Woman detained for filming police

[detective-boy]

And they don't like teams. They like minions.

I think that depends on the "type" of leader you have.

"Transformational" leadership (which is all the rage at the moment) is all about empowering your people and working to help them perform to their very best and, as a result, everyone will, as a team, achieve the organisational goals - it's all about inclusion and meetings and training and motivating and stuff like that which persuades and encourages people to perform better.

Some see it as at the opposite end of the spectrum from "transactional" leadership which is all about "Do as I say" sort of stuff based on the power inherent in the leader's position and telling people to do stuff and sanctioning them if they do not (or rewarding them if they perform particularly well ... though this bit is often forgotten).

Unfortunately, organisations at different times in their lives need different approaches - for instance growing and opening up new markets cries out for transformational leadership styles and downsizing and doing nasty stuff cries out for transactional leadership styles ... and though some writers argue that any one individual can learn both, and change between them freely, I suspect that is probably not right and we tend to be what we are and we revert to type as soon as the going gets tough. So we probably need to fundamentally change many of our hierarchical organisational structures (good for transactional, shit for transformational) and move away from the idea of having a single leader as opposed to a leadership team comprised of individuals with different styles and skills selected for different organisational functions (this is starting to get written about as "distributed leadership" (though I'm not sure that is an agreed title yet) ... though we'd then have to work through how that would impact on the "followers" and whether they could cope with what emerged!

 

[SpookyFrank]

In the case of any law passed by a democratically elected government, the police MUST be expected to enforce it. Otherwise you might as well give up making laws and allow the police to do what they like (which, I presume, you would agree would be a bad thing).

If, as an individual officer, I did not like the laws that government was passing it would be open to me to leave the police. If it got to the point that society was no longer democratically electing a government, it would be open to the police (as a body) to transfer their alliegance to the the people or some other power in society.

But whilst we have a democratically elected government, and a lawful requirement of the police to enforce the law without fear or favour, you simply cannot argue that individual officers should be making individual officers about whether or not to do so. As I said, to a large extent, how they enforce it, and how they exercise their discretion in enforcing it is another matter, but they cannot simply say "I don't agree with it, I'm not doing it". That would be the offence of malfeasance in public office.

I personally believe that everyone should always answer to their own moral discretion above all other masters. Having a democratically elected government doesn't mean that the public have any say in which laws get passed. Because of this I do not believe it is possible to be a faithful servant of the state and of the people at the same time, not given our current political system anyway. And 'the people' includes coppers themselves. If the state decrees something which goes against an individual copper's moral principles, and that copper chooses to uphold that decree, then he has become an enemy of the people by virtue of the fact he has become an enemy of himself.

Coppers being humans with free will, I will assume that any law I find a copper upholding is a law which that copper agrees with. I will act accordingly. Just like if a copper catches me doing something I didn't ought to be doing then they will assume that I am doing it out of my own free will and deal with me accordingly, disregarding any claims that I am acting upon someone else's instructions or according to someone else's idea of what is acceptable. I like a level playing field.

 

[detective-boy]

Because of this I do not believe it is possible to be a faithful servant of the state and of the people at the same time, not given our current political system anyway.

How do you ascertain the will of "the people" then? Or do you just assume that what you think is right is right for everyone?

Because I think you'd be pretty pushed to find an actual majority of people in this country against any particular law.

And I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know better than the majority of the people - no matter how fuckwitted I think some of the laws we have are, it is the will of the people, expressed through the only mechanism we have to do so, that they are law and who am I as an individual (and, when I was a serving copper, as an individual copper) to decide that they are wrong?

 

[SpookyFrank]

How do you ascertain the will of "the people" then? Or do you just assume that what you think is right is right for everyone?

You are a person, your own will should suffice. Naturally your views won't always tie in with other people's, but that's OK because you only have control over your actions. The whole system makes perfect sense until you get people who want to control the actions of others, and people who are willing to be controlled. It doesn't matter how the people controlling you got where they are, the fact is that because of their position their opinons, their agendas, count for more than those of the vast majority of people.

As for the photography law, maybe you wouldn't find a majority of people supporting it's removal but that's irrelevant. What matters is that there was never shown to be a majority of people supporting it's introduction in the first place. In a truly democratic society, this law would therefore not count. I don't think there would have been anyone besides a handful of deranged politicians and the police themselves who would have ever thought such a law remotely fair or justified. But that doesn't matter because it's the deranged politicians whose opinions count, together with those (like the police) who they either choose or are obliged to listen to. The justification for the law is based on a manufactured fear of terrorism but without any explanation of how it is ever going to prevent terrorist acts or punish those responsible. A picture of a policeman is only going to be of use to a terrorist who doesn't know what a policeman looks like, and to be honest I'm not convinced we have all that much to fear from terrorists who are insufficiently bright to figure that out without recourse to photographic surveillance. A trip to the met police website, for example, provides plenty of pictures of police officers. As does a google image search for 'UK police officer'.

 

[detective-boy]

What matters is that there was never shown to be a majority of people supporting it's introduction in the first place. In a truly democratic society, this law would therefore not count.

There are certainly problems with our democracy ... but nowhere near enough to say that it is no longer a democracy and encourage public servants to decide that they should unilaterally choose whether or not to apply them.

... but without any explanation of how it is ever going to prevent terrorist acts or punish those responsible. ... A trip to the met police website, for example, provides plenty of pictures of police officers. As does a google image search for 'UK police officer'.

The reason for the law was explained. s.58A does NOT just cover photos and does NOT just cover police officers - the offence relates to information about individuals who are, or have been, members of the military, the intelligence services or constables. If you cannot see how any information about any of those categories could not be of potential use to a terrorist then you need to go on imagination lessons!

The way it has been interpreted (wrongly in my view) by some (but by no means all) police officers is open to challenge in the Courts and I would expect that should any case arrive there they will draw the line quite highly - as you say, a picture of a cop on open uniformed patrol is hardly likely to be of use (especially if the picture is of them apparently acting unlawfully such as at G20) on their own and so significant additional evidence would be needed to demonstrate intent. But pictures of officers on static security posts, on particular duties (e.g. close protection) or engaged in anti-terrorism surveillance operations could well be covered with little more to demonstrate it's potential use.

 

[chainsaw cat]

How do you ascertain the will of "the people" then? Or do you just assume that what you think is right is right for everyone?

Because I think you'd be pretty pushed to find an actual majority of people in this country against any particular law.

And I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know better than the majority of the people - no matter how fuckwitted I think some of the laws we have are, it is the will of the people, expressed through the only mechanism we have to do so, that they are law and who am I as an individual (and, when I was a serving copper, as an individual copper) to decide that they are wrong?

Hhmm yeah, true, but there's a lot of overzealousness.

Small, trivial example:

My car was SORNED and off road on a private stretch of pavement, with the owner's permission.

Turns out, to my surprise and that of the land owners, that by about 9 feet we were wrong and the car was in fact on public land. Therefore, offence.

The car was not blocking anyone in, or in any concievable way causing any sort of obstruction, eyesore, anything. 9 feet back and there would have been no offence.

Copper, in conjunction with the zombie robot from dvla or whoever, writes it up. Could he not (and all of the above was in his knowledge) have just said to me 'I'm wandering round the block now mate. When I get back, the car will have been shifted thataway 9 foot, ok?'

I know he was technically right. Obviously. But, given that the law is a bit silly there, did anyone except the exchequer gain anything from his righteous application of it? Would The People side with him or say 'gwan, rozzer, let Chainsaw move it, no harm done like'?


I suspect I know.

Like I said, trivial example. But, surely, discretion in application is or should be part of good policing? Surely?

Think of it in military terms. There's a convention in giving formal orders that you state, clearly, what the mission is before you detail the tasks making up the planned attainment of the mission. That way, everyone knows what to do should the plan go tits, in that they will still try to attain the mission.

Coppering like I describe above re. one of my SORN travails looks to me like one of two things.

Either a) the Mission has been given as 'always apply every scrap of law every time, no matter how pointless or irritating'

or b) the Mission has been given as 'use the law to maintain good order and harmonious civil society and use your judgement as to how to achieve this' but it's not been understood.


Mind, this particular copper did move his lips while he was writing with his crayon so maybe I just dropped unlucky.

 

[Pickman's model]

Think of it in military terms. There's a convention in giving formal orders that you state, clearly, what the mission is before you detail the tasks making up the planned attainment of the mission. That way, everyone knows what to do should the plan go tits, in that they will still try to attain the mission.

oh yeh the cops love giving their 'lawful orders' and then get mighty confused & pissed off when you lawfully refuse to comply with them. been threatened with arrest more than once for refusing to move just cos a copper wants me to.

 

[detective-boy]

Copper, in conjunction with the zombie robot from dvla or whoever...

I think the presence of the DVLA guy is the important feature here - they have primacy in tax disc matters and the officer would be really going out on a limb stopping him making an albeit excessively zealous, as you say, decision. (They've done me for not displaying a tax disc before, even though they knew I had one as well as I did ...).

You're right about discretion being important and dealing with things by way of warning where appropriate (as your situation seems to have been) is really important. Unfortunately that seems to steadily being eroded - partially due to chasing targets (you get a clear up for a formal caution or a FPN, you don't for an informal warning) and partialy due to the police steadily moving in the same direction as parking attendants and saying that if an offence is there it should be dealt with as the exercise of discretion could lead to unfairness / discrimination / allegations of corruption. Although they are a million miles away from the parking attendant situation, these sorts of stories tend to suggest the start of movement in that direction and it would be a disaster ...

Option B of yours is definitely the one society needs (and, so far as I can see, wants).

 

[chainsaw cat]

No, it really was a robot not a 'guy'.

It was made of shiny plastic and talked like a dalek and was on a flex from a generator in a white van marked 'dvla zombie robot patrol'.


Honest. I took a picture but the copper made me delete it.... oh hang on....

 

[6_6]

Question - Can I take photos at train station?

The other day a station worker, not even the police, stopped me from taking photos at the Waterloo train station.

 

[Gromit]

Didn't we have a thread on this before except it was a guy who filmed it at a train station asking them to explain exactly what they were doing as they were doing it. There was a link to the video itself.

Personally I think if you wish to film your own stop and search you have a right to do so in so much as you are capturing legal evidence to use in your defence should they attempt to plant something on you.

Without video evidence its their word against yours and so you should have every right to protect yourself in this way.

 

[Pickman's model]

Question - Can I take photos at train station?

The other day a station worker, not even the police, stopped me from taking photos at the Waterloo train station.

bollocks to 'em. i'd take pictures until they can provide you with a valid reason to stop, like the light's not good or similar.

about 18 months ago i was wandering round liverpool street station taking pictures of all the cctv and no fucker even thought to challenge me

 

[6_6]

bollocks to 'em. i'd take pictures until they can provide you with a valid reason to stop, like the light's not good or similar.

about 18 months ago i was wandering round liverpool street station taking pictures of all the cctv and no fucker even thought to challenge me

And I was using a pin-holed analogue camera.
Took some ceiling shots, but when I walked close to the gates for train departure the ticket guy stopped me.

 

[detective-boy]

Question - Can I take photos at train station?

There is no general law banning photography in a station or anywhere else.

There may be bye-laws in existence on railway property (but I don't think there are).

BUT, as it is privately owned property, the banning of photography can be a condition of entry and I think it is on many, if not all, stations and as it is in many shopping malls, etc. That does not make it an offence but it does mean that you can be asked to stop and, if you do not, you become a trespasser and may be removed, by using reasonable force if necessary.

 

[xes]

might want to give some of your stymates a refresher course in that one.

 

[deadringer]

There is no general law banning photography in a station or anywhere else.

There may be bye-laws in existence on railway property (but I don't think there are).

BUT, as it is privately owned property, the banning of photography can be a condition of entry and I think it is on many, if not all, stations and as it is in many shopping malls, etc. That does not make it an offence but it does mean that you can be asked to stop and, if you do not, you become a trespasser and may be removed, by using reasonable force if necessary.

im sure your not allowed to take fotos of the london underground??

 

[detective-boy]

im sure your not allowed to take fotos of the london underground??

I don't doubt it ... the only issue is is it an offence or just a condition of entry? The Underground, as it has it's own bye-laws and particular issues with photography (flash blinding drivers energing into stations), may well have a bye-law - I only said I did not know if they did.