sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:23 am

http://www.met.police.uk/campaigns/campaign_ct_2008.htm

I'm speechless. This has particular implications for our hobby.

James
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
ranger703
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:13 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:58 am

Why?

This campaign is aimed primarily at inner cities and in particular London(hence it is a Met Police campaign and not a nationwide campaign!) not airport perimeters,where the Police are fully aware of our hobby and in many places actually support it.

If I was in London,Manchester,Birmingham or any major UK city for example and saw somebody taking photographs of anything out of the ordinary other than the usual touristy spots,especially banks,government buildings,police stations,CCTV camera locations etc,I would be pretty suspicious and most certainly report such activity.

I don't see how or why this should affect our hobby.

Regards

Andy
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:06 am

Andy,

I think anything that openly links suspicion with what we do is not a good thing. You're quite right in that we don't have to worry about Police at airports, but what about the public?

Some Johnny sees us shooting away and starts thinking it's his diligent duty to stay on the safe side (don't underestimate the power of advertising) and report us. He or she may not have even thought about it before. This in turn creates more work for the police, who will get fed up and possibly take a firmer line.

Lastly, Police or security have never, ever asked 'why?'; because it's obvious that we're taking photos of planes (or architecture); something like this can be a trigger for them to behave differently; I think this is already an issue in some parts of the US where police are considerably more aggressive because doctrinally they are encouraged to be so under the current climate. I don't really want that here.


J
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
ranger703
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:13 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:30 pm

Hey if it stops another 9/11 or 7/7, I for one don't mind anybody questioning me about my photography. If you are carrying out your hobby innocently then there is no problem.

Andy
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:38 pm

'Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is black and white. We do not live in a black and white world.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
EMA747
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:01 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:44 pm



Quoting Sulman (Reply 2):
Some Johnny sees us shooting away and starts thinking it's his diligent duty to stay on the safe side (don't underestimate the power of advertising) and report us. He or she may not have even thought about it before. This in turn creates more work for the police, who will get fed up and possibly take a firmer line.

I have to agree with this point. I can see us aviation photogs getting reported more and the police having to respond. This is for the most part a waste of their and our time. I have been in the back of a police car at EMA answering dumb questions for about 30 minutes all because I was walking around the car park with a camera, I wasn't even taking pics I just had it slung round my neck! The questions had nothing to do with the photography either they wanted to know which university I went to and what course I did more that why I was taking pics, they didn't even want to see the pics I had taken!  Angry  Yeah sure
I think we need a national spotter/photographer card scheme like at BHX. That would save our time and the polices as they would only have to look at the card for a second.
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
 
witticism
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 3:40 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:45 pm

Its called the the 'The National Security Hotline' here in the big wide brown land.

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/a...DEA15CA256FBF007DC082?OpenDocument

Or as we like to call it, 'Dob in your neighbour line'. [As that is probably the reason for 99.99% of calls to it are for ... dobbing in neighbour's who won't stop playing Hip-hop rubbish at 3 in the morning!]
"A person who never made a mistake never tried anything new." - Albert Einstein
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 1:07 pm

EMA747

I'm sorry, but wandering round an airport car park is going to get you stopped, no matter what the security situation is or isn't. A sad fact is there are a huge number of thefts of, and from vehicles at airports.

I wouldn't normally disagree with a policy aimed at improving security, but in this case I think I do. Joe public is not a bright creature usually, and will associate things as being suspicious because something has been hinted at.

I think that rather than look at the whole picture (no pun intended) 'person with camera' will automatically become suspect.

ID cards wont help you at all. They prove and indicate nothing at all. In fact, of more use is a bank card, or driving licence. A 'spotters' card will not prove identity, it just indicates that a person giving a name, which may or may not be correct applied for it. It doesn't tell a police officer you are not wanted, or disqualified from driving. Even if checks are made at the time of application, those checks are invalid 5 minutes later.

In any case, whats to stop Mr Terrorist applying for one, usually they have never come to notice of Police before, so again even if checks are made, they are worthless.

