London caching

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sorry to drag this topic up again, but it seems that there have been developments;

 

British Journal of Photography

 

More here.

[+sssss]

I will just say.

 

To any police out there.

 

Despite what the people out there on a mission may be saying and pushing through the press and courts. The complaining that they do about you. The fact that many would not actually do the job you do but are happy to tell you how to do it. Not forgetting those that have the ability of hindsight to criticize what you do.

 

I know how demoralising it can be when all you see is people out trying to make your work difficult and complaining how things are done. And just the media of bad press against you.

 

I think the majority are doing a good job.

 

I have been stopped whilst travelling and whilst caching.

 

I am happy for you to stop and search me any time. In my car, whilst out walking or caching. Have a look at the pictures I take. I am happy for my details to be kept on computers.

 

I am happy to have my time taken for the sake of the one in a hundred chance that some one drink driving, no insurance, carrying dangerous or illegal property is stopped and caught.

 

I am even happy for them to pop in for a cup of tea.

 

Shame the groups who take these campaigns through the courts, forums and press are quick to highlight problems but never seem to offer solutions.

[+sssss]

Oh and I am going to have a lay down after that and worry about things that are more important like what caches shall I visit next. This topic is way to heavy.

[norsch]

Sorry to drag this topic up again, but it seems that there have been developments;

 

British Journal of Photography

 

More here.

 

Good news for terrorists then.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good news for terrorists then.

Not at all! The police really need the law-abiding public on their side. People with cameras, or out geocaching, should be encouraged to be vigilant and become the police's extra ears and eyes.

 

If they become annoyed and alienated by abuse of police powers, co-operation is reduced and the environment for terrorists is enhanced. On top of which, we've seen a great deal of police time spent on people who are patently innocent of any offence, when these officers should have been out doing their duty.

 

The UK is not a police state, and those that happily tolerate such things as random stop-and-search, ID cards and so on are playing into the hands of the terrorists. Who, after all, would like to see our society blighted by suspicion and fear (hence the term "terrorist"). Those who meekly submit to police over-zealousness without question are helping the terrorist cause. These people would love London to be seen as a no-go area or a war zone.

 

Whilst I agree that they should have powers to arrest genuine miscreants, the authorities should also be prevented from interfering with people who are merely enjoying a legitimate pastime (even if the PCSO thinks that they might have an excuse to bother them). So, now that Section 44 has been seen to be abused, it's good that the Home Office has had cause to look again at how this is working.

 

As we've explored earlier, it's not necessarily easy to identify a passing terrorist. But as we've also explored, it's wrong to stop someone from taking photos, as that does not point in any way to the photographer being a terrorism suspect.

[team tisri]

Sorry to drag this topic up again, but it seems that there have been developments;

 

British Journal of Photography

 

More here.

 

Good news for terrorists then.

 

How is it good news for terrorists? When we are looking for a needle in a haystack why do so many people seem to think it's a good idea to keep throwing ever-more hay on the haystack?

 

We've already seen in the context of photography that someone with malicious intent could be using anything from a bulky DSLR to a compact to a cellphone to a camera concealed inside a tie or a baseball cap. We've seen several people posting saying how they no longer support the police and would rather stay under the radar generally. These are the same people the police supposedly need to be watching to aid in their job.

 

So it seems to me that Section 44 has alienated large sections of the public while doing extremely little to catch terrorists. It's all very well nodding and approving when the latest petty official cites "security reasons" to justify their actions but unless people actually ask the awkward questions (e.g. does this actually aid anybody's security) things just continue to get worse.

 

And, to look at some recent news about the latest security issue on board an aircraft, when someone booked a transatlantic flight with cash, took no luggage and was reported as a potential security threat by his own father but wasn't apprehended, how is harassing tourists taking pictures of Big Ben or the Houses of Parliament going to achieve anything?

[Neath Worthies]

Good news for terrorists then.

Not at all! The police really need the law-abiding public on their side. ........ <snip>

I agree 100% with Happy Humphrey

[norsch]

Good news for terrorists then.

Not at all! The police really need the law-abiding public on their side. ........ <snip>

I agree 100% with Happy Humphrey

 

So do I, however if the police had actually just one proven prevention of a terrorist attack, then I and others might think differently. As it is, no one, not even the police themselves can say either way.

[team tisri]

Good news for terrorists then.

Not at all! The police really need the law-abiding public on their side. ........ <snip>

I agree 100% with Happy Humphrey

 

So do I, however if the police had actually just one proven prevention of a terrorist attack, then I and others might think differently. As it is, no one, not even the police themselves can say either way.

 

The trouble with this reasoning is that if we were all confined to our homes and needed a permit to leave for any reason, and the police were authorised to shoot on sight anyone walking the streets without a permit, the scope for terrorism would be virtually zero.

 

But would that be an acceptable price to pay for safety? Personally I say no. A free and open society has certain inherent vulnerabilities, and I'd rather be free than have a vague notion of "safety" from an enemy that is only vaguely defined and which we are led to believe is well financed, well resourced and well trained but its most recent alleged operative appears to have achieved nothing more than setting his underpants on fire.

