There was another thread on this, which was taken away, so please keep to the topic at the start of the thread.
I can answer the first question. Anyone, including bystanders and people who are arresated (assuming their court case is done and dusted when the programme is broadcast) who is caught on film in a way that clearly identifies them (i.e. if they are are filmed speaking or you get a clear picture of their face) will have been asked by the crew or possibly contacted by a researcher at a later date to get permission to show their image. The police force(s) will probably have signed a contract with the people who make Traffic Cops giving them free range to film police officers unless an officer specifically doesn't want to be or can't be because of their job.
I didn't see the bit where they were threatening to take cameras, but you're right that they're on dodgy ground there, unless they had concerns about public order or vital evidence being destroyed as people climb about to get pictures.
As for the cloth on the dashboard, I always though it was some kind of camera rest, but I am probably wrong!
|
The rubberneckers were told that their cameras were likely to be seized as evidence if they continued to film.
|
|
PoloGirl said:Anyone....will have been asked by the crew or possibly contacted by a researcher at a >> later date to get permission to show their image.
I'd be gobsmacked if that's correct. On the M6 incident, there were loads of people standing around - no way could they all be contacted.
Regarding people who are "featured" - they may well be asked, and a fair number of people who aren't charged are blurred out. However it would seem that anyone who is prosecuted and found guilty always has their picture shown - if they were given a choice then no way would they all agree.
|
|
|
One of the BIB on here will probably clarify but there is no offence in taking photos in public.
I believe that photographing the BIB should be encouraged as it may help reduce the incidence of police over zealousness or forbid, corruption.
The photographer could be accused of harassment though.
Also I believe the BIB could confiscate cameras if they contain evidence that could be used in criminal proceedings.
The original poster was right. There is clear hierocracy in allowing the TV camera there and not allowing the other photographers.
I am sure that we have read articles like this: snipurl.com/3vtl7 and snipurl.com/3vtlm The police themselves seem to have a fear of being photographed. Do they have something to hide?
Long links snipped (use snipurl) and shouting removed PG
Edited by Webmaster on 29/09/2008 at 01:10
|
There's difference between media photographers who abide by a code of practice alongside their editors who (mostly) decline to print anything too gruesome... and the rubbernecking member of the public/amateur who wants something to video on their mobile phone and post on Youtube.
|
sq
Err - why - because everyone who watches Motorway Cops is rubbernecking by proxy.
Lets be honest, we wouldn't watch the program if it were not for the potential scenes of mayhem!
And the people who were videoing / photographing were stationary so no danger of real rubber necking.
Edited by Pugugly on 27/09/2008 at 12:03
|
|
There's difference between media photographers who abide by a code of practice alongside their editors
I assume you have tongue firmly in cheek here!
and the rubbernecking member of the public/amateur who wants something to video on their mobile phone and post on Youtube.
Taking pictures does not equal posting on YouTube.
I take a lot of pictures whenever I visit anywhere new. Only in a police state do I expect to be prevented from doing this because of what I might be thinking of doing.
There was a robbery (with shooting) recently at a local supermarket. In the aftermath, members of the public were aggressively told to stop taking the same pictures as the local press (actually pointless pictures of 14 police cars and a lot of plastic tape anyway).
|
You're not prevented from taking pictures in public by any law. The only places that you're likely to run into problems are when you are on privately owned "public" spaces such as inside a Shopping Centre, Railway station or Airports - photographing in public areas is generally ok. Police have become twitchy of late even in certain public places because of the fears of terrorist reconnaissance. I suppose that rubberneckers is the wrong phrase in this instance though ! So is a Supermarket owned car-park a public open space ?
Edited by Pugugly on 27/09/2008 at 12:13
|
|
...members of the public were aggressively told to stop taking the same pictures as the local press....
For reasons I have yet to fathom, some police have tried to prevent press photographers taking shots of an 'incident'.
They can't seem to grasp that anyone, press or not, is allowed to take photographs in a public place.
All the stuff about YouTube and rubbernecking is, for this purpose, irrelevant.
The police are there to enforce the law, not as arbiters of public morals.
Allegations of hypocrisy come up when the police themselves take pictures, but then, why shouldn't they?
'Anyone' includes people in blue uniforms wearing pointy hats.
|
|
|
I only saw parts of the program but I would be interested in BinB comments on the following points,
Since we are always told that the hard shoulder is such a dangerous place to be, surely after stopping a vehicle is it not safer to move to a place of safety, before becoming involved in a lengthy Qand A session?
When the police car was stopped behind a flagged down vehicle, its front wheels were left on an intentional? right lock. The consequence of any inadvertent collision from behind will then be to knock the car out into the moving traffic. Maybe the police adopt this practice to facilitate a fast getaway? ( If I am turning right from the central (rh turning) lane on a fast road I will generally ensure that wheels are in straight ahead position to minimise risk).
The van that was stopped on the hard shoulder was towards the end of a filter in slip lane. Surely this is one of the most dangerous places?
The car that had the (horifically) damaged sidewall was authorised to drive on to the next exit and find a tyre garage. In the event of a subsequent blow out surely the police then become part culpable?
OK I accept that flashing Blues will give a dgree of 'protection' when parked on the hard shoulder, but since these stop routines leave the car in a vulnerable position many times a day, surely best practice should prevail.
pmh2
|
The whole incident was horrific and the decision to broadcast it dubious.
On the photography issue, I would be quick to pursue in law anyone who took my photograph -- me as an individual -- without my consent and gained a financial or other advantage from it ("loss" referred to below is a concept wider than financial loss). Here is some more:
tinyurl.com/627sxn
And from tinyurl.com/4sdxo4:
"Are you breaking the law just by taking a person?s picture in the street?
HL [specialist lawyer]: Yes, because a picture can identify an individual and under the Data Protection Act (DPA), a person must consent to the capture and storage of any of their personal information. Without this consent, a photographer is at risk of a civil claim by their subject. However, there have been very few claims of this nature and the DPA Commission don?t have the resources to prosecute such actions. If a civil claim did arise, a key issue would be ?what is the loss to the individual by having their picture taken?? ? generally speaking, there wouldn?t be any loss and this is a main reason why such claims are not more common."
Back to motoring, methinks.
|
I think the incident shows why you *should* rubber-neck - you never know when someone's going to leap over the barrier and run in front of you!
The girl that did that, by the way, is now on remand charged with murder.
|
|
|
> Since we are always told that the hard shoulder is such a dangerous place to be >surely after stopping a vehicle is it not safer to move to a place of safety before >becoming involved in a lengthy Qand A session?
you have to establish some facts first (e.g are you going to arrest someone and compel them to move...or help someone and ask them to move..or..are they injured and you moving them exacerbates their injuries)When the police car was stopped behind a flagged down vehicle its front wheels were left on an intentional? right lock. The consequence of any inadvertent collision from >> behind will then be to knock the car out into the moving traffic.
the lock is placed to maximise the safety of the pedestrains in a dangerous environment. If someone smashed into the rear of the police car on a right lock it would be projected away from the pedestrians by the steering lock. If the lock were to be to the left, where there is a m/way crash barrier, the police car would be projected initially left, then hit the barrier, then continue forwards into the pedestrians >> The car that had the (horifically) damaged sidewall was authorised to drive on to the next exit and find a tyre garage. In the event of a subsequent blow out surely the police then become part culpable?
lesser of evils option...leave his car and passengers there in a dangerous environment, whislt taking him or making him walk to a tyre garage..or warn him, prosecute him and leave him to it.....damned if you do/damned if you don't
|
In the event of a subsequent blowout >> surely the police then become part culpable? lesser of evils option...leave his car and passengers there in a dangerous environment whislt taking him or making him walk to a tyre garage..or warn him prosecute him and leave him to it.....damned if you do/damned if you don't
you not telling me the Police are allowed to use common sense? What will MPs say about that :)
Edited by Webmaster on 28/09/2008 at 04:40
|
But the police were right in using common sense this time. Less risk of letting him get off the road and when spotted again the tyre had been replaced.
|
Without being racist I was more concerned that the illegal immigrants and drivers who had no business to be in this country effectively being given the chance to just fade away and merge in with all the other not wanted parasites in this country.
|
Thanks.
Your subscription to the Daily Express is en route!
|
Without being racist >> being given the chance to just fade away and merge in with all the other not wanted parasites in this country.
Expect those guys to be earning way under min wage in some field or sweatshop - no legal protections whatever and no benefits.
|
>>Expect those guys to be earning way under min wage in some field or sweatshop - >>no legal protections whatever and no benefits.
or commiting crime like clonning my credit card again, whilst working in the local ****
garage.
|
> committing crime like cloning my credit card again, whilst working in the local ****
garage.<
I doubt that this sort of activity is confined to illegal immigrants. That is just an easily believed prejudice used to top up the shoulder-chips of susceptible people.
|
> committing crime like cloning my credit card again whilst working in the local **** garage.< I doubt that this sort of activity is confined to illegal immigrants. That is just an easily believed prejudice used to top up the shoulder-chips of susceptible people.
Yes these crimes are not only commited by illegal imigrants but on the three out of a few ocassions my card was clonned by the card reader being tampered with the culprits were caught and were illegal imigrants. They were also working as waiters in a 4 star hotel, they used their own card readers to gain acess to the relevent information not helped by the very poor secutity of the so called chip n pin we use . So by capturing and deporting will at least reduce the threat. It is illegal to employ theses people but believe it or not they are employed usually for cash in hand so go undetected and are parasites to this country. Its a pity the majority of the English population seem to be ignorant of the true problem.
|
RB
So the real issue is carp security by our banks. I'd guess these guys were Sri Lankans? Seems they've found western credit cards good for funding insurgency at home. Probably placing illegals here for the purpose.
Most though are simply looking to escape conflict, torture or just poverty at home and much more sinned against than sinners in this country. Appreciate we cannot accomadate them all and need to control the numbers but to describe those who can claim nothing and work for cash, probably to put cheap fresh produce on our shelves, as parasites is frankly offensive.
|
Appreciate we cannot accomadate them all and need to control the numbers but to describe those who can claim nothing and work for cash, probably to put cheap fresh produce on our shelves, as parasites is frankly offensive.
Any one who gets paid cash or otherwise and contributes nothing to the system ie tax ect is a parasite.
|
>>Any one who gets paid cash or otherwise and contributes nothing to the system ie tax ect is a parasite.
After forty years continuous employment, I was redundant, in my fifties and got a part-time job that pays less than my personal tax allowance and below the National Insurance threshold, effectively cash-in-hand.
So that makes me a parasite?
Edited by bathtub tom on 27/09/2008 at 22:05
|
>Any one who gets paid cash or otherwise <
.. and I am sure you never 'pay cash' to a trader to save a little VAT ?
|
|
|
When the police car was stopped behind a flagged down vehicle its front wheels were left on an intentional? right lock. The consequence of any inadvertent collision from behind will then be to knock the car out into the moving traffic. Maybe the police adopt this practice to facilitate a fast getaway?
In addition to Westpig's comments, this "fend off" position is often taught as well (angling the whole vehicle slightly to the right), as it maximises the amount of reflective markings (back and side) seen on the stopped vehicle by approaching traffic; the position of the vehicle also often working as "mental direction" to oncoming drivers and encouraging them to move out to the middle lane, especially at night or during poor visibility, maximising the safety zone of those on the shoulder.
Edited by Devolution on 27/09/2008 at 16:41
|
Unfortunately I did not get chance to read the previous thread before it was deleted but if this one is anything to go by then once again there is paranoia and arm chair expertise in abundance!
"Both the saloon and estate Volvos appeared to have an area on top of the centre of the dashboard covered in black cloth stuck down with tape. Is this covering something Joe Public shouldn't know about, or is there a simple explanation?"
Yes - perhaps the reflection from the top of the dashboard interferes with the camera positioned in the rear seat. What other sinister reason could their be?
The official filming is controlled and monitored by the filming company and finally by the host force to ensure that everyone is dealt with fairly. Even suspects have rights and the right to some kind of dignity and that includes not allowing every Tom Dick and Harry to take their pictures in difficult circumstances where there is absolutely no control over where and how the footage ends up.
Some Police Officers do not like their pictures broadcast as they do not wish to be identified when they are off duty as Police Officers for fear of potential repercussions. If you think of the kind of people we deal with on a daily basis you may understand why.
|
>>Yes - perhaps the reflection from the top of the dashboard interferes with the camera positioned in the rear seat. What other sinister reason could their be?
Then why cover just a small part of the dashboard, and not the whole top surface?
|
>>Some Police Officers do not like their pictures broadcast as they do not wish to be identified when they are off duty as Police Officers for fear of potential repercussions. If you think of the kind of people we deal with on a daily basis you may understand why.
If the police film people and they do at events around the country then they should be filmable as well.
As far as I understand it a police officer cannot demand not to be filmed unless he / she beleives that they are being harrassed or are in a private place. It is not a crime to film anyone in a public place for private use.
Harrassment is not just a case of taking a photo.
Scenario: Bent cop demands money with menace. Citizen films event. Cop is nicked.
No filming - no bent cops. Oh, perhaps that is why they don't like being filmed!
|
There is a marked difference between someone filming a 'bent' copper committing a criminal act to any old person filming one trying to do their job!
Unless you are suggesting all coppers are bent so film them all just in case.
|
>There is a marked difference between someone filming a 'bent' copper committing a criminal act to any old person filming one trying to do their job!
Unless you are suggesting all coppers are bent so film them all just in case.
Far from it, but there are enough cases in the media recently to suggest that the police are increasingly insisting that they don't like being photographed and arresting or harrassing those that continue to take photos.
Recent cases include
tinyurl.com/5bldwz
tinyurl.com/6qe8r5
tinyurl.com/2wh4gm
There are many other examples.
Now given that police don't like being photographed, or photographers in general it seems, one must ask why, especially when the police have real powers of arrest, which is a significant intimidation.
If I want to photograph a police office (whos wages I contribute to) then as long as I am not interfearing with them or cause obstruction, then the office should just put up with it.
I don't see them going to every CCTV operator and demand that they stop videoing after all.
For anyone interested photographers rights can be found here:
tinyurl.com/yqjghj
|
Why should plod be cagey against being identified?
Simple, because the hatred of plod has become such an industry that the poor sod is scared he will be the victim of crime if his happy face is shown on camera!
"Oi! see that furry dice? 'E lives round the corner from me!!!!" mentality.
I really feel sorry for the police - castigated all over ... but if someone is breaking in to your gaff, who do you call? 999, or the local social services?
Maybe the chaps in blue on the forum can give us succesful call-out rates, as opposed to the 'Cops are winkers' stats so beloved by the newspapers?
|
There was a brilliant exchange in an episode of Juliet Bravo aired recently. Much along the same lines as what Ian says - the words were "Who would you call, a Guardian leader writer ?" it was aimed at a trendy leftie type.
|
>>There was a brilliant exchange in an episode of Juliet Bravo aired recently. Much along the same lines as what Ian says - the words were "Who would you call, a Guardian leader writer ?" it was aimed at a trendy leftie type.
There was a brilliant exchange in an episode of Juliet Bravo aired recently. Much along the same lines as what Ian says - the words were "Who would you call, a Guardian leader writer ?" it was aimed at a trendy leftie type.
Well from experience. I was sat in a queue waiting for some temporary traffic lights to change last year, I had the mistake of having my roof off the car and was physically assaulted by a group of passers by. This was a single carriageway road in leafy Kent.
The police did not want to know. Got a small card from them saying they had taken a note of the incident and that was it.
I bet if I had done anything to the young adult assailants to protect myself as I saw them approach me (and it was clear that they meant harm) then I would be in the nick now! BTW was in a queue of traffic so could not move out of the way.
Last encounter with a civilised officer was when returning home on a summers evening from a second job interview (dinner with wine etc) when I was stopped by an officer stepping out in to the road (they were stopping all cars) and asked me if I had been drinking (I had one shandy and 4 pints of diet coke). He was polite and apologised for delaying me, but more recently the attitude of police seems to have changed. Some appear to have become very arrogant and on a power trip. I get stopped fairly often (driving late hours I suppose). The officers ask questions and look in the boot etc but never an apology for stopping me or delaying me needlessly.
I can't help thinking that some of the actions that they undertake will result in them alienating themselves from the public.
But I agree, the majority of police are great. It?s just that they don?t do themselves any justice when doing supid things like this: tinyurl.com/6guke6
Edited by Zippy123 on 27/09/2008 at 20:09
|
There was a brilliant exchange in an episode of Juliet Bravo aired recently.
Go back 25 and something years - Ray Doyle said much the same in The Professionals.
I live in an ex-police state, and have witnessed excesses (including attempted-murder).
British Bobbies? You don't realise how well you have it ...
|
Blimey, go away for a few hours and it all cracks off again .....:)
I'm not bothering to respond to some contributors on this thread, who are firmly on my 'ignore' list. Life's too short and I've got better things to do.
Two things I will comment on. The 'fend off' position has been perfectly described by Westpig. I can also confirm that the black cloth is there to stop the dash reflecting in the windscreen and interfering with the camera. I wish it was covering up a piece of secret squirrel equipment, it'd be more interesting.
|
come on m l c
we love good cops really
sadly youre in one of those jobs where everyone comes across your peers and forms an opinion
cops for me are like nhs workers, they work hard and in their little bubble they see lots of good hard work, its not until youre on the other side of the fench you see how poor the police and nhs can be in this country
this doesnt mean the good folk dont support the good cops doing their best
sadly the closed shop cop defends all cops as great stuff is wearing thin
cheer up chill
|
cheer up chill
You suggest I'm 'unchilled' and need 'cheering up'.
How very presumptuous. After 14 years in this job, I've been called far worse than anything that could be said on here. Firmly, water off a ducks back. I'll leave it for the armchair experts to carry on.
Have fun.
Edited by midlifecrisis on 27/09/2008 at 21:39
|
Westpig & Midlifecrisis.
Thanks for your detailed info.
A week ago, when happily driving along, I happened upon, in a street, an horrific domestic incident.
All the officers, ( including one off duty) even though in shock, were fantastic.
Many hours later with still a main road bus route closed etc they were still polite inspite of the great unwashed. (As a thicko lifted the tape " Sir that tape is for not just vehicles but also you on your bike. Now would you please find another route ?" ).
I have never had cause to complain as in the back of my mind is the thought of what they and yourselves have to deal with day in and day out.
|
To all the BiB:
On this forum, I have consistently fully supported your work which is carried out diligently in the face of the de-motivating final results of your actions [when the culprits are taken to court as announced at the TV programme by the narrator].
However, your work is made harder by the actions of a few "bad apples", as demonstrated by these video clips [deliberately made non-clickable by removing http] regarding filming in public:
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=z86z2WlqJws
uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nyLmvrTwZ34
Edited by jbif on 27/09/2008 at 21:53
|
Can someone name me an occupation that there are not bad apples within?
Lawyers, priests, vicars, police, charities, MPs, Royalty etc etc. Of course there is in every walk of life so why are we discussing a non story? Some people on here really seem to have some chips on their shoulders.
I am as cheesed off with things in this country as the next person but I don't blame the police or their occasional bad apple. I like these Motorway cop/ traffic cop programs because
a. they are usually edited to be quite exciting, I watched the Professionals for years purely because of the car chases in it
b. there are numerous crashes usually in it - this is why I watch Grand Prixs and Touring Cars
c. I think these programs highlight the fact that when the police do their jobs, the prosecution system lets them down with the sentences given out
d,. the most important - this highlights to be that I could never do their job and they have my full respect for what they do and the absolute rubbish that they have to put up with. I for one don't have the patience to be stood there, wearing uniform or not, and have to listen to scum bags mouthing at me. If a copper is lippy with me (for no apparent reason) I would like to think I would not take it personal, after seeing programs like this I could fullly understand why they may be having a bad day at the office.
FWIW, in 20 years of driving I have only ever been stopped once, at a police check when I was 18, driving my dad home from a works night out in his Carlton. Once the copper knew the situation he waved me on.
|
> If a copper is lippy with me (for no apparent reason) I would like to think I would not take it personal, after seeing programs like this I could fullly understand why they may be having a bad day at the office.
All very well but a cop has no right to be lippy just because he / she is having a bad day. Given they are human, but if I was lippy to a customer because I had been abused by another one earlier, I would get a written warning at least!
What then happens is that we put up with the lippy cops, then with the corrupt cops then with the violent cops.
It is not us and them and I agree, most seem to be excellent, but a few are letting the side down and its not only traffic police. For example, it was totally over the top to arrest the OAP at the labour conference a few years back under the terrorism act and this does not stand the police in good stead imho.
They need to get back on the publics side, which they don't seem to be doing at the mo.
|
Zippy, what is the "publics side"?
Me, I would like a whole load of people locked up, meanwhile there is a huge industry bleating about these same people's rights?
Many bleat about being stopped by police for doing 35mph, or having a dodgy spaced reg plate or whatever. So maybe we should start ignoring those laws as they are not on the publics side?
In this country, at this moment, the very last thing you want is the police doing things to keep in the publics side. Mass anarchy would take over within minutes!
So police can only go by the law, thats what they are there for.
|
..So police can only go by the law, thats what they are there for...
Quite, and there isn't a law (yet) against taking photographs in public.
Accepting that would be a start.
|
>Police can only go by the law, that's what they are there for... <
Perhaps part of the 'problem' is that there are so many laws now plod hasn't enough time to enforce them all, so concentrate on those that get easiest results. And zero tolerance sounds a nice idea except there is no space to bang up more than a handful more offenders. So the backroomers can only bleat ...
|
Some zero tollerance would be good. Perhaps aimed at adults and not under 12's for playing footie in the street or chalking a pavement up for hopscotch.
I still twinge about no visible action being taken about the thugs that assulted me whilst sat in my motor, just 'cause it was a nice one I suppose.
By not doing the stupid things that are shown in the links above which have no basis in law would also be a good start. I suppose I may be up tight because I'm a happy snapper and am fed up being told that I can't take photos in public places by misinformed police officers.
I suppose there are two types of authority. The one that explains why you can't do something firmly and fairly and the one that just bosses you because they can.
It seems to me that we are moving to the latter and as an instrument of the State. the police are at the sharp end of this and it does them no service. Perhaps it's their bosses, but I think the force is changing from a service to protect the public to a force against the public. Again probably down to the State. (I am trying to be non party specific here as they are all as bad as one another).
Let me restate. I think 99% of the police are great and I wouldn't want the job.
|
Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense. He has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago, lost in bureaucratic red tape.
He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children,
are in charge).
His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.
Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Panadol, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.
Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.
Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realise that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.
Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust;
his wife, Discretion;
his daughter, Responsibility;
and his son, Reason.
He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm A Victim.
Not many attended his funeral because so few realised he was gone.
|
Best contribution I've read in many years. Well said.
|
There's no answer to that, Fullchat. Very allegorical, but commonsensical too.
|
Brilliant Fullchat. Will definitely be copying that on.
|
A request has been made by the OP to lock the thread. He specifically asked that the thread remained in place for others to read. Closing or locking a thread is the OP's prerogative. Its being exercised for the second time in as many days on a thread of this subject, I think there is a message there !
Thanks
Rob - Moderator (no 4).
|
|
|
|
|
|