Hello from windy Sheffy
A nice piccy for those who yearn for the much better days of the now unwanted Tories.


bill stewardson

---

"the best photographer in the world 12/13 May 07" bigbilly

Big Bill's Gallery

myspace.com/billstewardson
photobilly.co.uk

swede:

>>Stalinism is alive and kicking in the UK thanks to the communist ideals of the Labour party. <<

Frankly, it's hard for me to see how the British Labor party could be more bourgeois than it is.

It would be appropriate to respond in kind with a discussion of the Hitlerism of KeithT and his gang of BUFs, but this kind of hyperbole seems too ridiculous for words.

I personally find your remark quite obnoxious, and see it as a personal attack.  Kindly leave personal remarks where they belong: not on this site.  Everyone is entitled to have their say without prats like you descending onto this forum with some kind of vendetta.  What I think of you and the contribution you have made to this forum (or should I say lack of it) is beyond publishing here.  There! You have made me make a personal remark about you.

---

    Hello from Windy Sheffy.

Please,lets not get back into being aggressive,is supposed to be a hint of humour in this stuff.
Probably best to leave politics out of it completely.
I only ask because we can all have opposite views and still be correct.

bill stewardson

---

"the best photographer in the world 12/13 May 07" bigbilly

Big Bill's Gallery

myspace.com/billstewardson
photobilly.co.uk

big bill:

    Hello from Windy Sheffy.

Please,lets not get back into being aggressive,is supposed to be a hint of humour in this stuff.
Probably best to leave politics out of it completely.
I only ask because we can all have opposite views and still be correct.

bill stewardson

Bill, my remarks should always be taken for what they are worth: as tongue in cheek and usually throw-away.  However, it seems there are some folk who like to make things personal and they are the ones that give this site a bad name.  Frankly this guy pisses me off and has never made any real contribution to this site since joining.  But there you are!  I can see why one or two people have stopped coming here.  Maybe it's time for me to follow in their footsteps.  The only thing stopping me right now is that I like most of the people here, so it would be a shame, but not the end of the world. 

---

Getting back on topic, and for those interested in my point of view....

The news story tells of very little about the nature of the complaint. We dont know what that was, and why the police acted upon it. It may have been that he was taking photos of strategic areas, photos of children against their parents wishes or upskirt shots. We just dont know.

When a complaint is made the police will (and should) act upon it. Imagine if a couple of days later a child was abducted in that area by someone matching this guys description. Everyone would now be saying that the police did nothing about complaints made earlier.

People who say 'they should be out catching real criminals', tell me, who are the real criminals? Pass on a name and give a statement showing evidence and go to court, and the police will catch them. Until you do that, the police have to go out and find them themselves. Unfortunately they dont have a sign above their head saying 'criminal'.

As for 'giving up photography' just because of this, then that is just pathetic. It is not turning into a country where public photography is frowned upon or becoming illegal. How many people can you think of that have been stopped or interigated by police? Perhaps one or two of you will be able to come up with one or two stories, which is always going to be the case. But that doesnt mean it is rife.

I have been a police officer for about 16 years, and a photographer for about 25 years. In this time i have NEVER been stopped taking photos and dont know of anyone personally who has been stopped either. In my job i have only ever stopped 1 person taking photos. This was a report of a guy outside of a public swimming baths. It ended up that he was a known peadophile and was taking photos of children in the pool. Now imagine if i thought 'its only an innocent photographer' and left him alone. I would have been sacked for neglect of duty, never mind how i would have felt inside.

 

The guy in this story was NOT arrested. I am sure that the paper would have made a big deal of it if he was. His film was seized in order to investigate a suspected crime, and returned when it was discovered that a crime had not been committed. How were the police to know that he wasn't upto no good? Take his word for it?

You say the police dont deserve the pay rise because of this 'one' incident!!! It is a very difficult job at times, and can be rather dangerous too. It isnt for everyone, but if you ever wanted to go out with an officer then you are welcome to go out with them as a observer. Just get in touch with your local force. You may get an idea of what the police put up with.

