If Brit police are terrified their jobs are threatened by cutbacks, this isn't the way to illustrate their value

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

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._3 04099.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

On 2010-11-30 15:26:10 -0800, tony cooper said:

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

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._3 04099.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?

I agree. The whole story isn't here. Amateur Photographer has
established its self as the anti-police, pro-photographer web advocate.
As such it has to keep the story alive one way or another.

I have a feeling Sibley went out of his way to initiate some sort of
interaction between this Community Support Officer and himself. As it
is written it is a non-event. This officer might as well have walked up
to somebody painting a fence to ask what they were doing. When told to
say, "Oh!" and walk on.

The officer did not demand a search, or a stop to the photography, or
an inspection of the images and immediate erasure. There was no call
for back up to arrest him and drag him off to a cell for noncompliance.

The details are so vague, and undramatic, I am skeptical that this even
happened.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

tony cooper wrote in
:

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!!!

"MC" wrote in :

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???!!

On 11/30/2010 7:41 PM, Rich wrote:
tony wrote in
:

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:28:22 -0800 (PST),
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

On 01/12/2010 01:13, MC wrote:
Rich wrote:

wrote in
:

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

On 12/1/2010 8:23 AM, RichA wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:11 am, Martin

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.

Retard. It gets worse. Imagine the kind of left-wing scum that
normally gets elected locally in Britain (communists running town
councils, that kind of thing) having a hand at running the police!
You people are pathetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11882026


Answer my questions.

Is it true you are a member of the Communist Party?

--
Peter

On 01/12/2010 13:30, peter wrote:
On 12/1/2010 8:23 AM, RichA wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:11 am, Martin

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.

Retard. It gets worse. Imagine the kind of left-wing scum that
normally gets elected locally in Britain (communists running town
councils, that kind of thing) having a hand at running the police!
You people are pathetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11882026

I think this is actually one of the dumbest ideas the new Con-Dem
government has come up with so far. Aping the stupid US system which
makes pandering to irrational public fears and locking up prisoners for
as long as possible into a profitable industry is utterly stupid.

The "Land of the Free" has an appallingly high incarceration rate.

Answer my questions.

Is it true you are a member of the Communist Party?

No RichA is a trolling NeoNazi wannabe. Pure killfile material.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:06:08 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Dec 1, 2:02*pm, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 01/12/2010 13:30, peter wrote:



On 12/1/2010 8:23 AM, RichA wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:11 am, Martin

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.

Retard. It gets worse. Imagine the kind of left-wing scum that
normally gets elected locally in Britain (communists running town
councils, that kind of thing) having a hand at running the police!
You people are pathetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11882026

I think this is actually one of the dumbest ideas the new Con-Dem
government has come up with so far.

Don't worry they haven't been in office long I'm sure something dumber
will come along shortly ;-)

Aping the stupid US system which
makes pandering to irrational public fears and locking up prisoners for
as long as possible into a profitable industry is utterly stupid.

What, even if it's profitable !!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure how it's profitable I assume you mean in the USA it's
profitable.
In the UK the tax payer funds the prison service.

As does the taxpayer in the US. The difference is that there are
private, for-profit, state prisons in the US. Our government pays
these prisons taxpayer dollars. The company that runs the prison may
make a profit on the difference between what they are paid by the
government and what their expenses are, but it is the taxpayer who is
burdened with the cost.

The "benefit" of this system is that the state writes one check to the
prison company and doesn't have to employ people and deal with all of
the suppliers that a prison has. Very much like a company outsourcing
certain functions. Simpler for the state, but - overall - I don't
think there's a benefit to either the taxpayer or the prisoners.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 12/1/2010 10:06 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 07:06:08 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Dec 1, 2:02 pm, Martin
wrote:
On 01/12/2010 13:30, peter wrote:



On 12/1/2010 8:23 AM, RichA wrote:
On Dec 1, 3:11 am, Martin

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.

Retard. It gets worse. Imagine the kind of left-wing scum that
normally gets elected locally in Britain (communists running town
councils, that kind of thing) having a hand at running the police!
You people are pathetic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11882026

I think this is actually one of the dumbest ideas the new Con-Dem
government has come up with so far.

Don't worry they haven't been in office long I'm sure something dumber
will come along shortly ;-)

Aping the stupid US system which
makes pandering to irrational public fears and locking up prisoners for
as long as possible into a profitable industry is utterly stupid.

What, even if it's profitable !!!!!!!!!!
I'm not sure how it's profitable I assume you mean in the USA it's
profitable.
In the UK the tax payer funds the prison service.

As does the taxpayer in the US. The difference is that there are
private, for-profit, state prisons in the US. Our government pays
these prisons taxpayer dollars. The company that runs the prison may
make a profit on the difference between what they are paid by the
government and what their expenses are, but it is the taxpayer who is
burdened with the cost.

The "benefit" of this system is that the state writes one check to the
prison company and doesn't have to employ people and deal with all of
the suppliers that a prison has. Very much like a company outsourcing
certain functions. Simpler for the state, but - overall - I don't
think there's a benefit to either the taxpayer or the prisoners.


Tony, I'm sorry to say that Texas is one of the states that has
privately-owned prisons--imo a system that is loaded with problems. But
what could be expected in a state with the history created by our past
two governors.
Allen