«

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_304099.html

Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has been
stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent today.

Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
station.

'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).

'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'

'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
without getting their feet and hands cold'.

In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures in
public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.

On 11/30/2010 5:28 PM, RichA wrote:
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_304099.html
>
> Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has been
> stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent today.
>
> Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
> Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
> station.
>
> 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>
> 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>
> 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
> which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
> snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
> terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
> without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>
> In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
> nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures in
> public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.

And the US laws you mentioned are ????


--
Peter

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
wrote:

>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_304099.html
>
>Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has been
>stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent today.
>
>Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
>Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
>station.
>
>'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>
>'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>
>'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
>which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
>snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
>terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
>without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>
>In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
>nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures in
>public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.

"Stopped", in this case, means "Questioned". Unless you can provide
more information, all we can glean from the article is that a police
officer asked Sibley some questions. There's no indication that the
officer stopped Sibley from taking any more photographs or keeping the
images he had.

Are you in favor of laws that prohibit a police officer from asking a
question?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:22 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
> wrote:
>
> >
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_304099.html
> >
> > Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has
> > been stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent
> > today.
> >
> > Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
> > Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered
> > train station.
> >
> > 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
> >
> > 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
> >
> > 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
> > which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
> > snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
> > terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
> > without getting their feet and hands cold'.
> >
> > In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
> > nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures
> > in public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.
>
> "Stopped", in this case, means "Questioned". Unless you can provide
> more information, all we can glean from the article is that a police
> officer asked Sibley some questions. There's no indication that the
> officer stopped Sibley from taking any more photographs or keeping the
> images he had.
>
> Are you in favor of laws that prohibit a police officer from asking a
> question?

Ignore it. It is once again a misleading post. The chap was merely
approached and asked what he was doing by a PCSO, not even a real
police officer. The photographer politely replied and as far as that
goes that was the end of it. In fact Amateur Photographer magazine has
published a non-story. It must have been a slow news day.

MC

On 11/30/2010 7:39 PM, Rich wrote:
> peter<> wrote in
> news:4cf57fb6$0$5546$:
>
>> On 11/30/2010 5:28 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...otographer_ove
>>> r_snow_pictures_news_304099.html
>>>
>>> Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has
>>> been stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent
>>> today.
>>>
>>> Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
>>> Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
>>> station.
>>>
>>> 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>>>
>>> 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>>>
>>> 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
>>> which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
>>> snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
>>> terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
>>> without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>>>
>>> In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
>>> nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures
>>> in public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.
>>
>> And the US laws you mentioned are ????
>>
>>
>
> Good question! The cops seem to make them up as they go along...

Do I need to remind you that you stated certain states had laws
supporting the police action?
You need not answer my rhetorical question


--
Peter

On 11/30/2010 7:41 PM, Rich wrote:
> tony cooper<> wrote in
> news::
>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:22 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...tographer_over
>>> _snow_pictures_news_304099.html
>>>
>>> Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has been
>>> stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent today.
>>>
>>> Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
>>> Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
>>> station.
>>>
>>> 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>>>
>>> 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>>>
>>> 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
>>> which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
>>> snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
>>> terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
>>> without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>>>
>>> In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
>>> nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures in
>>> public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.
>>
>> "Stopped", in this case, means "Questioned". Unless you can provide
>> more information, all we can glean from the article is that a police
>> officer asked Sibley some questions. There's no indication that the
>> officer stopped Sibley from taking any more photographs or keeping the
>> images he had.
>>
>> Are you in favor of laws that prohibit a police officer from asking a
>> question?
>>
>>
>
> Yes. Evidently, probably cause is being dispensed with. Of course,
> liberals are all for laws like this, as long as everyone (no matter if
> they appear to be doing something wrong or not) is "questioned." Wouldn't
> want to appear "insensitive" by actually stopping the people who are
> LIKELY to commit a terrorist act or who might actually be working for
> terrorists. That would be...racial profiling! Oh dear, oh no!!!

I won't even waste any one's time asking for the source of that statement.
You just have no clue about what you are talking about.

--
Peter

Rich wrote:

> "MC" <> wrote in
> news:
>
> > tony cooper wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:22 -0800 (PST), RichA
> >> <> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...tographer_over
> > _snow_pictures_news_304099.html
> >> >
> >> > Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has
> >> > been stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley,
> Kent >> > today.
> >> >
> >> > Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
> >> > Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered
> >> > train station.
> >> >
> >> > 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
> >> >
> >> > 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
> >> >
> >> > 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”.
> To >> > which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station
> in >> > the snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a
> >> > potential terrorist could just look up the same images on Google
> >> > Street View without getting their feet and hands cold'.
> >> >
> >> > In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront
> of a >> > nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take
> pictures >> > in public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.
> >>
> >> "Stopped", in this case, means "Questioned". Unless you can
> provide >> more information, all we can glean from the article is
> that a police >> officer asked Sibley some questions. There's no
> indication that the >> officer stopped Sibley from taking any more
> photographs or keeping >> the images he had.
> >>
> >> Are you in favor of laws that prohibit a police officer from
> asking a >> question?
> >
> > Ignore it. It is once again a misleading post. The chap was merely
> > approached and asked what he was doing by a PCSO, not even a real
> > police officer.
>
> Unqualified ass------. A disgrace to British policing and Britain in
> general. What next, dep-U-tizin' citzens???!!

Well that's basically what they are and with very few powers.

