I have seen it all

[Cubist]

My younger, sober, son was driving his big brother & friends who had been out drinking. They stopped in a donut shop & my older (drunken) son walked up to the cops in line & took their picture. It's a classic!

Life must just f*cking fly past in your neck of the woods!

 

[Clandy]

It is - scandalously - against the law to photograph coppers when they're on duty, as of Feb 2009. Or at least, it can very easily be.

http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/7888301.stm

It is only illegal if the police deem there to be an imminent terrorist threat in that vicinity at that time. Carry on taking pictures, it is not illegal, and this not soviet Russia, yet. Although interestingly Theresa May has rushed through new stop and search legislation this past week. The timing is no surprise given the upcoming TUC march on the 26th. http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

 

[Jim_Noir]

So how did the police manage to get round the 24 hour custody limit set by Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and what was he charged with to get a court case? The only offence relating to photographing a police officer would be under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and that clearly doesn't apply tot he circumstances you have described.

Breach of the peace is what he got done for, due to having an argument with the cops about it

 

[Rhythm Thief]

It is only illegal if the police deem there to be an imminent terrorist threat in that vicinity at that time.

Indeed. Hence the qualifier "... it can very easily be [illegal]" in my post.

 

[markharry66]

Life must just f*cking fly past in your neck of the woods!


Calm down if you dont like the thread dont read it

 

[Cubist]

Life must just f*cking fly past in your neck of the woods!

Calm down if you dont like the thread dont read it

Google the word "irony" and then repost.

 

[Cubist]

Breach of the peace is what he got done for, due to having an argument with the cops about it

So he didn't spend the weekend in jail, and it wasn't for taking photos of the cop at the cashpoint then? Neither of you work for a tabloid newspaper by any chance do you?

 

[killiekosmos]

if you're out in public, you have no right to privacy.

I don't think this is completely correct. Didn't Niaomi Campbell get damages for a newspaper publishing her picture outside a clinic? JK Rowling won a case against a photographer who took pictures of her son while out walking.

People taking pictures for personal use are generally OK but if you take pictures to publish with name of individual the Data Protection and Human Rights come in to play.

 

[Jim_Noir]

So he didn't spend the weekend in jail, and it wasn't for taking photos of the cop at the cashpoint then? Neither of you work for a tabloid newspaper by any chance do you?

Yeah we own the Daily Mail

 

[Clandy]

http://www.photographersrights.org.uk/page6/page6.html

 

[sheva]

Wow, shock f*cking horror! So where would you want them to have a meal? 1)They'll be from outside of Leeds, and have no facilities to store a packed meal. Drafted in on a cancelled rest day2) to stop complete morons from kicking each others' heads in they'll be fed up of being cramped inside a van for the last three hours. Nowhere in police regulations does it say they can't eat in public, or from a MacDonalds. They are entitled to 45 minutes mealbreak for every 8 hours worked, and they are closer to where they are needed if the poor buggers choose to eat from a popular spot where virtually every cod-head inside has spent the last week moaning that they never see a copper. Rant over.

1) quite possibly, considering we were in Oldham.
2) completely outdated view of football unless you are:
a) still living in the `70`s
b) living in eastern europe
c) a journalist who would like people to believe that anyone attending a football match is a knuckle dragging neanderthal, on benefits, and living on a council estate.

Oops...nearly forgot
d) a serving police officer/match steward who likes the easy overtime/free entry to the game.

 

[4F]

1) quite possibly, considering we were in Oldham.
2) completely outdated view of football unless you are:
a) still living in the `70`s
b) living in eastern europe
c) a journalist who would like people to believe that anyone attending a football match is a knuckle dragging neanderthal, on benfits, and living on a council estate.

Oops...nearly forgot
d) a serving police officer/match steward who likes the easy overtime/free entry to the game.

Oh do give over. It is still very much prevalent especially in the leagues under the Premiership


http://qprreport.blogspot.com/2010/09/fan-violence-as-qpr-draw-with-millwall.html
http://qprreport.blogspot.com/2008/03/qpr-fan-violence-charged.html

 

[Cubist]

1) quite possibly, considering we were in Oldham.
2) completely outdated view of football unless you are:
a) still living in the `70`s
b) living in eastern europe
c) a journalist who would like people to believe that anyone attending a football match is a knuckle dragging neanderthal, on benefits, and living on a council estate.

Oops...nearly forgot
d) a serving police officer/match steward who likes the easy overtime/free entry to the game.

1) Whatever: that you chose to mention it was a Leeds match tells a great deal from what I assume from your post is an Oldham Supporter (or resident)
2) Not really. How come we don't need the same numbers for Rugby League Championship games, or Rugby Union Premiership games? Soccer violence has continued at various levels ever since the 70s. No self respecting journalist would make the mistake of confining soccer violence to the unemployed.

3) The serving officers you saw were in McDonalds. You will actually see very few police inside stadia these days. The security work inside is done by the stewards. A match between Oldham and Leeds would be a high category match , and would need a large number of officers working outside of the stadium, as the majority of soccer violence takes place away from the ground. Because of the high cost of overtime, the officers working on the soccer would be on cancelled/re-rostered rest days, so won't be earning overtime. They will not be allowed into the stadium. The prospect of watching Leeds United, or Oldham for free or otherwise is anathema to me personally, but each to their own.

Ironically the last time I worked a match involving Oldham my PSU and I had to babysit a coachload of identified Oldham risk supporters who found the pub they were in under siege from locals. Several arrests were made on both sides. A large number of the Oldham supporters had previous chalks for football related offences.

Carry on in your cloud cuckoo land where soccer is a family game. I have no doubt that you are not a violent soccer fan, but you are breathtakingly naive if you think that the wonderful family atmosphere inside a stadium is the same at the pre-arranged venue for a "knock" between the hardcore elements. The pub I referred to above was several miles from the ground, and our intelligence officers found evidence that the two sides had been in contact with each other several hours before the fight.

Edit to add
As of Nov 2010 no less than 152 Leeds United fans had Home Office Football banning Orders. The largest number of ANY English club. Oldham fans had 21. , source http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public...rrests-banning-orders/fbo-2009-10?view=Binary

 

[4F]

Totally agree Cubist