Careful if taking photos of public buildings in Sussex

[Bodian]

I find some of the comments on here a bit surprising. Imagine the outcry on NSC if the police started asking for names and addresses when walking around town with an Albion shirt on - on the basis that you might commit some sort of crime at a football match at some time. Would we all willingly give them this information? I suspect not given many many previous comments about football fans generally being treated as criminals.

The 'terrorism' reasoning is poor. Firstly, where is the empirical evidence that terrorists take photos of buildings in order to work out where to leave bombs? Indeed, thinking back over most terrorist incidents, bombs tend to be left in places like cars, rubbish bins, rucksacks on trains - and so on. Or on the bomber themselves. None of which need prior photographs.

Secondly, a terrorist would not want to be seen preparing - so would not be lugging around camera gear and tripods and so on.

Thirdly - you can find photos of most prominent buildings on google anyway. In the case of Hove Town Hall, you can probably find detailed architects plans in the archives or on the internet anyway! edit - I have just done so, took me about two minutes. here

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

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!"

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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!"

A very strange analogy, because if a pedestrian steps off the pavement, the motorist is not at fault. I say this from experience, knowing someone it happened to, and it was a fatality.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

A very strange analogy, because if a pedestrian steps off the pavement, the motorist is not at fault. I say this from experience, knowing someone it happened to, and it was a fatality.

Yes, agreed, perhaps not the best analogy - my point [badly made] was that most people would reduce their speed because of circumstances - yes 29mph would be within the law, but not doing what the law allows would be more appropriate - i.e. drive a bit slower aka don't take [perceived unnecessary - no good reason given] photos in a public place.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, agreed, perhaps not the best analogy - my point [badly made] was that most people would reduce their speed because of circumstances - yes 29mph would be within the law, but not doing what the law allows would be more appropriate - i.e. drive a bit slower aka don't take [perceived unnecessary - no good reason given] photos in a public place.

He is a professional doing his job, and was challenged by a civilian. She had no right to ask him anything, but she decided to call the police.
The police do not have the right to ask for your name and address either unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect you are doing something illegal.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

He is a professional doing his job, and was challenged by a civilian. She had no right to ask him anything, but she decided to call the police.
The police do not have the right to ask for your name and address either unless they have reasonable grounds to suspect you are doing something illegal.

I get that - all within the law - I know my rights, stuff. But what annoys me is when people appear to be doing it in an obnoxious, unhelpful attitude - because I can - way.
If someone stood outside your house endlessly taking photos of your house, so long as they are on public land, they are entitled to do so, but wouldn't you feel the urge to go and ask then why they are doing it and would they kindly stop. You can only ask them to be reasonable, there is no law for you to enforce. [maybe harassment of a private dwelling, I don't know].

Who knows, it could be a burglar doing a reccy on your home - what alarms you have, what type of windows and doors you have, any security cameras - you don't know [unless you ask]. And if you do ask a simple and honest "what are you doing?" and the photographer says, "I'm a professional photographer and I'm allowed to, there's no law against it" - can you not concede this is a tad unreasonable? Perhaps even inflammatory?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

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!"

It's not currently a crime to be abnormal or antagonistic though.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I get that - all within the law - I know my rights, stuff. But what annoys me is when people appear to be doing it in an obnoxious, unhelpful attitude - because I can - way.
If someone stood outside your house endlessly taking photos of your house, so long as they are on public land, they are entitled to do so, but wouldn't you feel the urge to go and ask then why they are doing it and would they kindly stop. You can only ask them to be reasonable, there is no law for you to enforce. [maybe harassment of a private dwelling, I don't know].

Harassment and/or stalking laws should cover this.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

The world seems to be full of people who want to over complicate the world by almost testing things rather than just accepting situations. Why are you here? Seems a reasonable request so the answer just needs to say this is why I am here. Rather than you don't have any right to ask me that. By the same token don't go asking people what they are doing if it's clearly obvious why they are doing it.

It's called communication but we seem to have given that up in the modern world as we want to just over complicate everything for some reason. And this is supposed to be a world where communication has made the world a smaller place

 

[Lethargic]

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

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

It's not currently a crime to be abnormal or antagonistic though.

Now you're just trying to push my buttons - where did I say [or even suggest] that is was?
Sounds like you might be one of those that wants to defend your legal rights in an abnormal or antagonistic way .....

 

[Guy Fawkes]

So if like previous occasions and the victory parade ends up at Hove Town Hall, and there are 1000s of Albion fans taking photos and videos of Hove Town Hall are we all terrorists according to the Police threshold?

I suspect they will shortly start placing officers next to the i360 and every time the pod comes down and the visitors exit they will all be arrested for taking photos of Brighton and Hove that could be used by a terrorist group.

So it seems we now have a very low threshold for the Police to believe someone may be a tourist, taking a photo of a public building.

Train spotters beware not only will you be arrested for taking photos and videos of trains, but that notebook detailing the time location and train details is a goldmine for terrorists and you will be locked up.

It's virtually coming to the stage where if a Police Officer doesn't like your look, then you will be arrested as the Police Officer believes that just by walking in the street you may be collecting terrorist information.

Isn't this type of action one that we would condemn if a UK citizen was arrested abroad while taking holiday snaps.

Sleep walking into a dictatorship in the UK.

What do you think happens prior to a terrorist attack?

No planning, surveillance, etc? just turn up on the day and hope that you will be able to carry out your attack unhindered and as effectively as you wish?

Or do they spend time checking out their plan, taking photos of the place they wish to attack, the security that's in place, etc?

What would you rather happen? an attack happen which could have been prevented, with a major loss of life (like thousands of fellow Albion fans celebrating) or someone being questioned and, if up to no good, caught? - Surely a few seconds to confirm what you were doing there and why you were taking photos isn't that much of an inconvenience and if acting lawfully, why would you wish to be obstructive to police Officers carrying out their jobs and trying to keep people safe?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

What do you think happens prior to a terrorist attack?

No planning, surveillance, etc? just turn up on the day and hope that you will be able to carry out your attack unhindered and as effectively as you wish?

Or do they spend time checking out their plan, taking photos of the place they wish to attack, the security that's in place, etc?

What would you rather happen? an attack happen which could have been prevented, with a major loss of life (like thousands of fellow Albion fans celebrating) or someone being questioned and, if up to no good, caught? - Surely a few seconds to confirm what you were doing there and why you were taking photos isn't that much of an inconvenience and if acting lawfully, why would you wish to be obstructive to police Officers carrying out their jobs and trying to keep people safe?

Terrorists are hardly likely to bring attention to themselves. He did answer the question to the civilian who asked him.

Mr Mitchell said: “I wasn’t challenged by a police officer. I was asked what I was doing. I said I was a photographer taking pictures of the town hall, simple.”

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Terrorists are hardly likely to bring attention to themselves. He did answer the question to the civilian who asked him.

Mr Mitchell said: “I wasn’t challenged by a police officer. I was asked what I was doing. I said I was a photographer taking pictures of the town hall, simple.”

So what else did he do to make the Copper come over to him to ask about it in the first place? If his just taking pictures doesn't seem enough for someone to ask him about it?

How does a terrorist take photos in a non suspicious way?, how does that vary from anyone else taking photos?

 

[Creaky]

What do you think happens prior to a terrorist attack?

No planning, surveillance, etc? just turn up on the day and hope that you will be able to carry out your attack unhindered and as effectively as you wish?

Or do they spend time checking out their plan, taking photos of the place they wish to attack, the security that's in place, etc?

What would you rather happen? an attack happen which could have been prevented, with a major loss of life (like thousands of fellow Albion fans celebrating) or someone being questioned and, if up to no good, caught? - Surely a few seconds to confirm what you were doing there and why you were taking photos isn't that much of an inconvenience and if acting lawfully, why would you wish to be obstructive to police Officers carrying out their jobs and trying to keep people safe?

Are the following reasonable requests? - questions which if asked of the right people could equally prevent the scenario you outline.

'What are your bank account details?"
'What is your email password?"
"What web sites have you visited"

. . . . and so on.

The key thing is that they are all valid questions in the fight against terrorism when asked of the right people - the right people are of course those where there are grounds to reasonably believe they are involved in terrorist activities - it has to be something other than having an email account, bank account, web surfing and taking photographs, (all perfectly normal attributes), that provides those grounds.

Acceding to demands which reduce personal liberties is to put those liberties at risk which will affect far more people than terrorism ever will. Giving up those liberties is allowing terrorism to win.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

So what else did he do to make the Copper come over to him to ask about it in the first place? If his just taking pictures doesn't seem enough for someone to ask him about it?

How does a terrorist take photos in a non suspicious way?, how does that vary from anyone else taking photos?

The civilian called the police. The photographer had professional equipment with him, that would show him to be a professional. Have you read the article? This photographer actually takes photos for the police and is known by lots of them. It was heavy handed harassment.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Are the following reasonable requests? - questions which if asked of the right people could equally prevent the scenario you outline.

'What are your bank account details?"
'What is your email password?"
"What web sites have you visited"

. . . . and so on.

The key thing is that they are all valid questions in the fight against terrorism when asked of the right people - the right people are of course those where there are grounds to reasonably believe they are involved in terrorist activities - it has to be something other than having an email account, bank account, web surfing and taking photographs, (all perfectly normal attributes), that provides those grounds.

Acceding to demands which reduce personal liberties is to put those liberties at risk which will affect far more people than terrorism ever will. Giving up those liberties is allowing terrorism to win.

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

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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

So if a woman (not the police) comes up to you in the street, asks your name and address, you would give it without hesitation?

 

[Guy Fawkes]

The civilian called the police. The photographer had professional equipment with him, that would show him to be a professional. Have you read the article? This photographer actually takes photos for the police and is known by lots of them. It was heavy handed harassment.

He obviously wasn't known by those from the Police who questioned him or detained him, there are thousands of employees in the force in Sussex

Sussex Police detained a man who was taking photographs of Hove Town Hall on behalf of the BBC this afternoon (Thursday 4 May).

Is the possibility of terrorism simply ruled out because of what, that terrorists simply could never get hold of such equipment for themselves? naive thinking if that's why


Shouldn't the public report to the Police if they think they see something suspicious which could be related to terrorism?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

He obviously wasn't known by those from the Police who questioned him or detained him, there are thousands of employees in the force in Sussex

Is the possibility of terrorism simply ruled out because of what, that terrorists simply could never get hold of such equipment for themselves? naive thinking if that's why

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/