MC

On 30/11/2010 22:28, RichA wrote:
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_304099.html
>
> Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has been
> stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent today.
>
> Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
> Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
> station.
>
> 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>
> 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>
> 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
> which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
> snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
> terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
> without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>
> In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
> nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures in
> public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.

I'd hardly describe him as a victim. Perhaps the terrorists on 11/9 or
7/7 would have had a similar smart-alec response prepared in case
someone asked them what they where doing.

I was once stopped and asked to produce my driving licence and what I
had been doing after driving along a 24hr bus lane at 2:30am. Maybe I
should have cited my human rights and gone blubbing to the press.

The officer was using my mis-demeanour as an excuse to see if I was
under the influence. I wasn't and drove of a few minutes later, only
now do I realise that I was a victim and my rights had been grievously
violated.

Whilst I've seen plenty of video's showing overly officious police
officers/security guards moving photographers on, the photographers also
seem to be doing their level best to provoke a reaction. A modicum of
sense from either part would have resolves the problem, instead we have
a photographer crying like a softcock over his rights and screw everyone
else's.

If I am ever asked to stop taking pictures I will, I don't regard it as
a god given right to photograph other people and their property if they
don't want me to regardless of where they are or their job.


Mike

On 01/12/2010 01:13, MC wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
>> "MC"<> wrote in
>> news:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:22 -0800 (PST), RichA
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...tographer_over
>>> _snow_pictures_news_304099.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has
>>>>> been stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley,
>> Kent>> > today.
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
>>>>> Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered
>>>>> train station.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>>>>>
>>>>> 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>>>>>
>>>>> 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”.
>> To>> > which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station
>> in>> > the snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a
>>>>> potential terrorist could just look up the same images on Google
>>>>> Street View without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>>>>>
>>>>> In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront
>> of a>> > nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take
>> pictures>> > in public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.
>>>>
>>>> "Stopped", in this case, means "Questioned". Unless you can
>> provide>> more information, all we can glean from the article is
>> that a police>> officer asked Sibley some questions. There's no
>> indication that the>> officer stopped Sibley from taking any more
>> photographs or keeping>> the images he had.
>>>>
>>>> Are you in favor of laws that prohibit a police officer from
>> asking a>> question?
>>>
>>> Ignore it. It is once again a misleading post. The chap was merely
>>> approached and asked what he was doing by a PCSO, not even a real
>>> police officer.
>>
>> Unqualified ass------. A disgrace to British policing and Britain in
>> general. What next, dep-U-tizin' citzens???!!

PCSO's are not the brightest, the public decided they wanted to see a
lot more bobbies on the beat and these guys are much cheaper.

And for the benefit of ****wit troll RichA the UK has had deputized
trained citizens in the police force for a very long time. They have
full police powers and are properly trained. Called Special Constables
and in Canada the Royal Canadian Mounted Police uses them too as do
several other former Commonwealth nations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_constable
>
> Well that's basically what they are and with very few powers.

It is also not unreasonable to be asked the occasional question if you
are taking architectural photographs of infrastructure that could be of
use to terrorists. Would you prefer it if the police turned a blind eye
to anyone taking photographs in a potentially sensitive location?

AP has a vendetta against the police and will report every incident no
matter how trivial as if their photographer was slung into a dungeon.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the AP cameraman did everything he
could to escalate the situation.

I have been challenged like this a few times and interpret it as mainly
the security guys doing their job. If I am on private land I will desist
if asked to but normally after a short conversation they go away again
and I continue to shoot. During the active IRA bombing of UK cities in
the 70's police challenges to photographers were much more frequent.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"Mike" <> wrote in message
newsdnJo.189683$2...
> On 30/11/2010 22:28, RichA wrote:
>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_304099.html
>>
>> Amateur photographer magazine technical writer Richard Sibley has been
>> stopped by police while taking photos of snow in Bromley, Kent today.
>>
>> Richard, who lives nearby, said he was questioned by a Police
>> Community Support Officer as he took pictures of a snow-covered train
>> station.
>>
>> 'He asked what I was doing,' said Richard (pictured).
>>
>> 'I replied “I'm taking photos in the snow”.'
>>
>> 'He said “I'm asking as this is a time of heightened security”. To
>> which I pointed out that I didn't think Bromley South Station in the
>> snow would be a likely terrorist target... especially as a potential
>> terrorist could just look up the same images on Google Street View
>> without getting their feet and hands cold'.
>>
>> In recent years Amateur photographer has been at the forefront of a
>> nationwide campaign to defend photographers' right to take pictures in
>> public, as many fell victim to anti-terror laws.
>
> I'd hardly describe him as a victim. Perhaps the terrorists on 11/9 or
> 7/7 would have had a similar smart-alec response prepared in case someone
> asked them what they where doing.
>
> I was once stopped and asked to produce my driving licence and what I had
> been doing after driving along a 24hr bus lane at 2:30am. Maybe I should
> have cited my human rights and gone blubbing to the press.
>
> The officer was using my mis-demeanour as an excuse to see if I was under
> the influence. I wasn't and drove of a few minutes later, only now do I
> realise that I was a victim and my rights had been grievously violated.
>
> Whilst I've seen plenty of video's showing overly officious police
> officers/security guards moving photographers on, the photographers also
> seem to be doing their level best to provoke a reaction. A modicum of
> sense from either part would have resolves the problem, instead we have a
> photographer crying like a softcock over his rights and screw everyone
> else's.
>
> If I am ever asked to stop taking pictures I will, I don't regard it as a
> god given right to photograph other people and their property if they
> don't want me to regardless of where they are or their job.

Please stop taking pictures.
Now sell you camera.
TIA