I can see why people think they will solve a problem, but they simply wont.

I'm afraid we are stuck with it, like it or not for a very long time.
 
EMA747
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:01 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:55 pm



Quoting Bjcc (Reply 7):
I'm sorry, but wandering round an airport car park is going to get you stopped, no matter what the security situation is or isn't. A sad fact is there are a huge number of thefts of, and from vehicles at airports.

I see what you are saying and agree about the thefts part but I could just have been going back to my car from getting off a plane. I had my bag on and the camera was in a case and didn't have my big zoom lens on. It was really the questions they asked me that p***ed me off. Totally useless waste of time. As you said most terrorists are not known to the police so what good would a background search do? If I had been taking pics of sensetive things they would be non the wiser as they didn't look at the pics once, even when I said do you want to see my pics when they first questioned me they said no!

As far as the ID cards I was thinking along the lines of what you have to have for photographing at CDG. A letter an a copy of photo page of passport send to the chief of police gets you a pass that you show to the airport police. When I got to CDG the armed police came up asked for the pass looked at it and checked I matched the phot then said have a nice day and left me alone for the rest of my afternoon there. I doubt it will stop terrorists but if they are determined enough to blow up a plane they will no matter what measures are in place.
Failing doesn’t make you a failure. Giving up and refusing to try again does!
 
airbusA346
Posts: 7284
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 7:05 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:03 pm



Quoting EMA747 (Reply 5):
I think we need a national spotter/photographer card scheme like at BHX.

I didn't even know there was such a thing at BHX.

Tom.
Tom Walker '086' First Officer of a A318/A319 for Air Lambert - Hours Flown: 17 hour 05 minutes (last updated 24/12/05).
 
CalgaryBill
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 12:27 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:13 pm



Quoting Ranger703 (Reply 3):
Hey if it stops another 9/11 or 7/7, I for one don't mind anybody questioning me about my photography.

Could you remind us which terrorist plots were bungled because the terrorists took tons of pictures with big telephoto lenses but nobody bothered turning them in? I trust there were thousands of people phoning after the incidents you named, calling police and saying "I saw that guy taking photos and didn't bother calling..."?

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 7):

ID cards wont help you at all. They prove and indicate nothing at all.

In Calgary they prove that you have a clean criminal background and no outstanding warrants. Ditto for other cities that have observer programs. It doesn't guaranty a person is "safe," but background is usually a good indicator of "future performance."

B
 
AndyEastMids
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:24 pm

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 4:17 pm

If I were a train photographer I'd be more worried about this than I am as an aeroplane photographer... Train [stations] tend to be in towns and it'll be much easier for Mr & Mrs Chav to be concerned about photographers in stations than they are likely to be at the [typically] less travelled ends of airport runways. Besides, even at teeming hot-beds of nefarious activity like EMA, the Leicestershire Rozzers in their BMW X5s come around the usual locations from time to time and rarely bother anyone - I suspect that they know who the "usual suspects" are (or at least what cars we drive - heck, they even stopped me in the airport for speeding and asked why I was there so they must have a record of my car even though they didn't "do" me) and just leave us to get on with it. If anyone reports us for brandishing cameras in the usual locations, Plod may take an extra look, but as I said they look from time to time now, and in any case spotting/aeroplane photography is better understood here in the UK than it is in the US - I doubt this will chance things much.
 
ranger703
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:13 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:34 pm



Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 10):
Could you remind us which terrorist plots were bungled because the terrorists took tons of pictures with big telephoto lenses but nobody bothered turning them in? I trust there were thousands of people phoning after the incidents you named, calling police and saying "I saw that guy taking photos and didn't bother calling..."?

I never mentioned telephoto lenses,did I?

The campaign is seeking assistance from the public to report any unusual activity,it isn't just aimed at photograpy,I honestly don't see what or where the problem is here. Taking pictures of aircraft at airports in the usual spotter places is not a problem and I don't foresee it becoming one in the future.

Are people really saying that they object to a police officer or a security guard pulling you to one side to ask you the nature of your business if you are taking photos?

Andy
 
CalgaryBill
Posts: 618
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 12:27 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:49 pm



Quoting Ranger703 (Reply 12):
I never mentioned telephoto lenses,did I?

The more obvious it is, the more likely people will notice, and most of us aren't using unremarkable little P-n-S's.

Quoting Ranger703 (Reply 12):
Taking pictures of aircraft at airports in the usual spotter places is not a problem and I don't foresee it becoming one in the future.

To YOU it's not. To Joe Uneducated Public it is. And most of us don't hang out at the official viewing area as the best views are often back roads, parks, etc. Witness how many people on this site have had police show up after getting called about a "suspicious" photographer. Ad campaigns like this will only increase the problem, and police may (as mentioned above) just deal with it by telling us to leave.

Quoting Ranger703 (Reply 12):
Are people really saying that they object to a police officer or a security guard pulling you to one side to ask you the nature of your business if you are taking photos?

Yup. I have too little time to spot as it is. I thought we lived in a society where police only bothered people with "probable cause." Somebody noticing something they wouldn't otherwise is not probable cause.
 
ake0404ar
Posts: 2379
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 10:55 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:54 pm



Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 13):
have had police show up after getting called about a "suspicious" photographer.

I had quite a few encounters with Boston Finest after 9-11. Prior to 9-11 (hanging out at the same spot) no one bothered calling the authorities.

Vasco
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:35 pm

EMA7474

I get the impression, that you were stopped more to do with the fact you were in the car park, than any interest in you taking photos. Without knowing what they asked you, I can't comment on whether they were the questions I would have been asking, but the fact they didn't want to see your photos is probably becuase they believed you had them, and therefore was pointless. That you had photos, doesn't mean you can't have been breaking into cars.

Calgary Bill.

The pass means you had no outstanding warrants when it was issued, not at the time you are stopped. Police here check driving records when stopping cars, for the same reason, just becuase someone produces a licence it does not mean they are not banned from driving. At the time of issue they were not, however the following day they could be.

Spotters cards would be the same, even if produced to me when I was a Police Officer, I would still have made the same checks I would if no card was produced. Thus they are pointless, and no more useful than any other form of ID.

'Probable cause' is in the UK reasonable grounds and depends on circumstances. Also a UK Police Officer is enttitled to speak to anyone, with no reasons at all. Further action than that, is subject to grounds, which have to be defined by the officer in any records of seach, or if a casual conversation changes to become a 'stop' covered by legislation. I have no idea how things happen in Canada, but you are apparently comparing 2 different methods of Policing.

Irrespective of that, while I can see this will cause much more running about, most of it pointless, it does have the effect of reassuring the great unwashed. I am not over keen on being constantly stopped and checked, but life's changing, and I'd rather this than have to pick up bits of bodies, I've done both, and I know which I prefer.
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1419
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:15 pm

Personally I think this is a waste of public money. The money could be better spent on intelligence gathering rather than a poster campaign. In context, in central London, how do you differentiate between a well meaning tourist, say of 'non Western European' origin and someone who has more sinister motives?
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:23 pm



Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 16):
The money could be better spent on intelligence gathering

..that is what they are doing....

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 16):
how do you differentiate between a well meaning tourist, say of 'non Western European' origin and someone who has more sinister motives?

You don't, that is what they do.  Wink
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:23 pm

G-CIVP

An inteligence gathering exercise is exactly what it is. The poster part is to get people to ring in, exactly the same as drink drive posters are intended for. Yes, innocent people will get stopped, but then so will those who's intentions are not so innocent. In doing so there is a deterent effect.

How do you tell the difference? By the circumstances, by looking at everything. It's not 100% fool proof, but then nothing is, and it is far better than nothing at all.
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:38 pm



Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
.that is what they are doing....

It's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I can't think of a single instance where a terrorist act was thwarted by anything over than deep intelligence. Number crunching, paper trails, wiretaps (contentious), infiltration, informers, all seem to be the common denominator when things are successful, and I do believe there have been a large number of successes.

Despite that, in the current 'Theatre of Security' that is now being played out, four tree-huggers still managed to get on the apron at LHR and raise a banner - on top of an aeroplane. It's classic folly.

We coped for over 40 years with rather a lot of terrorism without needing these measures, I don't see why it has to happen now.
It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 8:15 pm



Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 16):
In context, in central London, how do you differentiate between a well meaning tourist, say of 'non Western European' origin and someone who has more sinister motives?



Quoting JeffM (Reply 17):
You don't, that is what they do.

That's the worry. They've already cocked it up once, at Stockwell in 2005.

I don't mind being stopped, I don't mind being searched or questioned. I see it as part of my 'civic responsibility' like paying tax and not breaking the law. I do object to being shot for no reason.

Regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
dc10tim
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:21 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:26 pm

All futile anyway... as I've said before there are numerous ways for a terrorist to cause death in or around an airport.
Obviously missing something....
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:24 pm

Sulman

I suggest you have a look back into the history of IRA terrorism then. I can think of quite a few terrorist acts that have been prevented by other then inteligence. It's called a bit of luck, a bit of very good policework by noticing things that don't fit. If IRA terrorism isn't good enough for you, at leat 2 Middle East related acts in the UK I know of were prevented again by putting together thinsg that didn't really fit, and nothing to do with the things you suggest.


Why it's happening now, is because this is a different form of terrorism, Paddy wasn't going to die for the cause. These ones will, and these ones don't care about public opinion. As I said before, which would you rather, pick up the bits of body (it's not fun, I can promise you!) or a few minutes of answering questions, if it comes to that?

GHPHOTO

How many photographers have been shot in the UK? Erm, none?

DC10Tim

Yes, correct, so we should do nothing then, becuase in your mind it's futile? On the other hand we could do something, and save a few lives possibly, just so you can take photos without being question?
 
G-CIVP
Posts: 1419
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographe

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:38 pm

Jeff M - I can see your point. I think my reaction comes from the fact I see the UK as an increasingly restrictive State where even the most innocuous activity is frowned upon or is possibly seen as suspect.

In context of the awareness campaign, this is being promoted by the Metropolitan Police in London. What niggles me, living in Greater London as I do, that the majority of Londoners are pretty streetwise bunch and are acutely aware that there may be 'terrorists' may be in our midst. I appreciate there may be the odd ignorant Londoner out there but I fail see that a poster campaign will raise their awareness.

I can see you have to have the information and data in the first instance; a particular activity in isolation will not be significant unless it is married up to another behaviour or activity. However, on this occasion, I would prefer if the money was spent on the resources of the Security Services and Anti-Terrorist Police so that they could focus on the minority who indulge in these crimes.
 
dc10tim
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:21 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:40 pm



Quoting Bjcc (Reply 22):
Yes, correct, so we should do nothing then, becuase in your mind it's futile? On the other hand we could do something, and save a few lives possibly, just so you can take photos without being question?

Frankly I couldn't care less if I get questioned or not. Sure, it can be a pain in the backside if the Police are so wanting, but ultimately I'm not doing any wrong so they leave me alone.

Lets get into the real world though. It is VERY unlikely that Police/Security at an airport are going to be able to prevent a terrorist attack as it unveils. They didn't stop the IRA or the Glasgow bombers. It was just good fortune no-one was seriously injured.
Obviously missing something....
 
User avatar
Ryan h
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2001 7:11 pm

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:42 pm

The only worry I would have would be a police officer on a mega power trip, who makes up the law as he goes.

Tends to happen in the US alot.
South Australian Spotter www.ryanhothersall.net
 
User avatar
JeffM
Posts: 7569
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 3:32 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:32 pm



Quoting Sulman (Reply 19):
We coped for over 40 years with rather a lot of terrorism without needing these measures, I don't see why it has to happen now.

I guess history hasn't snuck up on you and slapped you on the head has it?

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 23):
Jeff M - I can see your point. I think my reaction comes from the fact I see the UK as an increasingly restrictive State where even the most innocuous activity is frowned upon or is possibly seen as suspect.

Frowned upon? From where I stand it looks like they are just asking for people to let them know if they think something might be out of place. If it isn't, then there is no foul.

Quoting G-CIVP (Reply 23):
I would prefer if the money was spent on the resources of the Security Services and Anti-Terrorist Police so that they could focus on the minority who indulge in these crimes.

I suppose there is a tidy little list of those you speak of, and the police could just go buy some new uniforms and knock on their door? What resources are you referring to?

Quoting Ryan h (Reply 25):
The only worry I would have would be a police officer on a mega power trip, who makes up the law as he goes.

Tends to happen in the US alot.

...yea. Sure it does.
 
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Wed Mar 05, 2008 11:47 pm

I am regularly stopped at Edinburgh by the local police,
even on land that doesn't belong to the airport. (Ingliston car park)

I'm getting to know all the local coppers. They let 'us' shooters
continue as normal, after a few basic ID and vehicle checks.

So far, touch wood, the situation is good. Even new recruits who
are not familiar with this 'hobby' have been briefed by the
airport Duty Sergeant

Also, thanks to the Glasgow event, if a nutter on who is on fire from head-to-toe
comes charging towards me, I feel satisfied that I can give him a good hard
kick in the balls in defence of my country without any fear of being charged.

Forget fire extinguishers


Gerry

[Edited 2008-03-05 15:49:52]
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:21 am

G-CIVP

It's being led by the Met Police, because they are the lead UK Force for anti terrorist Policing, nothing to do with Londoners being street wise.

Why do you think it is going to lead to information in isolation? If thats what you do think then I'm afraid you know little or nothing about inteligence gathering or any form of investigation, anti terrorist or otherwise.

Again on the isolation subject, have you actually looked at the Met Police's web site on this subject? If not, you should, it will show you that this is not one activity in insolation, and the campaign isn't much different from the ones conducted during the 70's 80's and 90's.

Lastly, there is no restriction implied or imposed by this, just a request for information.

DC10Tim

As for Police stopping terrorist attacks at airports. you say it hasn't in the past. I'd take issue with that, as it certainly has at Heathrow. In any case, this is about asking the public to do what they should be in doing anyway, which is assisting Police. If it indirectly prevents attacks, then great. Rememeber if there is a serious attack, then all that will happen is this hobby will become more difficult, and more restrictive, so it's in our interests to ensure that information does go to Police, not to obstruct it.
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:48 am



Quoting Bjcc (Reply 22):
How many photographers have been shot in the UK? Erm, none?

And how many innocent Brazilian electricians? The public were not involved in this one, it was trained and skilled operatives all the way from the top to the guys on the street. Unfortunately for Mr de Menezes, the police became involved in target fixation and he was doomed. If the experts can cock it up so disastrously, (and that is all it was, no conspiracy here. It's a tough job and a tough call to make.), imagine what it will be like once the unskilled public are encouraged to play their part? "Please officer, there is a man at the airport shooting aircraft with a gun/rocketlauncher/mortar (please select depending on what size lens you use and how over-excited the witness is)". At least one witness reported seeing de Menezes with a bomb belt and wires everywhere - how the hell could he have seen that!?!?! No such thing existed. Can't wait to see what they make of us geeks if they see us while waiting to fly to the Costa-del-Chav. Camera gear is much more suspicious to the public than unarmed electricians.

There is nothing wrong with encouraging vigilance. The advice in the posters is generally good. The tone is however a little scare-mongering. Would have been a good idea to add one more line, something to the effect that most odd-looking activity turns out to be innocent, don't panic, report it and don't assume everyone IS a terrorist. There is nothing wrong with eyes being open as long as brains are also engaged.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 28):
Rememeber if there is a serious attack, then all that will happen is this hobby will become more difficult, and more restrictive, so it's in our interests to ensure that information does go to Police, not to obstruct it.

Correct. We have no rights to shoot from airports. At many places we are tolerated and at some places are welcomed. A serious incident is indeed likely to lead to a decline in acceptance of photographers presence. As the tag line on the posters says, if you suspect it, report it. Play your part and always cooperate, even if it means you are asked to leave the airport. We may indeed lose the ability to photograph from airports one day over security issues, if so, so be it.

Regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
gkirk
Posts: 23347
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2000 3:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:28 am



Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 27):
I am regularly stopped at Edinburgh by the local police,
even on land that doesn't belong to the airport. (Ingliston car park)

That's cos yer a dodgy looking bugger!  duck 
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:34 am

GHPoto

The Brizialian thing has been done to death, and the investigation doesn't support your allagations. So move on from it, it has no relevence to this subject.

No one is suggesting that Police are going to run round shooting you because a well meaning member of the public has mistaken a large lens for a rocket launcher. Even if a Member of the Public can't tell the difference, I feel, knowing probably a huge number of Police officers, that they can be trusted to differenciate.

In reality, nothing has changed from before these posters came out, and I can't see what difference you think it's going to make. I've had police stop me at airfields more than once because a passer by has felt that what I was doing was suspect. It probably doesn't help that I tan fast, and therefore in the summer, am fairly dark skinned, but hey ho, never been an issue to me. Nor will it become one.

Where it may do though is if you stomp you feet and jump up and down, some bright spark in the HoP will decide it's a good idea to ban photography in certain areas, even where there has been no attack. So just chill, go with the flow, the reality is nothing much will change, apart from maybe being stopped and checked a little bit more often.
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:47 pm



Quoting Bjcc (Reply 31):
The Brizialian thing has been done to death, and the investigation doesn't support your allagations. So move on from it, it has no relevence to this subject.

What allegations? I do not see any allegations in my post? Move on from what? Relevance? It has every relevance - concern over terrorist possibilities led to an innocent man being shot. And no, I am not having a go at the Police here, it was a mistake, but the consequences were dreadful. We are a lot more suspicious than he was and as you say in one of your posts, the stakes are higher now, the police are more likely to shoot than before (don't blame them).

This goes back to JeffM's post. There he is quite comfortable that the Police will sort things out, I just pointed out that in very recent history that system broke down, we have no guarantees that our unusual hobby will not be misinterpreted as well. I fully understand why what happened, happened and have no axe to grind with the authorities.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 31):
Even if a Member of the Public can't tell the difference, I feel, knowing probably a huge number of Police officers, that they can be trusted to differenciate.

Exactly my point isn't it - it is not guaranteed. It did not work at Stockwell even though the Police would have been the best there is, there is always a chance it will go wrong. I do not see a need to argue this point with you because I do not disagree with you.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 31):

In reality, nothing has changed from before these posters came out, and I can't see what difference you think it's going to make. I've had police stop me at airfields more than once because a passer by has felt that what I was doing was suspect. It probably doesn't help that I tan fast, and therefore in the summer, am fairly dark skinned, but hey ho, never been an issue to me. Nor will it become one..

Correct, this is just another re-emphasis of what has been said before - keep your eyes open for suspicious activity. I don't see why you think I am overly concerned. Some of the other posters here are, just explaining to someone from overseas the background as to why they might be.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 31):
Where it may do though is if you stomp you feet and jump up and down, some bright spark in the HoP will decide it's a good idea to ban photography in certain areas, even where there has been no attack. So just chill, go with the flow, the reality is nothing much will change, apart from maybe being stopped and checked a little bit more often.

I'm not stomping my feet or jumping around. I'm quite happy with the situation. Just pointing out to someone in another country why some photographers over here are a bit more worried over such things than they used to be. At the end of the day, if we get banned from airports over security fears, we get banned. I don't think it will come to that myself.

Regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:12 pm

GHPOTO

I don't accept we are more suspcious than he was. I presume you have read the full IPCC report, if so, then your comment(Which I refered to as allagations) about target fixation are reputed. There wasn't target fixation, it was purely they had been told he was a terrorist, and at no point had they been told he wasn't. He was shot because that is the only way to deal with what he was thought to be. Sad, an error, but nothing to do with the current discussion.

The same circumstances do not apply to photographers. There is no pre planned operation, there are unlikely to be senior officers involved. The first people to the scene of the senario you discribe are more than likely unarmed PC's, who can't even if they want to, shoot you, as they don't have the means! Thats of course ignoring a few things, knowladge wise that you probably arn't in posession of. For starters, in the 70's at Hendon, my class were shown SAM missiles, we were shown RPG launchers, there really isn't any chance having seen one, that you will mistake a lens for it. Friends of mine in firearms brach tell me they are kept up to date on weapons inteligence and recognition. So I can see no possibility of error here.

Your theory that photographers could be shot, based on a totally different set of circumstances doesn't hold water, and is thus scaremongering at best.
 
Jawed
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:47 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographe

Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:41 pm

So now it is suspicious to take notes of security measures and to take pictures of CCTV camera locations? What is this, 1984?

This calls for the creation of a public website (like a wiki) that allows everyone to keep track of the locations of all CCTV cameras in the city, and of all other security measures.

It's time that the people watch the police. I find what the police is doing here much more suspicious than anything else I've seen. In fact I want to call the terrorism hotline and report that I'm seeing police officers suspiciously harassing and terrorizing members of the public.

[Edited 2008-03-06 09:47:23]
 
dc10tim
Posts: 1380
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 12:21 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:09 pm



Quoting Bjcc (Reply 28):
As for Police stopping terrorist attacks at airports. you say it hasn't in the past. I'd take issue with that, as it certainly has at Heathrow.

I'm unconvinced. Maybe you are partial to information that hasn't been reported - I don't know. Certainly the publicised attacks of the IRA and last year in Glasgow were very lucky escapes. I'm not knocking the security services, far from it, however with a little knowledge and enough desire, it would be very easy to do great harm.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 28):
In any case, this is about asking the public to do what they should be in doing anyway, which is assisting Police. If it indirectly prevents attacks, then great. Rememeber if there is a serious attack, then all that will happen is this hobby will become more difficult, and more restrictive, so it's in our interests to ensure that information does go to Police, not to obstruct it.

Absolutely. Are you now suggesting that enthusiasts may be of some use to the Police???
Obviously missing something....
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:33 pm



Quoting Bjcc (Reply 33):
There wasn't target fixation, it was purely they had been told he was a terrorist, and at no point had they been told he wasn't. He was shot because that is the only way to deal with what he was thought to be. Sad, an error, but nothing to do with the current discussion.

That is what I meant by target fixation. Not the individuals involved, but the system. Poor choice of words on my part, for which I apologise. The system operated as it should have done, but with an error in it, which could not be rectified before the end. I am in total agreement with you on this, sad, but an error, no incompetence, no cover up. Again, the only reason initially for bringing it up is to explain why some in the UK are a bit tetchy about photographers being pointed out as potentially suspicious. The point was that even the best planned and conducted operations can go wrong - it is a tougher call to make these days than it has ever been in our history and they have to act as they see fit.

But you are right, this has gone off-topic and making me look like making criticisms which I am not actually doing or believe in.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 33):
Friends of mine in firearms branch tell me they are kept up to date on weapons inteligence and recognition.

Of course you are right, they would be able to tell the difference, especially as armed Police at airports will know where the spotters tend to congregate and behave. I know they are not stupid and are well trained. I have always felt reassured by their presence in terminals.

I've never had a bad experience (off or on airport) with the Police. Even when I've noticed I'm being watched for taking photographs around the airport I've never been made to feel uncomfortable.

Quoting Bjcc (Reply 33):
scaremongering at best.

Consider anything in my previous posts like that revoked then. I certainly do not believe that there is a significant increased risk to photographers at airports. We can maybe expect more contact with the Police, but that is not a bad thing. It's better to halve false-positives reported and checked than have something slip by.

Regards,

Jim
Erm, is this thing on?
 
bjcc
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:29 am

RE: London Met Police New Advertising: Photographers

Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:38 pm

Thanks for clarifying Jim

Bernie

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests