Grumpy Old Sod Dot Com - an internet voice for the exasperated. Sick of the nanny state? Pissed off with politicians? Annoyed by newspapers? Irate with the internet? Tell us about it!

Send us an email
Go back
5th March 10: Suffolk Social Services. Bastards, bastards, bastards ...
5th March 10: Perhaps Captain Grumpy isn't as clever as he thought ...
26th February 10: Government snoopers are at it again ...
26th February 10: The BBC lying through its teeth again. How stupid do they think we are?
25th February 10: ... give some people a uniform and a day-glo jacket ...
21st February 10: ... all kicking off in sunny Suffolk ...
21st February 10: There's nothing sexy about being wicked, Ms.Harman...
21st February 10: When politicians talk glibly in billions ...
29th January 10: Jumping on the racial bandwagon ...
24th January 10: Good to think positively for a change ...
8th January 10: What are weather forecasters FOR, exactly?
3rd January 10: George Moonbat has finally lost his mind. Shame.
23rd December 09: You know that feeling that they're all out to get you?
16th December 09: Greenpeace hoist with their own petard ...
15th December 09: ... the most overweening, arrogant piece of self aggrandisement humankind has ever had the nerve to perpetrate ...
13th December 09: We're all paedophiles now, because the government says so ...
12th December 09: The BBC is not impartial or neutral - Andrew Marr
1st December 09: Not like those soft Southern bastards, then ...
1st December 09: Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
1st December 09: ClimateGate. Oh, good!
27th November 09: MP's blunt attack on social service kidnap
25th November 09: Ommbudsmen - whose side are they on, exactly?
19th November 09: The spies looking over your shoulder - RIGHT NOW!
19th November 09: We all need protection from the child protectors ...
11th November 09: A sense of proportion? No, not much!
9th November 09: Shock! Horror! Is the GOS a gay-basher?
31st October 09: Whose side are they on? Bloody good question!
23rd October 09: A sad day for democracy and free speech
21st October 09: The law is already an ass. Why make it worse?
20th October 09: But who are we to criticise? I mean, Brains R'n't Us, exactly, are they?
17th October 09: Here's looking at you, kid ...
14th October 09: What I did on my holiday, by an MP
9th October 09: Hollywood gets science wrong ...
9th October 09: Stick to arresting old ladies - it's safer
6th October 09: Cheer up, it could be worse. You could be American ...
4th October 09: Just what did the Irish electorate thing they were voting for?
30th September 09: Two new campaigns we think you should support - we do
30th September 09: Pandas - useless, boring and suicidal ...
25th September 09: It is for the state to define who may speak and who must be silent
22nd September 09: Two wheels good. Four wheels ba-a-a-a-ad!
18th September 09: It's official - we're all paedophiles now ...
18th September 09: So can private carparking contractors really enforce their tickets?
13th September 09: How nice to know there are experts tirelessly looking out for us ...
12th September 09: Our brave new Britain: speak your mind and lose your children ...
9th September 09: You mark my words, no good'll come of it. Far too sensible ...
9th September 09: GOS - a bit slow on the uptake, to be honest ...
9th September 09: Not a lot of people know this ...

 

 
Our Wanker of the Week award
Captain Grumpy's bedtime reading. You can buy them too, if you think you're grumpy enough!
Readers wives. Yes, really!
More Grumpy Old Sods on the net
Sign our Guest Book
 

 
Older stuff
 

 
NO2ID - Stop ID cards and the database state
 

 

 

 

 

 
A report from the Independent this week …
 

 
The artist Reuben Powell was arrested and imprisoned for photographing an old government building. Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.
 
With a studio near the 1960s shopping centre at the heart of this area in south London, he is a familiar figure and is regularly seen snapping and sketching the people and buildings around his home - currently the site of Europe's largest regeneration project. But to the police officers who arrested him last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk.
 
"The car skidded to a halt like something out of Starsky & Hutch and this officer jumped out very dramatically and said 'what are you doing?' I told him I was photographing the building and he said he was going to search me under the Anti-Terrorism Act," he recalled.
 
For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five hours in a cell after police seized the lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils. His release only came after the intervention of the local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was handcuffed and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database.
 
But Powell's experience is far from uncommon. Every week photographers wielding their cameras in public find themselves on the receiving end of warnings either by police, who stop them under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, or from over-eager officials who believe that photography in a public area is somehow against the law.
 
Groups from journalists to trainspotters have found themselves on the receiving end of this unwanted attention, with many photographers now fearing that their job or hobby could be under threat.
 
So serious has the situation become that the MP and keen photographer Austin Mitchell, chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Photography Group, tabled an early day motion last March deploring the "officious interference or unjustified suspicion" facing camera enthusiasts around public buildings, where they are increasingly told that it is against the law to photograph public servants at all - especially police officers or community support officers - or that members of the public cannot be photographed without their written permission. The Labour MP is now calling for a photography code for officers so that snappers can continue going about their rightful business.
 
Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. "Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places," a spokeswoman said.
 
But still the harassment goes on. Philip Haigh, the business editor of Rail magazine, said the bullying of enthusiasts on railway platforms has become an unwelcome fact of life in Britain. "It is a problem that doesn't ever seem to go away. We get complaints from railway photographers all the time that they are told to stop what they are doing, mainly by railway staff but also by the police. It usually results in an apologetic letter from a rail company," he said.
 
In the summer, armed police swooped on a group of trainspotters known as the Steam Boys as they waited with high-powered photographic equipment to capture a 1950s engine called The Great Marquess as it crossed the Forth Bridge near Gordon Brown's constituency home in Fife.
 
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also taken up the cause, highlighting the case last month of the photographer Jess Hurd, whose camera was taken from her when she was detained for 45 minutes under Section 44 while documenting a traveller wedding in London's Docklands. Last week police were filmed obstructing photographers covering a protest at the Greek embassy in London. Scotland Yard promised to investigate.
 
Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the NUJ, said: "It's time the police realised that taking photographs doesn't automatically mean you're a terrorist. Every month the NUJ finds itself dealing with yet more cases of officers infringing journalistic freedoms and, very often, exceeding their legal powers.
 
"Even the police's own guidance makes it clear that there's nothing in the Terrorism Act that can be used to prohibit the taking of photos in a public place. The authorities have got to do more to ensure that those people charged with upholding the law don't keep on contravening it by trampling over well-established civil liberties."

 

 
We have written about this before - in fact, so many people have highlighted this ridiculous problem that we can't really understand how it is that policemen and officials haven't got the message yet.
 
On the other hand, perhaps they HAVE got the message and just don't give a toss …
 

 
Grumpy Old Sod.com - homepage
 

 
Use this Yahoo Search box to find more grumpy places,
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
 
This site created and maintained by PlainSite
Grumpy Old Sod.com - homepage

 

Captain Grumpy's
Favourites
- some older posts

 
Campaign
 
Proposal
 
Burglars
 
Defence
 
ID cards
 
Old folk
 
Hairy man
 
Democracy
 
Mud
 
The NHS
 
Violence
 
Effluent
 
Respect
 
Litter
 
Weapons
 
The church
 
Blame
 
Parenting
 
Paedophiles
 
The Pope
 
Punishing
 
Racism
 
Scientists
 
Smoking
 
Stupidity
 
Swimming
 
Envirocrap
 
Spying