video on the police.

[Moll. 1,770]

Bravo that man

Personally i am sick to death of being stopped because i drive a 4x4, because it is "The type of vehicle poachers use"

If i want to go out lamping on the land i actually live on and permissioned land, it has been advised by the police to telephone their headquarters, tell them where i will be, what time, what vehicle i am driving, names of anyone with me and ring again when i get home.

What next, should a now start asking permission to take a camera anywhere with me just incase a policeman thinks i might be acting antisocial with it

[gnasher16 30,121]

who are you or i to judge what someone else wants to take pictures of?

he did explain in the video.

 

the government and corporations have just as much right to film a public place as anyone else,they are not above the law they are citizens under it like us.

 

if someone was filming a baby getting changed in public and asked not to it would become harassment or possibly sexual harassment and they could then be arrested for that,not just the 'you cant do that because i say so' law.

 

like i said we are imo heading towards a police state,and willingly forgoing our rights is speeding things up.

 

So if somebody wants to walk up to you in the street and start filming you your ok with that are you ?....you cant have it both ways you either accept people can take pictures of what they like or you dont....the fact that if you wrap the camera round his neck meaning YOU get arrested for somebody elses mis doing dont seem right to me...i mean what if you asked him to stop filming you and he said no,what then ? should you have to run away or just allow this person to invade your privacy because he has taken a shine to you.....

Your going on about government and corporations before you have really thought through the basic realities of what your moaning about....

[foxfan 479]

ok how many people on here have had thier civil rights abused lately?

 

I used to enjoy coursing hares.

 

That question seems a bit ironic coming from someone with your signature ?

 

ah but were not talking about the 30s or 40s are we.look im not saying things are ideal,but some of you guys are making out we are getting dragged out of our beds and never heard of again.i dont see anything in that vid that would constitute an abuse of your civil rights imo.however i guess we are entitled to our opinions.

as for hare coursing,tbh any coursing i ever did was illegal anyway.the only thing that changes is if i was caught doing it these days,it would be just another charge to add to the poaching one.so the ban is neither here nor there as far as im concerned.

 

I agree that its not that big an issue in Britain (yet). But if you keep a weather eye open, you can see that the mechanism for total control is slowly being put in place.

How that mechanism is used will down to whoever is in power, with no recourse to the people. Im a bit uncomfortable with that.

[gnasher16 30,121]

 

This bloke is probably a dick who decided to try and make a point by deliberately taking pictures in front of the police knowing that they'll question him about it so he can make his silly arsed video and try and look clever.

 

Exactly right.....and all he really ended up doing was making a dick of himself.....most folk just want ol bill out of their life as quickly and painlessly as possible,answert their questions,be polite then say goodbye.......this ranting and raving human rights attention seeking bollocks is normally done by folk who have been fortunate enough to never have dealings with them.....everyone else knows the sensible way to play them.

[blan89 159]

who are you or i to judge what someone else wants to take pictures of?

he did explain in the video.

 

the government and corporations have just as much right to film a public place as anyone else,they are not above the law they are citizens under it like us.

 

if someone was filming a baby getting changed in public and asked not to it would become harassment or possibly sexual harassment and they could then be arrested for that,not just the 'you cant do that because i say so' law.

 

like i said we are imo heading towards a police state,and willingly forgoing our rights is speeding things up.

 

So if somebody wants to walk up to you in the street and start filming you your ok with that are you ?....you cant have it both ways you either accept people can take pictures of what they like or you dont....the fact that if you wrap the camera round his neck meaning YOU get arrested for somebody elses mis doing dont seem right to me...i mean what if you asked him to stop filming you and he said no,what then ? should you have to run away or just allow this person to invade your privacy because he has taken a shine to you.....

Your going on about government and corporations before you have really thought through the basic realities of what your moaning about....

 

if they are harassing me that is a crime,camera or not,problem solved?

 

however did we get by before all this anti-terror legislation...

[Waz 4,262]

Fair play to the man for standing up for what he believes in.

 

I laughed when the copper said "you seem to know the law, do you work in the field" ie he was sussing out whether he could take the piss and abuse the law to his own advantage (the copper not the photographer).

 

All the people judging people by their own standards saying he should have rolled over...

[Buch 145]

 

This bloke is probably a dick who decided to try and make a point by deliberately taking pictures in front of the police knowing that they'll question him about it so he can make his silly arsed video and try and look clever.

 

Exactly right.....and all he really ended up doing was making a dick of himself.....most folk just want ol bill out of their life as quickly and painlessly as possible,answert their questions,be polite then say goodbye.......this ranting and raving human rights attention seeking bollocks is normally done by folk who have been fortunate enough to never have dealings with them.....everyone else knows the sensible way to play them.

 

In my eyes he didnt make a dick of himself. He didnt nothing wrong. The police wanted his infomation without a good legal reason. He didnt give it so they arrested him for a jumped up reason ... and got his details that way ... the realeased him without charge. What does that say about the situation to you? To me its abuse of power or the use of power they shouldnt have. Your pick. Ive had plenty dealings with the police and if your saying the best way to deal with them is to "tell them what they want to hear and let them get on there way" then unfortunatly your totaly deluded. The default should always be tell the police nothing. Nothing. The police are they to protect the public as a whole not an individual. "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence". "Anything you do say may be given in evidence". Evidence against you. The police will never listen to what you say and then think to them selves crikey yer this bloke seems like a decent chap i dont think he did it. If the police can stiff you with a crime then they will.

 

Imagine this. Your out lamping a couple of rabbits on permission. You get stopped as a poacher by a "Wildlife Crime Officer" who are all antis anyway. Said wildlife officer knows youve been on permission after legal quarry but because they have evidence that they could get you with poaching (because you have a lamp ect) and Hunting act (a lurcher) they take you in. They impound your vehicle. You spend a night in the cells. They ring your permision at 0200. Stick your dogs in a dodgy kennel. Take ALL your details, were you live, your car, your dogs, your family, your finger prints, your photo, your job, ect ect ect. So because youve done nothing wrong AT ALL you loose a days pay because you were late for work, your car gets locked up and you have to pay for "storage", your dog dies of parvo or somthing because of its night in kennels, you loose your permission because who the hell wants to be woken at 0200 to be asked stupid questions and you spend the of your life on a database were some twat, whos only pleasure in life is lording it over you becaus hes a copper, can pin you with shit that you didnt do.

 

I have never met a copper i could trust and ive met very few who i liked. People tell me they exist but ive yet to see any evidence. What happened to the bobbys of old who used to solve crimes because they knew, liked and were liked in return by the people they served?

Edited July 18, 2011 by Buch

[AL BUNDY 45]

they should have just tazered the c**t then beat him to pulp.and smashed his camera as well.

[BI9JOHNNY 25]

im not a great fan of the cops,but anything that helps in the fight of terrorisim i accept.even if it is a inconvience to me.

 

would you forgo your human right to privacy because the police dont like that you are filming a public place despite the fact it isn't illegal?

 

tbh i dont see how that pertains to terrorism anyway,if a terrorist wanted to get photo's of an area they would do it one way or the other.

so do you think it is right to forgo your right to privacy whilst out shopping with your children and it's fine for any tom to take pictures of you and your family without your consent

and i say this as a street photographer with years of experience.....he was a geek who obviously has something to hide....maybe...if he doesn't then why not cooperate am sure if some big brute came along and took his camera off him he would be screaming to cooperate with the police then...

[scothunter 12,609]

they should have just tazered the c**t then beat him to pulp.and smashed his camera as well.

:laugh:

[Buch 145]

im not a great fan of the cops,but anything that helps in the fight of terrorisim i accept.even if it is a inconvience to me.

 

would you forgo your human right to privacy because the police dont like that you are filming a public place despite the fact it isn't illegal?

 

tbh i dont see how that pertains to terrorism anyway,if a terrorist wanted to get photo's of an area they would do it one way or the other.

so do you think it is right to forgo your right to privacy whilst out shopping with your children and it's fine for any tom to take pictures of you and your family without your consent

and i say this as a street photographer with years of experience.....he was a geek who obviously has something to hide....maybe...if he doesn't then why not cooperate am sure if some big brute came along and took his camera off him he would be screaming to cooperate with the police then...

 

A geek who had something to hide? That rediculous. Ok then arrest any one wearing trackies because there going to beat up grannies, arrest anyone with a decentish car because there drug dealers, arrest any one with a laptop because there into kiddie porn, arrest any one with a screwdriver because there after robbing some ones house.

 

Theres a differance to some bloke walking after you taking loads of pictures over and over, harasing you, and a bloke who snaps a picture of your kid getting a bar of chocolate off a bloke in a Father Christmas outfit. If youve got a problem with being in peoples photos then you live in the wrong country kida, because every one carries a camera around with them in there pockets and sooner or later you might happen to be in a nice picture of Nelsons column or a exiting picture of a bloke out walking his nice looking and fast dogs.

 

What the hell if youve got nothing to hide why dont you go to the coppers and get them to put a anklet thing on so they know were you are at all times ... never know it might help in there anti-terrorism investigations.

[scothunter 12,609]

like someone else commented,wait till the next 7/7 and then finding out the cops didnt approach anyone cause it could be construed to be breaching thier rights.this whole topic is being taken out of concept.if a cop asks you your name and what your doing,answer him,by all means ask him to explain his concern for approching you.comming back with a load of old tosh about your civil rights and refusing to give your name,well is quite frankly childish.also i might add 9times out of 10 the people who bleat about civil liberties are the same unwashed c**ts who smash up cities and businesses and break into animal testing labs.

 

i will even go one better,i think this country is to soft when it comes to how you deal with people.how many little arseholes are taken on free holidays and such,or most on here bleat about how soft jails are,cant have it both ways.

Edited July 18, 2011 by scothunter

[gnasher16 30,121]

 

In my eyes he didnt make a dick of himself. He didnt nothing wrong. The police wanted his infomation without a good legal reason. He didnt give it so they arrested him for a jumped up reason ... and got his details that way ... the realeased him without charge. What does that say about the situation to you? To me its abuse of power or the use of power they shouldnt have. Your pick. Ive had plenty dealings with the police and if your saying the best way to deal with them is to "tell them what they want to hear and let them get on there way" then unfortunatly your totaly deluded. The default should always be tell the police nothing. Nothing. The police are they to protect the public as a whole not an individual. "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence". "Anything you do say may be given in evidence". Evidence against you. The police will never listen to what you say and then think to them selves crikey yer this bloke seems like a decent chap i dont think he did it. If the police can stiff you with a crime then they will.

 

 

 

How naive !.....for the sake of spending 3 minutes with a copper and answering 2 questions....he actually spent 6 hours with them in an ol bill shop and most probably answered a lot more than 2 questions......

Had he not been an attention seeking twat he would have give his name and address.....with no warrants or what not he,d have been sent on his way............but no.

Now lets say he did happen to have something to hide,he could have got away with 2 simple Q & A,s......yet now they are starting to look into his life and what he,s all about......all of a sudden that stolen generator in his garage has become an issue that otherwise didnt need to be.

If its a case of being a smartypants hero or being sensible..........sorry but sensible wins hands down for me.

And besides....if they got his details anyway then what was the point in the whole thing he just wasted 6 hours on something that could have taken 3 minutes.

Edited July 18, 2011 by gnasher16

[trooperman 73]

I,m not the biggest fan of the police , but why didn,t he just give his details , he wasn,t taking photos of historic monuments or nice scenic landscapes , he was in the shopping area , he could of been a peadophile or terrorist , and just because he wasn,t he could of understood the concerns it would cause and just give his details ffs ..apologies if it was RFYL

 

maybe he values his human right to privacy and wants to retain it,regardless of what he could or could not of been doing he did not break a single law.

Maybe he should of valued my right as a tax payer not to have my money wasted on tying up police time and recourses , when a name and address wold have settled it .

the police wasted their time and your money not the citizen who wanted to retain his human rights.

 

or should the police be allowed to commit any human rights violations they like if it saves time?

 

how about looking at it this way, 2 blokes out in a shopping centre taking pictures nothing wrong with that i hear you say, next day your wife and children are out in the same shopping centre sudenly there is a load bang just as your wife and children walked past a shop the bomb that was left by the 2 blokes taking inocent photos has blown them to bits, would you still be harping on about their human rights then, no you would want them dead or at best in your gun sights.

 

see the arguement from both sides if they were just trying out their new camera's all well and good and the police would have left it at that, but no they wanted to be obnoxious and try and stick 2 fingers up at the police.

 

whether you like it or not we have to have some honest police who want to help keep people safe we have enough corrupt government and police officials in this country to last us all a life time let the genuine police do their job and cooperate with them if you are doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about if you act like a twat that is how they will treat you.

 

 

 

paul

[trooperman 73]

I must say he was calm and polite to those pigs I respect him for what he did

I would have been very antisocial but I got no patience

 

 

would they still be pigs to you if some scum bag broke into your house stole your guns if you have any stole your dogs and your posessions, calling them names like that gets their backs up and then that reflecks in how they treat you, calling them pigs i think just shows your ignorance.

 

 

paul