Police deliver perfect mic drop reply to cyclist-bashing comment; Comedy gold Olympic mugshots; Cav wins again; Phil Gaimon calls out ESPN report of NFL coach's 'bicycling accident'; Pog touches down in Tokyo + more on the live blog

I wonder if squired was doing photography while Black (or brown)? 

@squired? (edit: they've answered, and they weren't)

Nothing illegal about taking photos - but if you spent a lot of time taking photos for example specifically around Downing Street (other sensitive sites are available), of security positions, etc, then they could be arguing that there's suspicious activity meriting a stop and search.

Personally, I would be putting a bit of pressure on the Officer to explain why having a camera in London, a massive tourist (and artistic) city is in any way suspicious and justifies a search - particularly as in the City of London, you aren't at Downing Street or or other potentially ultra-sensitive sites.

squired wrote:

The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a "loophole" and that it is just because the laws haven't kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn't stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

genuinely I think I would've told him to fuck off.

what do they think can be revealed by a camera that's not already on google maps or the internet anyway? Outrageous abuse of power (assuming they have that power). And how would they/you know what a compromising photo is if it's just pics of buildings with some pedals and traffic in front?!?

this sort of thing used to happen a lot more a number of years back, thought it had calmed down tbh

squired wrote:

The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a "loophole" and that it is just because the laws haven't kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn't stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

strange that there is not also a 'loophole' allowing for use of cameras in tourist areas. Many historic sights within the city of London area

squired wrote:

The way the police operate is an interesting one. I was stopped by the police recently in the City of London because I was carrying a camera (not actually taking any photos). He wanted to look at the photos on my camera to check for hostile reconnaissance. Anyway, while talking to him I mentioned the various illegal scooters zooming past. His response was that they are only illegal because of a "loophole" and that it is just because the laws haven't kept up with technology. So in his view he wouldn't stop people on scooters despite it currently being illegal unless they are on hire versions. He was a City of London police officer.

That officer had no right to ask to see your photo's unless he was carrying out a Section 57 stop and in which case he would have had to give you a Section 57 notice after the checks, The Prevention of terrorism Act does not empower a copper to ask to see your photo's just in case. It's interesting that the same officer was carrying out illegal behaviour whilst ignoring illegal behaviour.

Remeber if you are stopped by a copper & asked to let them see your photo's "just in case", ask if it is a Section 57 stop, if they say yes, ask for a Section 57 notification 1st, thet'll usually not want to provide one so will bluster and walk off. If it isn't a Section 57 stop you can refuse to let them see your photo's full stop.

Indeed. Every smartphone is a camera and basically everyone has one... and you can instantly upload any pics you take to the cloud, etc. So many complications. Police really shouldn't be asking to see your photos without proper authority. Police are there to serve and protect us, to investigate crime, not to be nosey in an effort to find crime without any prior evidence of a crime having been reported or commited.
I'd have told the policeman asking to see my photos to go and investigate some crime seeing as they weren't busy.

I'm a middle aged healthy looking (lots of cycling!) white guy.  I'd come from my office and was out for lunch, with my camera.  There were six of them across one of the junctions in the square mile.  He asked me what I was taking photos of (nothing, I'd not taken any), why I was there, etc.  Then said about hostile recon. and asked to see my images.  I know I could say no, but I had nothing to show him anyway.  However, it is bizarre really when I could have just as easily been walking round taking photos and videos with my mobile phone far more discreetly than anyone walking around with a camera.

I'm well aware of the rules around stopping and in this case it was odd to be stopped when I'd literally not taken a single photo, just guilty of walking with a camera at my side.  I did wonder whether they had intel about someone in the area with more deadly intentions, but I doubt I would fit the expected profile.  After he checked me the six of them went back to their van and drove off.

squired wrote:

I'm a middle aged healthy looking (lots of cycling!) white guy.  I'd come from my office and was out for lunch, with my camera.  There were six of them across one of the junctions in the square mile.  He asked me what I was taking photos of (nothing, I'd not taken any), why I was there, etc.  Then said about hostile recon. and asked to see my images.  I know I could say no, but I had nothing to show him anyway.  However, it is bizarre really when I could have just as easily been walking round taking photos and videos with my mobile phone far more discreetly than anyone walking around with a camera.

I'm well aware of the rules around stopping and in this case it was odd to be stopped when I'd literally not taken a single photo, just guilty of walking with a camera at my side.  I did wonder whether they had intel about someone in the area with more deadly intentions, but I doubt I would fit the expected profile.  After he checked me the six of them went back to their van and drove off.

Clearly were just a bit bored, needed something to do...

(Hey, but, remember, people: if you've nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear...)

Hmm...

The problem stems from the law allowing the public sale of e-scooters knowing they will in all likelihood end up being ridden illegally. Who, having bought one of these things, is going to ride it around their garden?

It puts the police in an invidious position - turn a blind eye, or rack up headlines about jobsworthy police harassing "innocent" e-scooterists; whatabout [insert your favourite crime]?

They are responding to the trial here https://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/19428882.essex-police-fine-riding-e-...

"But going forward we will now be issuing tickets for fines and points on your driving licence for traffic offences as well as seizing the e-scooter."

The child has "life changing" injuries, the scooter rider stopped to say sorry but then carried on their merry way, and the police are now "asking" for them to come forward (saying that maybe the scooterist hadn't realised how serious the child's injuries were).

I'm presuming from that, that the scooter wasn't an 'authorised scheme' rental scooter but a highly illegal private one...

I think it was more they bothered to follow up on the "not the driver" defence that other forces seem to think is not a crime and a full stop on the investigation.
 

Plus the prospect of a juicy Perverting the Course of justice charge.  Thats usually jail time so a bigger score in criminal bingo.

Fair play all the same to Northumbria Police.