They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont...

Public powers still exist. Any member of the public can arrest without warrent anyone who is just about to commit a crime, who they reasonably suspect of just committing a crime or who is in the process of committing a crime. Police can also arrest anyone who they believe has committed a crime.

If someone is damaging your property, then you CAN detain them. You can also use reasonable force in order to detain them. That doesnt give you the right to beat the crap out of them though.

 

MATT

PCthug:

Getting back on topic, and for those interested in my point of view....

The news story tells of very little about the nature of the complaint. We dont know what that was, and why the police acted upon it. It may have been that he was taking photos of strategic areas, photos of children against their parents wishes or upskirt shots. We just dont know.

Well, we do know that the guy was stopped for supposedly taking pictures of supposedly 'sensitive areas'. Unfortunately, there is no such crime. The police seem to have got mixed up with the law that prevents photography of prohibited places which might be 'useful to the enemy'.

PCthug:

When a complaint is made the police will (and should) act upon it. Imagine if a couple of days later a child was abducted in that area by someone matching this guys description. Everyone would now be saying that the police did nothing about complaints made earlier.

Taking photographs has no correlation with a tendency towards child abduction, or for that matter, any other crime. I have to say that this remark suggests an attitude that photography is a naturally suspicious activity.

PCthug:

People who say 'they should be out catching real criminals', tell me, who are the real criminals? Pass on a name and give a statement showing evidence and go to court, and the police will catch them. Until you do that, the police have to go out and find them themselves. Unfortunately they dont have a sign above their head saying 'criminal'.

Not sure of the point you're making here. For the police to investigate information that they are provided with there has to be at least a suggestion that it indicates that a crime has been committed. What if I rang the police up to complain about somebody driving a car? After all they may be driving the getaway vehicle for a bunch of gangsters or have been drinking. However, unless I tell the police that the car is going too fast, or being driven erratically or I've seen a weapon inside they aren't likely to be interested. In fact, if I say 'no, they were just driving' they'll think I've gone mad. However, if I say somebody is taking photographs, then a small number of people in the private and public security industries seem to think this justifies relieving a law abiding member of the public of his property.

PCthug:

As for 'giving up photography' just because of this, then that is just pathetic. It is not turning into a country where public photography is frowned upon or becoming illegal. How many people can you think of that have been stopped or interigated by police? Perhaps one or two of you will be able to come up with one or two stories, which is always going to be the case. But that doesnt mean it is rife.

I'm with you on this. The number of incidents of this nature is tiny and the number of those carried out by fully paid up bobbies (as opposed to the plastic CPSOs, private security guards etc) smaller still. In the last 2 months I've spent 3 full days photographing London and had no problems at all. I began to wonder if there was something wrong with me...

However, I think its worth remembering that, for the small number of people this does happen to it causes a great deal of inconvenience and probably significant anxiety, distress or humiliation.

PCthug:

I have been a police officer for about 16 years, and a photographer for about 25 years. In this time i have NEVER been stopped taking photos and dont know of anyone personally who has been stopped either. In my job i have only ever stopped 1 person taking photos. This was a report of a guy outside of a public swimming baths. It ended up that he was a known peadophile and was taking photos of children in the pool. Now imagine if i thought 'its only an innocent photographer' and left him alone. I would have been sacked for neglect of duty, never mind how i would have felt inside.

I do think this example is in a different league don't you? After all people tend to be in a state of relative undress in swimming pools and, as a result, have a reasonable expectation of considerably greater privacy and protection than if they are walking down a public street fully clothed. And of course swimming baths are private property so its different again. Basically, in the situation you describe here there was clearly enough for you to have a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. I can't see where a similar level of suspicion came from for the coppers who stopped the guy in Hull.

