Weather
Brighton photographer stopped for taking 'terror' festive lights photos (From The Argus)
Get involved: Send your news, views, pictures and video by texting SUPIC to 80360 or email us.
Brighton photographer stopped for taking 'terror' festive lights photos
10:33am Tuesday 1st December 2009
A photographer wanted to capture images of Christmas lights – but ended up having his details recorded under anti-terror laws.
Andrew White, 33, from Kemp Town, Brighton, was taking snaps of the decorations in Burgess Hill town centre when two Police Community Support Officers started following him as he walked to work.
The two female PCSOs then stopped him and asked why he had been taking pictures and if he was a professional photographer.
When he asked why they wanted to know, the PCSOs told him it was to do with counter-terrorism legislation and demanded his personal details, including his name and address.
Mr White said: “I had nothing to hide so I just provided the details.
“Now I’m concerned about where those details are going to end up.
“I only took one or two photos but even if I had taken more, who are they to say what is too many? I don’t think taking too many photos in the street warrants being considered some kind of terrorist threat, which is what they were suggesting.
“I think the money spent on getting PCSOs to waste my time and harass me in the street could be better spent elsewhere.”
Mr White said the two women PCSOs were polite but they insisted that they had to take his details because they had stopped him.
A Sussex Police spokesman said the officers spoke to Mr White because they were concerned he was taking too many photographs in a busy shopping area.
He said: “They were acting in good faith, balancing individual liberty against the need to ensure public safety.”
Under the 2002 Police Reform Act PCSOs have the power to demand the name and address of a person suspected of committing a criminal offence or for antisocial behaviour.
However, the growing use of this power to stop photographers is being critised.
More Brighton News stories
- Tourists spend £6,850 in Sussex every minute
- Couple recovering after M23 car crash
- Disgraced Sussex vicar could have been part of international scam
- Sarah's Law to reach Sussex this autumn
- Man convicted of harassing Worthing vicar
- Gatwick Airport travellers face delays
- Roman-age skeleton dug up in Chichester
- Disabled man scalded to death on Sussex holiday
- Investigation into Bognor flat fire
- Sussex schools snub academy option
Your Say YourArgus
thucydides, says...
10:50am Tue 1 Dec 09
.....
She-Ra, Princess Of Power, Brighton says...
11:10am Tue 1 Dec 09
Don't they have anything better to do? Since when was admiring and taking pictures of pretty festive lights anti-social or criminal?!
What is going on?!
Christophe Hawtree, Hove says...
11:14am Tue 1 Dec 09
Darling2, brighton village says...
11:14am Tue 1 Dec 09
Of the hundredds of thousands of photographers that have been harrassed in this way exactly how many terrorist attrocities have been prevented by this kind of action by the police? Would it be inappropriate to mention Brazillians at Stockwell at this point? Or the DNA database on the black population in this country held unlawfully by the police?
Avangelist, Brighton says...
11:17am Tue 1 Dec 09
I have on several occasions been stopped by police asking about why I am taking photographs in the street.
Twice I have been asked to go to the station for refusing to disclose personal details or hand over equipment. Both times I have never been taken to the station because there is no legal justification, although I was threatened with a charge of 'wasting police time'.
Like most laws, and most rules, if the enforcer doesn't clearly understand them or use them in the way intended they are ridiculed and become less and less effective.
These so-called anti-terrorism laws are designed to get around certain human rights acts created in Geneva.
It is a nice little loop that every country has found and applied.
Just remember that although they may request your details, without an arrest you are not obliged to provide them. If they request your film or memory you are also obliged to refuse to provide it without either a warrant or an arrest being made.
One of the most important thing to remember about any situation with any form of authority is to remind them of their role to uphold the law.
waspexile, Burgess Hill says...
11:24am Tue 1 Dec 09
Its bad judgement, or bad training, or poor recruitment or all three. If he had the time he should have just walked away, they would have had to call for a copper to take his details or arrest him.
The police statement is just some nonsense trotted out of a media relations manual. Pathetic.
AngryFrank, InTheSticks says...
11:28am Tue 1 Dec 09
Take a look at this:
http://www.sirimo.co
.uk/2009/05/14/uk-ph
otographers-rights-v
2/
I would advise you all to print out the pdf file and carry it with you at all times.
nobody_owens, says...
11:42am Tue 1 Dec 09
RobO., Brighton says...
