North End walk.

OP
sussexrob

sussexrob

Forum Patron
Patron
From your comment, I am not clear who “these people” are. I kind of think you must mean the cameraman - but not sure

That cameraman was an utter arse. He was innocently filming but - as unpalatable as it is nowadays, the camera is now a tool of choice for criminals and terrorist when planning operations.

He was approached perfectly politely and just answered like an arrogant twit.
No not the innocent person filming going about his lawful business, You believe he was being arrogant i disagree he was standing up for his rights which many seem to be giving away, from your comments i assume you would be happy to do?

Yes they can ask him does he have to answer them no .What they have no right to do is demand his name which they believed they had the right to do then saying it was an offence if he didn't give it then follow him before they were told to leave him alone by someone with sense.

As for the camera being a tool, those from higher above better start looking at google earth where you can look at nearly anywhere in the world then . Or the folk who seem to think you can not film them in a public place but are very happy to be on cctv many times a day .

Photography is not a crime .
 
Last edited:
OP
sussexrob

sussexrob

Forum Patron
Patron
The other standard it seems today:-
Accident or incident happens
Person who is nearby rushes to scene
Person assesses risk
Person ensures they are fully skilled in their support
Person then pulls out their iPhone 12 and films the events unfolding in the hope that the emergency services urgently arrive and something even more dramatic happens
Person then posts on Facetube in the hope they increase their likes popularity with even more people they will never meet
While i agree with some of those points you raise .
Without those sort getting their phones out the likes of George Floyd would not have had justice .
 
Last edited:

Lord Edgington

Forum Patron
Patron
While i agree with some of those points you raise .
Without those sort getting their phones out the likes of George Floyd would not have had justice .
I just knew and predicted to myself this would be the reply
There were plenty of people around and the person filming wasn’t doing so for their and others gratification
They were filming an unacceptable situation. Not for example a car crash
And I didn’t think you were predictable at all 🤷‍♂️
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
No not the innocent person filming going about his lawful business, You believe he was being arrogant i disagree he was standing up for his rights which many seem to be giving away, from your comments i assume you would be happy to do?

Yes they can ask him does he have to answer them no .What they have no right to do is demand his name which they believed they had the right to do then saying it was an offence if he didn't give it then follow him before they were told to leave him alone by someone with sense.

As for the camera being a tool, those from higher above better start looking at google earth where you can look at nearly anywhere in the world then . Or the folk who seem to think you can not film them in a public place but are very happy to be on cctv many times a day .

Photography is not a crime .

It’s difficult. Authorised security people simply HAVE to be able to ask questions if they see suspicious behaviour though. Not wade in and make arrests - but they surely should be able to ask what’s going on.

And if they are met with arrogance, obstruction or someone refusing to give an explanation- are they just going to walk away and hope that their suspicions were unfounded?

Those people had witnessed the guy filming in an unusual way. Directly into doorways, down narrow alleys - behaviour that is usually innocent- but sometimes isn’t

It was not an unreasonable question - and if after 10 minutes obstruction and arseyness they insisted on taking details, maybe he plays the innocent, claiming he was being harassed for photography - when in fact it had long since moved on to him being harassed because instead of giving a simple honest explanation, he had spent 10 minutes behaving like a dick - and reminiscent of how an actual terrorist might act.

For the record, I watched the entirety of the first half - then started using the +15s button to skip through to the end. I didn’t see the three overstep any mark in that time.
 

LostinSpace

Exile
Staff member
Patron
The other standard it seems today:-
Accident or incident happens
Person who is nearby rushes to scene
Person assesses risk
Person ensures they are fully skilled in their support
Person then pulls out their iPhone 12 and films the events unfolding in the hope that the emergency services urgently arrive and something even more dramatic happens
Person then posts on Facetube in the hope they increase their likes popularity with even more people they will never meet
It‘s usually twitface.

...and be careful how you spell that. :)
 
OP
sussexrob

sussexrob

Forum Patron
Patron
It’s difficult. Authorised security people simply HAVE to be able to ask questions if they see suspicious behaviour though. Not wade in and make arrests - but they surely should be able to ask what’s going on.

And if they are met with arrogance, obstruction or someone refusing to give an explanation- are they just going to walk away and hope that their suspicions were unfounded?

Those people had witnessed the guy filming in an unusual way. Directly into doorways, down narrow alleys - behaviour that is usually innocent- but sometimes isn’t


It was not an unreasonable question - and if after 10 minutes obstruction and arseyness they insisted on taking details, maybe he plays the innocent, claiming he was being harassed for photography - when in fact it had long since moved on to him being harassed because instead of giving a simple honest explanation, he had spent 10 minutes behaving like a dick - and reminiscent of how an actual terrorist might act.

For the record, I watched the entirety of the first half - then started using the +15s button to skip through to the end. I didn’t see the three overstep any mark in that time.
What an earth is suspicious? He was filming not a crime ,if they believe it is to them that is their problem, he was not filming alleyways doors etc if as you say you watched he filmed the town as an example the skeletons in the wimpy and the lady statue . He was minding his own business.
As i said before they can ask him ,why should he answer its none of their business would you answer just because you were walking down the street and they thought that was suspicious you may want to live in a police state i don't. They seemed to think they had some sort of authority of him as he said they are nobodies asking for his name or should i say demanding it saying it was a offence is laughable retraining is needed .

You call it arrogance or being obstructive i call it standing up for his rights as for walking away that was exactly what they did when told too by someone above them.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
What an earth is suspicious? He was filming not a crime ,if they believe it is to them that is their problem, he was not filming alleyways doors etc if as you say you watched he filmed the town as an example the skeletons in the wimpy and the lady statue . He was minding his own business.
As i said before they can ask him ,why should he answer its none of their business would you answer just because you were walking down the street and they thought that was suspicious you may want to live in a police state i don't. They seemed to think they had some sort of authority of him as he said they are nobodies asking for his name or should i say demanding it saying it was a offence is laughable retraining is needed .

You call it arrogance or being obstructive i call it standing up for his rights as for walking away that was exactly what they did when told too by someone above them.

We have (rightly) NEVER had complete freedom to do as we please - which you seem to be suggesting is a long-held inalienable right. 500 years ago, a stranger poking his nose around the village was going to be met with a few questions! A century ago, the Bobby on the beat would have been asking “What’s going on here then sir?” And if you said that you have the right to remain silent - I don’t think it would have got you very far.

I think you’re harking back to a nostalgic time that was never really there.

I think basically we just hold different opinions about the definition of “suspicious”. I do fully understand your opinion - and to be honest, for much of my life, I would have almost entirely agreed - I have always been among the last to accept today’s Big Brother society- and still don’t.

But definitions of “suspicious” change - as the technology and criminal tactics and threats change.

If some bloke comes down my street today and he’s filming my next-door neighbour going about their daily routine - and appearing to focus on entrances and open upstairs windows above the garage - then proceeds down the back ginnel filming the backs of houses down the street- you might say that’s filming and not illegal but it’s bloody suspicious - and I want a policeman to have the power to investigate.

Those officers in that town won’t have known for sure what was on his film - Wimpy, or whatever. For a town centre, I would say it was reasonable to have decided to ask a polite question. If he’d given an even remotely polite answer, then he, the officers and the citizens of that town could have just have just rested easy and enjoyed their day.

Reacting the way he did - it just slowly escalated suspicions to the point where it would be negligent to just let him carry on without some sort of further check.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
@Regardless

You are wrong.

You'll be banning photographs next!!!!!

As I said in #27, there is a subjective judgment to be had about what is deemed suspicious - and I wouldn’t put my life on the line to defend my opinion. Interesting and important debate though.

This is about where you draw a line. As you just used a big exaggeration to make a point, so will I.

If a bloke was wearing a tee shirt bearing fundamentalist Islamic slogans and carrying a massive rucksack with wires hanging out - wandering the public streets outside a busy landmark, would it be ok for the police to politely ask him what he’s doing? If he tells them to knob off, because there’s nothing illegal about walking the streets carrying rucksack, should they accept it and, well, knob off?

Carrying rucksacks - not illegal. Believing in fundamental Islam - not illegal. So what bloody right does anyone have to infringe his freedom to go about his lawful business?
 

Jack Daniels

PNE-ONLINE Boxing Expert.
Staff member
Patron
As I said in #27, there is a subjective judgment to be had about what is deemed suspicious - and I wouldn’t put my life on the line to defend my opinion. Interesting and important debate though.

This is about where you draw a line. As you just used a big exaggeration to make a point, so will I.

If a bloke was wearing a tee shirt bearing fundamentalist Islamic slogans and carrying a massive rucksack with wires hanging out - wandering the public streets outside a busy landmark, would it be ok for the police to politely ask him what he’s doing? If he tells them to knob off, because there’s nothing illegal about walking the streets carrying rucksack, should they accept it and, well, knob off?

Carrying rucksacks - not illegal. Believing in fundamental Islam - not illegal. So what bloody right does anyone have to infringe his freedom to go about his lawful business?
You can buy a camera at Argos. Totally legal and innocent.

A back pack with wires sticking out... well, you compare the former.

You're not thick, argumentative maybe but not thick.
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
You can buy a camera at Argos. Totally legal and innocent.

A back pack with wires sticking out... well, you compare the former.

You're not thick, argumentative maybe but not thick.

Argos for your camera? You can probably buy a rucksack and home electrical supplies whilst you’re there. Totally legal and innocent- unless misused. Just like your camera.

I guess this isn’t a debate you want to have. Fair enough.
 

sf

Forum Patron
Patron
This was on another thread a couple of weeks back.

The stewards are nothing but polite towards him.

The guy with the camera comes across as an attention seeking pillock.
Yeah, the guy is being the bigger asshole here in my opinion.

'I AM VERY OFFENDED'

Seems like he was there while a game was on too?
 
Top