PCthug:

The guy in this story was NOT arrested. I am sure that the paper would have made a big deal of it if he was. His film was seized in order to investigate a suspected crime, and returned when it was discovered that a crime had not been committed. How were the police to know that he wasn't upto no good? Take his word for it?

Well no he wasn't arresred but he was stopped and searched and had his property confiscated and his day out ruined. And yes, if I tell a police officer that i'm doing nothing wrong I expect them to believe me unless they have credible evidence to the contrary. Asking 'how were the police to know he was up to no good' gets it the wrong way round and shows a worrying lack of understanding of the legal system for a police officer. The question the police are supposed to ask them selves is 'what makes us think s/he IS up to no good?'. Innocent until proven guilty, onus of proof and all that.

PCthug:

You say the police dont deserve the pay rise because of this 'one' incident!!! It is a very difficult job at times, and can be rather dangerous too. It isnt for everyone, but if you ever wanted to go out with an officer then you are welcome to go out with them as a observer. Just get in touch with your local force. You may get an idea of what the police put up with.

Did you have a nice day in London? Hope the policing wasn't too heavy and nobody got all Section 14 all over you. Did they have all those police photographers out like they do on all the animal rights demos?

PCthug:

They are damned if they do, and damned if they dont...

Quite possibly. I'm sure social workers and many other public servants feel the same sometimes but its usually open season on them. Ho hum.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

Not sure how to quote a quote, so, sorry, had to write in blue.

Well, we do know that the guy was stopped for supposedly taking pictures of supposedly 'sensitive areas'. Unfortunately, there is no such crime. The police seem to have got mixed up with the law that prevents photography of prohibited places which might be 'useful to the enemy'.

Your right there is no such crime. But it is what it could lead onto. Sensitive areas dont have to be prohibited areas, they could be areas useful to those who want to follow up with crimes. For instance, the areas securicor vans stop for drop offs, their direction of travel etc. The positioning of bins (big in the days of the IRA bombings). Fire exits and escape routes, etc... Recon is very big and necessary in a well planned execution of a job.


Taking photographs has no correlation with a tendency towards child abduction, or for that matter, any other crime. I have to say that this remark suggests an attitude that photography is a naturally suspicious activity.

Your wrong. I know for a fact that child abductors check out areas prior to an attack. They will go to schools, shopping centres and play parks to photograph kids in order to get their kicks. When this isnt enough, they will take it a step further, and talk to them to gain their confidence (called grooming). I have never known of a child abductor to NOT have any photographic material of children.

Not sure of the point you're making here. For the police to investigate information that they are provided with there has to be at least a suggestion that it indicates that a crime has been committed. What if I rang the police up to complain about somebody driving a car? After all they may be driving the getaway vehicle for a bunch of gangsters or have been drinking. However, unless I tell the police that the car is going too fast, or being driven erratically or I've seen a weapon inside they aren't likely to be interested. In fact, if I say 'no, they were just driving' they'll think I've gone mad. However, if I say somebody is taking photographs, then a small number of people in the private and public security industries seem to think this justifies relieving a law abiding member of the public of his property.

Its all to do with reasonable suspicion. If you said 'someone was driving a car slowly passed a group of children, or slowly passed your house' then the police would look into it. As i said, we dont know the nature of the complaint regarding this guy. If it was 'the guy was taking photographs of arcitecture' then the police would have probably thought 'so what'. A call is taking by 'call takers'. These are mainly made up of civilians, who prioritise a call and pass it over to comms who will allocate it to a un it to look into. Call takers generally get rid of the rubbish calls at source (or should do). 

I'm with you on this. The number of incidents of this nature is tiny and the number of those carried out by fully paid up bobbies (as opposed to the plastic CPSOs, private security guards etc) smaller still. In the last 2 months I've spent 3 full days photographing London and had no problems at all. I began to wonder if there was something wrong with me...

However, I think its worth remembering that, for the small number of people this does happen to it causes a great deal of inconvenience and probably significant anxiety, distress or humiliation.

There are always gonna be innocent inconvenienced due to complaints the police recieve, unfortunately.

I do think this example is in a different league don't you? After all people tend to be in a state of relative undress in swimming pools and, as a result, have a reasonable expectation of considerably greater privacy and protection than if they are walking down a public street fully clothed. And of course swimming baths are private property so its different again. Basically, in the situation you describe here there was clearly enough for you to have a reasonable belief that a crime was being committed. I can't see where a similar level of suspicion came from for the coppers who stopped the guy in Hull.

How do you know it was in a different league? He may have been taking photos outside a swimming pool (like this guy was), it may have been near a ladies toilets or changing room, it may have been upskirt shots from stairwells. We just dont know. The guy i was talking about, was stood outside on a public street, and near to the big glass windows of the swimming baths. Swimming baths are a public place. Yes, they are privately owned (council), but it follows different rules, because it is open to the public.

Well no he wasn't arresred but he was stopped and searched and had his property confiscated and his day out ruined. And yes, if I tell a police officer that i'm doing nothing wrong I expect them to believe me unless they have credible evidence to the contrary. Asking 'how were the police to know he was up to no good' gets it the wrong way round and shows a worrying lack of understanding of the legal system for a police officer. The question the police are supposed to ask them selves is 'what makes us think s/he IS up to no good?'. Innocent until proven guilty, onus of proof and all that.

How many people tell police that they are doing nothing wrong, when in fact they are? Almost everyone. Police need 'reasonable suspicion'. If they only worked on 'credible evidence' then almost no crimes would ever get detected. They make an arrest (or investigate a suspected crime like with this guy) to gather evidence. If there is sufficient, they will process it to court, if not it will be kicked out (as was the case here). The words of the complaint made the police think he was 'upto no good', and we dont know what thay complaint was. 

This guy outside the swimming baths, i had no credible evidence at all. Only the word from a member of the public cating he was stood outside with a camera, and they thought that suspicious. According to your idea, i had no right to speak with him, because i had only a reasonable suspicion, and if he told me he wasnt doing anything wrong, i should have believed him.

Did you have a nice day in London? Hope the policing wasn't too heavy and nobody got all Section 14 all over you. Did they have all those police photographers out like they do on all the animal rights demos?

Didn't go, i was working.

PCthug:

 

Your right there is no such crime. But it is what it could lead onto. Sensitive areas dont have to be prohibited areas, they could be areas useful to those who want to follow up with crimes. For instance, the areas securicor vans stop for drop offs, their direction of travel etc. The positioning of bins (big in the days of the IRA bombings). Fire exits and escape routes, etc... Recon is very big and necessary in a well planned execution of a job.

 

So am I going to get arrested next time Im waiting for someone and decide to look at a bin? Or maybe I might chance a glance at a fire exit.

 

Or maybe even dare to look at a securicor guy as he does his run.

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

PCthug:

It may have been that he was taking photos of strategic areas, photos of children against their parents wishes or upskirt shots. We just dont know.

First of all, thanks for providing a balancing view. There have been a bunch of these "innocent people stopped taking pics" events and my tendency has always been to side with the photographer.

However, I started thinking about this. As always we get the bald facts (person stopped taking pics and having film confiscated) and one side of the emotive stuff.

Now I'm not saying it went down like this but imagine 2 scenarios:
1. Police Officer strolls over to photographer and asks what they are up to. Photographer "I'm just taking a few pictures of the architecture of this shopping centre" PC "can I see?" Ph"sorry I'm on film" PC "OK but somebody thought you were acting suspiciously - are you going to be much longer?" PH "not sure" PC"well do you mind if I take your name and address so that if there's any comeback we can pop round for a chat?" Ph "No problem" PC " Oh, by the way, I'm required by law to give you a bit of paper telling you why I spoke to you" Ph "blimey that's bureaucracy gone mad". PC "tell me about it..."