[norsch]

Good news for terrorists then.

Not at all! The police really need the law-abiding public on their side. ........ <snip>

I agree 100% with Happy Humphrey

 

So do I, however if the police had actually just one proven prevention of a terrorist attack, then I and others might think differently. As it is, no one, not even the police themselves can say either way.

 

The trouble with this reasoning is that if we were all confined to our homes and needed a permit to leave for any reason, and the police were authorised to shoot on sight anyone walking the streets without a permit, the scope for terrorism would be virtually zero.

 

But would that be an acceptable price to pay for safety? Personally I say no. A free and open society has certain inherent vulnerabilities, and I'd rather be free than have a vague notion of "safety" from an enemy that is only vaguely defined and which we are led to believe is well financed, well resourced and well trained but its most recent alleged operative appears to have achieved nothing more than setting his underpants on fire.

I think I may have missed something here, I hadn't realised the police had been shooting people on sight, I thought they had just been frisking people, asking questions and causing embarrassment. Sorry my mistake. As for well trained... I once set my underpants on fire and never had a lesson.

[team tisri]

Good news for terrorists then.

Not at all! The police really need the law-abiding public on their side. ........ <snip>

I agree 100% with Happy Humphrey

 

So do I, however if the police had actually just one proven prevention of a terrorist attack, then I and others might think differently. As it is, no one, not even the police themselves can say either way.

 

The trouble with this reasoning is that if we were all confined to our homes and needed a permit to leave for any reason, and the police were authorised to shoot on sight anyone walking the streets without a permit, the scope for terrorism would be virtually zero.

 

But would that be an acceptable price to pay for safety? Personally I say no. A free and open society has certain inherent vulnerabilities, and I'd rather be free than have a vague notion of "safety" from an enemy that is only vaguely defined and which we are led to believe is well financed, well resourced and well trained but its most recent alleged operative appears to have achieved nothing more than setting his underpants on fire.

I think I may have missed something here, I hadn't realised the police had been shooting people on sight, I thought they had just been frisking people, asking questions and causing embarrassment. Sorry my mistake. As for well trained... I once set my underpants on fire and never had a lesson.

 

My point was that the "if it saves one life" and "if it prevents one attack" reasoning is fatally flawed. People are saying that if one attack is prevented by random stop and search it was all worthwhile. But at what point do we value our freedom more than an arbitrary definition of "safety"?

 

It doesn't take a genius to figure out several aspects of society where we are vulnerable to attack, simply because we are an open society. To protect against every form of attack would require losing the freedoms we cherish, in which case the terrorists have already won.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

My point was that the "if it saves one life" and "if it prevents one attack" reasoning is fatally flawed. People are saying that if one attack is prevented by random stop and search it was all worthwhile.

 

 

There's also another aspect to this argument, in that in addition to the civil liberties aspect I think this policy is detrimental to effective policing. Two examples to consider:

 

There have been many thousands of police hours and many thousands of pounds from the police budget wasted (in my opinion) on a policy that has not been shown to be effective, those resources couldshould be better utilised on more effective policing.

 

If I was a terrorist I would take some comfort from the fact that many coppers on the beat are tied up questioning people with big cameras, which would give me the opportunity to go about my surveillance activities confident that they're not going to collar me as long as I'm not brandishing a telephoto lens.

[+Eclectic Penguin]

Recently, Geograph enthusiasts were sent away from a public footpath by a Corus security guard on the basis that they had cameras in their bags and so they may take photos of the nearby steelworks. Hardly an international incident, and the guard had no right to do this, but the more you hear about these incidents the more you view photography as being a marginally criminal activity which is under the process of being discouraged.

 

Just to set the matter straight - as I was the person in question here, whom the securty officer attempted to eject.

 

We were on a public right of way which passed quite close to a large coking plant on the Corus site.

 

Apparently, according to the guard, it was OK to have a phone with a camera built into it, but not a "real" camera even if it was inside our bags and asked us to "vacate the premesis" as soon as we mentioned that we both had cameras - I almost always carry mine with me.

 

However... once the words "public right of way" was mentioned the guard seemed to back down but still said that he'd bee keeping an eye on us and that our cameras shouldn't be brought out of our bags.

 

That said, apparently this public right of way has been a bit of a problem over the last couple of years since it doesn't really go anywhere - it officially stops 10 metres short of the beach at the site's perimiter road so you technically have to trespass just to get to the beach, which apparently is also Corus property and restricted (debateable). The nearby coking plant has many health & safety restrictions including the need for anyone attending the site or within a certain radius of the plant to officially sign in. The fact that a public footpath passes right next to it is a bit of a problem and there are plans underway with the council to redirect the footpath to provide a far more meaningful walk to the nearby nature reserve rather than the dead end it now forms.

 

As it is currently a public right of way (and I checked and have copies of the definitive map), that doesn't give security staff the right to come up to someone in their "mock police car" (yes - it even had blue lights and looked like a police car) and demand that we left the public footpath based on our answer to his first question of "do you have cameras?"

 

For anyone wanting to look up the path on a map, it starts in a rail shunting yard at SS787854 and ends at SS773846 about 10-15m shy of the beach. The footpath that starts at SS776846 doesn't exist in real life and the redirection, should it happen will start at SS786853 and hug the course taken by the railway line until it joins an "existing" footpath (which also currently doesn't exist in reality but will be properly maintained along with the creation of a bridge over the river Cynffig).

[Neath Worthies]

I'm almost tempted to go down there out of sheer bloody mindedness!

[+Eclectic Penguin]

I'm almost tempted to go down there out of sheer bloody mindedness!

 

Why not? You're perfectly within your rights to do so. You could even try walking down the branch footpath that's shown on both 1:50K and 1:25K maps - again I see nothing wrong in doing so even if there's nowt on the ground to indicate the path is there. I have a photocopy of the definitive map (both the manually updated and electronic version) which shows it clearly.

 

I know that the path is mainly used by walkers who walk down to the beach and then turn east along Kenfig sands to the nature reserve there - the river is crossable in low tide. Also, surfers refquently use the path to access the beach. Bear in mind you're tresapssing once you're over the perimiter road and onto the narrow strip of land and the beach - and I wasn't able to clarify with the council whether or not I had a right to walk on the beach (which to my previous understanding is crown property, but may not be in this case).

 

Don't forget to have a camera round your neck, on your belt and another couple in your rucksack

Edited January 14, 2010 by Eclectic Penguin

[+Happy Humphrey]

See BBC story, which summarises the current position as well as reporting on last weekend's protest.

 

As you can see here, you might be alarmed by police reaction if you take notes or photos, or revisit a cache site, even though it's not even in London!

I'd advise not returning to the site of a DNF, and keep your notebook and camera in the car if you think that someone could see you...

 

Unfortunately, the police seem to be having trouble convincing the public that they are only stopping people who they suspect to be involved with terrorism. And as this misdirected zeal clearly allows real terrorists more cover, it could be a serious mistake.

[Jester1970]

Oh, and don't forget, if you have a camera and you're not a terrorist then you must surely be a paedophile...

[+metal-bijou]

MrsB you are quite right ref the iPhone. With the free Groundspeak intro app you can even have the iPhone explain the whole concept. Used it for border control before and they were happy.

[+The Blorenges]

MrsB you are quite right ref the iPhone. With the free Groundspeak intro app you can even have the iPhone explain the whole concept. Used it for border control before and they were happy.

 

*Looks up*

 

Eh? What? me?

 

Not me, guv... I don't do iPhone/Pod/Pad

 

MrsB <--- non technical

 

[+martlakes]

Just caught up with this thread which is rumbling along nicely! Even wild accusations about Mrs B now!!

 

For me I just don't follow the logic of stopping photographers at all. So PC Plod stops someone because they have a camera pointed at Parliament across the Thames. "Hello sir can you tell me why you have a camera and are taking pics?"

"Well, I'm visiting London for a few days to stay with family and I'm out taking some pics of the famous landmarks."

"Oh, so you're not a terrorist then?"

"Oh, no, not me! The only ist I am is a tourist! LOL"

"Ok sir, thank you for your time, have a nice day!"

 

I don't know if the conversations go quite like this, but I have a sneaky suspicion that any terrorist carrying out "hostile reconnaissance" (great name) probably isn't going to admit it and may, shock horror, even have a "cover story" (sorry technical term) ready in case they are questioned. The last thing a terrorist should do is look furtive and have a concealed camera. Take pics out in the open and claim to be a Waymarker!! (on topic!)

 

It's exactly the same with proponents of ID cards. Strangely enough, terrorists don't have cards marked with TERRORIST in the top right hand corner. So, check the ID card, and it tells you what, exactly?

 

Anyway, just another good reason not to live in London!

(Although, did you know that Cumbria Constabulary are the only other lot outside London who's armed police units can stop anyone without reason, using terrorist legislation. They were granted the power as a trial I think, but it was after the terrorist training camp came to light up here.)

[+tsiolkovsky]

And just to add an extra note of doom and despondency, how long will it be before we start to see news reports such as these cropping up in the UK?

 

Popular past time can turn dangerous and illegal

[Pajaholic]

And just to add an extra note of doom and despondency, how long will it be before we start to see news reports such as these cropping up in the UK?

 

Popular past time can turn dangerous and illegal

That story's already covered in its own thread here.

 

Geoff

[Neath Worthies]

I think they missed out a "K" in the place name - should be "Wacko"

[+sonatellas]

If I get held under this act I will spill the beans on what I am doing in very full detail. I will start with "my sister Liane (Cache Hopper) made me do it. She brain waved me into it.......she got me addicted to searching for things all over the country and now I can't stop. I am forced to record it all on a website and meet with the other recruits on a regular basis. This is when they ply you will lots of alchoholic drinks and get you more brainwashed."I will then proceed to give a very long list of names. I will then bore them so much with geocaching geeky talk they will be running for their keys to let me out. I will of course hid a nano on the way out that I have concealed under my tongue throughout the interrogation.