Careful if taking photos of public buildings in Sussex

Guy Fawkes · May 6, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
Police have to abide by rules themselves and cannot just stop and question people, without reasonable suspicion. Read the article.
http://www.brightonandhovenews.org/...error-law-for-taking-photo-of-hove-town-hall/

Member of the public is suspicious about the actions of a member of the public photographing a public building where a major gathering of football fans is about to happen (therefore reasonable suspicion? - as responding to a report from the public regarding his motives / behaviour)

Police arrive in response to this suspicion that has been reported and ask who he is and he refuses to identify himself and is not known by the officers investigating

Why then is it unreasonable for them to detain him in this situation to be able to work out his identity? If he was a terrorist he still wouldn't be known to those officers, should they have just that go as well as an unknown individual?

Perfidious Albion · May 6, 2017

He was not detained for taking photos, he was detained for refusing to answer reasonable questions from a Law Officer . If he had not been Bolshi with the copper , nothing would have happened.

Serves him right

Creaky · May 6, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
Or how about someone taking photos of a site that is about to have thousands of football fans descending upon it next weekend, does that not strike you as a possible risk location and worth investigating in order to try to keep those fans safe?

If they didn't and it turned out that the person they chose not to question their motives was a terrorist and lots of people died or where injured - how much stick would the Police get for not investigating when they had a chance to stop it

They are damned if the do and damned if they don't

It may be a "reasonable" request but it certainly isn't reasonable to detain someone who fails to comply with that request and to confiscate/examine their camera equipment UNLESS there was additional cause to believe the individual was involved in terrorist activities.

Requiring all supporters to 'prove' their identity before entering the ground, (with the threat of detaining those who refused and confiscating their ticket), could also "keep fans safe" but would be no more acceptable.

Thunder Bolt · May 6, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
Member of the public is suspicious about the actions of a member of the public photographing a public building where a major gathering of football fans is about to happen (therefore reasonable suspicion? - as responding to a report from the public regarding his motives / behaviour)

Police arrive in response to this suspicion that has been reported and ask who he is and he refuses to identify himself and is not known by the officers investigating

Why then is it unreasonable for them to detain him in this situation to be able to work out his identity? If he was a terrorist he still wouldn't be known to those officers, should they have just that go as well?

The route of the open top bus parade hasn't been published yet, so how do you know that it's going to be at Hove Town hall?

Thunder Bolt · May 6, 2017

Creaky said:
It may be a "reasonable" request but it certainly isn't reasonable to detain someone who fails to comply with that request and to confiscate/examine their camera equipment UNLESS there was additional cause to believe the individual was involved in terrorist activities.

Requiring all supporters to 'prove' their identity before entering the ground, (with the threat of detaining those who refused and confiscating their ticket), could also "keep fans safe" but would be no more acceptable.

Absolutely.

I'm amazed at how many people don't know their civil rights.

Creaky · May 6, 2017

Perfidious Albion said:
He was not detained for taking photos, he was detained for refusing to answer reasonable questions from a Law Officer . If he had not been Bolshi with the copper , nothing would have happened.

Serves him right

Questions he was not obliged to answer.

Guy Fawkes · May 6, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
The route of the open top bus parade hasn't be published yet, so how do you know that it's going to be at Hove Town hall?

Historically it's been the site we've used in the past, so if guessing for the purposes of planning an attack, wouldn't it make sense to use this as one possible point in that preparation? (plus possible other sites that may be likely)

Surely it's better to be safe than sorry?

If the person co-operated with the police and identified themselves, the whole situation would have been avoided (and the photographer wouldn't have got the publicity they wanted from his either)

Thunder Bolt · May 6, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
Historically it's been the site we've used in the past, so if guessing for the purposes of planning an attack, wouldn't it make sense to use this as one possible point in that preparation? (plus possible other sites that may be likely)

Surely it's better to be safe than sorry?

If the person co-operated with the police and identified themselves, the whole situation would have been avoided (and the photographer wouldn't have got the publicity they wanted from his either)

Last time it was along the seafront, to Madeira Drive.

Besides, taking photographs in the street, is not a crime. How many tourists are taking photos every day?

If the public are going to get jittery over every person taking photos of something, the police are going to be inundated.
Terrorism is real, but we do not have to live in a police state because of fear.
Common sense should prevail.

You are more likely to get struck by lightning than die in a terrorist attack.

Theatre of Trees · May 6, 2017

Lethargic said:
Think I got away with this one, a fantastic view of the Anchor Tap in Horsham.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

As a member of the public I have suspicions that you are going to chain yourself to the Dark Star pump and blow it up. I'm calling the police.

Creaky · May 6, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
Historically it's been the site we've used in the past, so if guessing for the purposes of planning an attack, wouldn't it make sense to use this as one possible point in that preparation? (plus possible other sites that may be likely)

Surely it's better to be safe than sorry?

If the person co-operated with the police and identified themselves, the whole situation would have been avoided (and the photographer wouldn't have got the publicity they wanted from his either)

'Better to be safe than sorry' is not argument that encourages nor supports a free and democratic society.

It is an argument that would support the banning of any open bus parade in the first place for instance.

Thunder Bolt · May 6, 2017

Creaky said:
'Better to be safe than sorry' is not argument that encourages nor supports a free and democratic society.

It is an argument that would support the banning of any open bus parade in the first place for instance.

Yes, who wants all those football hooligans, loose on the roads on a Sunday afternoon?

PeterOut · May 6, 2017

Guy Fawkes said:
Or how about someone taking photos of a site that is about to have thousands of football fans descending upon it next weekend, does that not strike you as a possible risk location and worth investigating in order to try to keep those fans safe?

If they didn't and it turned out that the person they chose not to question their motives was a terrorist and lots of people died or where injured - how much stick would the Police get for not investigating when they had a chance to stop it

They are damned if the do and damned if they don't

Just a guess, but maybe 2.000 people a day (in the height of summer) take a photo of the Palace Pier? How about we demand that all such photographers are required to give their name, address and other relevant details to the Police, so that it can be kept on record just in case there is a later event there?

After all, there are thousands of people gathered there on a busy day.

(And yes, I know it is not officially called the Palace Pier anymore - but it has been that to me for more than 50 years, and I'm jiggered if I am going to call it anything else.)

clippedgull · May 6, 2017

Perfidious Albion said:
He was not detained for taking photos, he was detained for refusing to answer reasonable questions from a Law Officer . If he had not been Bolshi with the copper , nothing would have happened.

Serves him right

It wasn't a copper that initially approached him.

Just some woman with a Sussex Police staff lanyard thinking she was a copper but in reality she was an office employee. She was the one that needed to be arrested for impersonating a police officer by tricking a member of the public into thinking she was bona fide.

The Clamp · May 7, 2017

whitelion said:
No development approved to date but looks like housing and commercial units.

http://www.juicebrighton.com/news/brighton-news/civic-centre-redevelopment-plans-move-forward/

Demolition teams have moved onto the Adur Civic Centre as the local authority look to find a new development for the Ham Road site.

Staff at the red-bricked building described as the "municipal heartbeat" of the area moved into the revamped Shoreham Centre in 2013.

Since then, Adur District Council has considered a number of options for the site.

A preferred developer was identified in 2015 to create a high-quality mixed use proposal but this deal didn't proceed.

Over the past few weeks a large section of the building has already been dismantled with the demolish work being funded by the Coast to Capital Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP).

Adur District Council leader Neil Parkin said:

"I'm delighted to see the progress being made to dismantle this landmark building.

"This is a triple win situation for us. We are not paying for the demolition, which takes the risk out of it; and once it's gone we will save more than £100,000 a year in business rates.

"But it also means we are able to move forward in redeveloping the wider site as part of our exciting plans to regenerate this part of the town centre.

"It is yet another example of how we can offer a platform for developers to create a high-quality scheme which will benefit the taxpayer and the wider area."

During the demolition phase, the council's internal experts will be working out the next steps in how to maximise the potential of the key site. Any development is likely to include up to 150 homes and commercial space.

To make the site more attractive to investors and developers, the council decided to push ahead with the demolition which is due to be completed in the autumn this year.

Across the road from the Civic Centre, plans to create a £10 million office development on the Ham Road car park are moving forward.

A planning application is expected later in the year. The current pay and display facility will remain until work starts on site.

Thanks.

My guess is this means unaffordable luxury flats and Tesco Express. And 6 storeys high set by the precident of the new block nearby. *******s.

The Clamp · May 7, 2017

Shropshire Seagull said:
I do find these "yeah, but I'm not breaking the law" folk a bit tedious, especially when they're doing it under the auspices of; because I can I will - I'm merely exercising my rights. Yet any reasonable man [see Lord Denning definition] would consider their activities as maybe abnormal or even deliberately antagonistic.

I'm in no position to advise what activities a terrorist might undertake prior to a "job" [because I don't share their mindset] but if I wanted to do something "naughty" like leave a car or a package somewhere, I'd want that to be out of sight of any CCTV - so I'd probably want to reccy the area first and the best way of doing this would probably be to take lots of photos - maybe even disguising myself as a legitimate professional photographer to hide my true terrorist purpose.

Here's an alternative "within my rights" example. In a 30mph zone, where the place is heaving with people, kids whatever, if one were to drive down that road at 29mph and was unfortunate enough to collide with a pedestrian who had strayed off the pavement [and, god forbid, kill them], would they be able to say - "I'm not breaking any law - not my problem!"[/QUOTE

Nonsense. And I mean that literally. Your example makes absolutely no sense

Nibble · May 7, 2017

I myself have experienced the heavy handed approach of the Sussex constabulary when it comes to being questioned on the street. It was during the March for England. I was watching the racists march down Queens Rd, filming them giving Nazi salutes and abuse to an Asian photographer. Two coppers stopped me and grilled me for ten minutes. Very nasty couple of people. I wish I'd asserted my rights more but I was so taken aback by their aggression that I complied. All the while, racist scum March in front of them giving the Nazi salute and shouting foul abuse at onlookers.

Even before I moved to Sussex my brother, a former RAF engineer and Surrey police officer used to tell me stories of the bad reputation Sussex Police had. I don't know what it's like now but in the 80's and 90's the Sussex police had the reputation of being aggressive bullies. My experience of them in the above example and subsequent experience with the police has done nothing to pursuade me otherwise. I have never knowingly broken the law and have no criminal record whatsoever. In fact I hold an advanced DBS and used to hold the old CRB when it was called that.

darkwolf666 · May 7, 2017

And no-one has mentioned that if that is his picture it's not even a very good one as he has got his lines of perspective wrong so it looks like the building is leaning backwards! - Now that is a criminal act

getreal1 · May 7, 2017

If Plod ask for your details, especially at a time when on high alert, and you don't oblige, that's your own lookout. Nothing to do with politics, just basic stuff for the times in which we live.

The Clamp · May 7, 2017

getreal1 said:
If Plod ask for your details, especially at a time when on high alert, and you don't oblige, that's your own lookout. Nothing to do with politics, just basic stuff for the times in which we live.

I respectfully disagree. If a police officer asks your details it is far easier to just tell them and everyone get on with their day. If one exercises their right to decline to give details, as annoying, unhelpful and childish as it is, one is not obliged to in this situation and that person should be allowed on their way. They should categorically not be detained. End of. It's the law.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Careful if taking photos of public buildings in Sussex

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Silly old bat

Well-known member

The voice of treason

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Silly old bat

Well-known member

Hotdogs, extra onions

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Share this page