Stopped by the police for taking photos!!

alan doyle · Mar 20, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Peter,

You really need to keep things in chronological order. They bombed the US and the UK first. Rewriting history is the speciality of terrorists. Are you joining their ranks?

who are they...who bombed the usa and uk.
crap my friend...english born pakistanis bombed london and a rag tag bunch of saudi arabs bombed new york,you know this mr glass.
and as far as middle easterners,who do not value life.
clearly the usa and uk and all freedom loving peoples do not either cos over half a million iraqis are dead based on bush and blair lies.
i thought thats why the republicans were kicked out.
clearly some people still believe cheneys lies.

Steve Smith · Mar 20, 2009

JBrunner said:
The fine in the US will vary from state to state, as it is the individual states that register and regulate automobiles as far as the mundane stuff goes. Here in Utah diving without insurance will get your car impounded and garner a fine in the neighborhood of $400 plus impound fees, and rightfully so.

In the UK, some motoring offences such as operating a vehicle on a public road without a valid road fund licence (tax disc) can end up with your car being taken from you and crushed.

Steve.

Bob F. · Mar 20, 2009

In case this was the cause of confusion, GBP is the standard abbreviation for Great Britain pounds. USD is the US dollar, CAD is the Canadian dollar, AUD is the Aussie dollar, JPY is the Japanese yen and EUR is the euro and so it goes on...

The six points on the license is arguably more serious. 12 points in a three-year period and you are likely to lose your licence for a year, possibly less depending on what the points were for. I am still amazed they did not impound the car - there is no way they would let someone drive away uninsured and "I'll leave it in the car park until I get the insurance renewed" would just receive a hollow laugh...

Steve: only crushed if you do not pay the fine and pound fees. You can sign it over on the spot if you prefer - you still get done for no Tax (and probably no MOT and insurance too) of course...

mike c · Mar 20, 2009

Thanks Bob, I understand now, we've got the same over here in sunny So. Cal, it can cost you much o bucko's if you are not careful.

Andy K · Mar 20, 2009

Steve Smith said:
In the UK, some motoring offences such as operating a vehicle on a public road without a valid road fund licence (tax disc) can end up with your car being taken from you and crushed.

Steve.

Steve, just to clarify, it is no longer the road fund licence, it is the Vehicle Excise Duty disc.

tim_walls · Mar 20, 2009

Steve Smith said:
In the UK, some motoring offences such as operating a vehicle on a public road without a valid road fund licence (tax disc) can end up with your car being taken from you and crushed.

Indeed, and the biggest shame of the OP is that his car wasn't crushed, which is one of the perfectly reasonable penalties allowed by law for driving without insurance.

Drivers without insurance are a menace. As far as I can tell the OP's biggest complaint is "I committed a crime and got nicked." I can hate on the police as much as the next man (as my posting record on the monster police-ate-my-hamster thread testifies - at least I've bothered to complain to my MP about it,) but this does seem like sour grapes.

I'm not sure about the being asked to show your ID card part of the OP either. We don't have ID cards (yet - and provided the voters see sense at the next election never, hopefully...)

2F/2F · Mar 20, 2009

JBrunner said:
I'll take danger and freedom over the illusion of safety provided by a police state any day.

THANK YOU.

removed-user-1 · Mar 20, 2009

BobNewYork said:
I think you're right. However, the reality, Miranda or no, is that you end up face in the dirt and cuffed for "failure to comply" - we've seen an increasing number of these in the press of late. I think much of the change has come from a sincere attempt to avoid meaningless confrontation in the past to one of almost provoking it. There was the recent case of a Canadian tourist in Washinton who was pulled over and ordered to turn off the engine. The Canadian told the officer to say please and was promptly pepper-sprayed, dragged out of his car, thrown to the ground and arrested for "failure to comply." I admit that telling the police to say please pushed it a little - but it's not so long ago when they would always have said "please" or "would you mind" as a matter of course. It just avoids unnecessary escalation.

Still on the soap box

Bob H

I think an approproriate form of civil disobedience might be over-compliance... as in, play it to the hilt... I have a feeling the cops wouldn't like that either but what could they do if you obeyed the order? For instance, carry ten forms of ID and when they ask for ID, present all of it: passport, SS card, license, etc.

removed-user-1 · Mar 20, 2009

JBrunner said:
It would vary with the exchange rate, but roughly $300 US dollars. The fine in the US will vary from state to state, as it is the individual states that register and regulate automobiles as far as the mundane stuff goes. Here in Utah diving without insurance will get your car impounded and garner a fine in the neighborhood of $400 plus impound fees, and rightfully so.

I live near the Tennessee border, and when I see a car from there I always give them lots of space because (as far as I know), auto insurance is *not* legally required in that state.

2F/2F · Mar 20, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
Peter,

You really need to keep things in chronological order. They bombed the US and the UK first. Rewriting history is the speciality of terrorists. Are you joining their ranks?

As seems to be the case fairly often, you are the one who needs to go crack a book and do your research before opening your mouth. This is an asinine and ignorant paragraph through and through. First of all, do you think the entire history of the U.S. "versus" terrorist organizations starts with the Sept. 11 Attacks? Second, history has been and will be rewritten by everybody who has something to gain by its rewriting: conservatives, liberals, commies, nazis, wackos, etc. You name a group, and they have rewritten history. Apparently, you are "joining the ranks" of revisionist historians by suggesting that the story begins on Sept. 11, 2001. Finally, the backhanded accusation that someone is joining the ranks of a terrorist organization by pointing out that the conflicts that be have roots far beyond Sept 11 is not only laughable, idiotic, and childish, but sensationalistic and could be potentially assaultive and dangerous to the person in some circumstances. It is exactly the same crap that caused intellectuals, historians, and other critics to be run out of Germany in the '20s and '30s, or just plain killed in the '40s. Somebody having the brains to see the truth beyond the hype does not mean that they are a terrorist.

Sirius Glass · Mar 20, 2009

2F/2F said:
As seems to be the case fairly often, you are the one who needs to go crack a book and do your research before opening your mouth. This is an asinine and ignorant paragraph through and through. First of all, do you think the entire history of the U.S. "versus" terrorist organizations starts with the Sept. 11 Attacks? Second, history has been and will be rewritten by everybody who has something to gain by its rewriting: conservatives, liberals, commies, nazis, wackos, etc. You name a group, and they have rewritten history. Apparently, you are "joining the ranks" of revisionist historians by suggesting that the story begins on Sept. 11, 2001. Finally, the backhanded accusation that someone is joining the ranks of a terrorist organization by pointing out that the conflicts that be have roots far beyond Sept 11 is not only laughable, idiotic, and childish, but sensationalistic and could be potentially assaultive in some circumstances.

As usual, you react without reading. I did not accuse him of being a terrorist. I asked him if he was becoming one.

He was the one who make the chronological mistake.

Are you just looking to start another flame war again?

Steve

BobNewYork · Mar 20, 2009

First - sorry about the confusion over the GBP - that's what happens when an ex forex trader gets online!!

I agree I was a little harsh on Lord Bassam, and I understand what he's trying to say, but in light of the outcry over what has been happening I'm just so ticked that none of our pols has the ... to stand up and talk straight. If under the law there's no presumption of privacy in a public setting then as a Peer of the Realm he should be requiring that the Association of Police Chiefs instructs it members accordingly - not farting around thinking that possibly a consultation may or may not be in order in the near future or other such time as may be best suited to the parties concerned.

Courts do indeed determine what or is not reasonable, but it seems to me that when it comes to the taking of a photograph openly and in the public sphere it should not even be an issue of reasonableness - it's permissible. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that anything is reasonable with the proviso that it neither endangers nor unduly inconveniences others.

The OP should clearly have kept his insurance current and I'm not in any way condoning that - and frankly neither was he. I can well understand the oversight however.

I'm firmly in Mr. Brunner's camp - let me pay my taxes, feed, clothe and educate my family and conduct my life as I see fit - as long as my actions do not inhibit the ability of anyone else to do the same. Then I'll take my chances and hopefully influence those chances as I see them at the ballot box. In fact today I saw a bumper sticker which read "One Nation, Under Surveillance" and my thought was that this man has clearly never driven the M 1 out of London!

Sorry to get on my high horse, but my two favourite countries in the world, one in which I live and the other of which I'm a citizen seem both to be headed in a direction which is the antithesis of what they purport to stand for - and go to war for. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world by far and the U.K. has by far the highest incarceration rate in Northern Europe. I just don't buy it that the populations of these two countries are inherently more criminal than those in other democracies.

Anyway - time to take my medication! Perhaps I'll wash it down with a glass of single malt

Bob H

StorminMatt · Mar 20, 2009

JBrunner said:
It would vary with the exchange rate, but roughly $300 US dollars. The fine in the US will vary from state to state, as it is the individual states that register and regulate automobiles as far as the mundane stuff goes. Here in Utah diving without insurance will get your car impounded and garner a fine in the neighborhood of $400 plus impound fees, and rightfully so.

The fine here in California is even higher than that. I believe it is something like $1200 if you have no insurance, and don't get any before your court date, and something like $600 if you actually get insurance before your court date. In any case, the police have no access to your insurance information. So they can't really determine whether you have it or not if you cannot provide proof. Also, you don't get your car impounded for not having insurance. And finally, you cannot be fined for not having insurance unless you are stopped for a moving violation.

One more thing. Any police officer (or anyone else, for that matter) who thinks that a REAL terrorist is going to be out there with something as conpicuous as an RB67 taking pictures to scope out targets is a first-class moron.

Martin Aislabie · Mar 20, 2009

Don't a lot of non UK residents read the UK Forum !

Martin

JBrunner · Mar 20, 2009

StorminMatt said:
The fine here in California is even higher than that. I believe it is something like $1200 if you have no insurance, and don't get any before your court date, and something like $600 if you actually get insurance before your court date. In any case, the police have no access to your insurance information. So they can't really determine whether you have it or not if you cannot provide proof. Also, you don't get your car impounded for not having insurance. And finally, you cannot be fined for not having insurance unless you are stopped for a moving violation.

One more thing. Any police officer (or anyone else, for that matter) who thinks that a REAL terrorist is going to be out there with something as conpicuous as an RB67 taking pictures to scope out targets is a first-class moron.

In Utah you are required to carry proof of insurance. If you don't have the up to date card, you get the ticket and they take your car until you prove otherwise. You are still out the tow and the impound. You have to be stopped for something else, but when the guy walks up it's "license, registration, and proof of insurance, please".

telkwa · Mar 20, 2009

Your title is completely wrong. You were not stopped by police for taking photos - you were stopped by police for having illegally operated a motor vehicle. So what if they questioned you? That is their job.

BobNewYork · Mar 20, 2009

telkwa said:
Your title is completely wrong. You were not stopped by police for taking photos - you were stopped by police for having illegally operated a motor vehicle. So what if they questioned you? That is their job.

No I think the title's right - the police approached him because he was taking photographs. One searched his car while the other one questioned him. they returned 10 minutes later to tell him his car insurance had expired a week earlier. He wasn't stopped for a motoring offense.

I don't think anyone's condoning driving without insurance here, in fact that's a side issue of the OP. IMHO stopping, IDing and questioning people for openly taking photographs in a public place is not the job of the police in any free, democratic society.

Bob H

2F/2F · Mar 20, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
As usual, you react without reading. I did not accuse him of being a terrorist. I asked him if he was becoming one.

He was the one who make the chronological mistake.

Are you just looking to start another flame war again?

Steve

You backhandedly used a heavily flawed association with a terrorist movement as a tool of personal attack in a debate.

He made a chronological mistake by stating that the 9/11 attacks came after U.S. involvement in the middle east? No. YOU are wrong if you think that post 9/11 was the first involvement the U.S./UK have had in the middle east. It is YOU who are ignorant of history, and YOU who are attempting to "rewrite" it. You cannot be serious. Are you ten years old and have you been kept from school? Pick up a book. Learn some *very basic* history. Then open your mouth. The depth of your lack of information is astounding. Loudly and repeatedly stating B.S. does not make it correct.

Calling someone's B.S. what it is not starting a flame war. It is doing the right thing.

k_jupiter · Mar 20, 2009

Sirius Glass said:
As usual, you react without reading. I did not accuse him of being a terrorist. I asked him if he was becoming one.

He was the one who make the chronological mistake.

Are you just looking to start another flame war again?

Steve

I too am amazed at your ignorance. There were no Iraqis in the attacks on the US or Britain. Only Saudis, our Ally. There were no Al Qaida in Iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, as attested to by the head of the investigating committee from the U.N., and the attack on Iraq opened up the worlds largest terrorist training camp, the streets of Baghdad. The U.S. attack resembled nothing as much as the attack on Poland, or Czechoslovakia in the beginning of the second world war. Call it Blitzkrieg or call it Shock and Awe. What's the difference? In both cases a neutral country was attacked by a foreign power with no authority to do so.

The best line I ever heard was Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld talking about the incursion of Iranian troops on the border of Iraq soon after we landed. He said something like, The Iranians just don't seem to understand territorial sovereignty. What a gas.

So get your facts straight before you make a complete ass of yourself.

tim in san jose

JBrunner · Mar 21, 2009

Let us not bicker and argue about who killed who. This is a happy time!

I know the well known tendency of threads about photography degenerating into arguments about WMD's, but lets get this one back on track, shall we?

The insurance thing is just a Sotto voce, a lucky or unlucky happenstance depending on who you are and where you are standing.

The real crux, and the real point of almost every thread like this is the degeneration of photography in the minds of some into a suspicious activity. I can remember growing up how we made fun of the Soviets for this very proclivity. The fact that we have seen the enemy, and it is us, and that some persons actually tolerate this nonsense in the support of some hallucinatory idea of public safety shows just how fat and dumb people have become. Only blinding ignorance could enable support for such an idea.

Photography hasn't been shown to be a factor in any terrorist attack. Not one. Zilch. Nada. Zip. So why is it now suspicious? News flash. If you can't do something effective, do something, anything, to justify your phony baloney existence, and oh, the more things you can hassle someone for, the more likely you can find something to ticket, or someone to nick. Pure revenue, brought to you by the numbers game, enabled by the use of hysteria to empower power. The enjoyment a share of them get from throwing their weight around is just a bonus.

BobNewYork · Mar 21, 2009

JBrunner said:
......I can remember growing up how we made fun of the Soviets for this very proclivity. The fact that we have seen the enemy, and it is us, .....

How true. I'm actually embarrassed by this. And the fact is we did a lot more than make fun of them - we went on a war footing like never before so we could defend "freedom". I can vividly recall, as a young kid, the look on my parents' faces when they tested the air raid sirens during the Cuban Missile Crisis and their obvious recollections of the London blitz in WWII. I also recall a school trip to Soviet Russia not long after that crisis and seeing how cowed the people were by their arrogant and over-bearing police and thinking "Thank God our police are our friends."

All I can say is "You've come a long way baby."

Bob H

Tanya. · Mar 21, 2009

I was stopped here in Maine for experimenting with slow shutter speeds on a bridge overlooking the turnpike... he asked me for my name and birthdate so he could run it. I don't agree that it's their job. It must be a way to bring in more revenue to the town they work for if they can ticket someone... I just went along with it... I could see if I was trying to jump or I was obstructing traffic but I was minding my own business trying to work on my craft.....

AgX · Mar 21, 2009

It's great to see such broad reluctance against controlls.

I'm living in a country where since about 70 years everyone has to have an ID card along with him...

Stoo Batchelor · Mar 21, 2009

tt

BobNewYork said:
I agree I was a little harsh on Lord Bassam, and I understand what he's trying to say, but in light of the outcry over what has been happening I'm just so ticked that none of our pols has the ... to stand up and talk straight. If under the law there's no presumption of privacy in a public setting then as a Peer of the Realm he should be requiring that the Association of Police Chiefs instructs it members accordingly - not farting around thinking that possibly a consultation may or may not be in order in the near future or other such time as may be best suited to the parties concerned.Bob H

Bob, your timing couldn't be more perfect. Two days ago, the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, did his first radio broadcast to the leading London talk radio station. In this conversation, both himself and the presenter spoke about a recent case where I believe, and don't quote me on this, as I don't buy newspapers and I missed the first few minutes of the show, a reporter was asked by the police to delete some images on his camera, or something along them lines anyway. There was a big outcry about the incident, and by his own admission, Sir Paul was in total agreement that his officers had been too heavy handed, and was going to make sure that all his officers were aware of the legislation surrounding this sensitive subject. He continued to say that it is his belief that a photographer should be able to photograph what he so wishes in the city without being harassed.(or words to that effect)

Stoo

Markus Röhling · Mar 21, 2009

AgX said:
It's great to see such broad reluctance against controlls.

I'm living in a country where since about 70 years everyone has to have an ID card along with him...

THIS IS NOT TRUE. You should know better the laws of the country you are living in!

Since the reunification you only have to OWN an ID card (if you don't have a passport), but except in a strip along the Polish an Czech border or in case you carry a weapon you don't have to take it with you.

With the exception of these border regions the police has no right to ask you for your personal details and your ID card. Another exception are sensible areas in case FACTS justify the assumption that an attack is to be carried out (but still you don't have to carry an ID-card or a passport with you). In the GDR and Berlin you had to carry an ID with you as well as under the Nazi regime or under Allied occupation.

But now we are a democracy!

Markus

Stopped by the police for taking photos!!

alan doyle

Steve Smith

Bob F.

mike c

Andy K

tim_walls

2F/2F

removed-user-1

removed-user-1

2F/2F

Sirius Glass

BobNewYork

StorminMatt

Martin Aislabie

JBrunner

Moderator

telkwa

BobNewYork

2F/2F

k_jupiter

JBrunner

Moderator

BobNewYork

Tanya.

AgX

Stoo Batchelor

Markus Röhling

Stopped by the police for taking photos!!

removed-user-1

removed-user-1

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency