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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
... 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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
England, Scotland, what's the difference?
The Scotsman will kill you if you call him an Englishman, the Englishman won't.
Ezekiel 23:20
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
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.
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.
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 that and his credit saying "SPP" which is Scottish Provincial Press who own rather a lot of the little local papers up in the highlands. so yeah.. he's press. not everyone works a national paper
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."
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.