Keeping The Population Docile….

Dominic Lawson, in the ‘Indy’ takes issue with the anti-terror laws and the recent police enthusiasm for cracking down on tourist photography at Sandringham:

Over a fortnight later, the security officer responsible for the Royal Family has admitted that the impounding of those ardent Royalists' cameras was "an error" – while pointing out that there are signs on the Sandringham Estate warning visitors that photography is not allowed.

Chief Inspector Stuart Offord now explains: "The officer concerned decided the provision was a way to look at the new measures on photography."

Well, yes. Because confiscating private property is just how you ‘take a look’ at new measures, isn’t it?

Yes, that's what the Chief Inspector said. The provision was a way to look at the new measures on photography. No, I don't have the faintest idea what he meant, either.

He was merely testing if anyone would object, or if they would all meekly comply.

And he was right; no-one did. They all simply handed over their personal property and complained about it afterwards.

That's the thing about organisations when embarrassed by some bad publicity: their explanation of their behaviour is usually much harder to understand than the errors they seek to mitigate.

Pretty soon, they won’t even bother to do that. They won’t need to…

… last year, police officers must presumably have thought they had reason to suspect that Alex Turner, taking pictures of a fish and chip shop in Chatham called Mick's Plaice, was in fact a terrorist. Chatham no longer has its dockyard, or indeed any army barracks... but that didn't stop two officers from stopping him taking his fishy snaps; and when Mr Turner – quite rightly, in my view – questioned their authority to stop him, he was arrested, held handcuffed in a police van, searched and interviewed by two plain-clothes officers.

This is the most unpleasant aspect of such encounters, as most of us will intuitively realise: if the innocent citizen reacts with the outrage of the genuinely guiltless, the officers involved may well take a special pleasure in humiliating him – and it is this which makes most people meekly accept official behaviour, even if they might strongly suspect it is the police who are behaving illegally.

They do it because it works. And because there are no consequences for them of doing it and getting it wrong. Start treating this kind of 'mistake' as a disciplinary offence and you'd soon see the incidences fall...

Last year an Austrian father and son, Klaus and Loris Matzka, were forced by two policemen to delete pictures they had taken of red double-decker buses in Walthamstow. Given their national provenance, it would have been a delightful irony if Klaus Matzka had accused the police officers concerned of being "Little Hitlers"; but instead he contented himself with observing: "I've never had these experiences anywhere, never in the world, not even in Communist countries."

As Mr Matzka also pointed out: "Google Street View is allowed to show any details of cities on the worldwide web."

Indeed.

So, assuming the police (at least, those on the front line) really do care about their public perception, why does this sort of thing happen? Dominic has a surprising theory.

Or is it – and I say this without knowing the characters who apprehended the unfortunate Austrian tourists – that these cases are actually the result not of pressure on police officers from terrorism, but the absence of such pressure?

To put it another way, some officers are perhaps a little bored with the mundane aspect of their work, and wish to inject a bit of James Bond glamour into the daily grind of dealing with the usual drunks and layabouts.

Interesting theory, but then, there can’t be too many of these, and surely the risk to the police’s image would make all the other officers wary of their actions.

Wouldn’t it?

And what about the recent terror attack? Surely that proves that the authorities are right to be cautios?

It turns out that, following an explicit warning by his father to the US authorities about his "extreme" political views, Abdulmutallab's name had been put on a security watch list, known as Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (Tide). Now, guess how many names are on this list. A thousand? Ten thousand? No, this list, according to Washington officials, contains more than half-a-million names.

So no wonder Abdulmutallab was not subject to any special concerns by officials as he boarded Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. If, through sheer bureaucratic over-enthusiasm the authorities have managed to create a list of over half-a-million possible terrorists (perhaps including a handful of Austrian bus-spotters) they might as well have an invisible list with no names, for all the use it will be.

Is he correct here? Would those Sandringham tourists and the Austrians appear on that list as a result of the actions taken against them, which the police must know by now were in error?

I'd like to think not, but how else to explain the numbers?

If we are almost all potential terrorists, then we have entered a world of such morbid suspiciousness that none of us can feel safe: exactly the inverse of what our masters' policies are supposedly designed to achieve.

You assume, Dominic, that that wasn’t the real intention from the get-go.

Me? I’m not so sure…

Well, There’s A Surprise…

…the council drone doesn’t even know the law he is supposedly enforcing:

A photographer was stunned to be told he couldn’t take pictures on Sandbanks beach without a permit.

Steve Cook was in the middle of a charity shoot for Help for Heroes on Monday morning when he was stopped.

He was understandably stunned, because the warden didn’t have a leg to stand on:

A beach warden insisted that commercial photography on the beach was prohibited by a Borough of Poole bylaw, unless you had the correct permit.

And that was plain wrong, as the council had to admit.

Not that it stopped them from insisting they were right regardless:

The council has now admitted that was an error – but insists commercial and professional photographers must seek permission.

Why? The beach is public space. If he doesn’t need a permit, he doesn’t need your permission, either.

And nor does anyone else.

Clearly rattled, the council apparatchik fled for safety to the comforting arms of – you guessed it – ‘elf ‘n safety, guv, know what I mean?

Anthony Rogers, recreation manager, said the council had to balance requests to film or take photographs on the beaches “with the interests of other beach users and our duty to ensure public safety.”

While there was no bylaw, he added: “We do ask that any organisation or professional wishing to use council-owned land for commercial photography or filming to seek permission beforehand and provide evidence of public liability insurance. This is standard practice in the industry.”

Ask all you want, chum. Hopefully, people will treat you and your impertinent demands with the contempt you deserve…

Mr Cook said he had the relevant insurance, but added: “This is a policy that I've never heard of in all these years of beach photoshoots.

“If this truly is the case then all of the dozens of wedding photographers who do bridal shoots every week throughout the year on the beach or parks are breaking the council’s rules.”

It isn’t the case and they aren’t breaking any rules.

And the sooner people begin reminding them that they work for us, the better…

Mark Wadsworth noted the parodic implications of the type of shoot he was on too.

The War On Photography Continues Unabated...

As the sun shines, and newspapers both national and local want pictures of people sunning themselves, there's also someone else roaming beaches with photography on their mind:

A beach warden – who would only identify himself as “Beach 8” – challenged our photographer as she took snaps on the promenade at Branksome Chine yesterday.

He demanded to see a licence and told her she shouldn’t be taking pictures without one.

Yup, it's the return of the 'We'll chance our luck, they may not know the law' council official...

After years of taking photos on the beaches unchallenged, our snapper Hattie Miles ploughed on regardless.

But the Echo wanted to know why we had been stopped in the first place.

Stuart Terry, coastal works manager at Poole council, said the beach was council land and it was “standard industry practice” to seek permission before taking pictures.

Nothing there about the clear disregard for the law shown by their employee, or by their failure to identify themselves.

I think 'coastal works manager' is a post that could be cut, don't you?

And for anyone not familiar with the case referred to in the comments to that Poole article, here's a statement that should be printed out and stapled to 'Beach 8's' forehead:

No bylaw exists prohibiting the taking of photographs on the beach.

Couldn't be clearer, could it? But Mr Terry soldiers gamely on:

But Mr Terry said beach wardens might approach photographers if they have not been given prior warning.

What part of 'there is no need for anyone to seek your permission to photograph a public beach' do you not understand, Mr Terry?

And what sort of recruitment procedures does Poole Council have, when they employ (and retain, unless both 'Beach 8' and Mr Terry are out on rtheir ear by the time this post goes up) people who can't understand the law when it's pointed out to them repeatedly?

A Telling Phrase…

A council spokesman said the school has apologised. “The school has dealt with many of Ms Harrison’s complaints, which are now concluded,” he said.

“It is happy to continue with the process with those that remain unresolved. It has apologised for any mistakes it has made.”

Put in a lot of complaints, does she?

Kate Harrison said Eastbury Comprehensive School, which won an award for kindness in February, subjected daughter Rosie to flash photography in November despite knowing her condition.

“She was flashed about 30 times,” Kate said. “She’d taken her hair down because she wasn’t feeling very well – that’s a warning sign in her care plan. She carries the risk of death – if that seizure had continued and got worse she would have fallen down, banged her head and she could’ve died.”

This seems to be written as if the child herself is incapable of recognising the danger and removing herself from the area or telling someone about it.

And after having the fit, Rosie was sent unaccompanied to find help and left suffering for three hours before the Barking school eventually called her mum. This was the second time Rosie had been left alone after a fit, after the same thing happened in October.

And despite the seizure, the Hulse Avenue school used flash photography near Rosie twice more – once in the school canteen and again in the library.

This is most odd. Surely the school is not so huge that all teachers can’t be made aware of the issue? 

But maybe there’s more to this than simple epilepsy:

But Kate said problems predate this, when she claims school teacher Natasha Lillywhite gave her the nickname “dozy Rosie” . And when Kate complained that her daughter’s specially-designed educational care plan wasn’t being followed, the school gave Rosie three 11-year-old supervisors.

And it’s not just Rosie who’s suffered – her sister Stephanie, 13, was barred from a ski trip to Ypres after a dispute over a hurt ankle. After complaining to the school, Kate was told Stephanie would not be able to attend the ski trip because she had “broken trust” and would now have to earn it back.

Hmmm…

“I’ve followed every complaint process at each stage I’ve communicated with them,” Kate said.

“Every single thing is very serious – but I’ve just been brushed away.

“They need to be held accountable for what they’ve done.”

And you’re doing that by …. appearing in the pages of your local newspaper?

State Ignorant Of Its Own Laws...

The drone, which measures 3ft between the tips of its four carbon fibre rotor blades, uses unmanned aerial vehicle technology originally designed for military reconnaissance.

Merseyside Police is one of three forces trying out the £40,000 devices which are far cheaper to use than a conventional helicopter.

In August Derbyshire police used a similar drone to monitor protests at a BNP festival in Condor.

But the police seem to have been unaware of a change of legislation on January 1, following concerns over the safety of flying unmanned aircraft in inhabited areas.

D'oh!

Oh, well, at least it's not just photography legislation they are ignoring when it suits them, then. But you can't help but have some sympathy for them. Who can keep up with the blizzard of legislation emitting from Parliament these days?

Not even the Attorney General, after all.

More Fun With Photography…

Harry Potter star Jamie Waylett, who plays Hogwarts bully Vincent Crabbe in the hit films, today admitted growing ten cannabis plants in his bedroom.
The tubby 19-year-old actor was arrested in April this year after police stopped him and a friend in an Audi car in London.

No sympathy.

You grow cannabis, which is against the law, then you can expect the law to take a dim view. Even if you are an actor in the latest merchandising opportunity exciting children’s film…

But this drew my attention:

The officers thought he'd been taking photos of them, the court heard.

That was their sole reason for stopping the car in the first place…?

Lousy At Your Job? Just Throw Your Weight About!

Of course, this might only work if you’re a civil servant, who’s neither civil, not servile:

Heathrow airport has been ordered by the Border Force to stop handing out leaflets to passengers acknowledging the "very long delays" at immigration.

And also, handily, advising them how to complain to the Home Office!

Which, rather than making the UKBA up their game, put more staff on and resolve this issue, has had them throw their toys out of the pram and demand Heathrow takes action instead to stop it being reported...

…Marc Owen, director of UK Border Agency operations at Heathrow, has told BAA that the leaflets are "inappropriate" and that ministers would take "a very dim view".

Well, who cares what ministers think?

Is it the case that UKBA short-staffing is causing delays? Yes.

Is it the case that this is causing difficulty for passengers, and therefore, by extension, Heathrow? Yes.

Is it the case, as MacHeath notes, that the magic technology that enabled the UKBA to cut its staff to thinner and thinner levels keeps failing? Yes.

So fix it! Don’t shoot the messenger. Trying to hide things under the carpet never works…

In an email obtained by The Daily Telegraph, he said: "The leaflet... is both inflammatory and likely to increase tensions in arrivals halls especially in the current atmosphere. It is inappropriate in that it is not for you to display how to complain on our behalf.

Mr Owen also told BAA to prevent passengers taking pictures in the arrivals hall. Pictures of lengthy queues have been posted on Twitter by frustrated people.

He ‘told’ them to prevent pictures being taken? Under what powers?

Who does this useless article think he is to forbid photography, the police?

Oh, Those ‘Savage Sentences’ For Rioting…

…turns out they were just as illusory as all the others:

A 21-year-old jailed for her part in the summer riots is helping other youngsters stay out of trouble and says her actions were "wrong".

Well, she didn’t get long, then, did she?

Alicia Smith served six weeks of a six-month jail sentence after pleading guilty to entering with intent to steal.

Heh! Shocker…

So, what did the little cherub do?

The student, from South Norwood, was arrested on August 8 at Argos in Church Street, carrying ten packets of Hubba Bubba chewing gum she had stolen minutes before from a nearby convenience store.

The conviction cost Alicia her job as a La Senza sales assistant, but she has resumed her voluntary role as a teaching assistant at Educational Excellence, a tutorial college that specialises in getting youngsters "back on track".

Not exactly the crime of the century, and certainly not motivated by hunger or grinding poverty, either!

What was the motivation?

It was after leaving the college in Brighton Road, South Croydon, during the early evening of August 8 that, Alicia said, she got caught up in the riots.

"I had to pass through Croydon on my way home," she said.

"The bus stopped running at Croydon because of what was going on.

"Everyone was just getting caught up in the moment. It was not like I could not afford the gum; it was just there.

"Then the police started closing in."

Good grief!

The photography student was left stunned when she and her sister, a model who became a poster girl in the national media for rioters' privileged lives, were jailed.

And has she learned her lesson?

"After we were arrested, I thought, OK, we are going to have to pay a fine," Alicia said.

"But then we saw from prison what had happened; we knew that would reflect on us.

"My mother was expecting me home any minute – my main concern was my parents.

"Of course what I did was wrong – at the end of the day, that is someone else's property.

"But at the same time, the punishment should fit the crime."

Oh, you’re quite right there, it should. You should have done the whole six months.

Alicia says she is lucky in being able to do something constructive after her conviction.

She said: "I spoke to people inside who had lost their jobs due to their riot convictions.

"When you get out, they offer to put you on Job Seeker's Allowance, other benefits. It is like they want you to be a bum. But I did not want to be that person."

That’s a familiar refrain from people caught committing crimes, isn’t it?

Should Have Taken Up Wildlife Photography…

…the animals who might also bite are at least beautiful:

A man who bit into a photographer's finger and drew blood has received a suspended jail term.

That shouldn’t have come as a surprise to him, mind you:

Bloodworth, 42, was caught on camera after he left Lincoln Magistrates' Court with a six-month conditional discharge for throwing a "cleaning in progress" cone at a security guard in the city's Waterside Shopping Centre.

He objected to Mr Linley taking his picture outside court, crossed the High Street to the far pavement and assaulted him just after 11am.

Well, he got no punishment for the first assault, so why not commit another?

Mr Linley, 34, went on to have three blood tests, plus an inoculation course for hepatitis B, over six months after initial medical treatment.

Human mouths are dirty. Dirtier, often, than dogs.

Bloodworth, of St Crispin's Close, North Hykeham, admitted assault on March 15 last year on the basis that it was accidental. This was not accepted by the Crown.

Well, indeed!

Bloodworth was given 12 weeks' custody for the assault and four weeks' prison for breaching the conditional discharge, to run concurrently, suspended for a year.

‘To punish you for not behaving when we gave you a chance last time, we’re going to…give you a chance again.’

The court heard the Department for Work and Pensions has arranged a signer for deaf man Bloodworth to the tune of £85,000 over three years to enable him to begin work.

To….begin work? For three years? FFS!

No doubt the victim is pretty cheesed off with this sentence, and railing at the vagaries of the useless justice system?

Oh:

Mr Linley said after the hearing: "I hope this court case represents a fork in the road for Mr Bloodworth.

"In court he seemed to understand the consequences of what he did.

"If he realises this is not acceptable and adjusts his behaviour accordingly, then it's good for everybody."

/facepalm. Now, I want to take a chunk out of Mr Linley!

These Tuskers Have Passed On Their Genes Already

...a series of super-tusker killings has sparked a bitter international battle over trophy hunting and its controversial, sometimes counterintuitive role in conservation. Some conservationists believe the killing of these extraordinary animals should not be allowed. Others say controlled, regulated hunting can actually contribute to elephants’ long-term survival by providing jobs for local people and incentives for habitats to be preserved.

Something that always gets the bunny-huggers backs up... 

“The targeted elephants were among the largest, oldest bulls,” a group of conservationists wrote in a letter decrying their loss, which was published in the journal Science in June. They represented “one of the last gene pools for enormous ivory and the source of the largest tusks ever collected”.

These old, solitary except for younger bulls, animals are usually well past breeding prime. They've contibuted their genes, and all they have to look forward to is a slow lingering death by starvation because thet've outlived their supply of teeth. Nature isn't Disney.   

This month, the Tanzanian government will decide whether to issue more super-tusker hunting permits for the coming year. The authors urged them not to do so, and focus instead on ecotourism. “Alive, these super tuskers have great biological, economic and social value,” they wrote. “Once they are shot, their contribution ends.”

The money raised by hunting far outweighs the money raised by photography tourism, which seems just as potentially dangerous a hobby, and it also provides much needed jobs: 

...other scientists say many who oppose hunting seem to push for bans even if they harm habitats, wildlife and communities. “However distasteful many may find hunting, it can and does work as a provider of revenue for conservation and communities,” says Prof Adam Hart from the University of Gloucestershire, co-author of the book Trophy Hunting. Evidence shows that abolishing trophy hunting – and the incentives it creates for conservation – without funded alternatives can lead to greater loss of wildlife.

Protecting a valuable resource for hunting has the fringe benefit of protecting other species that share their environment.  

Amy Dickman, professor of wildlife conservation at the University of Oxford, said the argument is a microcosm of a much wider debate about the unintended harms of hunting bans. Focusing on the “scientific value” of the bulls perpetuated the idea that elephants and researchers were more important than local people, she says. “The letter follows the damaging pattern of demanding that hunting ends now, while providing no immediate alternative revenue stream,” she says. “[It] failed to even mention local communities. “People don’t care as much about unintended consequences,” she adds. “[They] assume if you just ban something, then those animals will live in harmony in that place. It’s often not the case.”

The sort of people who object to hunting are the sort who would no doubt decry 'colonialism' except when they get the chance to demand what foreign countries should do. Because it's never about the animals, really.  

How Fortuitous…

Two mosques could now be opened in Purley instead of one. A disagreement within Muslim group Purley Islamic Community Centre (PICC) means a splinter group is also actively seeking its own place of worship, the Advertiser understands.

Splitters!!!

The Advertiser understands the disagreement arose because what is now the splinter group believes there are too many local Muslim families to fit into the former Venture Photography shop in Russell Hill Place.

Monir Mohammed, who remains part of the wing dedicated to the Russell Hill plan, said: "Within groups of people there will always be a number of people who disagree with certain points of view. People will always have differences of opinion.

"Sometimes it is venting frustration or it is a gripe because people can't get their own way.

"However, this new site is a great idea because it may be that they can offer additional services to the community and we could share the burden."

What a reasonable compromise. Who could disagree with two for the price of one..?

Does 'Boss' Mean Something Different These Days?

Questions are urgently being asked over who is to blame for the proposed editing out of disabled children from school photos, with a boss of the photography firm at the centre of the scandal insisting 'it is not company policy.' Terence Tempest, 70, was unable to explain why parents had been given the option - as he vowed to investigate how the fiasco came to be.

Shouldn't he already know, if it's his company and he's a boss of it? Wouldn't he have tried to find out the moment this all blew up?

He revealed 'heartbroken' bosses were locked in crisis meetings to discover 'what the hell happened', and described the suggestion to delete children with complex needs from the class pictures as 'unacceptable'.

Clearly not, since someone at the company accepted the suggestion, or - worse - suggested it themselves! Maybe this company has too many 'bosses' to run properly?

'If I was in that position I would want an apology. I don't run the company and I'm in touch with the managing director at the moment and they will decide what to do.'

It sounds like he's the only one who decided to be the spokesperson, even though everything he says sounds like he's digging a deeper hole for the company... 

He said: 'I'm not sure what the current policy is frankly, it depends what we are asked to do. We just respond to what we are asked for.

'We have got another meeting coming up and will find out whether the photographer was asked to do it. Did they do it off their own back?'

If it turns out the school requested it, this is going to run and run.  

"Since the early caveman in his fur, took a trip to Gretna Green..."

"There's always been a photographer, to record the 'appy scene....."

Media organisations have won a High Court battle over police orders to give up film of the evictions from the traveller site at Dale Farm in Essex.

The police claimed they needed the footage from organisations like the BBC and BSkyB to pursue prosecutions.

But they really should think twice before getting involved in demanding others' film (and losing) since they have trouble hanging on to film that belongs to others too:

Police have been ordered to return private CCTV footage of a firebomb attack to a man with a violent past - despite fears it could help him find and kill the person responsible.

Merseyside Police had argued for retaining footage belonging to Joseph 'Joey' Owens, who had gangster connections, to avoid 'indirectly assisting or encouraging' him to carry out a revenge attack for the arson attack on his mother's home.

But today two High Court judges disagreed with the plea from police, and ruled the force's chief constable did not have power to retain the video from the CCTV system set up by Owens, who had shortly before the fire released a book exposing 'wannabe gangsters' and 'police informants' in Liverpool.

They don't have a very happy record when it comes to photography, do they?

When Tomcats Do This In My Garden...

...it doesn't rate a news article in the 'Daily Fail':

The elusive aerosol painter has caused outrage by covering up a piece of graffiti that had remained untouched since it was painted in 1985.

Its creator, Robbo, a hugely respected graffiti artist (Ed: nope, me neither...), immediately retaliated by spraying his name over Banksy's painting of a workman on a wall in North London.

They are both just vandals, after all.

The row has sparked a war of words on photography website Flickr, where Robbo and his associates and artists from around Britain have voiced their disgust at Banksy's act of disrespect.

*sigh*

The enigmatic artist, whose identity is still unconfirmed, is now thought to be a millionaire thanks to his popularity amongst the art community and celebrities alike.

In 2005, Christina Aguilera bought an original depiction of Queen Victoria as a lesbian and two prints for £25,000.

Says it all, doesn't it?

I’m Not Entirely In Favour Of TwitterMobs And FaceBook Campaigns…

…but this one is actually worthwhile:

Chris, 45, took the snap of Hazel as she sat at an ice cream stall in Braehead.

Later, when he was carrying her through the centre, he was stopped by a security guard.

Chris added: "He said I had been spotted taking photos in the shopping centre which was illegal and then asked me to delete any photos I had taken.

"I explained I had taken two photos of my daughter eating ice cream and that she was the only person in the photo, so I didn't see any problem.

"I also said I wasn't that willing to delete the photos and there seemed little point as I had uploaded them to Facebook."

Naturally, this wasn’t a sufficient obsequious grovelling to the awesome powers of the tiny-penised bullyboy security guard. Oh, no. Bigger authorities were immediately summoned:

The security guard called police and two officers arrived within minutes.

Chris, a mental health trainer, of Glasgow's southside, said: "My daughter was crying by this stage.

The older officer was quite intimidating. He said there had been a complaint about me taking photos and that there were clear signs in Braehead saying no photographs were allowed.

"I tried to explain I hadn't seen any clearly displayed signs and that I had taken two photos of my daughter.

"As I was trying to explain, he said I was interrupting him and that I should remain quiet until he had finished speaking to me.

Until he’d finished reading his pre-prepared, mentally-rehearsed lecture, that is. Didn’t want anyone interrupting it with facts, clearly…

"At one stage, I was reassuring my daughter everything was OK, only to be told I wasn't listening by the officer.

"The police officer started to say that there were privacy issues around photographs, to which I said I'd waited until only my daughter was in the shot.

"I explained that I was happy to show him the photos although not sure under what authority he could ask me to delete the photos.

He said that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, he was quite within in his rights to confiscate my mobile phone without any explanation for taking photos within a public shopping centre."

Except, as was pointed out on Twitter this morning by @flayman, he wasn’t within his rights at all.

Chris said: "I am appalled at how going shopping and taking a photo of your daughter can lead to being intimidated in this way."

Chris has complained to police about how they handled the situation.

And it seems a Facebook campaign against the mall is in the wind. But really, shouldn’t the greatest opprobrium be reserved for the police?

A spokesman for Braehead said: "Our priority is to maintain a safe and enjoyable environment for shoppers and retailers.

"We have a 'no photography' policy to protect the privacy of staff and shoppers.

However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures."

Clearly, this time, you did. And a Facebook campaign may well make you back down on your policy or even ensure the removal of the guard.

But the police? It seems they remain unaccountable.

Lazy, Don’t Care Cops? Must Be The Met Again…

The couple reported Dylan's death to the police but were told it was a civil, rather than criminal, matter.

*sighs* No. It isn’t. The DDA applies, as it always has done. If you actually bother to read it, rather than just use it as an excuse to not do your job.

We’ve been here before, of course, with the issue of public photography. Some forces just don’t seem to get the memo, do they?

And since the drunken scum with the out of control Staffies look like the sort that’d be in line for regular visits from the police, one can only hope another Stratford scenario plays out here.

The Advertiser has approached the Metropolitan Police for a comment.

Someone’s muzzled their press team, then!

'Daily Mail' Shocked, SHOCKED, To Discover Optics Company Makes....Optics!

For years the Nikon camera company has been synonymous with wildlife photography.

Stunning images of animals are used to promote its products, features on top wildlife photographers appear on its website and the firm even sponsors several global conservation projects.

Hurrah for Nikon! Hurrah, hurrah!

So it may come as quite a shock to animal lovers to discover that the Japanese manufacturer also produces a rifle scope specifically designed to be used for big game hunting in Africa.

Booooooo!

How dare they make anything like this! What do they think they are! Some sort of company making products, or something?

Stefano Unterthiner, winner of the Wildlife Photographer of the year in 2008, himself a user of Nikon cameras has now condemned the firm for producing such a product.

I don't think they're forcing you to use it, Stefano. Nor do I think your camera will suddenly turn deadly in your hands as a result...

'I always saw Nikon as a company close to nature, but I was wrong.'

I don't think it's possible to get closer to nature than hunting it, do you?

I Think We'll Live With 'Unsustainability' If It Leads To Less Of This...

Current police numbers are not "sustainable" in the face of budget cuts, a senior officer will warn later.

President of the Association of Chief Police Officers Sir Hugh Orde will tell a conference it is "misleading in the extreme" to claim otherwise.

Oh, 'misleading', is it, Sir Hugh Ordure?

Well, your officers know a thing or two about being misleading, don't they?

Two police officers stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day parade - and then claimed they did not need a law to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he was ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental permission to capture images of the cadets.

Sadly for the uniformed bullies, this was one photographer who knew his rights and wasn't about to be cowed into giving them.

The student, who works as a freelance photojournalist in his spare time, decided to record his confrontation on his mobile phone, providing an insight into the legal arguments that the officers were using to justify stopping him from taking photographs.

And surprise surprise! Just as in this infamous video, the officers concerned prioved to be talking out of...well, not their mouths, that's for sure...

After arguing his rights in a series of protracted legal debates with officers, the sixth former says he was pushed down a set of stairs and detained for breaching the peace until the parade passed.

He's now said to be thinking of taking action. I hope he does, because police who behave like this should be drummed out of the force:

The audio recording begins minutes later with an officer initially arguing that it is illegal to take photographs of children. He then claims that it is illegal to take images of army members and police officers.

Under laws that guarantee the freedom of press in Britain, there is no restriction on photography of children, police or armed forces in a public space.

Indeed, the dim, lying little bullies will be in hot water with a bit of luck, because they've been told time and time again that this is not to be done - it's already cost them money:

The incident in Romford came just 24 hours after the force was forced to pay compensation to two photojournalists for a similar incident. Marc Vallee and Jason Parkinson took civil action against the Met after they had their camera equipment grabbed by officers in December 2008 while reporting on a protest outside the Greek Embassy.

In a public apology the Met admitted that its officers had “failed to respect press freedom” of the two journalists and agreed to pay them each £3,500 plus legal costs.

So let's hope this chap presses his case and gets treble that.

Maybe then, they'll get the message...

A New Police Force – The Tactical Photography Squad

Police equipped with cameras had to be called after scores of children ran wild on their last day at school.

"Freeze sunshine, this Instamatic is loaded!"

People living close to Priory School in Lewes watched in horror as Year 11 pupils hurled paint, flour and eggs at them and passing cars.

The teenagers also swore at teachers and younger pupils.

 Lovely! Of course, the adults (supposedly) in charge showed the sound reasoning and grasp of the situation we've come to expect:

Teachers called police and officers arrived in vans to film the GCSE students misbehaving in the playground and around the school in Mountfield Road.

Eventually head teacher Tony Smith sent a “significant” proportion of the 15 and 16-year-olds home and cancelled the celebration the school had planned for the next day for them.

Thus telling all the others who didn't misbehave that there's no point in not misbehaving. You get punished along with the rest...

Head teacher Mr Smith said: “Traditionally, on the last Wednesday before the end of the year, the pupils march to school.

“Previously there has been trouble but last year went very well and we thought we had changed the culture.

“Unfortunately this year a significant number of Year 11 pupils had to be sent home.

“They threw coloured powder and water around the school and would not move.

“There were also eggs thrown and, unfortunately, poor language was used.

“They were over-excited and so were sent home.

“Those that had exams were told to tidy up and do their exams.

“It is such a shame this happened.”

I had to double-check the age of the pupils involved - he sounds like he's talking about 5 year olds, doesn't he?

Things I Learn In 'The Guardian'..

On the streets and in the media, the case was all about race. My film captures this through intimate conversations with Davis’s friends and parents, who analyze the phrase “thug music” as a more politically correct, but no less racist, version of the “n” word.

According to lily-white Marc Silver (a filmmaker, director of photography and social impact strategist, no less), disliking profanity-laced, ear-splitting rap 'music' makes one virtually an honorary member of the Klan.

Fancy!