On 27/2/10, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Cotty" >Subject: Re: UK: Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest, February >2010
> >> >> Someone seemingly 'acting suspiciously' (define that - ha!) in a crowd >> environment is more likely to attract attention in 2010 than only 20 or >> 30 years ago from people who are more aware and informed by the media. >> 20 or 30 years ago much fewer people were aware that there are people >> about who photograph children in compromising situations (for example) >> and even though the activity itself has probably been going on for ages, >> the awareness has only increased relatively recently. Similarly the >> photographing of bridges, buildings etc. I pass no judgement on it being >> right or wrong, just that that is what I see has happened. >> >> Tell you a story. I was filming in the centre of a city and we had >> finished and I was putting my kit away in the back of the land rover. As >> I drove away I noticed a strange woman looking at me and thought she was >> just staring because I was pulling out perilously close to her car or >> something. Next day I had a phone call from the police - was asked if I >> could meet them in a car park that I would be passing close to that day. >> Turns out that the woman had seen something she thought was a gun being >> holstered and put away in the back of my land rover! The police had done >> some digging based on my vehicle registration (license plate) and seeing >> what I did for a living, assumed a mistake in the lady. They were doing >> a 'soft stop' on me to check. I figured out what the lady had seen, I >> have a microphone and holder with wind-gag that look like this: >> >> <http://tinyurl.com/notagun> >> >> and before it goes in the case the wind gag (the furry part) often needs >> adjusting up tight (looks like a gun going into a holster). We all had a >> good laugh about it - and the copper said he had thought it would be >> something like this - had done the digging and decided a soft stop was >> in order rather than a 'hard stop' which would have involved armed >> police stopping me in an uncompromising manner - slightly scary. >> However, common sense prevailed (as did my website, which they looked at >> in assessing the situation) and we went away chuckling. >> >> My point is that the system worked. > >The system didn't work. >Or more to the point, why does a guy who might have a gun get a "soft stop" Because there was intelligence that suggested otherwise - research done before the stop - my website, my employer's identity etc. It would have been far easier to do the hard stop than waste half a day looking into it - and glad they did! I'm happy with that. >and a guy with a camera gets tossed in a cell? The guy with the camera suddenly became the guy with the attitude, and that's why he was tossed in a cell. >Are you not seeing a disconnect in logic here? Not at all. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ---------- http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
