Here we go again....

Here we go again....

30 posts
7 Jan 2014
DonMacKay
Photographer
DonMacKay
Alledgedly, another photographer has been a victim of police misconduct....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25634173 
Posted 7 Jan 2014
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
It would be nice if for once, one of these instances involved typical photography in the street such as taking photos of normal people, buildings or landscapes that a holiday maker may take.

I get the impression many of these occurances with heavy-handed police seem to happen around sensitive locations or events. This one was near a fatal car crash and another recent one involved photographing police officers in Northern Ireland IIRC, both someone sensitive and as a result my sympathy with the photographers involved is somewhat lacking.

Posted 7 Jan 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
RedChecker

It would be nice if for once, one of these instances involved typical photography in the street such as taking photos of normal people, buildings or landscapes that a holiday maker may take. I get the impression many of these occurances with heavy-handed police seem to happen around sensitive locations or events. This one was near a fatal car crash and another recent one involved photographing police officers in Northern Ireland IIRC, both someone sensitive and as a result my sympathy with the photographers involved is somewhat lacking.

+1

We don't know what happened in this case - but if - and I stress if - the cop thought he was taking photographs of an injured or dead victim I might have more than a little sympathy with his attitude.

Posted 7 Jan 2014
PeterH
Photographer
PeterH
mph

+1

We don't know what happened in this case - but if - and I stress if - the cop thought he was taking photographs of an injured or dead victim I might have more than a little sympathy with his attitude.



Why? As distasteful as some may find it, taking pictures of an accident scene, the dead and injured, is legal to do, and to be threatened with physical violence by a police officer is wholly wrong. His job is to uphold the laws enacted by parliament, not invent and enforce rules he's created on the spot.
Posted 7 Jan 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
The story seems to be a) that a member of the public was apparently sworn at by a policeman.
b) the member of the public videoed part of the exchange
c) the member of the public 'had been taking photographs of a road in Churchdown'

There is no particular reason from the report to think that the apparent reaction to the man was anything to do with him taking photographs, at least not a primary reaction. The details are so sketchy that speculation is pointless.

Posted 7 Jan 2014
PeterH
Photographer
PeterH
stolenfaces

The story seems to be a) that a member of the public was apparently sworn at by a policeman. b) the member of the public videoed part of the exchange c) the member of the public 'had been taking photographs of a road in Churchdown' There is no particular reason from the report to think that the apparent reaction to the man was anything to do with him taking photographs, at least not a primary reaction. The details are so sketchy that speculation is pointless.


The full video on Youtube (12 mins) shows its about the guy taking pictures of an accident scene, then standing up for his legal rights when ordered by the copper to delete the images, questioning the officers claim that he has to have his permission to take photographs in public, question "what for?" when threatened with arrest, and finally get threatened with physical violence for being there.

This copper should be out, no pension, but we all know it'll be "words of advice have been given" when they close ranks and protect one of their own.
Posted 7 Jan 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
I thought he was pretty restrained!

Having listened to the entire video - whilst technically the copper was not correct about deleting images he was clearly trying to be sensitive to the victims - and although he was out of order to some extent I am not unsympathetic with him. The guy also let the police thought he was a reporter - which he may or may not have been. He went through the images and was clearly trying to be reasonable.

And there was no threat of violence - nothing more than a flippant comment. Give the guy a break.

Storm in a teacup for me!




Posted 7 Jan 2014
Plymjack
Photographer
Plymjack
PeterH

Why? As distasteful as some may find it, taking pictures of an accident scene, the dead and injured, is legal to do, and to be threatened with physical violence by a police officer is wholly wrong. His job is to uphold the laws enacted by parliament, not invent and enforce rules he's created on the spot.



So when you have a car accident and are laying on the road awaiting an ambulance you are OK that a passing photographer takes some pics of your broken bleeding body nd then uploads them to facebook so your family might see them before the police have had time to inform the next-of-kin.....  ?  lets hope your not dead as your family might not be happy to see your pic like that!
Posted 7 Jan 2014
w4pictures
Photographer
w4pictures
It sounds from the video that the policeman was in no doubt that the photographer was acting in an questionable manner, whether that was getting in their way or taking pictures of the accident, thus the comment that he would put him before a magistrate and see what he thought. Like all these things with just part of the information, its hard to judge but, if you consider the procedure, distress, logistics etc. of dealing with a nasty traffic accident, the last thing the police need is a numpty with a camera regardless of the legality of it. On that basis, its hard to sympathise with the photographer.
Posted 7 Jan 2014
mantisphoto
Photographer
mantisphoto
Im sorry but regardless of what the actual pictures were of, unless the photographer had actually broken any law... and afaik taking pictures of an accident in a public place is perfectly legal since there were no cordons in place restricting movement of pedestrians... the officer is extremely out of order...

Those who sympathise with him are wrong. If the officer believes a crime was committed he should have arrested the man, and not spent 12 minutes threatening him. He should have let the courts decide on the situation, but he knows that the courts and CPS would have not done anything about it and the man could have then claimed wrongful arrest. Also, asking a man to delete photos is unlawful too... only a court order may demand that images get deleted, and otherwise, if a crime had been commited, deleting them is destruction of evidence. It is also very easy to recover deleted images in just a few minutes so entirely pointless.

Claiming "you're lucky i dont knock you out" and "im going to make your day a living hell" are the words of a power hungry officer and nothing more. 

I hope he gets dismissed!!
Posted 7 Jan 2014
HowardJ
Photographer
HowardJ
And the police wonder why they lose the people's support.

There was an incident a few months ago in brum where someone was threatening to commit suicide by throwing themselves off a motorway bridge. The police's reaction was:

- close the motorway to remove the danger to the individual and members of the public. Fair enough.

- they kept the motorway closed for another 12 hrs or so while they convinced the individual to come away from the bridge. Bloody stupid and caused huge traffic jams, delays causing 1000s of people's plans to screwed up.

I thought the idea of the police was to ensure the actions of a minority of the population didn't adversely impact the rest of the population and they enforced the law not what they feel like doing at the time. The police have forgotten they serve the people and we pay their wages. Let's have real policing not cameras everywhere that do nothing but make money for people. They're not actually making anything safer.

Posted 7 Jan 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
HowardJ

And the police wonder why they lose the people's support. There was an incident a few months ago in brum where someone was threatening to commit suicide by throwing themselves off a motorway bridge. The police's reaction was: - close the motorway to remove the danger to the individual and members of the public. Fair enough. - they kept the motorway closed for another 12 hrs or so while they convinced the individual to come away from the bridge. Bloody stupid and caused huge traffic jams, delays causing 1000s of people's plans to screwed up. I thought the idea of the police was to ensure the actions of a minority of the population didn't adversely impact the rest of the population ............


Yes - should have shot the inconsiderate bastard!

Posted 7 Jan 2014
johnlp
Photographer
johnlp
mph

I thought he was pretty restrained! Having listened to the entire video - whilst technically the copper was not correct about deleting images he was clearly trying to be sensitive to the victims - and although he was out of order to some extent I am not unsympathetic with him. The guy also let the police thought he was a reporter - which he may or may not have been. He went through the images and was clearly trying to be reasonable. And there was no threat of violence - nothing more than a flippant comment. Give the guy a break. Storm in a teacup for me!



I'm with you on this one.  If the police officer had been at the actual scene of the accident his sensitivities would be at their maximum, and he might say things that normally he wouldn't.  Loose his job?  No.  An apology? Yes.  You can't go around sacking highly (and expensively) trained police officers over this sort of thing.

Posted 7 Jan 2014
HowardJ
Photographer
HowardJ
mph
Yes - should have shot the inconsiderate bastard!
No, they'd removed the risk of death from the public and the individual by closing the road. They should then have removed the individual by non-lethal means, introducing protective measures to stop him hurting himself and removed him to a safe place where they could have helped him with his problems. Allowing one person to mess up the lives of 1000s for almost an entire day just can't be right. The innocent members of the public were just forgotten about.
Posted 7 Jan 2014
Sdeve
Photographer
Sdeve
This idiot police officer was a sergeant FFS! He should know the law and what he was spouting was out and out wrong. It is clear from what he was saying that he in fact had no problem with the photography but was more concerned about being asked politely by the photographer if the photographer could do what he was actually allowed to do anyway. There was simply no offence of obstructing a police officer. I do believe that when it got to the point the officer threatened to arrest me for obstructing him I would have told him to go ahead. He was/is an incompetent, bullying, ego tripping fool.

OK, he was at a fatal road collision which is unpleasant. That might allow a certain terseness in his demeanour. It doesn't excuse a continued exercise in stupidity. He could have resolved the whole thing by just ignoring the photographer, and why shouldn't he? If the sergeant should be dismissed it would not be because he was rude, offensive etc. but because he should be let out on the public when he hasn't got a clue about what he was doing.

Posted 7 Jan 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join