Playing devil's advocate, I guess taking all those pictures could at least be described as unusual behaviour (nothing wrong with it of course), and the PCSOs might just have been curious - probably a good thing in their job.
It would have been different if they'd confiscated the camera or locked you up - just unfortunate about the 'don't do it again' impression they gave (perhaps unintentionally?).
|
Another case of damned if they do and damned if they don't....
I take it, Tack, that you don't live in or around the village concerned so I assume that they will not have seen you before so were just satifying themselves that you were ok, which is what a village bobby would have done in the "old days"... I really can't see a problem here, if I lived in that village I'd be pleased that they are around...
Mountain out of a molehill... now where's X to jump on the bandwagon...
|
|
Local Neighbourhood Witch might have spragged you. Anway - an anorexic link to motoring here.....
|
In fact one of our local news websites blanks off police officers' faces if they are photographed at an accident scene or similar incidents. >>
Clear motoring link in the words "accident scene", so I feel it's legitimate to observe that the world has gone mad and if this is the way we're going, police officers should find a way of blanking off their faces when they're in their cars at the lights or on patrol in the high street.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 06/08/2009 at 13:35
|
Did you read the link provided?
Would a Mr Plod mask fit the bill?
Sorry about the pun....
Edited by Stuartli on 06/08/2009 at 11:53
|
Yep. I read the link. I'd say it was a misunderstanding of the law.
Edited by Optimist on 06/08/2009 at 11:54
|
I'm not sure it's anything to be concerned about really. They're local people who obviously know other locals & you stood out. As someone has said, in less formal days, the village bobby would probably have taken a 'jovial' interest in your activities & you'd have just thought what a friendly copper.
Perhpas the PCSOs weren't so confident & came across as a bit BigBrother-ish. For one, I'd be quite happy to be 'interrogated' in this way - and happy for others to be also.
Not saying anything about your demeanour or intentions Tack, but stopping in a country lane taking pictures of a car might just attract the interest of pro-active PCSOs - I'd certainly look twice if I saw it from a passing car.
|
|
Thin end of an Austin Princess.
|
|
I was following a "police" Smart car in Essex-foot on brake at traffic lights and then wrong lane at roundabout-holding up all the left turn traffic and then going straight on-rest of the right turn traffic was queuing in the RH lane.Appear to have a high standard of training.
|
|
Should have made it clear-only two exits from roundabout!!Right fork is effectively straight on.
|
Stuart - No, sorry, I'm right. There is no privacy law and no law preventing the taking of photographs. The law you mention is conditional - read the text of it. I can quite lawfully come and photograph you coming out of your front door - no offence whatsoever.
The press occluding officers faces is voluntary on their part. They are anticipating, in the case of some officers, the potential for misuse of the picture. Indeed, the press used to photograph officers at airports routinely, when they were there, and keep them on file in order that they might identify the officer involved in a firearms incident at some other time/place. This is because airports have one of the highest concentrations of authorised firearms officers who routinely move policing posts i.e. from airport to ARV work etc. Even if the press didn't hide the officers face I cannot see a successful prosecution resulting because their reason for taking pictures in normal police work wouldn't meet the criteria for the offence you posted.
|
Aren't they obliged by law to display their numbers?
So presumably one has a right to enquire the name of a numbered policeman, otherwise the number alone would be meaningless.
|
|
Seriously - report them. If idiots like this get away with it, they bring the whole system into disrepute.
|
|
jc2 - driver training in most forces has been considerably dumbed down. Plus of course, no guarantee that it was Police officers driving. Even if they were, no guarantee that they'd had any formal training. In some forces a short assessment drive can give basic authority for non response driving.
|
|
Cliff - No, not obliged by any law to display numbers. And I can't see any 'right' for you to enquire which officer a number belongs to. I'd be equally 'right' to ask why you wanted to know!
|
Wrong lane at a roundabout?
Shocking, desperate, it's an outrage - they should be shot at the very least.
|
seriously woodster
an officer doesnt have to display his /her number?
|
|
wife and i are shocked at that
|
|
CID and special branch, amongst others, do not display numbers-nobody would question this, for obvious reasons. But they're all cops. Absolutely no law about wearing them. Practice to do so, and most Chief Constables (all?) require officers in uniform to wear them.
|
Practice to do so and most Chief Constables (all?) require officers in uniform to wear them.
Only at Constable and Sergeant rank, above that you don't get a number
|
|
I thought that was contested at the London riots recently? Policemen unlawfully concealing their numbers?
|
|
Don't confuse the complaint (and rightly so) about the officer not wearing numbers, with a requirement at law. There simply isn't one.
|
Perhaps I'm remembering wrongly, but didn't one or other force go all PeeCee touchy feely a few years back by getting their officers to wear,"Hi, I'm Nigel" name badges or some such rubbish?
|
by getting their officers to wear "Hi I'm Nigel" name badges or some such rubbish?
Met Police policy is to wear a name badge. Bit of a bummmer if you're called Dave Rumpelstiltskin as you'd be easily found by the bad guys....e.g. voters register and similar, easily found on the 'net....which is the reason the numbers system was introduced in the first place
|
|
So. If I am upset by a policeman's behaviour, and want to make a complaint, then am I entitled to ask for, and get, his number, and police station?
|
So. If I am upset by a policeman's behaviour and want to make a complaint then am I entitled to ask for and get his number and police station?
yes....you'd get a name as well
|
'Only at Constable and Sergeant rank, above that you don't get a number'
I think you're being pedantic Westpig! We do have numbers above PC/PS, they're just not displayed. I wouldn't be so churlish as to refuse my name in any normal circumstance, with the exception of terrorist related matters, which the law covers, as you know.
|
I think you're being pedantic Westpig! We do have numbers above PC/PS they're just not displayed.
not here there aren't...nothing pedantic about it, just factual....;-)
|
|
unless you were originally stopped under s44 for terrorism act 2000, where a name doesn't have to be given and left off of any stop/search form. or at least that was the case..
|
|
>For one, I'd be quite happy to be 'interrogated' in this way - and happy for others to be also.
What a sad place the UK has become when people can be "interrogated" by any cop-wannabee in a uniform for taking pictures of a car in a country lane.
What really, really worries me is that some people are "happy" to accept it.
Kevin...
|
The word 'interrogation' is a bit like 'thrown' in a cell - terms often used to over egg the pudding. A way of trying to turn a non event into something apparently more sinister.
No one gets picked up by 4 burly coppers, swung backwards and forwards to the count of 3 and then released. Few people get 'interrogated' like captives do on basic SAS Selection. What does happen though is people get spoken to, questioned or 'have a chat'. Those techniques are basic 'coppering' (even in the case of PCSO's) thats what the public expect of our Police Service, that's their job and that's what they are paid to do. If the discussion is courteous and adult then no harm done. Many sinister activities are uncovered during a 'chat'
I am really sorry if some take exception to that and feel that they are above the eyes of the law. The day we stop talking to people and making inquiries is the day we have totally lost control of the streets.
Edited by Fullchat on 07/08/2009 at 01:18
|
What a sad place the UK has become when people can be "interrogated" by any cop-wannabee
Perhaps you didn't notice the use of single quotes - which modifies the general meaning, i.e. it wasn't really an interrogation as such - just an enquiring word or two. By the way, to quote me correctly it should be: "... 'interrogated' ... ".
What really, really worries me is that some people are "happy" to accept it
Sorry to use the rather cliched response to this but, if you've got nothing to conceal why would a question or two from those charged with maintaining law & order be something to worry about? I've been spoken to & questioned a few times by police officers in my lifetime & can't remember feeling victimised, hard done-by or having had my 'human rights' violated at all.
In fact I've been a cheeky young so-and-so on a couple of these occasions & feel lucky, in retrospect, this hadn't happened in a shanty town or favella in a less enlightened part of the world.
You can't have effective law & order without someone, somewhere, at sometime being asked what they're doing - and sometimes (or maybe many times) there will be an entirely innocent explanation - as in the OP's situation. To extend the analogy, maybe we should feel aggrieved any time we pass a speed camera, as the implication is that we might be speeding when we're not. Or we should rail against airport searches that imply we might be terrorists, etc. etc.
|
As the original poster, may I have the last word?
My post was more a social commentary than a complaint, bemusement that a simple pastime such as photography can attract the attention of the forces of the law in a small (and handsome, ergo photogenic) village. If I want to take pics of my car for posterity with a nice backdrop of the rolling Essex countryside, what business is it of the law?
|
|
I think it is simply a case of over enthusiastic amateurs. When you know that PCSOs get abotu 2 weeks training as opposed to 6 months for a police officer then things like this are bound to happen. When you don't know you just make it up as you go along.
|
|
Last word ! Thank you and locked !
|
|
|
|
