Police taking photographs

[bagwash]

A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.

Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

[Dean Lambert]

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Evidence gathering. Happens at football maches to. I have no problem with
it as I have nothing to hide.

All they are doing is "if" something happens

[Robert Campbell]

Post by Dean Lambert

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Evidence gathering. Happens at football maches to. I have no problem with
it as I have nothing to hide.
All they are doing is "if" something happens

So you'll be first in line for an ID card then?

[Harry The Horse]

Post by Dean Lambert

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states
that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows
police to take photographs without consent but only if lawfully
detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Evidence gathering. Happens at football maches to. I have no
problem with it as I have nothing to hide.

Yet the police seem to get extremely agitated when demonstrators return the
compliment and photograph them. What do you think the police have to hide?

[Him over there]

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Dean Lambert

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states
that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows
police to take photographs without consent but only if lawfully
detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Evidence gathering. Happens at football maches to. I have no
problem with it as I have nothing to hide.

Yet the police seem to get extremely agitated when demonstrators
return the compliment and photograph them. What do you think the
police have to hide?

Their faces? ;-))

But what you say is true. I was a demo for F4J a few years back and
photographed the police photographing me, and they were quite snotty
about it. I told them I'd stop when they stopped, and they moved on
elsewhere up the demo.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[M***@m.f]

Post by Dean Lambert

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Evidence gathering. Happens at football maches to. I have no problem with
it as I have nothing to hide.

Until the police employ face recognition software and the infallable
system places you as a prime instigator of a violent clash between fans.

Post by Dean Lambert
All they are doing is "if" something happens

[Gaz]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[d***@aol.com]

Post by bagwash
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Nothing to say a victim has to pose for a picture. Just do as I have
done in the past and screw yer face up just before they click. If you
normally wear glasses take them off as well!

[MM]

Post by d***@aol.com

Post by bagwash
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Nothing to say a victim has to pose for a picture. Just do as I have
done in the past and screw yer face up just before they click. If you
normally wear glasses take them off as well!

When I was a lad and disguise was in vogue (detective novels, films,
etc) I persuaded my father to take me to Gamages where I bought a
Chinese wig, some sideburns and a beard, some Leichner makeup and
glue. I then dressed up and wandered around the neighbourhood,
pretending to be a dastardly spy. Okay, I was 12 and I grew out of it.
But beards and sideburns are still available. They look really
genuine, trust me! Even my own mother failed to recognise me. Well,
she said she didn't.

MM

[Alex Heney]

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

It will not stop the police arresting people on the grounds of 'preventing
terrorism'...

Axel

[Peter]

Post by Alex Heney
*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

There may be limitations on using them as the Naomi Campbell case showed.
Similarly there are limitations on the use of police photographs - they can
be published only if needed for crime fighting or crime prevention
purposes. In 1994 a court effectively ruled that the Derbyshire police
were entitled to pass mugshots of a certain Mr Hellewell around shopkeepers
so they could bar him entry to their shops.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by Peter

Post by Alex Heney
*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

There may be limitations on using them as the Naomi Campbell case showed.
Similarly there are limitations on the use of police photographs - they can
be published only if needed for crime fighting or crime prevention
purposes. In 1994 a court effectively ruled that the Derbyshire police
were entitled to pass mugshots of a certain Mr Hellewell around shopkeepers
so they could bar him entry to their shops.

this thread is not about using the photos, but about taking them.

g.

[Peter]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by Peter

Post by Alex Heney
*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

There may be limitations on using them as the Naomi Campbell case showed.
Similarly there are limitations on the use of police photographs - they can
be published only if needed for crime fighting or crime prevention
purposes. In 1994 a court effectively ruled that the Derbyshire police
were entitled to pass mugshots of a certain Mr Hellewell around shopkeepers
so they could bar him entry to their shops.

this thread is not about using the photos, but about taking them.

Be that as it may, the proposed use or the apparent proposed use of the
photos as indicated by the circumstances under they were taken or other
evidence as to intentions may be very relevant.

Also it is worth remembering that you cannot necessarily do what you like
with a photo you take, the first case (probably) on this being in 1888.

[Him over there]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

Except when you are trying to photo your kids at school sports day ...
After all, you might be a dastardly paedophile.


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

[Alex Heney]

Post by Him over there

Post by Alex Heney

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

*Anybody* can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

Except when you are trying to photo your kids at school sports day ...
After all, you might be a dastardly paedophile.

Since when do school sports days take place in public places?

There are probably some schools that use public playing fields, but
most use their own grounds, or hired fields.

[chippy]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by Him over there

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Anybody can lawfully take photos of groups in public places. No
consent is needed.

Except when you are trying to photo your kids at school sports day
... After all, you might be a dastardly paedophile.

Since when do school sports days take place in public places?
There are probably some schools that use public playing fields, but
most use their own grounds, or hired fields.

As these places are passable by any members of the public, are they not
classed as a public place?

[Alex Heney]

<snip>

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney
Since when do school sports days take place in public places?
There are probably some schools that use public playing fields, but
most use their own grounds, or hired fields.

As these places are passable by any members of the public, are they not
classed as a public place?

What makes you think they are "passable by any members of the public"?

They aren't. They are private grounds.

[chippy]

Post by Alex Heney
<snip>

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney
Since when do school sports days take place in public places?
There are probably some schools that use public playing fields, but
most use their own grounds, or hired fields.

As these places are passable by any members of the public, are they
not classed as a public place?

What makes you think they are "passable by any members of the public"?
They aren't. They are private grounds.

The school sports day takes place on a public playing field in the
school nearest me, I cannot obviously speak for other places.
The fields are in veiw from a public place anyway with telescopic
lenses.
The hired grounds, unless enclosed by fencing, would surely be public?

[Alex Heney]

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney
<snip>

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney
Since when do school sports days take place in public places?
There are probably some schools that use public playing fields, but
most use their own grounds, or hired fields.

As these places are passable by any members of the public, are they
not classed as a public place?

What makes you think they are "passable by any members of the public"?
They aren't. They are private grounds.

The school sports day takes place on a public playing field in the
school nearest me, I cannot obviously speak for other places.

I did say that those would be an exception.

Post by chippy
The fields are in veiw from a public place anyway with telescopic
lenses.
The hired grounds, unless enclosed by fencing, would surely be public?

No.

[chippy]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by chippy
The school sports day takes place on a public playing field in the
school nearest me, I cannot obviously speak for other places.

I did say that those would be an exception.

Post by chippy
The fields are in veiw from a public place anyway with telescopic
lenses.
The hired grounds, unless enclosed by fencing, would surely be public?

No.

Come on then, if the hired ground is visible from a public accessable
footpath, then photos will be allowed?

[Alex Heney]

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney

Post by chippy
The school sports day takes place on a public playing field in the
school nearest me, I cannot obviously speak for other places.

I did say that those would be an exception.

Post by chippy
The fields are in veiw from a public place anyway with telescopic
lenses.
The hired grounds, unless enclosed by fencing, would surely be public?

No.

Come on then, if the hired ground is visible from a public accessable
footpath, then photos will be allowed?

Yes.

they have no powers to prevent people taking photos from outside, so
long as the area is normally visible.

[chippy]

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney

Post by chippy
The school sports day takes place on a public playing field in

the >> > school nearest me, I cannot obviously speak for other places.

Post by chippy

Post by Alex Heney
I did say that those would be an exception.

Post by chippy
The fields are in veiw from a public place anyway with telescopic
lenses.
The hired grounds, unless enclosed by fencing, would surely be public?

No.

Come on then, if the hired ground is visible from a public
accessable footpath, then photos will be allowed?

Yes.
they have no powers to prevent people taking photos from outside, so
long as the area is normally visible.

Thanks.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by bagwash
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public place
taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.

Sorry if that bursts one of your anti-police bubbles.

g.

[Rob]

Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:
|| "bagwash" <***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
|| news:dHyUf.12242$***@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
||
|||
||| Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
||| confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?
|||
|||
|||
|||
||
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.

Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by Rob
||
|||
||| Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
||| confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?
|||
|||
|||
|||
||
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.
--
Rob

What a pile of bollocks.

I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and make a
note of how many folks are taking photographs.
Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking photographs.

Compare the two totals and *then* decide who is being 'crass'.

And I thought the OP was being a muppet?

I've been taking photographs in public my whole career and have never been
approached or harassed by police.

g.

[Rob]

Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:
||
|| What a pile of bollocks.
||
|| I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and
|| make a note of how many folks are taking photographs.
|| Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking
|| photographs.
||
|| Compare the two totals and *then* decide who is being 'crass'.

If the total of cases of police harassing photo takers is greater than zero,
then it simply proves your assertion that anyone can stand around
photographing 'anything they like' is clearly bollox.

|| And I thought the OP was being a muppet?
||
|| I've been taking photographs in public my whole career and have
|| never been approached or harassed by police.

Well I guess that proves no one else ever has been either, so you are
obviously right.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by Rob
If the total of cases of police harassing photo takers is greater than
zero, then it simply proves your assertion that anyone can stand around
photographing 'anything they like' is clearly bollox.

lets not drift into minor points now, Rob, to cover your rather facile
opening contribution to the thread.

Post by Rob
Well I guess that proves no one else ever has been either, so you are
obviously right.

No Rob, but it goes some way to illustrate that your foamy-mouthed opinion
that people risk police harrasment simply by taking photographs in public is
ever, ever so slightly exaggerated.

g.

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:21:01 -0000, "Rob"

Post by Rob
||
|| What a pile of bollocks.
||
|| I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and
|| make a note of how many folks are taking photographs.
|| Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking
|| photographs.
||
|| Compare the two totals and *then* decide who is being 'crass'.
If the total of cases of police harassing photo takers is greater than zero,
then it simply proves your assertion that anyone can stand around
photographing 'anything they like' is clearly bollox.

It doesn't come remotely close to proving such a thing.

It *may* prove that sometimes the police act outside their lawful
authority (no surprise there then).

But it doesn't prove you cannot do it.

[chippy]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by Rob

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat
What a pile of bollocks.
I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London
and make a note of how many folks are taking photographs.
Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking photographs.
Compare the two totals and then decide who is being 'crass'.

If the total of cases of police harassing photo takers is greater
than zero, then it simply proves your assertion that anyone can
stand around photographing 'anything they like' is clearly bollox.

It doesn't come remotely close to proving such a thing.
It may prove that sometimes the police act outside their lawful
authority (no surprise there then).
But it doesn't prove you cannot do it.

Just as I was about to say. During the miners strike, the police
arrested and broke the cameras of pickets who were filming the actions
of the police against the pickets. It was not lawful, but who jails the
jailers?

[Mike Ross]

Post by chippy
Just as I was about to say. During the miners strike, the police
arrested and broke the cameras of pickets who were filming the actions
of the police against the pickets. It was not lawful, but who jails the
jailers?

Did they do it to journalists too, I wonder?

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[Harry The Horse]

Post by Mike Ross

Post by chippy
Just as I was about to say. During the miners strike, the police
arrested and broke the cameras of pickets who were filming the
actions of the police against the pickets. It was not lawful, but
who jails the jailers?

Did they do it to journalists too, I wonder?

Only the journalists that were recording criminal acts committed by
policemen.

[MM]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:07:21 -0000, "Harry The Horse"

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Mike Ross

Post by chippy
Just as I was about to say. During the miners strike, the police
arrested and broke the cameras of pickets who were filming the
actions of the police against the pickets. It was not lawful, but
who jails the jailers?

Did they do it to journalists too, I wonder?

Only the journalists that were recording criminal acts committed by
policemen.

Goodness! Anyone would think the police are a law unto themselves!

MM

[MM]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:08:16 -0000, "Fat Freddy's Cat"

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by Rob
||
|||
||| Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
||| confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?
|||
|||
|||
|||
||
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.
--
Rob

What a pile of bollocks.
I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and make a
note of how many folks are taking photographs.
Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking photographs.
Compare the two totals and *then* decide who is being 'crass'.
And I thought the OP was being a muppet?
I've been taking photographs in public my whole career and have never been
approached or harassed by police.

Tried beaches or parks? Lone men with a camera are dead suspicious,
but hey, if it costs the life of one toddler!

MM

[Harry The Horse]

Post by MM
Tried beaches or parks? Lone men with a camera are dead suspicious,
but hey, if it costs the life of one toddler!

