Slashdot Mirror
Police Allegedly Arrest UK News Photographer For Standing In A Field (wordpress.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Andy Smith, a Scotland-based news photographer, writes: I'm a press photographer. Slashdot has previously covered how the police used underhanded tactics to seize some of my work photos. But that was far from the end of the story. Several months of harassment culminated in me being arrested for standing in a field, something protected by law here in Scotland. I was given a police caution, which is a formal alternative to prosecution, but the police then cancelled the caution and prosecuted me anyway. Ironically, I was meant to be joining the police this month as a volunteer, but that has now been delayed by at least six months.
Earlier Andy had filmed the same police sergeant warning him not to photograph a minor traffic accident -- which had "seemed to anger him."
Earlier Andy had filmed the same police sergeant warning him not to photograph a minor traffic accident -- which had "seemed to anger him."
NARC schill bingo!. What do I win? If you cops ain't doing anything wrong, what are you afraid of? isn't that what you tell us? Something is wrong when you need to enable psyops to get citizens to not hate cops. Think about it.
It's only a matter of time before a journalist is arrested for being outstanding in the field.
The vast majority of us, myself included, neither (a) work directly for the public through the public largesse, nor (b) have taken it upon ourselves to "protect and serve" the public. In either case--and certainly when both are true, it is appropriate for the public to exercise oversight.
It's much like using in-home cameras to monitor one's babysitter or housekeeper.
Exactly. Clearly there must be more to the story. The fact that it's being obscured tells me the photographer was being a dick.
Police are granted an effective monopoly of force and deserves to be under public scrutiny of how they use that.
As the authorities so often say to the commoners - if you have nothing to hide you you shouldn't object to this $whatever...
Guess they don't like it when the boot is on the other foot - but you'll happily lick their toes in lieu of the boot...
even though he has created millions of jobs and restored civility and respect for all points of view to the white house.
What universe do you live in?
He hasn't created a single job. This administration's fiscal year started yesterday. All jobs created up to now were created by the fiscal policies of the prior administration. FACT
Civility and respect? Come over here and I'll grab you by your fucking pussy and see if you still think there's any civility in that! All his whining about the press? Maybe if Twitler wasn't such a douche the press would give him a break.
And BTW, where's his taxes? And the wall that he was going to make Mexico pay for. And repealing the ACA? Yeah, that douche. Back under your rock, you slimy git.
"Let's not forget how utterly corrupt and liberal the press has become. I don't know about the UK but here in the USA the mainstream press is 100% bullshit all day every day. "
While in the UK Foxnews got cancelled because nobody watches it.
And nothing else. I am still waiting for Slashdot to implement my request for a marker in each thread to show where the trolls stop, and the actual discussion begins.
But I suppose that's what the moderators are for.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Outstanding in his field.
filming XXX doing their jobs in the hope that he will catch one of them slipping up
Hilariously, that seems to be the point of the notorious British CCTV surveillance nightmare. ;-p
Ezekiel 23:20
What we have here is a classic shark jumping moment. A slashdot reader submits a story based on an un-substantiated* blog entry written by himself of events pertaining to himself and this make the front page. And as a tie in to this story, TFS links to a story of exactly the same provenance from earlier this year.
This totally smacks of a Bennet Hasselton style content.
* I am not denying the likelyhood of the events as describe. Its the mixing of subject and author that is problematic.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
In the UK there are some public access laws - https://www.gov.uk/right-of-wa...
Why is the term "allegedly" used in the title? Either he was arrested or he was not. This isn't a matter of someone being accused of something and a decision of truth not yet made, this is a news report about an event. Is the author saying that they are not sure he was arrested or that it hasn't been proven that he was arrested? Isn't it the job of the reporter to determine the reportable facts of the story?
For reference - neither have these cops sworn to protect and serve the public. They have sworn “I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of constable with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality,and that I will uphold fundamental human rights and accord equal respect to all people, according to law.”
Well done for the USA! USA! USA! post. No journalist has ever been threatened arrested or beaten for photographing the police in the US, despite it being legal.
It's legal here too.
generally you'll have no trouble finding a lawyer if you ran into that sort of issue here.
His union has been support.
So just stop photographing the police, and be glad it's the least of your worries.
If the police are afraid of what might happen if the public see them in action, it'll rapidly become the greatest of your worries.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Tresspassing in a field is not a thing in Scotland. In fact, it's explicitly written into law that you have every right to cross someone else's field as long as you don't cause damage.
This didn't happen in England - it happened in Scotland, where it's explicitly written into law that it's completely legal to walk on someone else's land as long as you don't cause damage.
This is for England, not Scotland. Scotland's public access to land is much more far reaching than this - it amounts to "you can be on someone else's land as much as you like, as long as you don't damage anything".
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
There are limitations to what you can do while accessing public land though as your own link points out. Personally, I don't think it should be illegal at all for private individuals to film public locations while in public and especially not when its public servants being filmed. But someone has to stand up for our freedoms, even though it may come at great personal expense to themselves, or we will quickly find that government encroachment has eroded them to nothing.
With all due respect, most of us actually are accountable at work. Many of us with historical lots of our every move, and archived 4k video of every moment we're at work.
Cry me a river that the folks we give guns to occasionally for a few minutes have to have the same level of scrutiny as a McDonald's burger cook.
The police don't care that someone is standing in a field. Was he doing something that was illegal? Was he trespassing on private property and the owners didn't want him there, perhaps?
Read the article, which explains what occurred. The cliff notes is that the plod didn't want him to photograph an accident scene, even from afar.
And stop being such an American - in much of the world, including Scotland, the public has a right of way and right to roam and cannot be kept out of private property for a good reason (and ownership is not a good reason). Walking across a field, or stopping, as long as you don't cause damage is a right.
The application for the warrant quickly made its way through the court.... I securely erased my computers and memory cards. I couldnâ(TM)t risk the police being able to identify sources from other stories, or finding passwords to access my email and instant messaging accounts which could compromise other peopleâ(TM)s sources.
So he is notified that he is the subject of a search warrant and immediately erases all of his data. Wouldn't that act alone get you a jail term in normal circumstances?
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
And the press is in place to be the ones watching the law enforcement to prevent them to go too crazy. For the public this is one of the few ways to prevent public servants to become public masters. It don't work all the time though. And some reporters have unfinished business with law enforcement which means that they can go beyond what the law allows them to do.
But regardless of if it's reporters or law enforcement personnel that exceeds the law it's up to the courts to decide a law was broken or not.
Reporters shall also take care to not harm ongoing investigations. It may mean that they should consider delaying release of their findings at least until the harm that it could cause to an investigation or court verdict is limited.
Anyway it's not up to the individual cop to take action against reporters except to protect them from unnecessary risks.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
... or cause danger, or intrude on privacy. I.e. you won't have access to someone's back yard where they might reasonably expect privacy, or to a pasture with dangerous animals, but a field is fair game. If planted, footpaths must be provided to cross or skirt them, so you don't impede on the public right of way.
It's also a crime to prevent people from access without a good reason (and ownership is explicitly not a good reason). I.e. the policeman here is the one who should be prosecuted.
If there's an angry bull in the field then it would make sense to remove the person from the field even if they don't cause damage to the property - just for their own safety. But the cop could of course just "miss to see" such a person and instead let them take their chances with the bull.
Replace bull with other risk at leisure.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
As a police officer you are a public official, granted extra powers. The public has a right to make sure the extra power granted is used properly.
That said, the press needs to find a way to reward honest and fair treatment on what is going on. Government controlled media plays to the party, private media, is trying to get what makes money. We need a way to cover the truth.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I can also imagine that you could stand in other places as well to take a photo if you got the permission from the property owner.
Film the street from someones apartment shouldn't be a big deal.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
To recap: the author took photos of what might have been the scene of a misdeamanor and told the police that he did not see anything. (I assume it is a misdemeanor because the suspect was convicted and sentenced to less than a year using the author's photographs).
It was around this time that I started noticing police cars everywhere: Parked near my home, pulling up near me in car parks, driving behind me at all times of day. I wondered if they had information that someone connected to the court case was out to get me, and they were making sure I was safe.
The paragraph above makes me think that the author regards his place in the universe with a bit more awe than is warranted.
Not that policing doesn't attract power-hungry assholes, but even granting that the police in question are acting unprofessionally with malice towards the author, his account here and before both seem to omit the "why."
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
And don't intrude on anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.
I.e. if someone slips behind a tree to take a leak, you cannot take a picture of their privates with the justification that you were standing on publicly accessible property.
I just came here to leave a MST3K reference. Thank you.
Walking around a field is a right. Walking through one is not. The government's own guide to the law says you can't cross land where crops are growing. So, depending on the specifics, it very well can be illegal to stand in the middle of a field.
won the Nobel Prize for being outstanding in a field
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
To receive a Police caution, you must first admit the offence, if you do not confess, a caution cannot be issued. It has to be proven in the normal way.
https://www.gov.uk/caution-war...
Your cliff note leaves out one important fact. The accident* involved a police car.
* [Hot Fuzz]:
00:39:04 - What happened, Danny? - Traffic collision.
00:39:07 Hey, why can't we say "accident" again?
00:39:09 Because "accident" implies there's nobody to blame.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
But it isn't an offence either.
Even in England, individual trespass isn't illegal. In Scotland, what he did was explicitly legal.
All that can happen is that the owner could sue him for damage to the crops.
These cops were little better than the one who arrested that nurse the other day in Utah. The reason they withdrew the caution was that they knew that they had no leg to stand on.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
If you can't tell the difference between sarcasm and trolling, that's because in some cases there really isn't any difference. Sometimes even the person posting doesn't know whether they're being ironic, or trolling, or sometimes both.
The proof he is a news photographer appear to be a three year old photo of the Northern lights public in a small regional newspaper.
Well, so long as he wasn't running through a field, I suppose that's okay.
Depends on whether scissors were involved not.
This asshole insists on filming peacekeepers doing their jobs in the hope that he will catch one of them slipping up. How many of us would appreciate the same treatment at our place of employment? I say lock him up, throw away the key, and withhold the condoms. What a douche.
If I were working in a daycare or school, an old-age home, or any other place where even the whiff of impropriety would be a huge problem, I'd welcome video surveillance. Great way to get rid of false accusations. I have a sister who's made plenty of false accusations of mistreatment by staff, theft (the stuff inevitably shows up where she forgot she stashed it), you name it.
The propensity of people who have no real life to complain about every imagined slight is incredible. For example, one time after accompanying her to a doctor's appointment, she started whining about how it's unfair that the transport didn't take her directly back to the facility, instead diverting to pick up another patient on the way to the same destination. I finally got fed up and told her that she's lucky that they were only diverting for one extra patient, because the van has a capacity of 3 wheel chairs, that she should be grateful to live in a country where all the care and housing she receives is free, and that other people have it worse than her.
And then we got to pick up the next patient - who, unlike her, had no legs. He had had to wait even longer, but he wasn't complaining. He was just happy we showed up.
And getting angry calls from the rest of the family accusing me of force-feeding her (she's anorexic) when I did nothing of the sort, and there were plenty of witnesses that all I did was sit with her and try to encourage her to eat at least some of the meal. Damn right I'd want cameras.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If the reporter has evidence of official malfeasance, why should they delay releasing that info? Play by the rules or you're disqualified. We had a case here of police illegally wiretapping reporters. Should that be covered up until after the reporter is tried for leaking details of an investigation into leaks about police wrong-doing? Bullshit.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Fuck you nazi
Trump hasn't created any jobs. Until such time as Trump actually introduces a budget, any job creation is due either to (a) private enterprise operating under Obama's last budget, or (b) public spending under Obama's last budget.
Even his wife Melina is increasingly anti-Trump, snubbing him very publicly. He needs to be liked and seen as being powerful that you can be pretty sure she's used her leverage to get herself a very expansive and lucrative post-nup. After all, she's smarter than he is.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Which goes to show that indoctrination by the corporatist UK government works extremely well: independent thought has been pretty much stamped out across the country.
England, Scotland, what's the difference?
The Scotsman will kill you if you call him an Englishman, the Englishman won't.
Ezekiel 23:20
That's not possible; there's steep cliffs around Balmora.
Ezekiel 23:20
It used to be just a case that if you owned a device capable of receiving TV broadcasts they would drag you through the courts, nowadays it also encompass anything capable of streaming video off the net.
The argument that this is somehow not technically mandatory when 99%+ of UK households are in fact legally obliged to obtain a TV licence whilst the onus is on you to prove that you don't doesn't hold much water with me mate. And before you raise the issue of pensioners, they too are obliged to obtain a licence, it is at no cost but they must still hold one, and trust me the BBC get very angsty when you tell them you don't want one.
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
It certainly is not. Try taking photos of someone else's children in the park for example - you need to take care not even to get them in frame by accident. Try taking "candid" pictures - be careful that the subject does not notice. Then there are your photos with a telephoto lens of the girl down the road who forgot to close her bedroom curtains.
they are never called "peacekeepers" or "peace officer" here bud.. just Police Officer.. well not just that.. but that's the official title!
Scotland had their chance to split from UK and they blew it
love is just extroverted narcissism
And both would have their valid reasons to do so :)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
England, Scotland, what's the difference?
The Scotsman will kill you if you call him an Englishman, the Englishman won't.
Aye right.. Scotsman here.. A Scotsman will simply tell you to fuck off is accused of being English. :-)
Same applies the other way round...
Just as i am telling you to fuck off right now for that bollocks
He might not explicitly ask the why but the question is certainly implied in his writings.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Rule of thumb: If it's an AC post, assume trolling (or just douchebaggery).
https://www.penny-arcade.com/c...
Try accessing the lands around Balmoral.
Crown land, military land and otherwise selected special exceptions exist. Exceptions can also be applied for and HAVE to be for things like T in the Park and festivals like it. At one T in the park someone remembered this wee fact and demanded their "right to roam" under Scottish law and ,as the organisers had forgotton to apply for exemption they had to open the gates.. I shit you not.
However, as said, there ARE most certaily exceptions and Royal residences are amongst them. You can usually pay for tours though when royalty are not in residence.
The biggest hurdle is the river, the road is on the public side and if I remember well there are some restrictions on stopping at this section facing Balmoral.
You get closer to the house the fences become more serious and I believe a lawn, however large, is not a field as intended by The Land Reform Act.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Melania watches Game of Thrones and after the last episode she warned Donald that walls are not dragon proof...
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
It's legal to take a photo of anything you like in the UK, as long as you're stood on publicly accessible property when you take it.
Really? I got my city and guilds in photography AV Tech back in the mid 80's and during that course we got some law applicable to photography.
There re corcumstances where it would in fact be "Assault by photography" here in Scotland if you are on public land or private land it matters not for this. If you use long lenses to invade someone's personal privacy where they are at home and have a reasonable expection of privacy.
Mostly it has historically been the paparazzi that have fallen foul of this. But yeah.. you can be arrested to taking photo's from public land... context is all and sweeping generalizations are usually off the mark.
That BBC is in no way connected to Fake News outlets like say the Daily Mail or The Sun.
Maybe you confused the BBC with Rupert Murdoch.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Could be worse: it could be Hillary, and with her new wars, new taxes, and new free speech restrictions.
If you like the UK healthcare system, it means cutting per-patient Medicare/Medicaid spending in half, making most doctors government employees, cutting the average doctor salaries in half, introducing waiting times of many months, and limiting services to the elderly. If you think that results in a better healthcare system, you're a fool.
you must be referring to the NHS in England. In Scotland it performs much better.
The article make no claims to what IS the law pertaining to photographing cops at work. Can they legally tell him to stop??im betting their are circumstances they can. Can they take his photos?? I'm betting their are circumstances they can, Those facts are missing. Sure seems he was in his right to be in a field doesn't give him the right to break any other laws while in the field.Too many facts missing to say the person is completely innocent and within his rights to tell the cops no you cant take my pics away or stop him from taking them IMO.
Jack of all trades,master of none
How is it a lie that Trump hasn't passed a budget yet? Or pretty much anything, for that matter? You're just another fat, embittered loser. And obviously you care what I think, or you wouldn't have replied to it. As I said, loser.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Except for waiting times, everything I said applies throughout the UK/US. As for waiting times, Scotland still has waiting time targets (!) of 6 weeks for diagnostic tests and 18 weeks for referral to treatment. That would be completely unacceptable even as targets in the US. Of course, by US standards, Scotland is dirt poor, about 30% below Mississippi.
And if you're going to make arguments of "but in this part of the UK", I'd point out that if you go by states and regions, you can find always find parts of the US as well that do spectacularly well compared to the rest.
Could be worse: it could be Hillary
It was more of a general statement on how the founding fathers got the free speech thing right, but our election process still has a few bugs. If things were flipped around and Hillary had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, you can bet the other side would've cried "foul" too. (Also: Insert quip about the shortcomings of our essentially two-party system here)
If you like the UK healthcare system, it means cutting per-patient Medicare/Medicaid spending in half, making most doctors government employees, cutting the average doctor salaries in half, introducing waiting times of many months, and limiting services to the elderly. If you think that results in a better healthcare system, you're a fool.
If you can afford to pay your way in our profit-driven healthcare system, yes - that system sounds worse. However, if you can't afford a plan with realistic co-pay costs and deductibles (and are unlucky enough to live in a state which rejected the ACA subsidies), you may as well have no insurance at all.
Being uninsured means either paying completely out of pocket for all your medical expenses, and/or going to the E.R. and defaulting on the bill.
It's not all that uncommon to hear about people here who have lost their homes due to medical expenses. But we can take all the pictures we want of the sheriff when he comes to serve the eviction notice. Yay.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
you know.. we have choice here too. We can get private policies and btw... I have a BUPA family plan, they are a massively cheaper here than over there. you guys get humped for healthcare.
Those waiting times are for routine diagnostics and proceedures. When it comething more serious then things speed up...
I got treatment for cancer a few years back(nothing terminal but scary nonetheless), I went with the NHS at the Western General in Edinburgh and the place is AMAZING. the staff , facilities and support are first rate. Recuperative care...... that was with BUPA.
Not everyone can afford private but if you can then why not?
Stephen Hawking credits the NHS with saving his life and is currently in a war of words with the Health Secretary over how important the NHS is
You can piss and moan about how shitty our universal healthcare is... yet we have it and you don't.
our people DO get care when they need it and in Scotland, even the prescriptions medicines are free for children, the disabled, unemployed, students and even some people on lower incomes.
I more than happily pay my National insurance contributions every month. It pays for any medical emergency that may happen to me or my family but also helps pay for unemployment benefit should I become unemployed. Everyone here at some point or points in their life will have reason to thank the NHS for being there and never having to worry about deductibles or prescription medicine prices. if people need treatment they will get it... unlike the US where deductibles and prescriptions fees will get in the way IF people have insurance at all.
So we appreciate social healthcare as do many places worldwide. A healthy workforce is a happy workforce. a happy workforce is a more productive workforce. so it makes sense from an employers side too.
Our election process works quite well: unlike European parliamentary systems, it has kept us from sliding into tyranny for more than two centuries.
Again, if you look at European history, the two party system is a feature: parties like the NSDAP and dictators like Hitler could only come to power under Europe's multi-party parliamentary systems.
The problem with our health care system for the past half century has been that it hasn't been "profit driven", or more precisely, that it hasn't been a free market health care system. It has instead been driven by government-granted monopolies and socialization of costs.
I have news for you: being insured these days also means paying completely out of pocket for all of your medical expenses, given the high deductibles most affordable plans have.
How nice for you. But you have a system in which the government provides a basic level of healthcare through government-run institutions, controls costs strictly, and permits a thriving national market for supplementary and private insurance.
That's not what the US healthcare debate is about. The US healthcare debate is about providing everybody the same top-notch medical care regardless of income without meaningful cost controls on providers. And then people pretend that such a "universal healthcare system" is anything like the UK system.
The US has the money to provide UK-style healthcare out of the existing Medicare/Medicaid contributions. Obama had eight years to do it, instead he screwed up the private insurance market.
Outrageous. I shall complain to the Hlaalu Council about that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Let's be crystal clear here: the existing Medicare/Medicaid system could cover every single American at the same level as the British are covered by NHS without increasing Medicare/Medicaid contributions at all. Furthermore, per patient costs in Medicare/Medicaid are higher, and outcomes are worse, than in the US private system, even controlling for demographics.
You're right that the problem in the US is with "profits", but it's not the profits of insurance companies. The profits we're talking about here are the profits of the pharma and medical cartels and Democratic reformers aren't touching those. Quite the contrary: they want to mandate that everybody is forced to pay for those profits by law.
While Democrats love to point to universal healthcare in Europe, they are pulling a bait and switch: single payer healthcare in Europe overwhelmingly uses nationalized providers and strict salary and cost controls, but Democrats aren't proposing that because it would upset their biggest donors who make massive profits off the current system.
How nice for you. But you have a system in which the government provides a basic level of healthcare through government-run institutions, controls costs strictly, and permits a thriving national market for supplementary and private insurance.
That's not what the US healthcare debate is about. The US healthcare debate is about providing everybody the same top-notch medical care regardless of income without meaningful cost controls on providers. And then people pretend that such a "universal healthcare system" is anything like the UK system.
The US has the money to provide UK-style healthcare out of the existing Medicare/Medicaid contributions. Obama had eight years to do it, instead he screwed up the private insurance market.
the US is 22 trillion in debt and rising :-)
The police don't care that someone is standing in a field. Was he doing something that was illegal? Was he trespassing on private property and the owners didn't want him there, perhaps?
This is the UK. The police don't like photographs at all. Its like they are afraid they'll steal their souls or something. I've seen all kinds of examples of cops interfering with photography for no reason whatsoever. People get harassed by the cops for taking photos while standing on their own property and cops just happen to walk by at the time.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
This is a situation where something last winter pissed someone off when he insisted that they go through proper channels, and in response someone in the police or prosecution office decided to make an example of him - instead of properly requesting photos they filed for an order allowing them to seize basically everything electronic that he owned, then said "If you give us these photos, we won't come in and completely destroy your livelihood by keeping all of your stuff for a year or two and returning it with 'accidental' damage."
This is a followup to that, basically he didn't knuckle under to someone in a slight position of power and they took umbrage.
Whoever he pissed off is the kind of petty tyrant that gives police departments a bad name.
fencepost
just a little off
Look here, the turnout in the 2016 election was about 56% of the electorate, of them a 46% minority voted for Trump.
So why are you surprised reasonable persons the world over, including a majority of US citizen, are upset with the outcome?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Agreed. I've taken photographs of children and posted them online. It's perfectly legal, along with photographing the police. I take pictures of them exactly because they tried to prosecute people for it and got a spanking.
As for candid photography.. it's my favourite sort. Street mostly, but also events.
Of course you can. In the UK you use those photos commercially too, although some restrictions around logos.
Bullshit. Basic level of healthcare my arse.
The NHS provides an excellent level of healthcare.
It is possible to get marginally better outcomes if you pay insane sums of money but that's true in the UK and the US. In the UK you get close to those margins for no extra cash; in rhe US sizeable numbers of people can't afford to get anywhere near.
Checked life expectancy in the two countries lately?
I'm Canadian (although mostly Scottish by ancestry). I once stayed in a bed and breakfast in Ireland.
The woman running it said "oh, you're American!" I said "well, Canadian actually." She said "basically the same thing." I said "sure, I guess that makes you English?"
It was around this time that I started noticing police cars everywhere: Parked near my home, pulling up near me in car parks, driving behind me at all times of day. I wondered if they had information that someone connected to the court case was out to get me, and they were making sure I was safe.
The paragraph above makes me think that the author regards his place in the universe with a bit more awe than is warranted.
Is he still considered paranoid if the police ARE out to get him?
Since the guy is a "press photographer" he should have little trouble getting a real reporter to lay the facts out.
Different countries, believe it or not, in legal terms.
The 1707 Act of Union that created what is now the UK, allowed Scotland to retain it's own separated laws.
So if a law is passed in Westminster it needs enacting twice. In English law & Scottish law.
It's probably one of my favourite things about Scotland, the freedom to roam anywhere.
Yes, and as I was pointing out: that's because the public US healthcare system is so damned inefficient. The crony capitalist crap that the Democrats have been working towards, however, is nothing but a massive handout to donors of the Democratic party. Instead of creating a healthcare system like that of the UK, which spends about $4000/patient/year, Obama and Hillary have been pushing for a healthcare system that forces everybody to cough up $12000/patient/year and delivers worse outcomes than the UK.
Yes, have you? Maybe you can clearly express what you think that data shows.
So? The mandatory contributions to the public medical system in the US already bring in sufficient money to provide UK-style healthcare with no deficit or borrowing.
Oh and this:
The Federal Flag Code does not purport to cover all possible situations. Although the Code empowers the President of the United States to alter, modify, repeal, or prescribe additional rules regarding the flag, no federal agency has the authority to issue “official” rulings legally binding on civilians or civilian groups.
Your rules only apply to government organisations.
So? The mandatory contributions to the public medical system in the US already bring in sufficient money to provide UK-style healthcare with no deficit or borrowing.
BUT.. you still won't get it or the fight will be longer and more arduous than you think due to America's hangover from the McCarthy era and the fact that in America it's "fuck you.. pay me" and "me me me fuck you" .
It's more of a "we we we" here with no fear ot McCarthy ghosts damning collectivism socialised healthcare as communism.. or to be more American "communistic" because you like to end words with "istic" so you sound smarter(hint..it doesn't work).
BUT.. if you are so MASSIVELY in debt... is that why President Fuckface Von Clownstick wants to raise the debt ceiling to borrow more to build his idiotic wall and be able to afford the tax cuts to the rich maybe.... maybe... give some genuinely shit cover to some people while still throwing millions of Americans under the bus going to NoCoversville... yeah.. America is so fantastic!.....
I'm Canadian (although mostly Scottish by ancestry). I once stayed in a bed and breakfast in Ireland.
The woman running it said "oh, you're American!" I said "well, Canadian actually." She said "basically the same thing." I said "sure, I guess that makes you English?"
I wish you had videos of that moment bud. That would have been hilarious!
If they're so incompetent that a man with a camera causes them to slip up, then it's definitely in the public interest.
Would you feel physically threatened by a bloke with a camera? How do you live a life where you're constantly scared, it's got to be a horrible existence.
To expand on it. Some UK police (especially London) got wind that they could arrest photographers using Section 44 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Unsurprisingly, they didn't stop to investigate what powers they actually had. It turns out that you have to already be suspected of terrorism before taking photos - the police can't see you with a camera, think "terrorist", and then apply the powers to arrest you.
It cost some forces a large amount of money settling wrongful arrest cases against photographers.
Their previous conduct means that I tend to assume the police are in the wrong when it comes to photographer stories. I'm far less cynical for most other cases.
Nope. That is completely wrong. They can ask you to pay, but all you have to do is say "I don't consume any BBC productions". I know people that have done so, and am pondering doing it myself.
Sure, it may tedious, and there's no way it should be a criminal offence, but you do not have to pay a TV license just because you own a TV or computer.
Sure, but the police preventing a journalist/photographer from reporting the news is indeed newsworthy. It's not like he's in the news for having an affair, drink driving, etc.
When then pictures leak of something someone in some obscure group can consider offensive and written widely about by the trash we call newspapers I think you'd change your mind.Because it's _that_ we are talking about - not some surveillance video that is only used internally if something suspect is happening.
There have been many cases where lives of innocent people have been risked as everyone thinks they have the right to interfere with police and ambulance personel. They don't. They think they have the right of publishing the faces and injuries of seriously hurt people. They don't.
This seems to be more of the same. Fuck him.
In court Fox News has argued that they are an entertainment organization and not a news service. It is their view that they can lie as part of the entertainment. They seek ignorant viewers who get great pleasure in someone seeming to agree with their beliefs. their viewers are brainwashed and very hard to rescue.
Funny, because it might be true. ;-)
I'm English.
Are you sure that I'll only tell you to fuck off if you call me Scottish? :-)
So much anger and vitriol towards the US... that's not somebody talking who is happy with his circumstances.
You know, I have plenty of reasons to be angry at Europe, having grown up there. But I'm just glad that I'm out of there.
He was photographing an accident from a vantage point in the field. The police officer didn't like that and demanded that the photographers hands over all his cameras and photographs. If he doesn't do so, the police will get a court order and warrant to seize his equipment at home. So the photographer has no option but to do as requested.
It really looks like someone is covering up for a mate. The driver would get away with it if there's no other evidence - "this flock of sheep deliberately and wilfully jumped from a ridge into the front of my car as I was driving by slowly" would replace "I was drunk, driving like the devil down a narrow country road and knocked down a flock of sheep being herded down to the next field".
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Andrew Smith is Scottish?
What a shock!
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
I think it shows that the average Brit will live almost three years longer than the average American.
While I'd hesitate to attribute that all to the NHS I think it demonstrates that the NHS is hardly causing people to die young.
Still failed to address the issue - how is it a lie that Trump hasn't passed a budget and as such, cannot take credit for any job creation to date?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
No, it doesn't even do that. All your line of reasoning demonstrates is your utter ignorance of the subject.
i thought everything superceded any constitution anywhere today, its the new black ... or fad , or something, raison d'état, what about the children, in the name of kill the terrerizts, whatever shuts the plebs up in democratic western lobbyland
... well that beats my "for looking at a car" i guess cos i wasnt arrested, just stopped with about three cars and a biker-cop in the middle of street in front of smallville passing by, "but we have to come", yea i know man, and you see all those people watching now, THAT's the problem here in hickville
...... if that saves me from looking at a car
etcetera and bla, "for standing in a field"
can you tell me who called ? no we can't we dont know that
o so its anonymous , i cant even complain back for harassment or slander
you could file a complaint
could, okay, can i go ?
sure, ofcourse,
thanks
next time wear a plastic bag when you come from the supermarket ?
euhm
bye
something like that
standing in a field is actually a legal issue hm ?
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
The police don't care that someone is standing in a field. Was he doing something that was illegal? Was he trespassing on private property and the owners didn't want him there, perhaps?
Read The Fucking Article, it says what he was doing in the field. Taking fucking pictures.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It appears that you find misbehaviour from the police utterly fucking unthinkable. Stop being stupid.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
There are a lot of weird laws in England that relate to ownership and rights relating to various tiny sections of land.
Events in the article take place in Scotland, which is clearly pointed out on numerous occasions, and it's also pointed out more than once than in Scotland you are allowed to be in people's fields. Other than that, 10/10 comment.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Oh, police kill BAME people here too - it's just that cos' we don't hand a firearm to anyone capable of reciting the oath of office they have to be more ...creative... about it
https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
And that he thinks "being a dick" is justification enough.
Per the article (which perhaps to your surprise can sometimes be a source of information about the topic at hand): "Now, for anyone outside Scotland, there’s something you need to know: You can walk through fields here. It’s not illegal. It’s specifically protected in law, in the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003. And although not relevant in this case, if there’s a crop then you can still walk in the field, you just have to stay at the edge."
It's more likely than the other way around. For many in the Asian world if you asked them what continent America is in they wouldn't know for sure, but it's certain they would know of the country.
My sister works in a home of the elderly. This all sounds like standard behavior. Things get "stolen" all the time. One time the stolen false teeth where found a week later in another persons mouth.
I have seen people who put on glasses that where not theirs. They already had glasses on, so now they had two pairs on. I have seen it with my mother who thought they stole her keys, while she had placed them somewhere.
However that does not mean that cameras are welcome in a home. It is, after all, a home, not a prison. That means that they should have a certain expectancy of privacy. I doubt you would be ok to have camera's in your home where others have access to the content.
So no, never camera's just to prove that things didn't happen. And if you think that the family will stop accusing you if you have video, you are wrong. They will come up with some excuse.
Camera's are a technical solution to a social problem in this case (and most others) and will do more harm than good in the long run.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The camera can be made to only be active when someone else is present in the room. Access can be limited to a trusted relative. Technical solution to a technical problem.
The idea is that we have two choices - either come up with a technical solution, or require the presence of at least two people to provide care, even if it's something as simple as getting them a glass of water. We can't afford the staffing levels of the second option, which would also have the effect of preventing timely intervention in an emergency.
It's not a question of proving anything to someone who's got dementia - it's protecting innocent people from wrongful accusations that are known to be a common occurrence in such situations. Either that, or body cams for all staff. Same end result.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.