This is pure and simple paranoia
The whole government's approach to privacy and security is paranoid to say the least...
Photographer hassled by Port of Tyne for filming a sign on a wall
A photographer in a public place was called a “lunatic”, "detained" by private security guards and had the police called on him after he videoed a wall outside the Port of Tyne. Footage posted to YouTube by 24-year-old media production graduate Alan Noble shows two security guards employed by the Port of Tyne remonstrating …
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 14:49 GMT KeithR
Re: This is pure and simple paranoia
"The whole government's approach to privacy and security is paranoid to say the least..."
This is preciesly fuck all to do with "government", and everything do do with a jumped-up clown in what passes for a uniform getting carried away with the power he thinks it gives him, and his utter ignorance of the application of the relevant law...
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 17:44 GMT Anonymous Coward
No, it does have to do with government
Yes, the Idiots With A Badge phenomena is why he was treated that way, but it is the ridiculous response of governments because they have to be seen "doing something" about terrorism is why the supposed need for heightened security at ports, so where a guy on public land is seen as a threat.
The 'photography is suspicious' crowd are going to have to realize that with Google Maps that there's nothing you can see from public land around private property that isn't already on the internet. With drones flying over public land you can easily see that private property and count the number of guards visible outdoors or through windows, track their typical movements, etc. so you have to treat that as publicly known information and adjust security procedures according to that fact.
There is no reason to be worried about photographers around ANYTHING on public land, even if they happened to be known terrorists - whatever a photographer can publicly find out with that camera they could secretly find out with a drone operated by a guy hidden from view a quarter mile away - and find out more that way due to better angles.
-
Wednesday 2nd March 2016 08:23 GMT Scorchio!!
Re: No, it does have to do with government
"Yes, the Idiots With A Badge phenomena is why he was treated that way, but it is the ridiculous response of governments because they have to be seen "doing something" about terrorism is why the supposed need for heightened security at ports, so where a guy on public land is seen as a threat."
Utterly incorrect, as the text and URL from which below it was culled demonstrate:
"Freedom to photograph and film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
Terrorism Act 2000
Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists."
http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice
Note the second paragraph, with which it would seem the attending police are familiar.
This is not government (the legislature) but the executive and assorted peripheral clones. Were I the photographer in question I would press charges for assault. These individuals were in a public place and therefore out of their jurisdiction. That the police were happy says enough.
In respect of drones the situation is different. For example, flying drones amidst air traffic is causing problems likely to clarify existing legislation and draw more legislation forth. Further, flying a drone over someone else's property may constitute harassment. Indeed, in the US a man shot one down for flying over his property. There is more to this than meets the eye; it would be an ideal tool for paedophiles to use, for people to intrude on the lives of private citizens and even their confidential business lives (espionage), by commercial or government-commercial espionage agencies.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 10:42 GMT Whitter
Who arrests the watchmen?
"...later seizes hold of Noble's camera tripod and refuses to let go of it..."
"...The police spokesperson continued: “No offence has been reported ..."
Well an offence certainly seems to have been committed, one that the officers were clearly aware of. Nulfeasance in public office anyone?
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 11:18 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
So go on, enlighten me. What offense has been committed and what exactly are you expecting the police officers to do about it?
I too agree that there should be repercussions for those involved, but the only offence I can think of would be a stretch to assault if he had reason to fear physical violence, which would be a stretch. And if he's not chosen to press charges, then how exactly do you think Northumbria would convince the CPS to prosecute, and then convince a Jury and a Judge to find guilty and sentence?
Again, I'm with you on this, but realistically if he doesn't want to press charges over anything, which he really doesn't have anything to press charges over, then there isn't much the police can do (whether or not they have the will to). And I'm assuming that from the line "No offence has been reported" that he chose not to press charges over anything.
I do agree with both the photographer, and the general view here though - there's ways of dealing with the public if you suspect they're carrying out HR, and until you have established beyond reasonable doubt that it is exactly what they are doing, it doesn't involve being confrontational. If they suspected that was what he was doing, they should have called the police in the first place and let them deal with it since it's their job...
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 11:57 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
So go on, enlighten me. What offense has been committed and what exactly are you expecting the police officers to do about it?
Attempted theft. The tripod is the property of the photographer, the photographer is entitled to take pictures in the area in question, this is plain and simple attempted mugging as far as the law is concerned.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 12:20 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
I mean I guess you could go with attempted robbery, but again - as the photographer isn't pressing charges, and the officers didn't witness the alleged offence, I would again ask what you expect them to actually be able to do about it.
Especially because in order for a charge of attempted robbery to stick, you would have to prove that they intended to permanently deprive him of the tripod which, I'm sure you'd agree, seems somewhat unlikely. In the same way that when you have to hand over your mobile phone when entering a secure area, the relevant authority is not attempting to steal it from you.
In this case you are right in that they had no legal authority to remove his tripod, however it would be almost impossible to prove mens rea. Especially as they did not try to take his tripod, they held onto it. Indeed I'd go so far as to say the abundance of common sense being shown by the photographer is what is strengthening his position in my eyes, screaming about someone trying to steal something when it clearly is not the case would've painted him in a negative light as well.
To me this seems like something that should be handled by Port of Tyne as admin action, assuming it's an isolated incident for the people involved. But then I'm sure that will be an unpopular viewpoint.
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 15:52 GMT Mark 85
@werdsmith -- Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
Exactly.. even the manglement is misinformed per: " our employees are required to act in accordance with international security regulations which are designed to protect ports and the public.”
Someone's full of BS unless there's a secret "regulation" about taking photos in an unmarked restricted area that only the security guards and manglement know about.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 2nd March 2016 01:27 GMT Pompous Git
Re: Unfortunately... you're wrong
Theft really does require an act to permanently deprive... This isn't theft.
This is true. Under British law
"(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit."
Thus unless it can be proven that these morons intended to permanently deprive the photographer of his property they cannot be charged with theft.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 13:29 GMT rh587
Re: Unfortunately... you're wrong
"Theft is theft, there is no time limit or extenuating circumstances such as saying that you were going to return the item eventually."
Yes, you sort of do. With theft you have to show an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. It is the precise reason why the motoring offence of "Taking Without Owner's Consent" exists - because it became difficult to prosecute a joyrider for theft when they claimed they intended to return the car once they'd had a drive around - so they made it an offence to take the car in the first place.
In this case, go for Common Assault - use of unlawful force. The Mall Cops had no authority to harass him going about his lawful business on a public highway, nor to prevent him leaving the scene or seizing his property.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 14:07 GMT Doctor Syntax
Re: Unfortunately... you're wrong
"Theft is theft, there is no time limit or extenuating circumstances such as saying that you were going to return the item eventually."
Theft is indeed theft. It's taking with intent to permanently deprive. That's why the charge against a joyrider isn't theft, it's taking and driving away.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 18:54 GMT Cynic_999
Re: Unfortunately... you're wrong
"
Theft is theft, there is no time limit or extenuating circumstances such as saying that you were going to return the item eventually.
"
That is factually incorrect. The legal definition of theft is "the dishonest appropriation of property with the intent to *permanently deprive* the owner." The inability to prosecute a person for theft when that person "borrowed" an item without permission was the whole reason why the offence of "TWOCing" was conceived (Taking WithOut Consent).
It also requires a dishonest intent. You cannot be prosecuted for theft if it is apparent that you honestly believed you had the right to take the property, no matter how mistaken that belief. In this case the port officials would no doubt be believed if they declared that they honestly thought that they had the right to take the property.
As an aside, a person who took some cash without consent to bet on a horse race but returned it the following day (after winning the bet) was successfully convicted of theft because (it was argued by the prosecution) the cash that he returned was not the same physical notes that he took - and so the property had not in fact been returned.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 21:19 GMT Captain Badmouth
Re: Unfortunately... you're wrong
"As an aside, a person who took some cash without consent to bet on a horse race but returned it the following day (after winning the bet) was successfully convicted of theft because (it was argued by the prosecution) the cash that he returned was not the same physical notes that he took - and so the property had not in fact been returned."
Not 2to1 Freddy, then? Although he had it back in the till by five......
-
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 13:29 GMT John H Woods
Re: Unfortunately...
"So go on, enlighten me. What offense has been committed... " -- AC
"Is there any comeback for what this actually is - namely illegal seizure..." -- Martin Milan
(Note: IANALBIPOOTI)
Pretty sure the law you're looking for is Trespass to Goods It's a tort, so the police cannot be involved, but I think the victim has a pretty clear case for a compensation claim. Wonder if any of the no-win no-fee guys fancy having a go?
-
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 12:34 GMT Graham Marsden
@AC - Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
> What offence has been committed?
Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988
An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
A battery is committed when a person intentionally and recklessly applies unlawful force to another.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 12:42 GMT Jagged
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
What offense has been committed and what exactly are you expecting the police officers to do about it?
As they tried to detain him, that could be assault. It is almost certainly a breach of the peace.
We really need to stamp on these frikkin' over-reaching Mall-Cops and they should most definitely have to appear in court.
PS: I bet they are retired police and are friends of the officers that "investigated" the incident.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 13:14 GMT Rol
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
Yes, I have been in a similar situation, where I was detained by company security against my will.
I explained the law regarding illegal imprisonment and how they detaining me against my will was just that, however it was only when the police arrived, in answer to my calling them did security back down and allow me to leave.
Smoke and fire, I smell you thinking. Well no. The company instructed security that no person was to leave the premises until they had lifted the ban, and I was just visiting
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 13:30 GMT Loyal Commenter
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
PS: I bet they are retired police and are friends of the officers that "investigated" the incident.
I'll counter that bet with a bet that they are individuals who have previously failed to get through the interview/vetting process for joining their local Force.
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 12:48 GMT The Axe
Pressing charges
"but realistically if he doesn't want to press charges over anything, which he really doesn't have anything to press charges over, then there isn't much the police can do (whether or not they have the will to). "
No such thing as pressing charges in the UK. You've been watching too many US cop shows. It's the CPS who make the decision whether or not to progress a case. The most a victim can do is refuse to co-operate which in effect the same as not pressing charges. But the victim can't force the charge through.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 13:34 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Pressing charges
Pressing charges is maybe a poor choice of words. However, in order for the CPS to prosecute and for the police to charge someone with a crime - especially a serious crime such as robbery, or assault (battery would be a bit of a stretch in this case) - which they did not witness, you still need a complaint to be made. And mens rea which for the offences talked about here, are simply not present.
Any half decent lawyer would be able to paint the security guards as only trying to do their jobs and decent folk and all the rest of it (it's not my job to judge either way). All you'd have is a big waste of public money.
In this instance, there is no complainant. The person who suggested wasting police time may be on better ground I think. But realistically the only people who would stand to profit if charges were bought in this would be the lawyers representing both sides as it would be a fest... There's little to know valid evidence, the victim hasn't reported a crime, the reported incident was found to be a false alarm. It would drag on and on and you know as well as I do that CPS would never run with it.
So again, what would you expect the police to actually do.
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 13:55 GMT Gordon861
Re: Pressing charges
How about illegal detention?
The only argument they could use to detain him would be a citizens arrest, but you can only do this if you know an offence was taking place which the police have confirmed has not happened.
The other one I would go for is 'calling the police and running away/wasting police time', there is no way the copper should have let them just walk away without pointing out to them that they were potentially breaking the law with their actions.
-
-
Tuesday 1st March 2016 14:21 GMT nijam
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
> So go on, enlighten me. What offense has been committed and what exactly are you expecting the police officers to do about it?
Assault, in that the "security guards" threatened a member of the public? Theft, in that they took - or attempted to take - an item in his possession? Threatening behaviour? Wasting police time?
-
Wednesday 2nd March 2016 02:36 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Who arrests the watchmen?
"if you suspect they're carrying out HR"
And a guy with a pro video camera on a big heavy duty tripod on the central reservation between two busy carriageways at a busy roundabout is hardly likely to be the one carrying covert surveillance.
I must remember to take my camera with me when a pass there tomorrow. If I've got time I might even park up and take few snap myself. I suspect it will be crowded :-)
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