2. Police Officer strolls over to photographer and asks what they are up to. "Nothing - you can't stop me, it's a public place and I have every right to stand here and do as I please - we're not a police state yet - any attempt to touch me and I'll have you for assault". PC "OK - I have reasonable suspicion that you are up to no good (err, they would probably quote a law or something) turn out your pockets......"

Oh course we'd never hear from the photographer how they reacted on being questioned.

Bottom line, if a copper comes over and asks me what I'm up to then I'll tell him. If we can't resolve it with a friendly chat then I'm going to go all human rights act on him ("what probable cause do you have to believe I am involved in an offence?" as the HSA used to tell people to say). But we'll chat first.

I reckon most police are decent people. Some of them are fascists who want to get in uniform so they can boss people around. Just like the rest of us Some are in the pay of the government to stamp out anything El Presidente doesn't like (ultimately all of them are since they enforce the law and directives from the Home Office).

---

Kidography. It's like photography. But more fun.

Interesting reading guys...the original news item and the thread.

No-one seems to have picked up on the location the chap was shooting from was a shopping centre. If it was a private one, then without permission from the owners, he had no rights to be shooting there and could be removed by security staff.

Still, my own opinion is that it's an excessive response to what appears on the surface a harmless scenario. I'm guessing that there was a bit of effing and blinding by the chap to end up with the confiscation, but then there may not have been - facts haven't been fully reported.

I do think it's duplicious, though, that we have security cameras all over the place taking clandestine footage of us all, but you can be harrassed for an innocuous activity of duplicating their own footage. And if he'd been using a camera phone instead of a frightening SLR, it probably would have been ignored completely.

H.

---

My Gallery.

flickr gallery

hevans:

I'm guessing that there was a bit of effing and blinding by the chap to end up with the confiscation, but then there may not have been - facts haven't been fully reported.

H.

Course there was. That's how they speak in Hull. ......even the police.

---

BPITW won 7 times.

My Flickr gallery

David Bracher:

hevans:

I'm guessing that there was a bit of effing and blinding by the chap to end up with the confiscation, but then there may not have been - facts haven't been fully reported.

H.

Course there was. That's how they speak in Hull. ......even the police.

Ah, right. Never been there myself, but as someone acquainted with nautical terms, I've always thought that Hull should be twinned with Keel.

H.

---

My Gallery.

flickr gallery

PCThug, you seem to be under a basic misunderstanding about correlations in that they are not necessarily a reciprocal relationship. In other words, the majority of paedos may well be photographers but it does not necessarily follow, or even be remotely likely, that that means that photographers are more likely to be paedos. Ergo, the fact that someone is taking photographs is no basis for reasonable suspicion of such a crime.

After all, all rapists are men but not all men are rapists. I take it you don't go out arresting random blokes on the basis that they are more likely to have raped someone.

My driving analogy is pertinent. Both driving and photography are in theory capable of being put to use for nefarious purposes but, while driving in itself is not seen as a naturally suspicious activity, in some quarters photography is.

The bit we seem to agree on is that a sense of proportion is required on the part of the photography community as these incidents are still very rare. Thats why I don't bother signing these petitions, I think they are somewhat alarmist. Compared to many other groups of people, eg Muslims or people with darker skin (some of whom will be photographers as well of course, I wonder how much s*it they get?), I think we are way down the list of oppressed groups.

That said, when things do go wrong I think you're shooting yourself in the foot by defending the indefensible.

I have to say that your posts are a somewhat worrying eye-opener into the workings of the average coppers mind. If this is how you assess your levels of suspicion then you're going to keep on getting the wrong guy.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

http://www.epuk.org/News/662/nottingham-photographer-found-guilty

interesting reading,i spoke to Alan last year before the case was yet again adjourned, upto that point he still hadnt got his camera (inc memory card) back,  cheers martyn

Martyn, do you know if he's launching an appeal?

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr