bus spotter branded a terrorist/paedophile

[poppy34]

this made me laugh but suppose people have to be vigilant

link

sorry meant mindalina

hmm I would imagine that if I were planning to blow things up that I would not draw attention to myself and take pictures in the open. And how could taking a picture of a bus possible help - everyone has been on one and would have a good idea what they (buses) looked like without having to refer to a picture. More likely it was some jumped up little jobsworth on a power trip!

mindalina once is too many!!

Ah Poppy ok, didn't realise there were actual laws contravened with that Greek story.

Hunker you will wear out my Google button with your odd words. I do now know what a gricer is though

[dictionary]

Omniobolgist - A front for terrorism or a terminal illness?

and you might point that out to the jobsworth (actually a policeman on both occasions) while they are checking out your story, flashman, but the police do have to respond to enquiries. also you seem to be operating on the assumption that terrorists are clever, rather than idealistic and easily-led. i've sat in pubs in ireland where the limbless IRA men who didn't pass the bomb-making part of the initiation were clasping guinness between their stumps. deadly, brutal, foolish... yep, that's terrorists ime.

I would most certainly point out that he was a jobsworth - and most likely tell him / her that they should be out catching real criminals!!

i hear they love that...

although it's a weell-known terrorist tactic.

Oh ffs, how on earth does anyone think taking pictures of a bloody bus is going to aid terrorism? Ridiculous.

As for the police not being jobsworths, some of them definitely are. Although there are plenty of fine upstanding ones, I'm sure. (Actually I've got a slight crush on my friend's chief superintendant husband who chases criminals even on his days off. But I'm sure he wouldn't harass law-abiding harmless bus spotters.)

didn't the story say that members of the public reported him? bus driver narked at being photographed and a woman thought he was acting suspiciously? they have to check it out, i'd have thought.

i don't think anyone's saying that taking photos of buses equals terrorist activity, more that bleating in the press about giving up a much-loved hobby after being asked TWICE in a year is the behaviour of a nobboid.

No, they don't have to check it out, bus driver was being officious (it is perfectly legal to take pictures). And the woman was probably being an arse.

FGS, hysteria about terrorism/paedophilia just gives busybodies an excuse to get busy. We should not encourage them.

i think it's perfectly reasonable not to want to be photographed, tbh. and i'm sure that bus drivers are being warned to be vigilant for bags etc all the time by their employers. they're the ones who'll get killed if the bag explodes, i think it's harsh to call them officious busybodies for wanting to do their jobs in a manner that might one day safegueard their lives.

and tbh... who's the bigger nob? the person who is doing a job and trying to remain vigilant and occasionally gets it wrong, or some guy with 30,000 photos of buses who whinges about oppression and goes to the papers?

A Gloucestershire Police spokesman said: "If a member of the public becomes suspicious of an individual taking photos in public and makes a complaint to a police officer, the officer will first discuss the matter with the photographer.

"However, if the officer remains suspicious as to the content of the images or the photographers intentions they have the authority, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to seize the camera and arrest the individual."

he's never been arrested, so far as i understand it. he's been questioned twice. doesn't sound that officious to me.

Hmm.... taking a picture in a public place is not illegal, yet given the increasing numbers of photographers being stopped and questioned lately, you'd wonder if that was still the case. This is getting to be a serious problem for hobbyist and professional photographers alike at the moment. For example: photographer stopped while taking photos of a road. Given that any suspected "terrorist" can now be detained for 42 days without trial, then yes - it IS bloody scary when you're a photographer stopped/searched on the assumption they're a terrorist.

For those who are interested in their rights as a photographer, I suggest downloading the UK Photographers Rights guide and keeping it in their camera bag handy.

Aitch, if you think it's perfectly reasonable not to want to be photographed, then maybe you should complain about CCTV cameras. Most people's image is recorded many many times a day just going about their everyday lives.

see... i don't so much mind the cctv thing because i am not a criminal. i don't, however, want to be added to some bus-spotters personal collection. i just don't. or a hobbyist photographer either, tbh.

and i do get the civil liberties argument but equally loathe the 'world's gawn mad' claptrap. and i see more and more of it on MN... boring. as many posters have pointed out here, it's a big fuss about nothing.

so i wouldn't call the police if someone was taking photos of me, but i would be pissed off. if i was working in an role where my bosses told me to be vigilant for strange goings-on then i would tell my boss, who would in all likelihood call the police as no doubt that's what they've been told to do.

I have to say these things worry me
My son has ASD and is prone to odd fixations and remains very childlike in his manner.

He loves the playground still although he is nearly 12 and i know it is a love that is unlikely to subside as he reaches adulthood.

His current fixations are DVD's and soft toys and he could if I let him spend hours in toy shops.
I think in fact I would welcome an obsession that was as harmless as buses. i guess for me the idea that he may be regarded as a terrorist is less hideous that him being thought of locally as a paedophile.

I know the arguements that if you are innocent what is the problem. But he is harmless. He is just 'odd'. And i suspect I will spend much of my coming years explaining him to others, restricting what little freedom he may manage and keping him at home more than i would like. Because we don't seem to do odd here anymore.

But you don't need to be a criminal. You don't need to be a terrorist. Just suspected to be a terrorist. Then 42 days later they might actually tell you what you did "wrong"...

It's intimidating to be constantly stopped when you are doing NOTHING WRONG. These people are not criminals either. The amateur photographer? He wasn't taking pictures of people he was taking a picture of a road ffs. I know of several photographers who are now seriously thinking of giving up their hobby because of it. That's infringing our freedoms.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin.

Are any of these stop/search powers making us any safer? Actually no - in fact, we are feeling more "terror" than is actually justified by the risk as a result. Pretty much all of the security measures put in place after 9/11 and the July bombings would have made NO DIFFERENCE if in place before the attacks - so why are we throwing away our freedoms like this if they won't even help?

Not only that, but police time is being wasted when there are very real crimes going on that they don't have manpower to investigate. In that respect the terrorists are winning.

i'm not feeling terrorised, not in the slightest. i'm just feeling that i don't care if some old duffer is asked TWICE in a year what he's doing, and i'm feeling that it's not a story worth reporting.

Pagwatch - yep. I feel what you feel about less toleration for oddness. Honestly don't know which way things will pan out with DS, 4 atm.

Out of interest, at what point does "I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide" cross the line?

Perhaps I should install webcams in every room of my house and give the URL to the police and to the world, after all I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide.

Perhaps I should log my every movement and any hobby I might think about taking up and give it to the police in advance, after all I'm not a criminal, I have nothing to hide.

No, I have nothing to hide. But I still have a right to privacy. I still have a right not to have to justify my every move unless actually an official suspect for a crime that has been done (not one I might do in the future - Minority Report, anyone?) and even then I can have a solicitor with me or refuse to incriminate myself by staying silent.

These stop & searches should not be in the police's remit.

"Because we don't seem to do odd here anymore" - and do you know what? That's what I really miss about Britain. The great British Eccentric was romanticised and celebrated, once upon a time.

Now, heaven forbid if someone is slightly "different" from average.

i just don't give a flying fuck if a man who's photographing buses is asked what he's doing by a copper. i just don't care about cctv, in fact because it's just solved a particularly repellent murder that took place behind our house i'm rather fond of it at the moment. i'm not getting drawn into a hypothetical discussion about where civic safety vs civil liberties becasue i think it's pointless because I JUST DO NOT CARE to support men who'd throw in a hobby because they have been asked TWICE what they're doing.

oh GOD what an over-reaction. lol at the idea that the great british eccentric was celebrated. only if he was a he and wealthy. other than that, no one had time to be eccentric, too busy earning a crust.