (schools, etc) aren't prohibited ?

If that's the case then on what legal grounds was FutureTom questioned ? I may have missed a bit in the article, or not understand it fully.

[futureTom]

Yup, thanks for that link, Apollo.

It would seem that as previous posts have suggested, the problem isn't the photographing per se, but acting in a way that would arouse suspicion; eg, why would you want to take a photograph of kids coming out of school. Has the law been changed since 2004, or is there another law which the police could be appliying in this case.

But it still makes no sense, considering I wasn't taking any photographs at that point, and was probably about 200 metres away from the school.

[potatojunkie]

Slight tangent, but my flatmate and I were arrested last September while out on a photoshoot up by the canal. It was, admittedly, stupid of us to be out with a couple of toy guns, but the police overreaction was slightly stupider.

We spent a good forty minutes taking photos of the big rusted barge up at Port Dundas, while the helicopter buzzed overhead. It was only when we turned to leave that two guys with MP5s leapt out of a van and started shouting at us to drop our weapons. There were another two behinds us, watching. We were arrested at gunpoint, bundled into separate cars, and taken to the station in Maryhill. At this point they'd already inspected the "weapons" we had been carrying, which were of the plastic pound-shop variety that makes a whirring noise when you pull the trigger.

So, six hours in separate cells later (after they'd thoroughly checked the barge for drugs, explosives and more serious weapons) they released Brian, charged me with breach of the peace, and popped me back in the cell for a few more hours. They eventually let me go at 2am, Saturday morning, and left me to walk home through Maryhill, in a t-shirt.

The procurator dropped the charges (the lawyer reckoned that charging me in the first place had been a face-saving exercise on the sergeant's part), but it took them two months and they kept my camera the whole time as evidence, in case it contained incriminating photographs. They did the same with Brian's cameras even though he hadn't been charged. Of course, these had to be kept until they could be sent through to the high-tech crimes unit, as standard police officers aren't trained to view photographs on a digital camera.

The best thing to do is just sit in the house. Quietly.

[brickwall]

Eight hours in a cell.............Slight over reaction by the cops there potato. I can understand them checking out the barge etc, then letting you go, after all criminals do use fake guns. The rest is all ridiculous.

[potatojunkie]

I think once you've called out the chopper and a couple of armed response units, checking things are okay and letting people go stops being an option.

[Schiehallion]

I agree with all those who talk of the massive rise in the cult of the paedo bogeyman. We're led to believe they're on every street corner which just isn't the case. As a guy, I too hate the pressure I feel when I'm out taking photos. A few weeks ago I was in Pollok Park with a couple I know and their 1 year old boy. The wee man's on the swings and I'm taking photos of him whilst being totally paranoid about any weans who happened to walk behind him as I took a shot.

I agree with MK that not only is there more people wanting to take photos of buildings / scenes than kids but if this knee-jerk fear in society could be lifted, perhaps even more would be out documenting the city!

Ironically enough, having more people like us out and about can actually provide a valuable extra set of eyes and ears. The British Transport Police have long recognised the value of the trainspotters in being a pair of eyes doing very long shifts.

This letter from the police at Glasgow Airport acknowledges the same and is invaluable since it lets you know where you can and cannot go without hassle.

http://clivebraham.tripod.com/airportwatch.htm

The hypocrisy of this society continues to amaze me. They think there's a paedo up every close and can muster a lynch party in 8 minutes yet laugh like hyenas when there's a sketch on Chewin' The Fat based upon an adult woman showing her genitalia to two wee boys. Imagine if they reversed that sketch...............

[Hervey]

Holy Loch 1965. While taking pics of Polaris supply ship and submarine these three lads insisted I take their photo. Innocent times.

[John]

I reckon we should form a posse and round up Henri Cartier-Bresson, Oscar Marzaroli and Bert Hardy. It is time the police re-opened the files on these three for their persistent use of cameras in the vicinity of children.

[futureTom]

I reckon we should form a posse and round up Henri Cartier-Bresson, Oscar Marzaroli and Bert Hardy. It is time the police re-opened the files on these three for their persistent use of cameras in the vicinity of children.

Or maybe we could, like the BBC or Elliot Erwit, show only the feet and legs.