11:50am Tue 1 Dec 09
He had his liberties infringed, but there was no danger to public safety. How's that balance?
greeg, glasgow says...
12:39pm Tue 1 Dec 09
thucydides wrote:He could have done if there was one.
Of course he could have done what any self respecting terrorist would do and used the street view on google earth............... .....
Tye, Pembroke says...
12:56pm Tue 1 Dec 09
Thank God we live in a free country eh?
voiceofthescoombe, brighton says...
1:05pm Tue 1 Dec 09
he does have a beard and terrorists have beards
should have demanded does he like freedom ? cause terrorists hate freedom
Baguette, Patcham says...
1:25pm Tue 1 Dec 09
-Rob-, Brighton says...
1:40pm Tue 1 Dec 09
Voice of Unreason, B&H says...
2:13pm Tue 1 Dec 09
Don't let these little hitlers get away with it. We need to stand up to them.
Whitedot, says...
2:28pm Tue 1 Dec 09
RickH, Hove says...
2:39pm Tue 1 Dec 09
Voice of Unreason wrote:And I'll think you'll find that PCSOs are unable to 'arrest' you in the traditional sense of the manner but are able to 'hold' you for 30 minutes - so set a stop-watch and if a police officer fails to arrive within the time, off you go & they can do jack squat to stop you ;)
If you've done nothing wrong, just refuse to give your name. They will have to arrest you first, and then they will have to charge you with something. They'll back down, and if they don't they will almost certainly be reprimanded later. Don't let these little hitlers get away with it. We need to stand up to them.
puddingandpi, Brighton says...
2:47pm Tue 1 Dec 09
And the Hobby Bobbies can demand all they like but I wouldn't give them my name & address, not for taking photos of Xmas lights.
Idiots.
greeg, glasgow says...
4:03pm Tue 1 Dec 09
Voice of Unreason wrote:Following your advice is just signing up to be put on the national DNA database.Is that what you want?
If you've done nothing wrong, just refuse to give your name. They will have to arrest you first, and then they will have to charge you with something. They'll back down, and if they don't they will almost certainly be reprimanded later. Don't let these little hitlers get away with it. We need to stand up to them.
davyboy, abingdon, oxon says...
4:09pm Tue 1 Dec 09
caeos, sussex says...
4:15pm Tue 1 Dec 09
so thats possibly why the argus want us to send in pictures for them. so "they" wont get interferred with
D Merrett, East Sussex says...
4:22pm Tue 1 Dec 09
-Rob-, Brighton says...
4:30pm Tue 1 Dec 09
wms, Hove says...
4:40pm Tue 1 Dec 09
swingbin, Brighton says...
4:43pm Tue 1 Dec 09
RickH, Hove says...
5:04pm Tue 1 Dec 09
RickH wrote:And to add to this, it would appear that PCSOs are only able to exercise Section 44 powers in the presence of a police constable, so it appears that those operating in BH stepped way over the mark. Talking of which, I recently had a PCSO try to stop me using the wider luggage gate at Victoria Station when carrying two bags as "it isn't a wheeled suitcase"! When I pointed out that as neither a crime was being commited, nor one about to be commited, nor did she work for Southern, so what business of her's was it, she tried to threaten me with arrest for "abusive behaviour". She only backed down when I asked for her number and an explanation of her powers of arrest, did she back down. Typical mission creep - give someone a uniform and sometimes the worse kind of behaviours begin to show themselves!
Voice of Unreason wrote: If you've done nothing wrong, just refuse to give your name. They will have to arrest you first, and then they will have to charge you with something. They'll back down, and if they don't they will almost certainly be reprimanded later. Don't let these little hitlers get away with it. We need to stand up to them.And I'll think you'll find that PCSOs are unable to 'arrest' you in the traditional sense of the manner but are able to 'hold' you for 30 minutes - so set a stop-watch and if a police officer fails to arrive within the time, off you go & they can do jack squat to stop you ;)
yorkie44, Woodingdean says...
5:04pm Tue 1 Dec 09
maxiboy_, Brighton says...
5:05pm Tue 1 Dec 09
There is without doubt a sinister state control mechanism at work created by a lunatic government hell bent on controlling the population by various combinations. Can anyone imagine what this country would be like in another 20 years if they were allowed to carry on?
Never before in modern history has a general election been more important than the one we will have in 2010. If the Conservatives do win (I am no supporter of them) then I hope that they sweep away all the rotten ills the Labour government have created in Britain and sort out the mess we are in. If they did this and made this country truly great and free again I would become a Conservative!
D Merrett, East Sussex says...
5:46pm Tue 1 Dec 09
cheezburger, brighton says...
7:11pm Tue 1 Dec 09
Mychildsnotsafe, outer Mongolia says...
7:39pm Tue 1 Dec 09
and how do you find out if he is known........... take his name!!!!!
Do you know your rights if stopped by CSO's??!!!? you are allowed to ask for a receipt!.
GreenGiant, Brighton says...
8:22pm Tue 1 Dec 09
tpebop..., Belarus says...
9:21pm Tue 1 Dec 09
maxiboy_ wrote:I agree with you, but look back 20 years ago, look at today, then think what it will be like 20 years later, IT WILL BE A LOT MORE F*CKED then today.
Anyone over 40 reading this will surely be in a state of numbness when they think about how this country has drifted into such lunacy. There is without doubt a sinister state control mechanism at work created by a lunatic government hell bent on controlling the population by various combinations. Can anyone imagine what this country would be like in another 20 years if they were allowed to carry on? Never before in modern history has a general election been more important than the one we will have in 2010. If the Conservatives do win (I am no supporter of them) then I hope that they sweep away all the rotten ills the Labour government have created in Britain and sort out the mess we are in. If they did this and made this country truly great and free again I would become a Conservative!
Now you can see why I don't live in the UK. I did love the UK, but, so sorry to say I think it has had It !!!
The great has gone from the UK.
P.S. not thet I am great.
tpebop..., Belarus says...
9:27pm Tue 1 Dec 09
puddingandpi, Brighton says...
9:32pm Tue 1 Dec 09
-Rob- wrote:I'm still overwhelmed by the marvellous Xmas lights on George St in Kemptown. I don't think I could cope with the ones in Burgess Hill too.
I'm planning to organise a special coach trip from Brighton to see the magical Burgess Hill Christmas light display. Would anyone else be interested? Security word - grey-bulb
miasc, Brighton says...
10:16pm Tue 1 Dec 09
DoWeHavTo, Patcham says...
11:36pm Tue 1 Dec 09
No wonder the pseudoplods were suspicious.
Just another Taxpayer, Hove says...
11:46pm Tue 1 Dec 09
How does taking a photo fall into either catagory, who watches the watchers (even the UNTRAINED ones)
My son who is a Police officer hates PCSOs as he says they are often aggressive when dealing with the public and look for trouble, once found they are straight on the radio calling for back-up just to make themselves seem important.
greeg, glasgow says...
12:08am Wed 2 Dec 09
jay_ben, says...
12:54am Wed 2 Dec 09
cheezburger wrote:cheezburger, im not defending the pcsos at all here. however if -police officers- were to stop you and had sufficient grounds to search you (im not going to get into whether or not on this occasion taking those photos gives them grounds), however had this of been churchil square in BTN then i would imagine that yes it would give them grounds under the prevention of terrorism, or even the centre security could say checking cameras etc are a condition or entry, then you either comply or leave. then yes as part of the legal search they have the power to check your electronic digital storage media, which would include photos taken on a digital camera and on your mobile phone. however would not include your text messages phone records etc.
Havent read all the comments here as just in, so apologies if this has been said already, but if you are ever approached and told to delete your pics, or hand over your camera then they need a court order for that. No court order, no legal right to delete your pics (applies to looking at them to i would guess). Makes me really angry this story. He wasnt outside a school, he wasnt outside a government building (unless a covert one, ha). I hope he got their names as well. No crime happening nearby i assume.
Gazza, Sussex says...
12:56am Wed 2 Dec 09
While I’m here I like to thank the Sussex police officers that accused me of dangerous driver and asked me where I’ve been. They did not say sorry and just walked of when they found out they got the wrong person. Now that’s a good public relations exercise (NOT) if they accuse you of something you have not done they should have the decency to apologize to your face there and then before walking away in a huff. Then there’s an old saying Peter Sellers once said’ I am a very brave night watchman Eccles’ what is the difference between a day watchman and a night watchman Eccles. it is dark being a night watchman isn’t it Eccles.
Yours faithfully
Mr Power To The People and Burgess Hill Xmas Lights
Darling2, brighton village says...
1:13am Wed 2 Dec 09
Darling2, brighton village says...
1:21am Wed 2 Dec 09
jay_ben wrote:I'm afraid you are wrong. The only people able to requisition your camera is the Judiciary. There were early cases in which police using these powers went through digital images on the street with photographers demanding any images of them be deleted there and then. The Home Secretary had to intervene after MP's interested in photography brought the matter to the HoC. At the time, it was noted that deleting potential evidence in what were claimed by police to be potential terror cases, as was this one, was not the height of intelligence. According to the Home Office ALL police forces across the Country have been reminded and retrained in the useage of this power. Clearly it hasn't reached Sussex plod yet........only a Judge can order the impounding of a camera and the deletion of images.
cheezburger wrote:cheezburger, im not defending the pcsos at all here. however if -police officers- were to stop you and had sufficient grounds to search you (im not going to get into whether or not on this occasion taking those photos gives them grounds), however had this of been churchil square in BTN then i would imagine that yes it would give them grounds under the prevention of terrorism, or even the centre security could say checking cameras etc are a condition or entry, then you either comply or leave. then yes as part of the legal search they have the power to check your electronic digital storage media, which would include photos taken on a digital camera and on your mobile phone. however would not include your text messages phone records etc.
Havent read all the comments here as just in, so apologies if this has been said already, but if you are ever approached and told to delete your pics, or hand over your camera then they need a court order for that. No court order, no legal right to delete your pics (applies to looking at them to i would guess). Makes me really angry this story. He wasnt outside a school, he wasnt outside a government building (unless a covert one, ha). I hope he got their names as well. No crime happening nearby i assume.
lee paul, Kemp Town says...
10:00am Wed 2 Dec 09
D Merrett wrote:Theres no smoke without fire. I think Sussex Police do a fine job
Sussex Police call it protecting and helping the neighbourhood. I call it total control and that is what we are letting them have. They are destroying the fabric of this country by judging us all guilty rather than innocent first. So Burgess Hill has become the first Zero Tolerance Police Neighbourhood. This photographer should receive an apology. The arrogance of Sussex Police in asking name and address of innocent people is intolerable
Old Ladys Gin, Shoreham says...
10:25am Wed 2 Dec 09
A little education in the wrong hands is always a dangerous thing.
supergus, says...
10:54am Wed 2 Dec 09
Old Ladys Gin, Shoreham says...
11:19am Wed 2 Dec 09
They are quasi police with few powers, and less education than a main stream police officer.
It is perfectly plain that they were overstepping any kind of reasonable mark.
A lot of the general public do not realise what powers these quasi officers have, I suggest you Google it and find out. It may surprise you to discover that they have very few, and certainly not what appears to have been attempted here.
Are we to let anyone in a uniform, even an ill fitting one, dictate to us?
supergus, says...
11:39am Wed 2 Dec 09
Old Ladys Gin wrote:1.
Yes but realise that these were not police officers, they were PCSOs or whatever they are called.
They are quasi police with few powers, and less education than a main stream police officer.
It is perfectly plain that they were overstepping any kind of reasonable mark.
A lot of the general public do not realise what powers these quasi officers have, I suggest you Google it and find out. It may surprise you to discover that they have very few, and certainly not what appears to have been attempted here.
Are we to let anyone in a uniform, even an ill fitting one, dictate to us?
To provide a uiniformed, official presence in a specified area with the aim of improving the quality of life in the community, making its people feel confident and reassured
2.
By the use of powers and working with partners and community organisations to address anti-social behaviour, the fear of crime, environmental issues and other factors which affect the quality of people's lives
*
Issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) for cycling on the pavement
*
Issue local authority FPNs for dog fouling and litter
*
************ Demand name and address of people acting in an anti-social manner or committing a relevant offence*************
**
*
Seize alcohol from people in designated no drinking areas
*
Seize alcohol from young people
*
Seize tobacco from young people
*
Enter property to save life or limb or prevent serious damage
*
Seize vehicles used to cause alarm, etc
*
Remove abandoned vehicles
*
Carry out Section 4 PACE road checks
*
Stop vehicles for testing
*
Enforce cordoned areas (S.36 Terrorism Act 2000)
*
Stop and search vehicles and items carried by persons under Ss.44 and 45 of the Terrorism Act 2000
*
Disperse groups and remove young persons to their place of residence (Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003)
seems like they are well with in there rights to do what they did
Beethoven, Leicestershire says...
11:45am Wed 2 Dec 09
Rule No.1 in any society is that if an officer of the law asks you what you are doing, or your name and address, you tell them...
If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear..It is only criminals and conspiracy theorists who might object.
I say thank you to the Police and other officers who make our lives safer ..
Old Ladys Gin, Shoreham says...
11:50am Wed 2 Dec 09
I'm just off out to photograph the Chrissy lights in Shoreham and cause a few ripples.
That is of course of a PC whatever they are should happen to be around, which on a rainy day is pretty unlikely I'd say.
Old Ladys Gin, Shoreham says...
11:56am Wed 2 Dec 09
This has led to confusion on the part of the public, and IMHO further alienation of the police (if they care) from the public they serve.
It may be of note but similar schemes in other EU countries have been abandoned (Spain for one) and those suitable for the job have been absorbed into the police proper.
Policing in a bargain basement manner ain't going to work, not ever.
bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
11:57am Wed 2 Dec 09
Beethoven wrote:Ask Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson if the police made their lives safer.
Just what is Mr White's problem? Rule No.1 in any society is that if an officer of the law asks you what you are doing, or your name and address, you tell them... If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear..It is only criminals and conspiracy theorists who might object. I say thank you to the Police and other officers who make our lives safer ..
supergus, says...
11:58am Wed 2 Dec 09
RobO., Brighton says...
11:58am Wed 2 Dec 09
Whoa now! No. No no no. The country doesn't own me. The government doesn't own me. If there's a crime to be investigated, then let the police do their work, but there is no crime here. A member of the public taking photos in a public place is perfectly legal.
How exactly is your life safer through a phoney policeman hassling someone operating within the law?
As for your comment about conspiracy theorists, do you actually think it's plausible that a terrorist would target Burgess Hill? Surely only a conspiracy theorist would support someone being stopped under the auspices of terrorism charges in an minor provincial town.
supergus, says...
11:59am Wed 2 Dec 09
bibble wrote:ask sara paynes mother if the police helped her out, ask jessica and hollys parents if the police helped out, ask shannon matthews if the police helped her out
Beethoven wrote:Ask Jean Charles de Menezes or Ian Tomlinson if the police made their lives safer.
Just what is Mr White's problem? Rule No.1 in any society is that if an officer of the law asks you what you are doing, or your name and address, you tell them... If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear..It is only criminals and conspiracy theorists who might object. I say thank you to the Police and other officers who make our lives safer ..
RobO., Brighton says...
12:02pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus wrote:Is everyone who has ever taken a photo of a child a paedophile? Is every parent whose child has had their photo taken a bad parent? Are all the photos that have ever been taken of children examples of paedophilia?
he could have been a peadophile if any1 on here is a decent parent then they will agree with what they did and stop him taking photos he was innocent but they couldnt take that risk simple theres no argument what so ever
It must be awful going through life being so paranoid.
supergus, says...
12:04pm Wed 2 Dec 09
RobO., Brighton says...
12:12pm Wed 2 Dec 09
Or maybe you're massively massively overreacting. I'd go and familiarise yourself with the words public, perspective, and normal.
If wanted photos for terrorism, they wouldn't be using a big camera in the middle of the street. If a paedophile wanted to take photos for their disgusting ends, they wouldn't be doing it obviously.
supergus, says...
12:15pm Wed 2 Dec 09
RobO., Brighton says...
12:21pm Wed 2 Dec 09
Taking a direct photo on the street, in public, where all sorts of things could be in the background is perfectly innocent.
By your logic, if I took a photo, and there was a horse in the background, then I'm into ****.
supergus, says...
12:25pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus, says...
12:25pm Wed 2 Dec 09
Darling2, brighton village says...
12:34pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus wrote:But what if you are a peodophile? Does taking pictures of your children make that ok just because you are the parent? Perhaps the best thing to do is hand yourself in, and all your family albums, to exonerate yourself; nothing to hide, nothing to fear. And perhaps every household should have a police officer present when family photos are taken, you know, birthdays, Christmas, holidays etc.
if a stranger took a photo of my child i wud think there a peadophile if i took a photo of my own child then its fine as it is my child
Or you could get a grip and get some counselling to resolve your extreme paranoia....
RobO., Brighton says...
12:35pm Wed 2 Dec 09
What if he was shooting on film (the camera he's holding in the picture is a film camera)? Would they have to be escorted to a 1 hour processing shop?
If he's shooting in public, and not pointing his camera directly at children, why assume terrible terrible things about someone, things which is allegations are made, regardless of the truth, can ruin someone's life?
Baldseagull, crawley says...
12:50pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus wrote:Some of my favorite photos are of kids in the forties and fifties playing games like hopscotch, children at play is a fairly normal subject of photography.
how can u possibly say that if some random person took a picture of my child who i had no idea who they were i wud be overreacting??? no they wud only b taking a picture of my child for certain reason that i dont wanna say on here, you live near a school right? do u agree with me that if u took a picture of all the kids at lunch playing then that wud b slightly weird??
I think it is weird that you think your child will come to some harm if someone you dont know has an image of them.
Buy a Burkha.
bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
1:30pm Wed 2 Dec 09
jay_ben, says...
1:44pm Wed 2 Dec 09
Darling2 wrote:im afraid that you appear to have not read my reply correctly. At no point did I say that they had the power to confiscate or delete images. I merely said that for the purposes of a stop search, if the grounds exist, then yes the police can look through your digital media, i.e. check the pictures. At no point did I say that they can delete them or make you delete them.
jay_ben wrote:I'm afraid you are wrong. The only people able to requisition your camera is the Judiciary. There were early cases in which police using these powers went through digital images on the street with photographers demanding any images of them be deleted there and then. The Home Secretary had to intervene after MP's interested in photography brought the matter to the HoC. At the time, it was noted that deleting potential evidence in what were claimed by police to be potential terror cases, as was this one, was not the height of intelligence. According to the Home Office ALL police forces across the Country have been reminded and retrained in the useage of this power. Clearly it hasn't reached Sussex plod yet........only a Judge can order the impounding of a camera and the deletion of images.cheezburger wrote: Havent read all the comments here as just in, so apologies if this has been said already, but if you are ever approached and told to delete your pics, or hand over your camera then they need a court order for that. No court order, no legal right to delete your pics (applies to looking at them to i would guess). Makes me really angry this story. He wasnt outside a school, he wasnt outside a government building (unless a covert one, ha). I hope he got their names as well. No crime happening nearby i assume.cheezburger, im not defending the pcsos at all here. however if -police officers- were to stop you and had sufficient grounds to search you (im not going to get into whether or not on this occasion taking those photos gives them grounds), however had this of been churchil square in BTN then i would imagine that yes it would give them grounds under the prevention of terrorism, or even the centre security could say checking cameras etc are a condition or entry, then you either comply or leave. then yes as part of the legal search they have the power to check your electronic digital storage media, which would include photos taken on a digital camera and on your mobile phone. however would not include your text messages phone records etc.
Should you then be arrested then obviously the police have the power to seize your camera if its relevant!
Floreat Hova, Hove says...
2:30pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus, says...
3:54pm Wed 2 Dec 09
If Roman is charged, he will likely be charged for some sort of sex crime and disorderly conduct. Taking a picture of a person in public is allowed. Taking a picture up someone's skirt is clearly NOT allowed.
news report above point proven??
RobO., Brighton says...
4:14pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus, says...
4:19pm Wed 2 Dec 09
The father-of-two was trapped by plain-clothed police officers in Trafalgar Square, London, on August 27 as he took indecent images of young girls.
He was seen "hurrying back and forth" near the Trafalgar Square lion, City of Westminster magistrates in Central London, heard today.
Linda Shamel, prosecuting, said: "He was seen quickly climbing up the monument and taking a number of shots of a female child who was sitting on the lion playing." At one point the child's underwear was seen she said.
Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
413006/Man-half-mill
ion-indecent-images-
children-upskirted-L
ondon.html#ixzz0YY5r
piRr
She-Ra, Princess Of Power, Brighton says...
4:37pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus wrote:Sooo.... it's ok to stop people taking pictures in public, just in case??!!! No matter what they're of? If I take a picture of my mates on the beach and there's kids in the background should I be arrested and questioned??
he could have been a peadophile if any1 on here is a decent parent then they will agree with what they did and stop him taking photos he was innocent but they couldnt take that risk simple theres no argument what so ever
He was just photographing christmas lights on an open public high street. He was blatantly doing it, he wasn't hiding to get some seedy little pictures. There aren't even any kids in the shot FFS?
If you were really that concerned about safety then surely you'd prefer the plastic plod to be doing some real work catching people who are actually comitting crimes, instead of wasting time harrassing innocents? I know I would.
RobO., Brighton says...
4:38pm Wed 2 Dec 09
Secondly, Andrew was standing in the middle of Burgess Hill, pointing his camera at Christmas decorations!
Your suggestion that everyone who uses a camera in public is some kind of pervert is ill informed, insulting and damaging to society.
If you see someone with a camera, rather than assuming that they're a terrorist or a paedophile, how about you strike up a conversation with them about what they're shooting with and what they're hoping to capture. How about building some bridges in society rather than trying to divide people?
supergus, says...
4:47pm Wed 2 Dec 09
RobO., Brighton says...
5:00pm Wed 2 Dec 09
Aren't you a funny little man?
heavenscentrose, says...
5:25pm Wed 2 Dec 09
As previously stated, get urgent help and perhaps you will be able to start to lead a normal life.
heavenscentrose, says...
5:34pm Wed 2 Dec 09
I wonder how many groups of Japanese tourists have been approached in this way for taking innocent photos? Very few, if any I suppose, as they and the many other tourists to this country bring in needed revenue. There appears to be a government-led conspiracy to bring the humble British citizen to heel, to comply with all the rotten restrictive legislation being passed. It is a very similar situation in which Germany found itself before WW2 - and look what happened there.
We must all wake up to what is happening to our civil liberties before it's too late.
PorkBoat, Brighton says...
7:04pm Wed 2 Dec 09
supergus wrote:But he wasn't taking pics of kids. He was taking pics of Christmas lights. And some jumped up twerp in an ill fitting uniform thought he was taking "too many". What next? When will someone get stopped , because a plastic plod saw someone using their mobile, and decided they were talking on it for "too long"? Since private companies took over giving out parking tickets, these people can't get a job as a traffic warden, so they get a job as a "PCSO", with the full backing of the state. To see one of these non-entities in action, verbally abusing a member of the public who's filming a building in London, have a look at this YouTube video. http://www.youtube.c
how can u possibly say that if some random person took a picture of my child who i had no idea who they were i wud be overreacting??? no they wud only b taking a picture of my child for certain reason that i dont wanna say on here, you live near a school right? do u agree with me that if u took a picture of all the kids at lunch playing then that wud b slightly weird??
om/watch?v=NjS9L5BVA
l8
heavenscentrose, says...
7:27pm Wed 2 Dec 09
PorkBoat wrote:Porkboat,
supergus wrote: how can u possibly say that if some random person took a picture of my child who i had no idea who they were i wud be overreacting??? no they wud only b taking a picture of my child for certain reason that i dont wanna say on here, you live near a school right? do u agree with me that if u took a picture of all the kids at lunch playing then that wud b slightly weird??But he wasn't taking pics of kids. He was taking pics of Christmas lights. And some jumped up twerp in an ill fitting uniform thought he was taking "too many". What next? When will someone get stopped , because a plastic plod saw someone using their mobile, and decided they were talking on it for "too long"? Since private companies took over giving out parking tickets, these people can't get a job as a traffic warden, so they get a job as a "PCSO", with the full backing of the state. To see one of these non-entities in action, verbally abusing a member of the public who's filming a building in London, have a look at this YouTube video. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=NjS9L5BVA l8
What is the title of this video?
PorkBoat, Brighton says...
2:45am Thu 3 Dec 09
What is the title of this video?"
Its called "You can't picture this".Does the link not lead straight to it?
heavenscentrose, says...
12:19pm Thu 3 Dec 09
PorkBoat wrote:Thank you for the title. The link takes you to the video page and then you have to search for the video by title. It doesn't come up automatically.
"Porkboat, What is the title of this video?" Its called "You can't picture this".Does the link not lead straight to it?
I watched the video and found it most informative.
Did you notice that the PCSO who was being aggressive was obviously not a native British person and that he insinuated that the photographer couldn't take photographs as he wasn't a tourist. What utter rubbish - residents of this country not being permitted to act freely and lawfully without being accosted by aggressive and ignorant PCSOs - it beggars belief! That PCSO should be sacked and given no reference.
O SANTA BIN LADEN? Andrew White
TERROR LIGHTS: The only Christmas lights Andrew White managed to capture on film
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Lil, Worthing says...
10:44am Tue 1 Dec 09
If he was in public space he had every right to take photos.
These PCSOs are becoming like a state run Stasi.
I have had this before and stood my ground explaining very calmly what I was up to and they backed off; but maybe I got lucky. But this is sickening.
Welcome to the un-Democratic People's Republic of Britain, proudly Iron-Curtaining itself.