Metropolitan Police compensate parade-ban photographer

[David J Taylor]

A teenager who was wrongly barred by police from taking photographs of a
military parade in Romford, east London, has been compensated. See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16131390

Cheers,
David

[RichA]

On Dec 12, 10:15 am, "David J Taylor" <david-

There are rules in-place now for dealing with this, why is it so many
police seem unfamiliar with them? Is it that hard to read a page or
two or rules?

[Bowser]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:07:12 -0800 (PST), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You assume that these morons can read. A case or two here and there
wouldn't worry anyone. But this is getting riduculous! The only way to
fight back is to find some way to actually punish cops like this
beyond the disingenious apologies.

[David J Taylor]

"Bowser" <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote in message
news:7aice710dibukv0v3...@4ax.com...

I suspect that it wasn't just the presence of the camera, but the attitude
of the photographer to the police and their requests, or the photographer
getting into places where they may have caused disruption to others or
have been likely to be harmed.

Of course, there are bad apples in every organisation - that's human
nature - but consider what might happen to someone taking photographs of
military personnel in /any/ country!

Cheers,
David

[Bowser]

David this was a parade! I doubt the military would put anything
they'd want to keep secret or out of public view in a GD parade, do
you? And aren't parades for SHOWING OFF???

Sorry, the actions of this cop are indefensibly stupid.

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:jc5kp5$6iv$1...@dont-email.me...

Listen to the audio the kid recorded while he was being harassed. For a fifteen
year-old, he seems to have a good head on his shoulders - he was fully aware of
his rights and, IMO, challenged the police officers while maintaining a good
attitude..

[David J Taylor]

"Bowser" <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote in message

news:v1kee7d4qgrqdqciq...@4ax.com...
[]

> David this was a parade! I doubt the military would put anything
> they'd want to keep secret or out of public view in a GD parade, do
> you? And aren't parades for SHOWING OFF???
>
> Sorry, the actions of this cop are indefensibly stupid.

Without doubt, but I would not be surprised that in some countries taking
photos of the military (or police etc.) - e.g. showing recognisable
faces - would be quite likely to get you into trouble. I heard that some
countries even ban photos of inanimate objects like bridges and railway
stations....

Cheers,
David

[RichA]

On Dec 13, 8:46 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in messagenews:jc5kp5$6iv$1...@dont-email.me...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Bowser" <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote in message
> >news:7aice710dibukv0v3...@4ax.com...

> >> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 10:07:12 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>

It seems the only way the police and selected hack officials will
learn to walk the straight and narrow is to be sued, a lot.

[Bowser]

And those countries should be embarrased by their stupidity. Luckily,
here in the US we have an organization who will work for our rights.
Also, here in the US it's legal to video or photograph the police. But
you can't include sound in the video. Stupid, but true.

[Bruce]

RichA <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are rules in-place now for dealing with this, why is it so
many
> police seem unfamiliar with them? Is it that hard to read a page or
> two or rules?

In the past, the problem has been that the principles taught in
police training actually conflict with the rules.

The training highlights people taking pictures in public places as
potentially involved in researching targets for future terror
attacks. The rules set out the right to take pictures in a public
place.

So until police officers are re-trained, which will obviously take
some time, there are likely to be further arrests.

The problem is by no means limited to the UK. The US Dept. of
Homeland Security exhibits similar problems. That's probably a price
that the US and UK must pay for engaging in illegal wars in the
Middle East.

[Pete Stavrakoglou]

"Bowser" <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote in message

news:u6phe7dtu25e99c05...@4ax.com...

It's not true everywhere. You are referring to "wiretapping" laws that some
have stretched to mean that you cannot record audio of police in public without
their permission. That is on a state-by-state basis and and using that law to
prohibit recording of police in public was struck down recently in Maryland in a
celebrated case.

[Robert Coe]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2011 13:04:20 -0500, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
: On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:27:29 -0000, "David J Taylor"

I believe it's illegal in Massachusetts to photograph someone in a context
that would "out" him/her as an undercover police officer. And unless they've
changed the law, it's illegal to publish the home address of a police officer
without his/her permission.

Bob

[Savageduck]

On 2011-12-17 14:43:31 -0800, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:

<< Le Snip >>

> I believe it's illegal in Massachusetts to photograph someone in a context
> that would "out" him/her as an undercover police officer. And unless they've
> changed the law, it's illegal to publish the home address of a police officer
> without his/her permission.
>
> Bob

A photograph "outing" him/her as an undercover police officer seems
somewhat apocryphal. It also makes that officer's skills in an
undercover role somewhat questionable, if he/she has given somebody the
opportunity to take such a photograph.

Regarding publishing home address and other personal information of a
police officer is a mixed bag.

The California DMV permits me as a Peace Officer to have details linked
to my vehicle registration anonymized. That way anybody trying to get
my ID and/or home address from the plate on my personal vehicle, is
going to come up against a blank information wall giving no ownership
details. This works for any inquiry, even from other Law enforcement
agencies nation wide. If for example I were stopped for a speeding
violation in Nevada, that officer would not be able to get any
information other than vehicle model & year, color & VIN from the
plate. Showing my credentials would explain that to that officer, his
expectation would be to find a LEO behind that wheel.

However when it comes to my County Assessor files, I would believe that
if my name is known, a search would reveal the address of property I
own, and I suspect the same is true for Massachusetts. That is a public
record after all.

My landline is unlisted, but it seems anybody knowing my name would
have little trouble finding me with an internet search.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

A very good point. Last year in Panama, I asked for permission to take
some shots of their military. The troops asked the CO. He gave limited
permission. None on my shots were keepers.


--
Peter

[tony cooper]

Our driver in Kenya about freaked out when he noticed me taking a
photograph of some people in a large open space in a town we went
through. There was a policeman in the crowd that I didn't notice but
that he did.

I had been advised - strongly - at the beginning of the trip that no
photographs of police or police buildings were allowed.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida