Jump to content

Hide your cameras, plod is on to you.


Ghostrider
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The premise of the thread was still based on the assumption that the man was suspicious because of the camera. 

 

As was SIBC's report on the Police's statement which spawned everything in the first place.

 

As I'm aware, but SIBC report does not say that the camera was what raised suspicion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I'm aware, but SIBC report does not say that the camera was what raised suspicion. 

 

You're getting there. The SIBC report doesn't say anything of value about anything to anybody, hence the p*ss take.

 

It states a collection of random "facts" that may or may not be related to something in some way, that's all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gives a very identifiable description of the man in question,....

 

:shock:

 

I really do hope you're not a member of the local Constabularly, nor ever become one with those standards of I.D.......

 

Yeah, a guy with a camera with a lens on it in the vicinity of Bolts in the second half of Friday afternoon really narrows it down.........to a similar number as that of a guy driving a white van in the vicinity of Bolts in the same timeframe. Its (allegedly) spring, the sun is making an occasional appearance, and we tend to get quite a few of these really "suspicious" types popping up or loitering around in "suspicious" places, colliqually they're known as "tourist".

 

http://previews.123rf.com/images/ivonnewierink/ivonnewierink1210/ivonnewierink121000292/15894395-Typical-tourist-with-big-camera-taking-pictures-Stock-Photo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It gives a very identifiable description of the man in question,....

 

:shock:

 

I really do hope you're not a member of the local Constabularly, nor ever become one with those standards of I.D.......

 

Yeah, a guy with a camera with a lens on it in the vicinity of Bolts in the second half of Friday afternoon really narrows it down.........to a similar number as that of a guy driving a white van in the vicinity of Bolts in the same timeframe. Its (allegedly) spring, the sun is making an occasional appearance, and we tend to get quite a few of these really "suspicious" types popping up or loitering around in "suspicious" places, colliqually they're known as "tourist".

 

 

 

 However much photography has become popularised as a pasttime, the camera in your picture would still be a stand out in a specific part of town at a specific time. You can patronisingly pretend otherwise all you like, I'm sure if anybody saw this man they would recognise the description provided, which is the only thing required. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Okay, lets approach this from a wholly different angle.

 

*If* there is a "victim" of this "suspicious person's" activities, and I sincerely hope there isn't, and I were that victim. I would be seriously hacked off by the Police/SIBC treating the issue in this way, and questioning whether they were taking it seriously and genuinely trying to do something about it, or just treating it as a bit of  joke and paying it lip service.

 

Similarily, *if* I was someone who was being subject to the Spanish Inquisition by our local boys in blue, just because while getting on with my thing and minding my own business I had happened to walk past Bolts late on Friday afternoon while carrying a camera, I'd be pretty ticked off about it, and if I were a tourist I'd be wondering just what in hell kind of place this was I'd ended up in, which wouldn't exactly encourage me to come back again in the future.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it's lip service, this is the standard procedure and if anybody has seen him, they will recognise the description. 

 

I find your response utterly baffling. 

I don't...

 

If there had been an "incident", and we had been informed of it then, information/co-operation might have been a little more forthcoming.

 

As it stands, no one has decided to inform "the public" as to just what it is that this person is supposed to have done apart, that is, from being in a public place with quite a decent bit of equipment.

 

Maybe the camera/lens were stolen?  Did he "threaten" to take someone's photograph?  Was he stepping on the cracks in the pavement? Who knows but, if they were, then why not tell us?  Most of us are adult enough to act/react in the correct manner when presented with the right information. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is the standard procedure.....

 

Which is very likely why their enquires very seldom bear fruit when they only supply this little information

 

......and if anybody has seen him, they will recognise the description. 

 

Perhaps, and perhaps not. The time I see someone someplace and what they're carrying, if its something as mundane and everyday as a camera, are among the least likely things I'm liable to recall about someone. What it will do though, is be as likely to point the finger at every other male who happened to be in that area around that time in possession of a camera, which hopefully was none, but is as likely to have been several. Which will just waste time and resources from finding the person they want to find, and annoying and harrassing perfectly innocent folk.

 

Like Colin points out, you need to motivate people to want to help, and try and provide your potential helpers with as much info as you possibly can to finger the person you want and as few others as possible. Male, "suspicious", Bolts 4pm Friday, camera, doesn't check many of those boxes. Approx age, build and clothing would go a hell of a lot of a longer way towards making an I.D. and you have to question that if the only things their "witness" could remember about this allegedly "suspicious" person is their sex and they had a camera, is whatever they remember about him that is supposedly made him "suspicious" to be relied upon. Hardly a star witness to rely on to secure a conviction by any stretch of the imagination.

 

All I'm seeing here is something going nowhere helpful to anyone, and carrying a significant risk of harrassing a few innocent folk who don't deserve it.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said previously, it seems some of you just want a gossipy tale to satiate your nosiness. There's no other reason to give out further detail, if people have seen somebody acting suspiciously, they will be prompted to relay info to police now. If they haven't, they clearly didn't see anything. If nobody around the North Road at 4pm the other evening saw anything they thought was suspicious, then it seems likely whatever this fellow was doing wasn't suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said previously, it seems some of you just want a gossipy tale to satiate your nosiness. There's no other reason to give out further detail, if people have seen somebody acting suspiciously, they will be prompted to relay info to police now. If they haven't, they clearly didn't see anything. If nobody around the North Road at 4pm the other evening saw anything they thought was suspicious, then it seems likely whatever this fellow was doing wasn't suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. 

 

So everyone is meant to listen to SIBC then if they want to help the Police in this matter ... it has obviously escaped your notice that the only places this has been mentioned are SIBC and on here, the latter no doubt being through as you perceive it, "nosiness".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said previously, it seems some of you just want a gossipy tale to satiate your nosiness.

 

The Police are public servants, the Police are funded by the public, the Police are charged with ensuring public safety. The only way the public has of ensuring their servants behave appropriately and competently, provide good value for money, and deliver on their responsibilities is through observation of their day to day activities.

 

In the given example here, either SIBC are seriously misrepresenting/misreporting the facts, in which case it would be smart on the Police's part to discuss the matter with SIBC for their own good, or, then service delivery is of a level that is cause for concern to at least some of us who form part of their quality control system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...