Arrested for being 'too tall'

Post by turbo
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/
Kent Police set a new legal precedent last week, as they arrested a
photographer on the unusual grounds of "being too tall".

Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
take on the incident:

Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
the public.
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report
concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people in
Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man
refused to give any personal details which it was thought was
suspicious.

For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following up
reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the street? On
what possible basis did they think they were entitled to know his
"personal details"?

Ian Jackson

2009-07-16 10:38:03 UTC

In message

Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
the public.
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report
concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people in
Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man
refused to give any personal details which it was thought was
suspicious.
For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following up
reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the street? On
what possible basis did they think they were entitled to know his
"personal details"?

While irksome, it would not be unreasonable to give the police the
personal details they asked for. I'm sure they would have then allowed
the photographer to continue going about his entirely lawful business
without any further hindrance.

--
Ian

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 10:54:50 UTC

On Jul 16, 11:38 am, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

No law being broken (or suspicion of), none of their business.

WM
www.critest.com

Ian Jackson

2009-07-16 11:08:08 UTC

In message

Post by Webmanager_CritEst
On Jul 16, 11:38 am, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

No law being broken (or suspicion of), none of their business.

Well, it does say "Our officers are extremely vigilant and their primary
concern is always the safety of the public".

--
Ian

steve robinson

2009-07-16 11:21:15 UTC

Post by Webmanager_CritEst
On Jul 16, 11:38 am, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

No law being broken (or suspicion of), none of their business.

Well, it does say "Our officers are extremely vigilant and their primary concern
is always the safety of the public".

Its a pity they dont exerise the same skills when it comes to other crimes

steve robinson

2009-07-16 10:54:56 UTC

While irksome, it would not be unreasonable to give the police the personal
details they asked for. I'm sure they would have then allowed the photographer to
continue going about his entirely lawful business without any further hindrance.

The photographer had no legal requirement to supply his identity he was NOT BREAKING
THE LAW , his activities were in plain site with absolutely no attempt to conceal
what he was doing

Even the thickest plod must realise that terrorists will perform survelance
operations covertly

google earth is the place to go

"nightjar" .me.uk>

2009-07-16 23:22:24 UTC

"steve robinson" <***@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message news:***@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
...

Post by steve robinson
Even the thickest plod must realise that terrorists will perform
survelance
operations covertly...

Not if they have been properly trained. Nothing looks so suspicious as
trying to be inconspicuous.

Colin Bignell

d***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 11:02:06 UTC

On 16 July, 11:38, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

I'm sure they would too, but that dodges the question. Why should
anyone have to justify themselves to plod before being allowed to
continue their lawful business, and more pertinently, what authority
do the police think they had to do this?

Mr X

2009-07-16 11:09:11 UTC

<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b81b54d5-a8cf-4da1-b3b6-***@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On 16 July, 11:38, Ian Jackson
I'm sure they would too, but that dodges the question. Why should
anyone have to justify themselves to plod before being allowed to
continue their lawful business, and more pertinently, what authority
do the police think they had to do this?

Prevention of terrorism. Whether you agree or not that is the law.

steve robinson

2009-07-16 11:19:51 UTC

July, 11:38, Ian Jackson I'm sure they would too, but that dodges the question.
Why should anyone have to justify themselves to plod before being allowed to
continue their lawful business, and more pertinently, what authority
do the police think they had to do this?
Prevention of terrorism. Whether you agree or not that is the law.

They still need to justify thier suspicions , as the photographer did not fit the
general profile was operating legally , was not under surviellance and it appears
that no specific inteligence pointed to that area being significantly likely to be a
target he was going about is activities legally in plain view they really would have
a hard time defending this if he chose to take it before the courts

Mr X

2009-07-16 11:49:09 UTC

Post by steve robinson

On 16
July, 11:38, Ian Jackson I'm sure they would too, but that dodges the question.
Why should anyone have to justify themselves to plod before being allowed to
continue their lawful business, and more pertinently, what authority
do the police think they had to do this?
Prevention of terrorism. Whether you agree or not that is the law.

All true. They wouldn't be able to justify it, of course, but they probably
could on some spurious grounds.
It is all very well to take them to court but he was still detained by them.

martin

2009-07-16 12:11:43 UTC

Post by d***@hotmail.com
On 16 July, 11:38, Ian Jackson
I'm sure they would too, but that dodges the question. Why should
anyone have to justify themselves to plod before being allowed to
continue their lawful business, and more pertinently, what authority
do the police think they had to do this?
Prevention of terrorism.

As someone else said, if they really believed that then a couple of
jumped up coppers (one of them not real) wouldn't be dealing with the
photographer. They would have contacted an armed special unit right away.

®i©ardo

2009-07-16 18:54:42 UTC

Post by d***@hotmail.com
On 16 July, 11:38, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

And if it was a PCSO involved, it wasn't even a "plod" demanding
information!

--
Moving things in still pictures

Rob

2009-07-16 11:13:58 UTC

Ian Jackson wrote:
|| In message
|| <6f031844-09cf-48af-963c-***@d4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
|| "***@hotmail.com" <***@hotmail.com> writes
||| On 16 July, 10:39, "turbo" <***@nospam.yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
|||| http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/
||||
|||| Kent Police set a new legal precedent last week, as they arrested a
|||| photographer on the unusual grounds of "being too tall".
|||
||| Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
||| take on the incident:
|||
||| Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
||| extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
||| the public.
||| "At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a
||| report concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and
||| people in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police
||| officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was
||| thought was suspicious.
|||
|||
||| For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following
||| up reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the
||| street? On what possible basis did they think they were entitled to
||| know his "personal details"?
||
|| While irksome, it would not be unreasonable to give the police the
|| personal details they asked for.

Nor would it have been unreasonable to inform the complainant (if indeed
they even exist) that what they are witnessing is not illegal, and that
their officers are too busy investigating crimes.

|| I'm sure they would have then
|| allowed the photographer to continue going about his entirely lawful
|| business without any further hindrance.

Being 'allowed' to continue with lawful activity is not something which
should be at a constables pleasure, when he has no reason whatsoever to
suspect criminal activity.

--
Rob

Ian Jackson

2009-07-16 11:41:38 UTC

Post by Rob
Being 'allowed' to continue with lawful activity is not something which
should be at a constables pleasure, when he has no reason whatsoever to
suspect criminal activity.

It should indeed be his duty to allow you to do so - and even his
'pleasure', in the 'normal' sense of the word.

--
Ian

Dave

2009-07-16 11:17:43 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

Similarly, it was not unreasonable not to and it was in fact a right.

The suggestion that you let people in authority get away with minor
abuses of their power unchecked is singularly dangerous as those abuses
no doubt have a tendency to creep.

Yellow

2009-07-16 12:29:49 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

While irksome, it would not be unreasonable to give the police the
personal details they asked for. I'm sure they would have then allowed the
photographer to continue going about his entirely lawful business without
any further hindrance.

We do not have a law in this country that says you must provide ID on demand
but the police decided to arrest someone for refusing to provide ID on the
grounds that behaviour "is a suspicious act" - do you truly and honestly
not see the issue here?

Trust No One®

2009-07-16 16:18:39 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
While irksome, it would not be unreasonable to give the police the
personal details they asked for. I'm sure they would have then allowed
the photographer to continue going about his entirely lawful business
without any further hindrance.

According to the the article the "tall" photographer was approached by two
indviduals who did not identify themselves.

Are you willing to meekly provide your personal details to anyone who
accosts you on the street and barks orders at you to supply them?

--
Peter <X-Files fan>

Steve Walker

2009-07-16 17:50:34 UTC

And then in a few years they start asking for a quck look in your bag, or
for a DNS smear sample - thin end of the wedge, no thanks.

gaz

2009-07-17 12:45:36 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
the public.
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report
concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people
in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man
refused to give any personal details which it was thought was
suspicious.
For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following
up reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the street?
On what possible basis did they think they were entitled to know his
"personal details"?

In a free society there is no compulsion for an individual to disclose his
details, if he has not committed an offence (or driving a vehicle)..

Gaz

Ian Jackson

2009-07-17 15:20:22 UTC

In message <***@mid.individual.net>, gaz <***@msn.com>
writes

Post by gaz

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
the public.
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report
concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people
in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man
refused to give any personal details which it was thought was
suspicious.
For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following
up reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the street?
On what possible basis did they think they were entitled to know his
"personal details"?

In a free society there is no compulsion for an individual to disclose his
details, if he has not committed an offence (or driving a vehicle)..

Yes but....
You could argue that giving his details may help a police officer
determine whether he IS likely to be committing an offence.

--
Ian

Alex

2009-07-17 13:09:58 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson
In message

Post by turbo
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/
Kent Police set a new legal precedent last week, as they
arrested a photographer on the unusual grounds of "being too
tall".

Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
the public.
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a
report concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and
people in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police
officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was
thought was suspicious.
For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following
up reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the
street? On what possible basis did they think they were entitled to
know his "personal details"?

While irksome, it would not be unreasonable to give the police the
personal details they asked for. I'm sure they would have then
allowed the photographer to continue going about his entirely lawful
business without any further hindrance.

"...he was approached by two unidentified men. They did not identify
themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID and warned that if
he failed to comply, they would summon police officers to deal with
him."

Dave

2009-07-16 10:49:37 UTC

It makes you wonder what goes through the Police's minds when somebody
reports somebody for doing a perfectly legal activity and what their
decision process is. Certainly there is clearly no consideration of
illegality.

"Excuse me officer, there's somebody in that McDonalds restauranat
eating a beefburger."

"Don't worry sir, we'll undertake a full and thorough investigation".

It reminds me of the "Not the Nine O' Clock News" sketch when the SPG
(Special Patrol Group) were parodied for arresting people for "walking
on the cracks on the pavement" and "wearing a loud shirt in a built up
area during the hours of darkness".

Ian Jackson

2009-07-16 11:13:18 UTC

In message <4a5f05ab$***@mail.hmgcc.gov.uk>, Dave <***@hotmail.co.uk>
writes

It makes you wonder what goes through the Police's minds when somebody
reports somebody for doing a perfectly legal activity and what their
decision process is. Certainly there is clearly no consideration of
illegality.
"Excuse me officer, there's somebody in that McDonalds restauranat
eating a beefburger."
"Don't worry sir, we'll undertake a full and thorough investigation".
It reminds me of the "Not the Nine O' Clock News" sketch when the SPG
(Special Patrol Group) were parodied for arresting people for "walking
on the cracks on the pavement" and "wearing a loud shirt in a built up
area during the hours of darkness".

Classic!

--
Ian

gaz

2009-07-17 12:48:40 UTC

Kent police has supplied us with the following statement, giving its
Assistant Chief Constable Allyn Thomas said: "Our officers are
extremely vigilant and their primary concern is always the safety of
the public.
"At the time of this incident, a police officer responded to a report
concerning a man who was taking photographs of buildings and people
in Chatham town centre. When challenged by the police officer the man
refused to give any personal details which it was thought was
suspicious.
For fuck's sake, don't they have better things to do than following
up reports from paranoiacs about people taking photos on the street?
On what possible basis did they think they were entitled to know his
"personal details"?

It makes you wonder what goes through the Police's minds when somebody
reports somebody for doing a perfectly legal activity and what their
decision process is. Certainly there is clearly no consideration of
illegality.
"Excuse me officer, there's somebody in that McDonalds restauranat
eating a beefburger."
"Don't worry sir, we'll undertake a full and thorough investigation".
It reminds me of the "Not the Nine O' Clock News" sketch when the SPG
(Special Patrol Group) were parodied for arresting people for "walking
on the cracks on the pavement" and "wearing a loud shirt in a built up
area during the hours of darkness".

The rubber lips and curly hair sketch from NTNON is probably the better
one....

Gaz

Jethro

2009-07-16 11:16:26 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....

Mr X

2009-07-16 11:18:02 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....

If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

sandy58

2009-07-16 11:36:36 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

Looks like you are a cop...or you have a cop girl/boyfriend or
both...or you have cops in the family. All not nice to be/have.

d***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 12:37:06 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

Rice v Connolly is the authority for the principle that the police
have no right to your "personal details" - in other words it's a
matter of law, not Home Office or police "policy". In R v Howell
breach of the peace was defined to require harm or threat of it. It
certainly is not relevant in a situation where someone peacefully
refuses to reveal information to which the police have no right in the
first place.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 12:39:36 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.

It really is difficult to 'win'.

WM

Mr X

2009-07-16 12:42:03 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.

It really is difficult to 'win'.

What is the problem with identifying yourself to the police when requested?
I just don't see what harm it can do.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:01:21 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.
What is the problem with identifying yourself to the police when requested?
I just don't see what harm it can do.

Because, until you break a law, an officer is just another subject.

Would you give your personal details to any subject?

I will have them now, please ... CC and all bank details (with
passwords) - thank you ;)

WM

Mr X

2009-07-16 13:04:52 UTC

"Webmanager_CritEst" <***@critest.com> wrote in message news:05438f4b-0e2a-482a-8d3b-***@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

Because, until you break a law, an officer is just another subject.

No he is a policeman.

Would you give your personal details to any subject?

Depends who they were. If I knew you better I'd give you my name but I
don't see any benefit to it at the moment.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:08:38 UTC

Post by Webmanager_CritEst
Because, until you break a law, an officer is just another subject.
No he is a policeman.
Would you give your personal details to any subject?
Depends who they were. If I knew you better I'd give you my name but I
don't see any benefit to it at the moment.

No, he has no more legal powers than you or me, at that time.

So you would not - OK.

WM

d***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 13:10:20 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.
What is the problem with identifying yourself to the police when requested?
I just don't see what harm it can do.

Neither can I, but personally I wouldn't do it because I really don't
like the police and the way they go about their work. Unfortunately
this is a common attitude which they have created and which they are
making worse by the week.

Mr X

2009-07-16 13:17:22 UTC

Post by d***@hotmail.com
Neither can I, but personally I wouldn't do it because I really don't
like the police and the way they go about their work. Unfortunately
this is a common attitude which they have created and which they are
making worse by the week.

I'd agree 100% with that.

Cynic

2009-07-16 16:41:48 UTC

Post by Mr X
What is the problem with identifying yourself to the police when requested?
I just don't see what harm it can do.

Can't you? I can.

Answer these two questions:

1) Why does the policeman require that information?
2) In what ways might that information be used?

If you can convince me that the *only* answers to those questions can
do no harm to myself or any other law-abiding citizen, I may agree
with you.

But if there is a possibility that your name and address ends up on a
police "intelligence" database with the annotation, "Questioned in
connection with suspercted terrorist activities," then I think even
you might see how it might turn out to be damaging to yourself.

--
Cynic

Mr X

2009-07-16 16:58:18 UTC

Post by Mr X
What is the problem with identifying yourself to the police when requested?
I just don't see what harm it can do.

Can't you? I can.
1) Why does the policeman require that information?
2) In what ways might that information be used?
If you can convince me that the *only* answers to those questions can
do no harm to myself or any other law-abiding citizen, I may agree
with you.
But if there is a possibility that your name and address ends up on a
police "intelligence" database with the annotation, "Questioned in
connection with suspercted terrorist activities," then I think even
you might see how it might turn out to be damaging to yourself.

If such a record were made, yes. However I very much doubt that someone who
has been stopped with a camera who then shows his ID would be recorded in
such a way. On the other hand, getting arrested is a sure way to enter such
a database.

Cynic

2009-07-16 18:26:41 UTC

Post by Cynic
But if there is a possibility that your name and address ends up on a
police "intelligence" database with the annotation, "Questioned in
connection with suspercted terrorist activities," then I think even
you might see how it might turn out to be damaging to yourself.

If such a record were made, yes. However I very much doubt that someone who
has been stopped with a camera who then shows his ID would be recorded in
such a way.

Do you? Try to think logically. Obviously the policeman must do
*something* with the ID information you give him, otherwise there is
no point whatsoever in requesting it. Unless you can come up with
anything more likely, I think it almost certain that he will make a
PNC check on your name and address via his radio. That check may well
come back, "No records found".

But the fact that your name & address has been checked is *itself*
surely recorded - because the police will want to know if the same
person has been stopped several times by different policemen and/or in
different locations. So now you *will* have a PNC entry - and there
will have to be *some* reason recorded against it - which will be
whatever reason the officer gives to justify carrying out the PNC
check.

I would like to think that such PNC records will be transient and
completely expunged within a month or two - but would you be willing
to take any bets on that? Data storage is certainly cheap enough to
allow every trivial entry to be retained for a lifetime on a
searchable online database. You would have no idea whatsoever until a
CRB check years later comes back with "Stopped and questioned by PC123
in Railway Arches for suspected terrorist activity at 14:28 on
13/06/2009 - NFA"

Post by Mr X
On the other hand, getting arrested is a sure way to enter such
a database.

Oh, absolutely. The people who refuse are undoubtedly martyrs who are
harming themselves for the greater good. The greater good being to
curb the practise of the police demanding that people produce their ID
unless there is good legal authority to do so.

--
Cynic

turbo

2009-07-16 17:35:02 UTC

Not a 'possibilty' an actual fact , that a report is added to the PNC , that
you were questioned on suspicions in connection with terrorism, or paedo or
whatever. Mud sticks, and the next time you are stopped because you farted
in the prescence of PC plod, it is taken as fact that you had a connection,
but they just couldn't pin enough on you you to achieve a conviction. That
raises the bar , to make sure you don't escape a second time..

Been there , seen it , done it, worn the tee shirt etc..

d***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 13:06:57 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.

The police would need to lie and state that you were behaving in a
threatening manner for there to be an imminent breach of the peace to
prevent. Of course if we assume that the police lie it's always
difficult to win. And we know that they do lie as a matter of course.
But as a matter of law it's very easy to win, read the cases!

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:09:29 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.

You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?

WM

d***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 13:12:16 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.

You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?

No, please go on ...

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:25:19 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.

You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?

No, please go on ...

.Twin Cooling Towers demolition, Sheffield, last Summer.
.Cordon around the towers.
.Secondary cordon, about a 0.5 to 1 mile away.
.I stand outside the secondary cordon with my camera.
.Steward asks me to move, I refuse, nicely.
.Plod called.
.Plod have to move cordon barrier to get the van to me.
.All is peaceful and calm.
.I, again, refuse to move, nicely, asking for legal authority for me
to do so.
.Some bye-law. I explain, nicely, that I am outside the cordon and
they are about to breach my HRs (amongst other things).
.Arrested for P of BOP.
.Banged up for three hours.
.Released with no charge (around 6.00 am).
.I have been awaiting some information from them.
.Just awaiting their final letter, stating that they are unable to
provide the info, and then we are off to County Court.

WM

Rob

2009-07-16 13:34:08 UTC

Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
||
||| You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?
||
|| No, please go on ...
|
| .Twin Cooling Towers demolition, Sheffield, last Summer.
| .Cordon around the towers.
| .Secondary cordon, about a 0.5 to 1 mile away.
| .I stand outside the secondary cordon with my camera.
| .Steward asks me to move, I refuse, nicely.
| .Plod called.
| .Plod have to move cordon barrier to get the van to me.
| .All is peaceful and calm.
| .I, again, refuse to move, nicely, asking for legal authority for me
| to do so.
| .Some bye-law. I explain, nicely, that I am outside the cordon and
| they are about to breach my HRs (amongst other things).
| .Arrested for P of BOP.
| .Banged up for three hours.
| .Released with no charge (around 6.00 am).
| .I have been awaiting some information from them.
| .Just awaiting their final letter, stating that they are unable to
| provide the info, and then we are off to County Court.

Good luck with that.

--
Rob

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:47:01 UTC

Post by Rob
||
||| You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?
||
|| No, please go on ...
|
| .Twin Cooling Towers demolition, Sheffield, last Summer.
| .Cordon around the towers.
| .Secondary cordon, about a 0.5 to 1 mile away.
| .I stand outside the secondary cordon with my camera.
| .Steward asks me to move, I refuse, nicely.
| .Plod called.
| .Plod have to move cordon barrier to get the van to me.
| .All is peaceful and calm.
| .I, again, refuse to move, nicely, asking for legal authority for me
| to do so.
| .Some bye-law. I explain, nicely, that I am outside the cordon and
| they are about to breach my HRs (amongst other things).
| .Arrested for P of BOP.
| .Banged up for three hours.
| .Released with no charge (around 6.00 am).
| .I have been awaiting some information from them.
| .Just awaiting their final letter, stating that they are unable to
| provide the info, and then we are off to County Court.
Good luck with that.
--
Rob

Cheers.

WM

d***@hotmail.com

2009-07-16 13:44:27 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.

You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?

No, please go on ...

Excellent, good luck and well done for suing. You've probably read R v
Howell then, but if not you should. Applying the law to the facts
you've given it is quite clearly a wrongful arrest arising from their
usual heavy-handed and bullying approach to what they would call a
"public order situation" (which basically amounts to "do what you're
told or else"). If they cook up some lies that you became abusive and
threatened the steward or that you were trying to get past the cordon
then you're clearly in a weaker position.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:47:30 UTC

ISTR there is HomeOffice guidance that *merely* refusing to give
details were not grounds for an arrest. BICBW ....
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

So they use prevention of BoP.
It really is difficult to 'win'.

You are aware of my 'Twin Towers' case, I am challenging at present?

No, please go on ...

Cheers.

WM

Mr X

2009-07-16 13:49:09 UTC

"Webmanager_CritEst" <***@critest.com> wrote in message news:5657fcb3-c4ba-42ed-842a-***@26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 16, 2:12 pm, "***@hotmail.com" <***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
.Twin Cooling Towers demolition, Sheffield, last Summer.
.Cordon around the towers.
.Secondary cordon, about a 0.5 to 1 mile away.
.I stand outside the secondary cordon with my camera.
.Steward asks me to move, I refuse, nicely.

Why did they ask you to move? Were you in the way of someone involved with
the demolition?

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 13:58:28 UTC

Post by Webmanager_CritEst
.Twin Cooling Towers demolition, Sheffield, last Summer.
.Cordon around the towers.
.Secondary cordon, about a 0.5 to 1 mile away.
.I stand outside the secondary cordon with my camera.
.Steward asks me to move, I refuse, nicely.
Why did they ask you to move? Were you in the way of someone involved with
the demolition?

You can see the distance here:

Loading Image...

They asked me to move because they wanted to.

WM

Mr X

2009-07-16 14:00:22 UTC

This was around 3.00 am, all traffic (on that side of Meadowhall) was
cordoned off from that side. There was no access for vehicles (except
plod).

You can see where I was, here (green dot):

http://www.critest.com/documents/TT2.jpg

You can see the distance here:

http://www.critest.com/documents/TT1.jpg

They asked me to move because they wanted to.

WM
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons but I have no
reason to think you are lying so it seems as if they were throwing their
weight around. It wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last.
You can stand up to them, having nothing to lose. I cannot as a criminal
record would seriously damage my employment prospects. Maybe we need more
like you ;-)

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 14:03:28 UTC

This was around 3.00 am, all traffic (on that side of Meadowhall) was
cordoned off from that side. There was no access for vehicles (except
plod).
http://www.critest.com/documents/TT2.jpg
http://www.critest.com/documents/TT1.jpg
They asked me to move because they wanted to.
WM
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons but I have no
reason to think you are lying so it seems as if they were throwing their
weight around. It wouldn't be the first time, and it won't be the last.
You can stand up to them, having nothing to lose. I cannot as a criminal
record would seriously damage my employment prospects. Maybe we need more
like you ;-)

You are not 'visiting my site', you would be looking at 2 Google map
captures (all legal), but TY.

WM

Yellow

2009-07-16 14:42:26 UTC

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

Post by Webmanager_CritEst
but I have no reason to think you are lying so it seems as if they were
throwing their weight around. It wouldn't be the first time, and it won't
be the last.
You can stand up to them, having nothing to lose. I cannot as a criminal
record would seriously damage my employment prospects. Maybe we need more
like you ;-)

I doubt there are many who genuinely have nothing to lose when embarking on
such action because you never know what the future might bring and a police
record has the potential to bite everyone on the bum at a later time, if not
now. So this really about that but instead it is about how strongly we hold
our principles.

Mr X

2009-07-16 14:46:21 UTC

Post by Yellow

Post by Mr X
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

Post by Yellow
I doubt there are many who genuinely have nothing to lose when embarking
on such action because you never know what the future might bring and a
police record has the potential to bite everyone on the bum at a later
time, if not now. So this really about that but instead it is about how
strongly we hold our principles.

He was a science teacher who will never work again, being banned from
schools and having a bad back. He has been to prison already and is living
on the dole. He can afford to do much more for his principles than someone
like myself who can't afford a criminal record.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 14:56:27 UTC

Post by Yellow
The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

[For all I know he may have examples of such images on his site, so I
will not visit it. ]

Oh yeah, King of CP me :)

[will never work again]

Never say "never" ;)

[He can afford to do much more for his principles than someone like
myself who can't afford a criminal record]

What a sad indictment on our society, eh ... when the 'crims' can
afford to be more principled than the 'innocent'?

WM

Mr X

2009-07-16 14:57:43 UTC

"Webmanager_CritEst" <***@critest.com> wrote in message news:e9fb4a97-6208-4c5a-a088-***@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[What a sad indictment on our society, eh ... when the 'crims' can
afford to be more principled than the 'innocent'?]

Yes, it certainly is. One question when you went to the cordon at 0300 did
you get up early or stay up late?

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 15:01:36 UTC

Post by Mr X
[What a sad indictment on our society, eh ... when the 'crims' can
afford to be more principled than the 'innocent'?]
Yes, it certainly is. One question when you went to the cordon at 0300 did
you get up early or stay up late?

I had an afternoon in Sheffield, then went to a club, then walked to
Meadowhall (reminiscing about the old days, t'was a lovely evening and
morning).

I had a kip in the cell ;)

It was pissing it down on the way home :(

WM

Yellow

2009-07-16 23:32:10 UTC

Post by Yellow

Post by Mr X
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

That's an astonishing good reason!

Cynic

2009-07-17 08:42:47 UTC

Post by Mr X
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

That's an astonishing good reason!

But a pretty stupid conclusion. Due to his history and his published
views, his web site is undoubtedly closely monitored by the
authorities. How long do you think WM would remain out of prison if
he had a single questionable image on his web site? You are at more
risk of accessing an illegal image on Wikipedia than on WM's web site.

--
Cynic

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-17 09:21:25 UTC

Post by Mr X
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

That's an astonishing good reason!

Not withstanding the fact that it is not illegal to access any
website.

If one ever has any fear, turn your images off, which would, of
course, work fine for the links I gave, as they are direct jpgs.

WM

Mr X

2009-07-17 14:33:26 UTC

Post by Mr X
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

That's an astonishing good reason!

If you want to take that risk I'll let you. I'd say that it was rather
stupid risk, but still.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-17 14:40:37 UTC

Post by Mr X
I'm not going to look on your website for obvious reasons

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

WM has convictions for makign indecent images of children and campaigns on a
pro-peadophile agenda. For all I know he may have examples of such
images
on his site, so I will not visit it.

That's an astonishing good reason!

If you want to take that risk I'll let you. I'd say that it was rather
stupid risk, but still.

Why do you have such little faith in me?

WM

Mr X

2009-07-17 15:09:51 UTC

"Webmanager_CritEst" <***@critest.com> wrote in message news:7b920816-f0d5-4da5-8396-***@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Why do you have such little faith in me?

What do you mean? I have every faith that you do what you think is right.
I don't know if, for example, you might have images on your site that you
consider to be perfectly decent but are, in fact, something else. While I'm
sure I'd find your site interesting (as I do your views) I do not wish to
take such a risk.

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-17 15:16:40 UTC

Post by Webmanager_CritEst
Why do you have such little faith in me?
What do you mean? I have every faith that you do what you think is right.
I don't know if, for example, you might have images on your site that you
consider to be perfectly decent but are, in fact, something else. While I'm
sure I'd find your site interesting (as I do your views) I do not wish to
take such a risk.

Well, you will not at the moment, 'cos it is not up ;)

You think, for one moment, that any image I would have on the site
would even approach being illegal?

No, you need not take any risk at all - of course.

WM

Webmanager_CritEst

2009-07-16 14:57:10 UTC

Post by Yellow

The reasons are not obvious to me. At the risk of being nosy, what is the
issue?

[I doubt there are many who genuinely have nothing to lose when
embarking on such action ]

Oh we have, I can assure you, almost nothing at all ... except our
integrity.

WM

Cynic

2009-07-16 16:32:04 UTC

Post by Mr X
If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally I don't
have a problem with giving my details to the police if requested. It is
nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather not be arrested or detained.

What do you mean, "It is nothing they don't know anyway"?

Does every policeman know you by sight, or do you perhaps wear a
notice or badge bearing your name and address?

If I am driving a motor vehicle, or carrying out certain other
activities, the law states that I am obliged to give my details to any
policeman who demands them. There is no law that states that I have
any obligation to give a policeman my details on request because I am
operating a camera.

Regardless of what you may believe is reasonable, a policeman has no
right to arrest anyone for refusing to do something that the law does
not oblige him/her to do.

And it is terribly wrong for any policeman to invent a spurious reason
to allow him to do something that the law does not in fact empower him
to do. *Far* worse than for a citizen to stand by their rights and
refuse a request that they are not obliged to carry out, no matter how
reasonable that request might be.

IMO it is well worth the trouble of people getting themselves arrested
in order to make complaints of unlawful arrest and perhaps in that way
get the practice curtailed. Just one or two people doing so will no
doubt be fobbed off, but the more people it happens to, the more
likely that it will become too high-profile to be sidestepped or
dismissed.

--
Cynic

Mr X

2009-07-16 16:41:44 UTC

What do you mean, "It is nothing they don't know anyway"?
Does every policeman know you by sight, or do you perhaps wear a
notice or badge bearing your name and address?

The police will be able to access my details. Putting them to my face will
do no harm.

Post by Cynic
And it is terribly wrong for any policeman to invent a spurious reason
to allow him to do something that the law does not in fact empower him
to do. *Far* worse than for a citizen to stand by their rights and
refuse a request that they are not obliged to carry out, no matter how
reasonable that request might be.

If people were more reasonable (and that includes the police) we would be
better off. That would mean the police not going OTT and harassing people
but also people not going out of their way to refuse something the police
ask out of sheer spite.

Stuart B

2009-07-16 18:02:05 UTC

What do you mean, "It is nothing they don't know anyway"?
Does every policeman know you by sight, or do you perhaps wear a
notice or badge bearing your name and address?

The police will be able to access my details. Putting them to my face will
do no harm.

So we should just lie down and do everything the Plod ask regardless
of whether they have the right to ask us to do it?

--
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail

Mr X

2009-07-16 19:39:12 UTC

Post by Stuart B
So we should just lie down and do everything the Plod ask regardless
of whether they have the right to ask us to do it?

You often do things that you are not required to do. You are not required
to give anyone the time of day but I'm sure you would if asked.
If the police only asked with a good reason then you should supply it.

Rob

2009-07-16 18:05:52 UTC

Mr X wrote:
|| "Cynic" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|| news:***@4ax.com...
||| On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:18:02 +0100, "Mr X" <***@invalid.com>
||| wrote:
|||
|||| If you do they'll do you for BoP and get it that way. Personally
|||| I don't have a problem with giving my details to the police if
|||| requested. It is nothing they don't know anyway and I'd rather
|||| not be arrested or detained.
|||
||| What do you mean, "It is nothing they don't know anyway"?
|||
||| Does every policeman know you by sight, or do you perhaps wear a
||| notice or badge bearing your name and address?
|||
|| The police will be able to access my details. Putting them to my
|| face will do no harm.

Perhaps not, providing there is nothing known about you, police complainer
for example.

||| And it is terribly wrong for any policeman to invent a spurious
||| reason to allow him to do something that the law does not in fact
||| empower him to do. *Far* worse than for a citizen to stand by
||| their rights and refuse a request that they are not obliged to
||| carry out, no matter how reasonable that request might be.
|||
|| If people were more reasonable (and that includes the police) we
|| would be better off. That would mean the police not going OTT and
|| harassing people but also people not going out of their way to
|| refuse something the police ask out of sheer spite.

The police don't 'ask', they demand, with adverse consequences for you if
you refuse, as this case clearly shows.

--
Rob

Cynic

2009-07-16 18:38:37 UTC

Post by Cynic
What do you mean, "It is nothing they don't know anyway"?
Does every policeman know you by sight, or do you perhaps wear a
notice or badge bearing your name and address?

The police will be able to access my details. Putting them to my face will
do no harm.

But how can the police access your details if they don't know who you
are?

Like many things, it is something that carries more *immediate* risk
for a person with a criminal record than for a person who is "clean".
A PNC check on a name that comes back with a string of convictions
will no doubt increase plod's suspicions to the point where the ex-con
might be arrested for carrying out a perfectly innocent activity.

But even for the "clean" person, it will result in that person's head
being above the parapet. If some sort of incident were to occur in
the area the person was stopped over the following week or so, they
may well find themselves in a whole lot of grief.

--
Cynic

Mr X

2009-07-16 19:42:24 UTC

Post by Cynic
But how can the police access your details if they don't know who you
are?

I've no idea but it wouldn't do any harm. I know what your name is (not
hard to find from Google). What harm has it done you?

Post by Cynic
Like many things, it is something that carries more *immediate* risk
for a person with a criminal record than for a person who is "clean".
A PNC check on a name that comes back with a string of convictions
will no doubt increase plod's suspicions to the point where the ex-con
might be arrested for carrying out a perfectly innocent activity.

That is their tough luck. We all have consquences to face for our actions.
I know you might believe that someone who is equiped to break into a house
and has got a string of convictions for such a crime is just going arround
like that for kicks, but reality is rather different.

Post by Cynic
But even for the "clean" person, it will result in that person's head
being above the parapet. If some sort of incident were to occur in
the area the person was stopped over the following week or so, they
may well find themselves in a whole lot of grief.

If you've got proof of this, then perhaps.

Cynic

2009-07-16 22:49:52 UTC

Post by Cynic
But how can the police access your details if they don't know who you
are?

I've no idea but it wouldn't do any harm. I know what your name is (not
hard to find from Google). What harm has it done you?

You know only because I have voluntarily told you (indirectly). Had I
not wanted you to know it would have been trivial to prevent.

And the police can legally cause people a *lot* more harm than you
can.

That is their tough luck.

We can make our own luck - or lack thereof.

Post by Mr X
We all have consquences to face for our actions.

Yes. And that is the consequence of volunteering your name and
address to the police!

Post by Mr X
I know you might believe that someone who is equiped to break into a house
and has got a string of convictions for such a crime is just going arround
like that for kicks, but reality is rather different.

*If* the person is doing something that is both suspicious and
unusual, you have a point. Taking a photograph in a public place in
the circumstances described was neither.

If you've got proof of this, then perhaps.

There was a case I read some years ago. There had been complaints of
homosexual "cottaging" in the public loos of a park. The police
questioned a man who was "loitering" in the park, and were satisfied
that he was a legitimate visitor who was unconnected with the
activities complained of. Some time later he was turned down for a
job at a local school - and discovered that a routine police check
(this was before CRB checks) had listed him as "questioned in
connection with lewd behaviour in a public toilet".

--
Cynic

Mr X

2009-07-16 22:57:31 UTC

Post by Cynic
There was a case I read some years ago. There had been complaints of
homosexual "cottaging" in the public loos of a park. The police
questioned a man who was "loitering" in the park, and were satisfied
that he was a legitimate visitor who was unconnected with the
activities complained of. Some time later he was turned down for a
job at a local school - and discovered that a routine police check
(this was before CRB checks) had listed him as "questioned in
connection with lewd behaviour in a public toilet".

OK provide the evidence and I'll say you're right.

Cynic

2009-07-17 08:53:36 UTC

OK provide the evidence and I'll say you're right.

I don't have conclusive proof. Just the suspicion that it is highly
possible due to the logical deductions that I have outlined in this
thread.

You are prepared to believe that the police are completely benign to
innocent people, and can be 100% trusted to use any information you
give them in a way that cannot do you any harm. Other people don't
want to take the risk. You are prepared to allow the police to use
powers that they do not legally have. Other people are not.

--
Cynic

Mr X

2009-07-17 14:48:32 UTC

Post by Mr X
OK provide the evidence and I'll say you're right.

I don't have conclusive proof. Just the suspicion that it is highly
possible due to the logical deductions that I have outlined in this
thread.

Thank you. You don't have any proof.

Post by Cynic
You are prepared to believe that the police are completely benign to
innocent people, and can be 100% trusted to use any information you
give them in a way that cannot do you any harm. Other people don't
want to take the risk. You are prepared to allow the police to use
powers that they do not legally have. Other people are not.

I trust them more than I trust people with anti-police agendas, yes.
I'm sure it won't be long before the law is changed requiring us to provide
ID to the police and I can't wait for such a change.
What you don't like Cynic, is that many people in the UK disagree with your
anti-police/ libertarian agenda. In some posts you like the idea of people
taking control and deciding on what happens, yet when they decide on
something you don't like (such as a pro-police agenda) you don't like it and
think it should be stopped.

Dave

2009-07-16 10:34:12 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.

That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Stuart B

2009-07-16 10:58:36 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Twisting the truth certainly about the actual arrest but the PCSO did
say that he intimidated her on account of his height and weight
...poor wee soul...she should stay at home if she is that easily
intimidated .

--
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail

Mrcheerful

2009-07-16 11:05:53 UTC

Post by Stuart B

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest
attempt at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts
gives the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin
simply undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

When it was the good old days there was a height criteria to join the
Police. That way you are unlikely to be intimidated by a member of the
public that is significantly taller than yourself, same with fire brigade,
if you were short you had to undergo extra training to bring you up to
minimum spec. so that you could carry people, use BA etc.

Mr X

2009-07-16 11:09:38 UTC

Post by Mrcheerful
When it was the good old days there was a height criteria to join the
Police. That way you are unlikely to be intimidated by a member of the
public that is significantly taller than yourself, same with fire brigade,
if you were short you had to undergo extra training to bring you up to
minimum spec. so that you could carry people, use BA etc.

How would they train someone to be taller?

Dave

2009-07-16 11:12:16 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest
attempt at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts
gives the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin
simply undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

What training do the Fire Brigade have that can bring short people up to
the minimum height requirements? :)

Mrcheerful

2009-07-16 12:20:46 UTC

Post by turbo
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/
Kent Police set a new legal precedent last week, as they
arrested a photographer on the unusual grounds of "being too
tall".

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest
attempt at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts
gives the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin
simply undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

When it was the good old days there was a height criteria to join the
Police. That way you are unlikely to be intimidated by a member of
the public that is significantly taller than yourself, same with
fire brigade, if you were short you had to undergo extra training to
bring you up to minimum spec. so that you could carry people, use BA
etc.

What training do the Fire Brigade have that can bring short people up
to the minimum height requirements? :)

short people had to be much fitter than tall, so that they had equivalent
strength (was what I intended to imply, sorry)

®i©ardo

2009-07-16 18:56:35 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest
attempt at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts
gives the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin
simply undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

When it was the good old days there was a height criteria to join the
Police. That way you are unlikely to be intimidated by a member of
the public that is significantly taller than yourself, same with fire
brigade, if you were short you had to undergo extra training to bring
you up to minimum spec. so that you could carry people, use BA etc.

What training do the Fire Brigade have that can bring short people up to
the minimum height requirements? :)

They're asked to stretch themselves whilst in training!

--
Moving things in still pictures

Ian Jackson

2009-07-16 11:15:50 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest
attempt at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts
gives the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin
simply undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Maybe it's a good time to make 'Being taller than a policeman' an
offence?

--
Ian

Phil Stovell

2009-07-16 11:26:04 UTC

They don't let short firemen use British Airways?

Rob

2009-07-16 11:08:59 UTC

Stuart B wrote:
|| On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:34:12 +0100, Dave <***@hotmail.co.uk>
|| wrote:
||
||| turbo wrote:
|||| http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/
||||
|||| Kent Police set a new legal precedent last week, as they arrested
|||| a photographer on the unusual grounds of "being too tall".
|||
||| So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
||| basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest
||| attempt at spin.
|||
||| That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts
||| gives the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin
||| simply undermines his credibility unnecessarily.
||
|| Twisting the truth certainly about the actual arrest but the PCSO did
|| say that he intimidated her on account of his height and weight
|| ...poor wee soul...she should stay at home if she is that easily
|| intimidated .
||

She won't have been intimidated, that's just a lie to attempt to justify the
arrest for causing harrasment, alarm or distress.

--
Rob

Dave

2009-07-16 11:10:57 UTC

Post by Stuart B

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.

Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Stuart B

2009-07-16 11:21:44 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.
Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Who mentioned violent criminals?...Oh yes,you did .

--
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail

Dave

2009-07-16 14:10:19 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.
Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Who mentioned violent criminals?...Oh yes,you did .

You mentioned the fact that a particular PCSO should stay at home if she
felt intimidated without any other context. It follows from your
argument (which you didn't qualify) that it is extensible to other
scenarios which include those involving violent criminals.

So yes, I did mention them to point out how ludicrous your position was.

Stuart B

2009-07-16 16:18:10 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.
Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Who mentioned violent criminals?...Oh yes,you did .

You mentioned the fact that a particular PCSO should stay at home if she
felt intimidated without any other context. It follows from your
argument (which you didn't qualify) that it is extensible to other
scenarios which include those involving violent criminals.
So yes, I did mention them to point out how ludicrous your position was.

Ludicrous?

What I actually said was " she should stay at home if she is that
easily intimidated " I neither made nor inferred anything about the
possibilty of being intimidated by anything other scenarios such as
violent criminals so don't try and suggest I did .

--
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail

Dave

2009-07-16 17:07:35 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.
Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Who mentioned violent criminals?...Oh yes,you did .

You mentioned the fact that a particular PCSO should stay at home if she
felt intimidated without any other context. It follows from your
argument (which you didn't qualify) that it is extensible to other
scenarios which include those involving violent criminals.
So yes, I did mention them to point out how ludicrous your position was.

I'll decide what I say or suggest.

As you say, you said "she should stay at home if she is that easily
intimidated". It follows therefore that you think she should stay at
home rather than face other potentially intimidating situations which
may well involve violent criminals.

I didn't actually say that you did infer anything about other
situations, although the consequences I have explained above are implied
(as opposed to inferred).

Stuart B

2009-07-16 17:58:28 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.
Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Who mentioned violent criminals?...Oh yes,you did .

You mentioned the fact that a particular PCSO should stay at home if she
felt intimidated without any other context. It follows from your
argument (which you didn't qualify) that it is extensible to other
scenarios which include those involving violent criminals.
So yes, I did mention them to point out how ludicrous your position was.

I'll decide what I say or suggest.
As you say, you said "she should stay at home if she is that easily
intimidated". It follows therefore that you think she should stay at
home rather than face other potentially intimidating situations which
may well involve violent criminals.
I didn't actually say that you did infer anything about other
situations, although the consequences I have explained above are implied
(as opposed to inferred).

Oh FFS ..get a life !!! Twat

--
Any posting using my name and/or e-mail address
but other than by newsindividual.net is not being posted by me and should be disregarded .
Remove NOSPAM to reply by e-mail

Dave

2009-07-16 18:36:12 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

Perhaps you think that all law-enforcers should stay at home if they
feel intimidated, including situations when faced with violent criminals.
Although I have no time for the merits of this particular case, I do
have some respect for somebody who overcomes whatever intimidation they
may feel and continue to execute their duties.

Who mentioned violent criminals?...Oh yes,you did .

You mentioned the fact that a particular PCSO should stay at home if she
felt intimidated without any other context. It follows from your
argument (which you didn't qualify) that it is extensible to other
scenarios which include those involving violent criminals.
So yes, I did mention them to point out how ludicrous your position was.

I'll decide what I say or suggest.
As you say, you said "she should stay at home if she is that easily
intimidated". It follows therefore that you think she should stay at
home rather than face other potentially intimidating situations which
may well involve violent criminals.
I didn't actually say that you did infer anything about other
situations, although the consequences I have explained above are implied
(as opposed to inferred).

Oh FFS ..get a life !!! Twat

I'll infer that that response implies that you are incapable of an
intelligent response.

Jethro

2009-07-16 11:20:59 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.

No. He was arrested beause the pint-pot WPC found him "intimidating"
*solely* because of his height. There is no suggesting anywhere in the
report he acted in any way which could be construed as "intimidating".

It is interesting that a citizen, insiting their (few) civil liberties
are respected, are immediately subject to suspicion ... reminds me
once of a conversation I had a few years ago with a DI who (quite
unaware of the irony) stated that people who "knew their rights"
always turned out to be troublemakers.

Post by Dave
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

AlanG

2009-07-16 14:56:36 UTC

So the allegation that the arrest was on the basis of height has no
basis in the account of the events and is therefore a dishonest attempt
at spin.

""t is unclear from his own account precisely what he was being
arrested for. However, he does record that the WPC stated she had felt
threatened by him when he took her picture, referring to his size - 5'
11" and about 12 stone - and implying that she found it intimidating."

Post by Dave
That is unfortunate, because an objective assessment of the facts gives
the photographer the moral high ground and to introduce spin simply
undermines his credibility unnecessarily.

That is only the angle the register chose to use

PDR

2009-07-16 11:03:25 UTC

Wait for the screams from the anti-apart-height campaigners...

PDR

sandy58

2009-07-16 11:27:24 UTC