Which of course it is starting to, as men rightfully become resistant to
intervening lest they be accused of being molestors.

[Brave New Britain]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:08:16 -0000, "Fat Freddy's Cat"

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by Rob
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.

What a pile of bollocks.
I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and make a
note of how many folks are taking photographs.

I would suggest that *you* could try taking pictures that include the
children playing in the fountains there.

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by Rob
||| Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
||| confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.

What a pile of bollocks.
I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and make a
note of how many folks are taking photographs.
Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking photographs.
Compare the two totals and *then* decide who is being 'crass'.
And I thought the OP was being a muppet?
I've been taking photographs in public my whole career and have never been
approached or harassed by police.

Somebody was prevented from taking photographs of St Pauls cathedral. Also
somebody in Glasgow. Both in order to 'prevent terroism'.

Axel

[a***@white-eagle.invalid.uk]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by Rob
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.

What a pile of bollocks.
I suggest you stand in the middle of Trafalger Square, London and make a
note of how many folks are taking photographs.
Then add up all those being harrassed by the police for taking photographs.

I believe that someone was arrested in Trafalger Square for taking
photographs... it seems that his taking snaps of women's bottoms
was seen as objectionable.

Axel

[Alex Heney]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:26:40 -0000, "Rob"

Post by Rob
||
|||
||| Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
||| confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?
|||
|||
|||
|||
||
|| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
|| place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk of
police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.

That is utter, utter, rubbish.

[Rob]

Alex Heney wrote:
||||| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a
||||| public place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
|||
||| Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk
||| of police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.
||
|| That is utter, utter, rubbish.


It isn't in the slightest bit rubbish, it's a simple statement of fact. Are
you claiming that one has a right to photograph anything one likes, and that
the police cannot interfere?

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:20:53 -0000, "Rob"

Post by Rob
||||| Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a
||||| public place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
|||
||| Given that 'anyone else' *cannot* actually do that without the risk
||| of police interference, that's a pretty crass statement.
||
|| That is utter, utter, rubbish.
It isn't in the slightest bit rubbish, it's a simple statement of fact. Are
you claiming that one has a right to photograph anything one likes, and that
the police cannot interfere?

Provided both you and what you are photographing are in a public
place, then pretty well, yes.

There are, of course, exceptions, for instance where somebody has
obtained an injunction due to claiming harassment. But they are very
much exceptions to the general rule.

[Martin Milan]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by bagwash
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Sorry if that bursts one of your anti-police bubbles.
g.

Better than my original plan - retaliate - take photos of them...

[MM]

Post by Martin Milan

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat

Post by bagwash
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Because the police - like anyone else - can stand around in a public
place taking photos of anything they feel like you muppet.
Sorry if that bursts one of your anti-police bubbles.
g.

Better than my original plan - retaliate - take photos of them...

Wonder what they'd do if they seized your camera - to find that it
didn't store images, but sent them immediately, via Bluetooth, to a
separate recording device, long gone, of course...

Just a thought...

MM

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by MM
Wonder what they'd do if they seized your camera - to find that it
didn't store images, but sent them immediately, via Bluetooth, to a
separate recording device, long gone, of course...

Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.
pete

My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[Cynic]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.

*If* that actually happened 9and I have my doubts), the policeman was
not only acting unlawfully, but was incredibly stupid. Such
photographs can turn out to be invaluable to an air accident
investigation. He would have been within his rights to have
confiscated the film as evidence.

i have been present at air shows where accidents have occured. On
each occasion there has been a call over the tannoy for everyone who
filmed the incident to please give their film to the authorities.

[Mike Ross]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by MM
Wonder what they'd do if they seized your camera - to find that it
didn't store images, but sent them immediately, via Bluetooth, to a
separate recording device, long gone, of course...

Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.

Really? Did it crash in the UK, or flying home to the USA? I'm not
aware of any SR-71 loss in the UK... when was this?

If it happened, plod should have been jailed... sounds like destroying
evidence to me, possible PCJ...

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Mike Ross

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by MM
Wonder what they'd do if they seized your camera - to find that it
didn't store images, but sent them immediately, via Bluetooth, to a
separate recording device, long gone, of course...

Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.

Really? Did it crash in the UK, or flying home to the USA? I'm not
aware of any SR-71 loss in the UK... when was this?
If it happened, plod should have been jailed... sounds like destroying
evidence to me, possible PCJ...

It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete

My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[Martin Milan]

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete
My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

Nope. There has never been a SR71 lost on British soil...

Also, I believe the first appearence of an SR71 at a UK airshow as at
RAF Finningley (now "Robin Hood Airport") in the 1980s - I attended.

Martin.

[Dave the exTrailer]

Post by Martin Milan

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete
My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

Nope. There has never been a SR71 lost on British soil...
Also, I believe the first appearence of an SR71 at a UK airshow as at
RAF Finningley (now "Robin Hood Airport") in the 1980s - I attended.
Martin.

Hes got his foot in his mouth again.
Same as when he said he had a digital watch in the 60's

[scrambled egg]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:39:08 +0000, Dave the exTrailer

Post by Dave the exTrailer

Post by Martin Milan

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete
My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

Nope. There has never been a SR71 lost on British soil...
Also, I believe the first appearence of an SR71 at a UK airshow as at
RAF Finningley (now "Robin Hood Airport") in the 1980s - I attended.
Martin.

Hes got his foot in his mouth again.
Same as when he said he had a digital watch in the 60's

I think you are being very unfair : if you live in Turtill land you
are allowed to read something on the Internet or make something up
from scratch, and then say that you were there or you did it.

[Martin Milan]

Post by Dave the exTrailer

Post by Martin Milan

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete
My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

Nope. There has never been a SR71 lost on British soil...
Also, I believe the first appearence of an SR71 at a UK airshow as at
RAF Finningley (now "Robin Hood Airport") in the 1980s - I attended.
Martin.

Hes got his foot in his mouth again.
Same as when he said he had a digital watch in the 60's

There is such a thing as an honest mistake...

Anyway, I can see a flame war coming, and I want no part in it...

Martin

[me2]

Post by Martin Milan

Post by t***@hotmail.com
It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete
My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/
In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

Nope. There has never been a SR71 lost on British soil...
Also, I believe the first appearence of an SR71 at a UK airshow as at
RAF Finningley (now "Robin Hood Airport") in the 1980s - I attended.
Martin.

Turtill will now skulk away to invent even more things in an attempt
to seem worldy wise.

[Mike Ross]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Mike Ross

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.

Really? Did it crash in the UK, or flying home to the USA? I'm not
aware of any SR-71 loss in the UK... when was this?

It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete

Sorry, that's BS, it never happened - or you're seriously mistaken
about the aircraft type. No 'Blackbird' has ever crashed on UK soil,
see:

http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/srloss~1.htm

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by Mike Ross

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Mike Ross

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.

Really? Did it crash in the UK, or flying home to the USA? I'm not
aware of any SR-71 loss in the UK... when was this?

It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete

Sorry, that's BS, it never happened - or you're seriously mistaken
about the aircraft type. No 'Blackbird' has ever crashed on UK soil,

Well as I cannot find any reference to it on google I must accept that
I may wrong and memory tricks are playing their part here. I am
however convinced I right so maybe my memory is worse than I realised.
pete
My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Mike Ross

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by Mike Ross

Post by t***@hotmail.com
Many years ago at Mildenhall Air Show I took pictures of that high
speed plane "blackbird" as did many other spectators. One the way home
it crashed and a kid took pictures of it but the police took the film
out of his camera and exposed it.

Really? Did it crash in the UK, or flying home to the USA? I'm not
aware of any SR-71 loss in the UK... when was this?

It happened in the UK and I dare say some enthusiast would know all
about it. I just remember it because I had photographed it the day
before. This probably happened about 30 years ago.
pete

Sorry, that's BS, it never happened - or you're seriously mistaken
about the aircraft type. No 'Blackbird' has ever crashed on UK soil,

Well as I cannot find any reference to it on google I must accept that
I may wrong and memory tricks are playing their part here. I am
however convinced I right so maybe my memory is worse than I realised.

I wrote to the SR-71 society as it bothered me that something I was so
certain of appears to not have happened. The reply I got confirmed
that no SR-71 has ever crashed in the uk but I found this below.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/3543/sr71retire.htm
pete

My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[Mike Ross]

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

What that means is that they can effectively 'force' someone to pose
for a photo, I suspect. Outside of the above situation, they're as
free as you or I (or a journalist or a protestor) to take any photos
they like in a public place, but they can't force you to stop and pose
for a photo, or require you to remove a mask or helmet, for instance.

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by Mike Ross
Outside of the above situation, they're as
free as you or I (or a journalist or a protestor) to take any photos
they like in a public place, but they can't force you to stop and pose
for a photo, or require you to remove a mask or helmet, for instance.
Mike
--

Careful Mike,

'Rob' will soon be on your case highlighting how millions of innocent people
are harrassed by police every hour of every day for taking photographs in
public places!

<snigger>

g.

[Rob]

Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:
|| "Mike Ross" <***@corestore.org> wrote in message
|| news:***@4ax.com...
||
||| Outside of the above situation, they're as
||| free as you or I (or a journalist or a protestor) to take any photos
||| they like in a public place, but they can't force you to stop and
||| pose for a photo, or require you to remove a mask or helmet, for
||| instance.
|||
||| Mike
||| --
||
||
|| Careful Mike,
||
|| 'Rob' will soon be on your case highlighting how millions of
|| innocent people are harrassed by police every hour of every day for
|| taking photographs in public places!

Unlikely since I have never made that claim. Not that you would allow fact
to influence you in your diseased rantings.

[Fat Freddy's Cat]

Post by Rob
Unlikely since I have never made that claim. Not that you would allow fact
to influence you in your diseased rantings.
--
Rob

The only thing a bit poorly in this thread Rob was your opening
contribution.
The muppet OP made a stupid post about police not acting within certain laws
when taking photographs of public demonstrations and its been pointed out
that they like anyone else do not need specific laws to allow them to do
this.

But clearly thats not the kind of answer that fits in with your
anti-establishment, anti-police bias is it? Get it right up em eh?

As for your assertion that people in public taking photos run a real risk of
police harrassment is absolutely ludicrous. You state it as if it happens
all the time!

like Alex says, utter utter rubbish.

g.

[chippy]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat
The only thing a bit poorly in this thread Rob was your opening
contribution. The muppet OP made a stupid post about police not
acting within certain laws when taking photographs of public
demonstrations and its been pointed out that they like anyone else do
not need specific laws to allow them to do this.
But clearly thats not the kind of answer that fits in with your
anti-establishment, anti-police bias is it? Get it right up em eh?
As for your assertion that people in public taking photos run a real
risk of police harrassment is absolutely ludicrous. You state it as
if it happens all the time!
like Alex says, utter utter rubbish.

Of course it happens rarely. The fact is, it happens.
if you have a one in a million chance of falling off a ladder, do you
tie it to stop it happening to you?

[Rob]

Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:
|| "Rob" <rsvptorob-***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
|||
||| Unlikely since I have never made that claim. Not that you would
||| allow fact to influence you in your diseased rantings.
|||
||| --
||| Rob
||
||
|| The only thing a bit poorly in this thread Rob was your opening
|| contribution.
|| The muppet OP made a stupid post about police not acting within
|| certain laws when taking photographs of public demonstrations and
|| its been pointed out that they like anyone else do not need specific
|| laws to allow them to do this.

I agree they don't need specific laws to allow this, nor would I want them
to, however I don't appear to have that reply (pointing that out) in my
reader, but I do have your erroneous statement that anyone can photograph
anything they like.

|| But clearly thats not the kind of answer that fits in with your
|| anti-establishment, anti-police bias is it? Get it right up em eh?

I don't have an anti-police bias, you must be mistaking me for someone else.

|| As for your assertion that people in public taking photos run a real
|| risk of police harrassment is absolutely ludicrous. You state it as
|| if it happens all the time!

Just how the hell 'risk of police interference' can be construed as 'running
a real risk of police harrasment' and 'it happens all the time' I cannot
fathom, I wonder why you choose to read it that way?

What I *am* saying is that it *does* happen. Law abiding people have either
been arrested, threatened with arrest, or had their cameras taken, or told
to stop etc. It's not an opinion, it's just a simple fact.

[PeteM]

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat
The only thing a bit poorly in this thread Rob was your opening
contribution.
The muppet OP made a stupid post about police not acting within certain laws
when taking photographs of public demonstrations and its been pointed out
that they like anyone else do not need specific laws to allow them to do
this.
But clearly thats not the kind of answer that fits in with your
anti-establishment, anti-police bias is it? Get it right up em eh?
As for your assertion that people in public taking photos run a real risk of
police harrassment is absolutely ludicrous. You state it as if it happens
all the time!

Journalists often run into this problem. But the best known recent case
is that of Austin Mitchell MP, who took some photos at (IIRC) the Labour
Party Conference. A policeman came up and insisted on "examining" his
digital camera. During the "examination", the officer deleted all the
photos. Mitchell wrote about it in the papers afterwards; most people
who suffer this sort of harassment, of course, wouldn't be able to.

[Harry The Horse]

Post by PeteM

Post by Fat Freddy's Cat
The only thing a bit poorly in this thread Rob was your opening
contribution.
The muppet OP made a stupid post about police not acting within
certain laws when taking photographs of public demonstrations and
its been pointed out that they like anyone else do not need specific
laws to allow them to do this.
But clearly thats not the kind of answer that fits in with your
anti-establishment, anti-police bias is it? Get it right up em eh?
As for your assertion that people in public taking photos run a real
risk of police harrassment is absolutely ludicrous. You state it as
if it happens all the time!

Journalists often run into this problem. But the best known recent
case is that of Austin Mitchell MP, who took some photos at (IIRC)
the Labour Party Conference. A policeman came up and insisted on
"examining" his digital camera. During the "examination", the officer
deleted all the photos. Mitchell wrote about it in the papers
afterwards; most people who suffer this sort of harassment, of
course, wouldn't be able to.

Doesn't appear to have affected his voting record in the Commons. He still
supports the imposition of Blair's police state.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/austin_mitchell/great_grimsby

[Martin Milan]

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states
that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows
police to take photographs without consent but only if lawfully
detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

How does one take a confrontational photo?

Anyway, you're on public land at a demo. See the photo taking for what
it is, assuming you are innocent of any wrongdoing - it's both an
attempt to track actual offending, and a means to imtimidate you on the
side.

Smile, say cheese - critique their work... Ask them to catch your best
side...

Martin.

[Alex Heney]

Post by Martin Milan

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states
that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows
police to take photographs without consent but only if lawfully
detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

How does one take a confrontational photo?

You confrontationally take a photo (which is what was said - not the
same thing as a "confrontational photo") by doing so in an aggressive
manner, such as going up and taking the photo right in somebody's
face, for instance.

Post by Martin Milan
Anyway, you're on public land at a demo. See the photo taking for what
it is, assuming you are innocent of any wrongdoing - it's both an
attempt to track actual offending, and a means to imtimidate you on the
side.
Smile, say cheese - critique their work... Ask them to catch your best
side...

Indeed.

[t***@hotmail.com]

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

When but a child I was disqualified from driving and had to have my
brother drive me around. The police were never sure which one of us
was the disqualified driver and they often photographed us so they
could check back to see if I was driving. I bought a big merkin Ford
Galaxy and my brother and I were photographed in it and a few days
later we were ambushed by a tribe of cops who has assumed the merkin
car was a left hand drive and so I was driving. They never even
apologised afterwards either probably because we were laughing at
them.
pete

My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/

[Alex Heney]

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

When but a child I was disqualified from driving and had to have my
brother drive me around. The police were never sure which one of us
was the disqualified driver and they often photographed us so they
could check back to see if I was driving. I bought a big merkin Ford
Galaxy and my brother and I were photographed in it and a few days
later we were ambushed by a tribe of cops who has assumed the merkin
car was a left hand drive and so I was driving. They never even
apologised afterwards either probably because we were laughing at
them.

You don't half have some odd fantasies.

[Dave the exTrailer]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by t***@hotmail.com

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

When but a child I was disqualified from driving and had to have my
brother drive me around. The police were never sure which one of us
was the disqualified driver and they often photographed us so they
could check back to see if I was driving. I bought a big merkin Ford
Galaxy and my brother and I were photographed in it and a few days
later we were ambushed by a tribe of cops who has assumed the merkin
car was a left hand drive and so I was driving. They never even
apologised afterwards either probably because we were laughing at
them.

You don't half have some odd fantasies.

And you havent seen the half of them

[Peter McLelland]

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

They have the same rights as you or for example the press to take
photographs in public places.

Peter

[Harry The Horse]

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states
that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows
police to take photographs without consent but only if lawfully
detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

They have the same rights as you or for example the press to take
photographs in public places.

Though you will find that they dim view of people on political
demonstrations taking photographs of *them*. Makes you wonder what the
police have to be afraid of, if they are afraid of law abiding people
recording their actions.

[Peter McLelland]

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states
that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows
police to take photographs without consent but only if lawfully
detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

They have the same rights as you or for example the press to take
photographs in public places.

Though you will find that they dim view of people on political
demonstrations taking photographs of *them*. Makes you wonder what the
police have to be afraid of, if they are afraid of law abiding people
recording their actions.

Well I have seen protest organisers photographing things without any hassle
from the police, so perhaps this is not always the case.

Peter

[chippy]

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Peter McLelland
They have the same rights as you or for example the press to take
photographs in public places.

Though you will find that they dim view of people on political
demonstrations taking photographs of them. Makes you wonder what
the police have to be afraid of, if they are afraid of law abiding
people recording their actions.

Well I have seen protest organisers photographing things without any
hassle from the police, so perhaps this is not always the case.

It certainly is not always the case, many many times, I have seen the
public and journalists take photos of peaceful gatherings, it is only
when the police expect to use violence, that the picture taking is
stopped, when a large organisation records the police violence, the
recording is doctored before showing in the media.
Taking photographs is not a right, it is merely allowed in the majority
of cases.

[Harry The Horse]

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm)
states that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence]
Act allows police to take photographs without consent but only if
lawfully detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

They have the same rights as you or for example the press to take
photographs in public places.

Though you will find that they dim view of people on political
demonstrations taking photographs of *them*. Makes you wonder what
the police have to be afraid of, if they are afraid of law abiding
people recording their actions.

Well I have seen protest organisers photographing things without any
hassle from the police, so perhaps this is not always the case.

Perhaps not *always* the case. But the point about intimidation is that it
doesn't have to be done all the time or even consistently for it to have the
desired effect. In fact it works far better if it is inconsistent in its
application. Knowing that there is a possibility that a policeman may
become abusive if you photograph him is enough to discourage most people
from an act that in most cases is perfectly lawful.

[Peter McLelland]

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by Harry The Horse

Post by Peter McLelland

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm)
states that Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence]
Act allows police to take photographs without consent but only if
lawfully detained at a police station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

They have the same rights as you or for example the press to take
photographs in public places.

Though you will find that they dim view of people on political
demonstrations taking photographs of *them*. Makes you wonder what
the police have to be afraid of, if they are afraid of law abiding
people recording their actions.

Well I have seen protest organisers photographing things without any
hassle from the police, so perhaps this is not always the case.

Perhaps not *always* the case. But the point about intimidation is that it
doesn't have to be done all the time or even consistently for it to have the
desired effect. In fact it works far better if it is inconsistent in its
application. Knowing that there is a possibility that a policeman may
become abusive if you photograph him is enough to discourage most people
from an act that in most cases is perfectly lawful.

Somehow I don't see the kind of people who organise the types of protest
where the police are photographed being all that intimidated by policemen
becoming abusive, so the tactic would not appear to be that good. I also
suspect that a judge may not take that kindly to policeman that has been
involved in the destruction of evidence.

Peter

[tarquinlinbin]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[t***@hotmail.com]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:59:04 +0000, tarquinlinbin

Post by tarquinlinbin

Post by bagwash
A BBC news website item (at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4837206.stm) states that
Section 64A of the [1984 Police & Criminal Evidence] Act allows police to
take photographs without consent but only if lawfully detained at a police
station.
Really? And if so, how come the Police so openly (and at times
confrontationally) take photographs of people at peaceful demos?

Just take pictures of them .."in case something happens"

When they done it to me they said it was so I couldn't claim my
brother was driving. I am however talking of 40+ years ago.
pete

My hobby horse. http://www.brazierbridgewood.blogspot.com/

In colour too now. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ipswich/