|
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Hi,
I've seen this link posted on a few blogs recently (though it's existed for ages) that appears to say casual photography is banned on London Underground: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/5225.aspx "Any individual or film production company wanting to film or take photographs on the Tube must seek prior permission from the London Underground (LU) Film Office." Of course, the Film Office only has jurisdiction over professionals (and students etc) doing proper photo shoots, and also there's nothing in the conditions of carriage banning passengers from using cameras. So it's reasonable to think that, despite appearances, this statement doesn't apply to passengers casually taking pictures. Anyway, I've emailed the film office to confirm, posing as a confused commuter, and they confirm it's allowed: "If you are acting like a tourist and from what I can gather you are, then you do not need to obtain a permit from us. It is only if you are setting up a photograph or a scene to film and you are going to be on the station longer than 5 to 10 minutes that you would need to obtain a permit." I've asked them to update the page (no response yet) and, if you've got nowt else to do this afternoon, I suggest emailing asking them to be clearer on their website about what's what. U |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 17, 1:23*pm, Mr Thant wrote: Hi, I've seen this link posted on a few blogs recently (though it's existed for ages) that appears to say casual photography is banned on London Underground: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/5225.aspx "Any individual or film production company wanting to film or take photographs on the Tube must seek prior permission from the London Underground (LU) Film Office." Of course, the Film Office only has jurisdiction over professionals (and students etc) doing proper photo shoots, and also there's nothing in the conditions of carriage banning passengers from using cameras. So it's reasonable to think that, despite appearances, this statement doesn't apply to passengers casually taking pictures. Anyway, I've emailed the film office to confirm, posing as a confused commuter, and they confirm it's allowed: "If you are acting like a tourist and from what I can gather you are, then you do not need to obtain a permit from us. *It is only if you are setting up a photograph or a scene to film and you are going to be on the station longer than 5 to 10 minutes that you would need to obtain a permit." I've asked them to update the page (no response yet) and, if you've got nowt else to do this afternoon, I suggest emailing asking them to be clearer on their website about what's what. U We had a discussion on this last week. By my reckoning the crux of the matter is the muddled use of terminology - on the LU Film Office webpage (linked to above) they speak of "student or non-professional" permits, the problem bit being "non-professional" which is not defined anywhere. For as long as the meaning of that phrase is not explained properly then the occasional hysteria can be expected. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
|
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 17, 2:00*pm, Mizter T wrote:
I've seen this link posted on a few blogs recently (though it's existed for ages) that appears to say casual photography is banned on London Underground: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/5225.aspx "Any individual or film production company wanting to film or take photographs on the Tube must seek prior permission from the London Underground (LU) Film Office." Of course, the Film Office only has jurisdiction over professionals (and students etc) doing proper photo shoots, and also there's nothing in the conditions of carriage banning passengers from using cameras. So it's reasonable to think that, despite appearances, this statement doesn't apply to passengers casually taking pictures. Anyway, I've emailed the film office to confirm, posing as a confused commuter, and they confirm it's allowed: "If you are acting like a tourist and from what I can gather you are, then you do not need to obtain a permit from us. *It is only if you are setting up a photograph or a scene to film and you are going to be on the station longer than 5 to 10 minutes that you would need to obtain a permit." I've asked them to update the page (no response yet) and, if you've got nowt else to do this afternoon, I suggest emailing asking them to be clearer on their website about what's what. U We had a discussion on this last week. By my reckoning the crux of the matter is the muddled use of terminology - on the LU Film Office webpage (linked to above) they speak of "student or non-professional" permits, the problem bit being "non-professional" which is not defined anywhere. For as long as the meaning of that phrase is not explained properly then the occasional hysteria can be expected. See: http://www.johnband.org/blog/2008/02...-is-permitted/ -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 17, 3:23*pm, "Kev Lawrence" wrote: See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-deletes-tou... ! Indeed, I've just read that in the Guardian - here's a link to their article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...tourist-photos The incident appears to have happened at Walthamstow bus station. One suspects that the police bods in question are likely to have been PCSOs rather than proper police officers, though that's just supposition. Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote: On Apr 17, 3:23*pm, "Kev Lawrence" wrote: See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-deletes-tou... ! Indeed, I've just read that in the Guardian - here's a link to their article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...tourist-photos The incident appears to have happened at Walthamstow bus station. One suspects that the police bods in question are likely to have been PCSOs rather than proper police officers, though that's just supposition. Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Seig Heil. The days of "Gee, I think your policeman are wonderful" died a while back. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
In message
"Kev Lawrence" wrote: See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ondon-bus.html ! What's the betting they weren't policemen but PCSOs? -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On 17 Apr, 16:20, Mizter T wrote:
The incident appears to have happened at Walthamstow bus station. One suspects that the police bods in question are likely to have been PCSOs rather than proper police officers, though that's just supposition. Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. It is a ridiculous situation, as surely if a crime *had* been committed the images should *not* be deleted as they are evidence. It sounds like poorly trained muppets on a power trip. Neil |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 17, 4:30*pm, Neil Williams wrote: On 17 Apr, 16:20, Mizter T wrote: The incident appears to have happened at Walthamstow bus station. One suspects that the police bods in question are likely to have been PCSOs rather than proper police officers, though that's just supposition. Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. It is a ridiculous situation, as surely if a crime *had* been committed the images should *not* be deleted as they are evidence. It sounds like poorly trained muppets on a power trip. Which is, unfortunately, why my suspicion fell on them being PCSOs. I'm not against the concept of PCSOs as such, but reports of their (mis)behaviour doesn't always leave one feeling encouraged. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Seig Heil. This is the government that dares to arrest opposition MPs then threaten them with life imprisonment just for leaking embarrassing facts that have a public interest, right to know, and a government that employs covert surveillance on parents that mistakenly thought they could have a say as to which school educates their kids So, where on their concerns might you think rail photographers come? An un-elected Prime Minister who has opposition politicians arrested, rubbishes the economy and then claims only he is capable of fixing it. We're all Zimbabweans now. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote: On Apr 17, 3:23 pm, "Kev Lawrence" wrote: See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-deletes-tou... ! Indeed, I've just read that in the Guardian - here's a link to their article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...tourist-photos The incident appears to have happened at Walthamstow bus station. One suspects that the police bods in question are likely to have been PCSOs rather than proper police officers, though that's just supposition. Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. While I have yet to encounter any lunacy at Walthamstow (where I live) I have had the following happen within the last month or so. Be accused of being a potential terrorist for taking a photo at Hammersmith Butterwick Bus Station. This was followed up with the management of TfL Surface Transport the next working day. Be told it is illegal to take a photo of a bus by a First Group Bus driver at Ealing Broadway. This incident has been referred to Director level within First Group following a post of mine on a non Usenet group. On Wednesday of this week be "interviewed" by a Plastic Policeman in Wood Green for taking a photo in the street. I happened to be at Turnpike Lane where the High Rd was closed due to a RTA (not in sight from where I was). I took one photo of the deserted stretch of road. Barely 5 minutes later Mr PP turns up and asks what I am doing with a camera. I tell him. He starts filling out his stupid yellow form. I point out to him that I am doing nothing wrong or illegal. He says he has to ask because I was beside a tube station. He asks for my name and address and I refuse to provide it. Instead I identified myself as a security cleared LUL senior manager and ask if he would like the name of my director to verify that I hold the position with LUL that I have stated. I further point out that it is not illegal to photograph a road or a station not that I had done the latter. (The fact I can draw the plan of Turnpike Lane station from memory is neither here nor there.) Eventually Mr PP gives up and decides to go and direct the traffic. On getting home I sent an E Mail to my MP advising that he (& his successor) and his party have lost my vote for as long as their stupid legislation remains in place and for as long as it remains their policy. I suggested that given the woeful state of the government's standing and that of the economy they could ill afford to be losing votes through the inadvertent criminalisation of the general public off the back of their policies. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply. As you might detect I am not a little fed up with being treated in this way for simply trying to enjoy a hobby. If I am hassled at Walthamstow or anywhere else by the police for using a camera then I am afraid the Prime Minister is the next person to hear from me. I would also point out that the response Mr Thant got about not being on the station for more than 10 minutes is not remotely helpful and creates a potential source of conflict. Given that it is perfectly possible on some parts of the network to legitimately wait more than 10 minutes for a train does this mean that waiting passengers who also have a camera require a permit? I must remember to go and have a chat to the Film Office people. I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at home :-/ |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
In message
, at 11:00:11 on Fri, 17 Apr 2009, remarked: An un-elected Prime Minister who has opposition politicians arrested, rubbishes the economy and then claims only he is capable of fixing it. But hasn't he gone now? Or did I dream him saying in Glasgow the other day: "I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that was responsible went immediately...." -- Roland Perry |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
"redcat" wrote in message
m... Paul Corfield wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 08:20:16 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T wrote: On Apr 17, 3:23 pm, "Kev Lawrence" wrote: See also http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-deletes-tou... ! Indeed, I've just read that in the Guardian - here's a link to their article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ap...tourist-photos The incident appears to have happened at Walthamstow bus station. One suspects that the police bods in question are likely to have been PCSOs rather than proper police officers, though that's just supposition. Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. While I have yet to encounter any lunacy at Walthamstow (where I live) I have had the following happen within the last month or so. Be accused of being a potential terrorist for taking a photo at Hammersmith Butterwick Bus Station. This was followed up with the management of TfL Surface Transport the next working day. Be told it is illegal to take a photo of a bus by a First Group Bus driver at Ealing Broadway. This incident has been referred to Director level within First Group following a post of mine on a non Usenet group. On Wednesday of this week be "interviewed" by a Plastic Policeman in Wood Green for taking a photo in the street. I happened to be at Turnpike Lane where the High Rd was closed due to a RTA (not in sight from where I was). I took one photo of the deserted stretch of road. Barely 5 minutes later Mr PP turns up and asks what I am doing with a camera. I tell him. He starts filling out his stupid yellow form. I point out to him that I am doing nothing wrong or illegal. He says he has to ask because I was beside a tube station. He asks for my name and address and I refuse to provide it. Instead I identified myself as a security cleared LUL senior manager and ask if he would like the name of my director to verify that I hold the position with LUL that I have stated. I further point out that it is not illegal to photograph a road or a station not that I had done the latter. (The fact I can draw the plan of Turnpike Lane station from memory is neither here nor there.) Eventually Mr PP gives up and decides to go and direct the traffic. On getting home I sent an E Mail to my MP advising that he (& his successor) and his party have lost my vote for as long as their stupid legislation remains in place and for as long as it remains their policy. I suggested that given the woeful state of the government's standing and that of the economy they could ill afford to be losing votes through the inadvertent criminalisation of the general public off the back of their policies. It will be interesting to see if I get a reply. As you might detect I am not a little fed up with being treated in this way for simply trying to enjoy a hobby. If I am hassled at Walthamstow or anywhere else by the police for using a camera then I am afraid the Prime Minister is the next person to hear from me. I would also point out that the response Mr Thant got about not being on the station for more than 10 minutes is not remotely helpful and creates a potential source of conflict. Given that it is perfectly possible on some parts of the network to legitimately wait more than 10 minutes for a train does this mean that waiting passengers who also have a camera require a permit? I must remember to go and have a chat to the Film Office people. I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at home :-/ Absolutely not! I assume your comment was tongue in cheek, but I am sure many others are thinking it's too much bother to risk taking photos, even though it's perfectly legal. Which means that "they" have won, whether "they" be the real terrorists, the police, the politicians or whoever. Take your camera, take photos, and tell any pretend official who gives you hassle where to shove it. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
"redcat" wrote in message
m I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at home :-/ Nope -- bring it and snap away, like millions of others. Despite the justified complaints on this newsgroup, you're actually unlikely to be troubled by any ignorant jobsworths (I never have), and if you are, they probably won't have any idea of the actual laws. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mr Thant wrote:
I've asked them to update the page (no response yet) I believe others have also asked them, over the course of a few years, to no avail as of yet. Good luck with your attempt! tom -- Teach us how to die well |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote:
Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? tom -- Teach us how to die well |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Recliner wrote:
"redcat" wrote in message m I'm coming to London soon. Maybe I should just leave my camera at home :-/ Nope -- bring it and snap away, like millions of others. Despite the justified complaints on this newsgroup, you're actually unlikely to be troubled by any ignorant jobsworths (I never have), and if you are, they probably won't have any idea of the actual laws. No one's ever bothered me at all before. No, I lie! Actually, some citizens of the capital do give me the evil eye when I'm out being a tourist. I don't know what it is, but it seems that in many cities the person out there with the camera, the tourist, is considered a blemish upon the landscape. I have gotten snarled at -- especially in Soho for some reason. LOL, particularly on Wardour St. I realize this is going off topic, but it's an interesting point. There seems to be contempt for the camera. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mr Thant wrote: I've asked them to update the page (no response yet) I believe others have also asked them, over the course of a few years, to no avail as of yet. Good luck with your attempt! Over the course of a few years? This particular page on the website only went live in the last few days. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The government is well aware of the problem. A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. Of course the other problem is police recruitment. There are too many people of low intelligence in the police. The problem is, attempts to promote better educated officers to senior positions have been strongly resisted by less well educated policemen who believe that promotion to high office is their right, as it had been for many decades. The police therefore still contain too many ignorant, brutal, racist and misogynist officers who have no respect for the law and for civil liver ties in particular. These people are at the root of the problems policing major demonstrations and are behind the seemingly orchestrated hostility to people taking photographs. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Tony Polson wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The government is well aware of the problem. A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the UK. One of the arguments against the mergers was the local accountability of smaller forces. I'm extremely concerned that this government has allowed the UK to drift towards being a police state, in the name of "security". I will vote for any party that has the guts to repeal anti-terror legislation and reverse the drift towards authoritarianism. -- Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam} Rail and transport photos at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/ |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Jeremy Double wrote:
Tony Polson wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The government is well aware of the problem. *A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. *Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the UK. One of the arguments against the mergers was the local accountability of smaller forces. I'm extremely concerned that this government has allowed the UK to drift towards being a police state, in the name of "security". *I will vote for any party that has the guts to repeal anti-terror legislation and reverse the drift towards authoritarianism. -- Jeremy Double Unfortunately, you have to vote for them before they do it. Do NOT forget Michael Howard as Home Secretary. He'd have had CCTV in your toilet by now. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Jeremy Double wrote:
Tony Polson wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The government is well aware of the problem. A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the UK. True. It's also the force that leads nationally on anti-terror operations. Worrying, isn't it? One of the arguments against the mergers was the local accountability of smaller forces. Perhaps too much local accountability to parochial politicians is seen as a problem? I really don't know. I'm extremely concerned that this government has allowed the UK to drift towards being a police state, in the name of "security". I will vote for any party that has the guts to repeal anti-terror legislation and reverse the drift towards authoritarianism. I don't see much sign of any of the main parties being in a position to promise that. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Tony Polson wrote:
and for civil liver ties in particular Oops! Should be liberties, obviously. ;-) |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 18, 8:56*am, Tony Polson wrote:
Over the course of a few years? * This particular page on the website only went live in the last few days. Possibly "this particular page", but there's been similar verbiage on the website for years and years. The Internet Archive seems to be down, but here's someone in 2004 discussing a similarly confusing page: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...d01a683a000f40 U |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
"Tom Anderson" wrote in message rth.li... On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? Despite all the publicity from last week's incidents there is another example of a police officer with his identification numbers removed from his uniform. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...+ID/article.do Senior officers are expressing surprise about this but must have been aware, the Sergeants and Inspectors from being on the streets with them and the higher levels from watching CCTV. It is impossible that they were unaware of the practice. The lower levels must also have been aware of the alleged practice of swapping numbers around to confuse identification. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Mr Thant wrote:
On Apr 18, 8:56*am, Tony Polson wrote: Over the course of a few years? * This particular page on the website only went live in the last few days. Possibly "this particular page", but there's been similar verbiage on the website for years and years. The Internet Archive seems to be down, but here's someone in 2004 discussing a similarly confusing page: http://groups.google.com/group/uk.tr...d01a683a000f40 Thanks. I withdraw my comments. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Jeremy Double wrote: Tony Polson wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: [snip] I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The government is well aware of the problem. *A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. *Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the UK. I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a strong argument at all. That's not to say that I endorse how more regular day-to-day policing happens, but the notion that the Met are out there shooting innocent people all the time is just plain daft and does nothing to help the credibility of any argument - yet it is a point people make over and over again. The Met's armed response units are out on the street 24/7, they are unfortunately called out to particular incidents far too often, and yet I understand it's far from common for them to pull a weapon on anyone, and they hardly ever actually fire a shot. This isn't meant as some great spiel on why the police is great - that's not my point, merely that they are not out there shooting people all the time. One of the arguments against the mergers was the local accountability of smaller forces. I'm extremely concerned that this government has allowed the UK to drift towards being a police state, in the name of "security". *I will vote for any party that has the guts to repeal anti-terror legislation and reverse the drift towards authoritarianism. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
|
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 18, 10:55*am, Mizter T wrote:
I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a strong argument at all. Well no, because the worst part of that event was the reaction of Ian Blair - the bull**** spewing on the first day and then the complete lack of acknowledgement that there'd been any sort of **** up or that the **** up was anything at all to do with him. It was just absolutely astonishing, as was Ken's support of him*. One of the few good things about Boris is the acknowledgement from day one that Blair is a complete ****ing buffoon. I've no idea if the new guy is any better, though the Met seems to at least acknowledge they were in the wrong about the G20 stuff and the image deleting story, which probably still isn't worth anything but is a million times better than what happened with De Menezes. (* can anyone explain what Ken's motive for this was?) U |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 18, 11:40*am, Mr Thant
wrote: On Apr 18, 10:55*am, Mizter T wrote: I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a strong argument at all. Well no, because the worst part of that event was the reaction of Ian Blair - the bull**** spewing on the first day and then the complete lack of acknowledgement that there'd been any sort of **** up or that the **** up was anything at all to do with him. It was just absolutely astonishing, as was Ken's support of him*. One of the few good things about Boris is the acknowledgement from day one that Blair is a complete ****ing buffoon. I've no idea if the new guy is any better, though the Met seems to at least acknowledge they were in the wrong about the G20 stuff and the image deleting story, which probably still isn't worth anything but is a million times better than what happened with De Menezes. Surely they've just been caught out more quickly, after saying that they'd had no contact with Ian Tomlinson, there was no CCTV etc etc. They began with the routine lies and coverups. Now look out for stories that Ian Tomlinson was a paedophile or once got caught for fare evasion, as if smears (as were made against de Menezes) justify killing someone. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Mizter T wrote:
That's not to say that I endorse how more regular day-to-day policing happens, but the notion that the Met are out there shooting innocent people all the time is just plain daft and does nothing to help the credibility of any argument - yet it is a point people make over and over again. The Met's armed response units are out on the street 24/7, they are unfortunately called out to particular incidents far too often, and yet I understand it's far from common for them to pull a weapon on anyone, and they hardly ever actually fire a shot. Indeed. I forget exactly, but I recall reading that in the last 10 years or so they've (the Met) only shot 10 innocent people (or was it 20?). I never recall hearing, however, how many gun waving criminals they managed to shoot in the same timespan. It'd be an interesting comparison -- anyone got any accurate data? #Paul |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Mr Thant wrote:
Blair - the bull**** spewing on the first day and then the complete lack of acknowledgement that there'd been any sort of **** up or that the **** up was anything at all to do with him. It was just absolutely astonishing, as was Ken's support of him*. One of the few good things about Boris is the acknowledgement from day one that Blair is a complete ****ing buffoon. I've no idea if the new guy is any better, though the Met seems to at least acknowledge they were in the wrong about the G20 stuff and the image deleting story, which probably still isn't worth anything but is a million times better than what happened with De Menezes. (* can anyone explain what Ken's motive for this was?) The reasons that Ken Livingstone supported Sir Ian Blair include: (1) Blair did more than any previous Metropolitan Police Commissioner to eradicate the institutional racism label that had dogged the force since the Stephen Lawrence case; (2) Blair did more than any of his predecessors to encourage the recruitment of officers from ethnic minorities; (3) Blair did more than any of his predecessors to encourage a paradigm shift towards community policing (bobbies on the beat); and (4) Blair encouraged the recruitment and retention of more capable (better educated) senior officers rather than promoting the incompetent on the basis of "Buggins' Turn". Sadly, he proved to be a less than adept handler of the political side of policing, ironically including his relationships with senior officers from the ethnic minorities, and it was abundantly clear that his senior staff had failed to keep him informed of the truth of the de Menezes case, making him look a complete and utter fool. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The problem is that policemen who joined because they wish to uphold the law feel outnumbered by policemen who joined because they wish to get away with breaking the law - so outnumbered that they can't even enjoy mixing in the staff canteen any more, and end up quitting the force. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
Mizter T wrote:
I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a strong argument at all. I believe that was a significant event. In particular, since the Menezes whitewash I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at a red light, wait for ten seconds, get bored, put on the flashing lights, drive through the junction and then put the lights off again. I never saw this once in the years before the Menezes whitewash. It might seem like a little thing, but it's highly visible (unlike all the other things they might get up to) and it suggests that the Menezes whitewash has changed the police's mentality from "the law must be obeyed" to "*we* must be obeyed by *you*". Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the sirens off. They really couldn't care less, since Menezes. |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Apr 18, 12:08*pm, wrote: Mizter T wrote: That's not to say that I endorse how more regular day-to-day policing happens, but the notion that the Met are out there shooting innocent people all the time is just plain daft and does nothing to help the credibility of any argument - yet it is a point people make over and over again. The Met's armed response units are out on the street 24/7, they are unfortunately called out to particular incidents far too often, and yet I understand it's far from common for them to pull a weapon on anyone, and they hardly ever actually fire a shot. Indeed. *I forget exactly, but I recall reading that in the last 10 years or so they've (the Met) only shot 10 innocent people (or was it 20?). I never recall hearing, however, how many gun waving criminals they managed to shoot in the same timespan. It'd be an interesting comparison -- anyone got any accurate data? Ten!? I don't think so. If we're going to have a discussion on this topic then the least we could do is base it on accurate information. Off the top of my head this is what I can think of - de Menezes of course; Harry Stanley, the guy who had the table leg wrapped in a plastic bag that police erroneously thought was a gun and who was shot dead in Hackney; one of the men in the Forest Gate terror raid where no terror was found who was shot in the arm and lived; the man who was shot dead in Brixton because police mistook the gun-shaped cigarette lighter he was holding for the real thing. One could arguably look at the Stockwell and Forest Gate situations somewhat separately from the others - that's absolutely not to excuse them whatsoever, but they do not fall into the bracket of normal day- to-day policing. With regards to the incident in Brixton, I'm afraid to say that I can see why it unfolded as it did. The ten figure that you've come across might be some national figure perhaps? |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
In message
"John Rowland" wrote: Mizter T wrote: I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a strong argument at all. I believe that was a significant event. In particular, since the Menezes whitewash I have frequently seen police vehicles pull up at a red light, wait for ten seconds, get bored, put on the flashing lights, drive through the junction and then put the lights off again. I never saw this once in the years before the Menezes whitewash. It might seem like a little thing, but it's highly visible (unlike all the other things they might get up to) and it suggests that the Menezes whitewash has changed the police's mentality from "the law must be obeyed" to "*we* must be obeyed by *you*". Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the sirens off. They really couldn't care less, since Menezes. Are you aware why they switch the sirens off once they have crossed the junction? -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
In message , at 15:20:08 on Sat, 18
Apr 2009, John Rowland remarked: Once a police car even pulled up behind me in Greenwich town centre and put the sirens on (at 3am!) causing me to drive through the red light out of their way, and then they drove through the lights and put the sirens off. Sirens are not enough to allow someone to break the law by running a red light. You need to be instructed to do so by a policeman in uniform, which means you need to see that the people giving the instructions are both police, and in uniform. -- Roland Perry |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Tony Polson wrote:
Jeremy Double wrote: Tony Polson wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote: Whatever, the police really need to get their act in order. Oh, you noticed that? The government is well aware of the problem. A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the UK. True. It's also the force that leads nationally on anti-terror operations. Worrying, isn't it? I think the Bob Quick debacle, and the confusion over his accountability, may be the final push that leads the government to set up a separate police force to handle terrorism and so on. The foundation for it is already there in the shape of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and it wouldn't be too hard to transfer over the Met's national counter-terrorism, diplomatic protection, etc units. And then it could absorb the MoD police, the security-related activities of the BTP, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, etc. And then hey presto, we have a British FBI. Optimists would say that this would put these important operations under the control of a more professional and specialised leadership, where they can be properly run and supervised, but pessimists would say the exact opposite - we'd have a runaway national police force which would inevitably not have proper scrutiny. tom -- Teach us how to die well |
Photography on London Underground - yes, it's allowed
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009, Mizter T wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:20*am, Jeremy Double wrote: Tony Polson wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: [snip] I am really utterly perplexed by how the police maange to get away with being a bunch of incompetent thugs. Not that there aren't good individual policemen, but there are certainly some very bad ones, and the organisation as a whole is a disaster. It just seems that nobody with the power to do anything about it gives a toss. Or has it just not occurred to people that things could be any better? The government is well aware of the problem. *A couple of years ago it tried to bounce police forces into merging into a much smaller number of much larger forces. *Unfortunately for the government, the police rebelled, and so did the local councils whose ineffectual police authorities may well be at the root of the problem. I don't pretend to know whether bigger would be better, but the Home Office seemed to be convinced that it was. However, it's interesting that most of the complaints come from the Metropolitan Police area, the same police force that shot an innocent man on a tube train, and incidentally the biggest police force in the UK. I don't actually think that basing a critique of the Met on that event - the killing of de Menezes - is particularly effective at all. Be in no doubt, it was an abhorrent screw up of the first order, but to extrapolate from this one very unusual event ideas about how other more regular day-to-day policing happens in the capital is not a strong argument at all. But we don't need to extrapolate to day-to-day policing. The activities of the specialist central commands like the counter-terrorist guys and the Territorial Support Group (ie riot police) can be criticised on their own. Mind you, my experience of day-to-day policing in London is not great, either. A while ago, i as approached by two guys in a car who asked me if i wanted to buy a laptop, waving one at me, and who sped off when i said no. I phoned the police to report the sale of stolen goods, giving the plate number of the car, and the officer who took my call said he was going to record it, but that basically, nothing would be done. And yet they can still seem to find dozens of officers to police entirely harmless Critical Mass rides (up until a few months ago, at least), and enough to fill a quarter-mile line of vans for Arsenal matches. It's almost as if the police saw public order as their job, with the prevention and detection of crime as a sideline. tom -- There are lousy reviews, and then there's empirical ****ness. -- pikelet |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk