Paranoid morons in Britain (example)

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:04:38 -0800 (PST), RichA,

expounded this theory:

Witness that most of the complaints
we've heard about there concerning the police seem to have been
generated by the actions of "special constables" (non-police, police)
rather than real police persons.

I trust you are not confusing Special Constables with Police
Community Support Officers? I think you are and I think you are very
ignorant of the way the British Police Force operates

A Special Constable in the UK is identical in every respect to a
Police Constable apart from that they are unpaid and only work part
time. Generally speaking, a special's main role is to conduct local,
intelligence-based patrols and to take part in crime prevention
initiatives, often targeted at specific problem areas. The Special
has identical powers to a regular Constable.

Specials are also involved in policing major incidents, and in
providing operational support to regular officers.


A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO), you will work on the
frontline of the local force, providing a visible and reassuring
presence on the streets and tackling the menace of anti-social
behaviour.

Although PCSOs do not have the same powers as regular police
officers, they still carry a lot of responsibility, and are a
critical part of the police service.

--
Graham

On 2012-01-23 12:55:28 -0800, Graham said:

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 10:04:38 -0800 (PST), RichA,

expounded this theory:

Witness that most of the complaints
we've heard about there concerning the police seem to have been
generated by the actions of "special constables" (non-police, police)
rather than real police persons.

I trust you are not confusing Special Constables with Police
Community Support Officers? I think you are and I think you are very
ignorant of the way the British Police Force operates

A Special Constable in the UK is identical in every respect to a
Police Constable apart from that they are unpaid and only work part
time. Generally speaking, a special's main role is to conduct local,
intelligence-based patrols and to take part in crime prevention
initiatives, often targeted at specific problem areas. The Special
has identical powers to a regular Constable.

Specials are also involved in policing major incidents, and in
providing operational support to regular officers.


A Police Community Support Officer (PCSO), you will work on the
frontline of the local force, providing a visible and reassuring
presence on the streets and tackling the menace of anti-social
behaviour.

Although PCSOs do not have the same powers as regular police
officers, they still carry a lot of responsibility, and are a
critical part of the police service.

Then the public is entitled to expect each of the categories of officer
you have discribed to have a knowledge of the Laws and local Codes they
enforce.

I also got the impression that neither of the two individuals
confronting the photographer were in anyway Law enforcement officers of
any type, but were private security employed at the industrial complex
being photograph. Their actions, by referring to a breach of a Law they
could not cite was an act of attempted intimidation which might have
worked for them in the past, but was ineffectual when challenged.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:08:03 -0800 (PST), RichA,

expounded this theory:

Oh S---! PLEASE tell me you aren't the guy from Dpreview who sprang
to the defense of the police and "mother state" every time this kind
of thing came up?

I can you that you are correct in saying I'm not the person from
Dpreview.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012012313444571490-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Then the public is entitled to expect each of the categories of officer
you have discribed to have a knowledge of the Laws and local Codes they
enforce.

IME police do not consider that essential, they can detain you, book you,
and let the courts sort it out. Since they get paid regardless, and because
you don't for your time that is wasted, it is considered a significant
deterrence regardless of actual law.


I also got the impression that neither of the two individuals confronting
the photographer were in anyway Law enforcement officers of any type, but
were private security employed at the industrial complex being photograph.
Their actions, by referring to a breach of a Law they could not cite was
an act of attempted intimidation which might have worked for them in the
past, but was ineffectual when challenged.

Doesn't stop them IME, many even believe it is their right to confiscate
your camera. Only court challenges with real monetary compensation slow them
down a little.

Trevor.

On 2012-01-23 16:50:16 -0800, "Trevor" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012012313444571490-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Then the public is entitled to expect each of the categories of officer
you have discribed to have a knowledge of the Laws and local Codes they
enforce.

IME police do not consider that essential, they can detain you, book you,
and let the courts sort it out. Since they get paid regardless, and because
you don't for your time that is wasted, it is considered a significant
deterrence regardless of actual law.

Then there is something very wrong with your system which needs fixing.

In this country there is an expectation that Law Enforcement officers
are at least minimally aware of the Laws they are enforcing. If
ignorance of the Law is no excuse for an accused, in my experience
ignorance of the Law is certainly not an excuse for those charged with
enforcing it.
At the very least for those obscure laws, that they have the ability to
make reference to a Penal Code. Each year my agency would replace old
copies of the California Penal Code with current editions.
Additionally the entire Penal Code is available on line, all that is
needed is the trained skill to check the reference.
As a supervisor there was an expectation that I am able to lead and
supervise my subordinates within the Laws which controlled my every
action. I was also expected to provide the District Attorney's office
with evidence to support a decision to file charges, or not.
The California Penal Code can make an interesting read:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/ca...ebody=&hits=20


....and while you can discover that as a civilian you cannot legally a
..50BMG caliber firearm in California, photography of buildings,
individuals, police included is not even addressed. Therefore there is
no California Law prohibiting any sort of photography when shot from
public property. Posted restrictions placed by corporations and
government entities on private property or specific state property are
usually subject to civil action, and the most frequent criminal charge
is "trespass" not "photography". Confiscation of a camera, CF or SD
card, or deletion of image files is illegal.

Federal Law & Codes are different, and installations considered
security risks can be subject to Federal criminal protection against
photography. Usually the restrictions against photography, together
with cites of the appropriate Federal Law or Code are posted, and those
charged with enforcement are well aware of those Laws & Codes.

Regardless of what many believe the Law does count.



I also got the impression that neither of the two individuals confronting
the photographer were in anyway Law enforcement officers of any type, but
were private security employed at the industrial complex being photograph.
Their actions, by referring to a breach of a Law they could not cite was
an act of attempted intimidation which might have worked for them in the
past, but was ineffectual when challenged.

Doesn't stop them IME, many even believe it is their right to confiscate
your camera. Only court challenges with real monetary compensation slow them
down a little.

Since the individuals spoken of in this case are probably just
civilians given a pseudo sanction by their employers, any action they
take would be actionable in civil court for both the individuals and
the contingently liable corporate employers. They could well be
criminally prosecutable if they confiscate your camera since that is
theft.
Certainly a pain in the ass, but well worth considering.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2012012318242860903-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
Then the public is entitled to expect each of the categories of officer
you have discribed to have a knowledge of the Laws and local Codes they
enforce.

IME police do not consider that essential, they can detain you, book you,
and let the courts sort it out. Since they get paid regardless, and
because
you don't for your time that is wasted, it is considered a significant
deterrence regardless of actual law.

Then there is something very wrong with your system which needs fixing.

So very true. I don't expect it to happen any time soon. Things are only
getting worse. :-(


In this country there is an expectation that Law Enforcement officers are
at least minimally aware of the Laws they are enforcing.

An "expectation", RIGHT :-)
In the meantime your congress is taking away all civil rights, so there soon
won't be much left to expect anyway.


If ignorance of the Law is no excuse for an accused, in my experience
ignorance of the Law is certainly not an excuse for those charged with
enforcing it.

True, IF you have enough money to enforce whatever rights you may still have
left via lawyers and courts. Most don't.


At the very least for those obscure laws, that they have the ability to
make reference to a Penal Code. Each year my agency would replace old
copies of the California Penal Code with current editions. Additionally
the entire Penal Code is available on line, all that is needed is the
trained skill to check the reference.

As I said, winning in court is not necessarily the problem, it's the time
spent in detention in a police station and the time spent in court that's
the problem.


As a supervisor there was an expectation that I am able to lead and
supervise my subordinates within the Laws which controlled my every
action. I was also expected to provide the District Attorney's office with
evidence to support a decision to file charges, or not.

Perhaps, but even if the charges are dropped, or not laid at all, hours
spent in a police station still represents a strong deterrent, and police
are well aware of that.

...and while you can discover that as a civilian you cannot legally a
.50BMG caliber firearm in California, photography of buildings,
individuals, police included is not even addressed. Therefore there is no
California Law prohibiting any sort of photography when shot from public
property. Posted restrictions placed by corporations and government
entities on private property or specific state property are usually
subject to civil action, and the most frequent criminal charge is
"trespass" not "photography". Confiscation of a camera, CF or SD card, or
deletion of image files is illegal.

Right, but still happens. Your only recourse is to file suit against them,
IF you can afford it.

Regardless of what many believe the Law does count.

And as many believe is often VERY expensive to navigate.


Doesn't stop them IME, many even believe it is their right to confiscate
your camera. Only court challenges with real monetary compensation slow
them
down a little.

Since the individuals spoken of in this case are probably just civilians
given a pseudo sanction by their employers, any action they take would be
actionable in civil court for both the individuals and the contingently
liable corporate employers.

As I said already, IF you can afford the legal costs.

They could well be criminally prosecutable if they confiscate your camera
since that is theft.

Police seem reluctant to do so, but YOU won't get compensation even if they
do, you have to also take civil proceedings, IF you can afford it.

Certainly a pain in the ass, but well worth considering.

Right, IF you can afford it :-(

Trevor.