Hide your cameras, plod is on to you.

[Colin]

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. 

What a load of bull"£$%

 

What do you mean "there's no other reason to give out further detail" ?  I can think of dozens of reasons and, none of them are down to "nosiness" on my part.  I also wonder who it was made you the arbiter in this matter?

 

"whatever this fellow was doing wasn't suspicious enough to warrant further investigation" Eh? Well it seemed suspicious enough to warrant an "item" on SIBC....

 

Plod was looking for information on someone/anyone.  Were they having a quiet day and, was it just on the off-chance that someone was doing something "wrong" so that they could jump on him to liven things up a bit?

Maybe they could drag themselves down to the street today.  Loads of "suspicious" people there and, they are nearly all acting "suspiciously".

 

Saw a lady of at least 70 years using a small camera to photograph the fort.  I mean, it's a "military installation" isn't it and, if that isn't suspicious then, what is?  Perhaps it was the aged gentleman who appeared to accompany her.  Leaning against the wall a few feet behind her.  Covering her back and keeping an eye open no doubt...

 

Could it be that it is all part of a scurrilous plot by messrs Coutts, Hughson and, Younger to keep competition of the streets?

[as]

talking of "military installation":

 

HMS Middleton is arriving tomorrow. There's bound to be a whole lot of "suspicious" folk about...and many of them with cameras, too. Busy few days for plod.

[hjasga]

 

 

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".

 

 

They've issued a press release, that only one local media channel has seen fit to report it isn't really within their control. 

 

 

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. 

What a load of bull"£$%

 

What do you mean "there's no other reason to give out further detail" ?  I can think of dozens of reasons and, none of them are down to "nosiness" on my part.  I also wonder who it was made you the arbiter in this matter?

 

"whatever this fellow was doing wasn't suspicious enough to warrant further investigation" Eh? Well it seemed suspicious enough to warrant an "item" on SIBC....

 

Plod was looking for information on someone/anyone.  Were they having a quiet day and, was it just on the off-chance that someone was doing something "wrong" so that they could jump on him to liven things up a bit?

Maybe they could drag themselves down to the street today.  Loads of "suspicious" people there and, they are nearly all acting "suspiciously".

 

Saw a lady of at least 70 years using a small camera to photograph the fort.  I mean, it's a "military installation" isn't it and, if that isn't suspicious then, what is?  Perhaps it was the aged gentleman who appeared to accompany her.  Leaning against the wall a few feet behind her.  Covering her back and keeping an eye open no doubt...

 

Could it be that it is all part of a scurrilous plot by messrs Coutts, Hughson and, Younger to keep competition of the streets?

 

 

I suggest you read my post again, you have clearly misunderstood the part about whether or not he was behaving suspiciously.

 

Beyond that, I'm out. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with the views of all three of you here and squabbling about it will do none of us any favours. 

[Colin]

"you have clearly misunderstood the part about whether or not he was behaving suspiciously."

 

And you just don't seem to understand that when somebody shouts "jump" then, some of us will ask "why?" not "how high?".

[hjasga]

In this instance, it may be appropriate to ask "who are you talking to?" before proceeding with anything else. 

[Ghostrider]

I suggest you read my post again, you have clearly misunderstood the part about whether or not he was behaving suspiciously.

 

What you don't appear to be getting is that what a "witness" or the Police themselves may choose to term "suspicious" is not necessarily what I may term "suspicious", and I'm not prepared accept their interpretation of the word without back up evidence.

 

If this guy was say pointing his camera up the skirt of every person he met wearing one and taking a shot, damn right he needs finding. However if he was taking shots of every piece of kerb, pothole, house along the road or every vehicle that uses the road. While perhaps "unusual" and somewhat "odd", and no doubt "suspicious" in some people's minds, I'd see it as his right to do so if he so pleased and that he deserved to be left alone to get on with it.

 

Its not all that long ago that someone alleged they'd been chased along a public road by a site foreman, demanding to know why he'd been taking photos of the construction site - which he'd taken while standing on that self same public road.

 

This illusion we're sold of allegedly living in a "free country" is getting very dodgy if someone wlking along a public road in the middle of the afternoon carrying a camera, becomes the local plod's most wanted on the strength of someone somewhere feeling they were in some way "suspicious".

 

If the Police can't trust the public to have a reasonable level of intelligence and common sense when they request the public works in partnership with them, the public simply won't trust them or cooperate with them out of choice, it is as simple as that.

[hjasga]

 

I suggest you read my post again, you have clearly misunderstood the part about whether or not he was behaving suspiciously.

 

What you don't appear to be getting is that what a "witness" or the Police themselves may choose to term "suspicious" is not necessarily what I may term "suspicious", and I'm not prepared accept their interpretation of the word without back up evidence.

 

No, that is exactly the point I am making! The definitions do not necessarily match, and if anybody was to have seen a man with a camera, I don't expect they will come forward unless they also beleived him to have been behaving suspiciously. This argument runs in contrast to your other points, since if they'd said (for example and not to suggest man met this description) "man in mid-40s of around 5'10" and stocky build, with dark hair, dressed in blue, carrying a large camera", anybody who saw a man matching that description would almost definitely come forward, thinking, "oh yes, I saw him, he didn't seem to be up to much but maybe it happened after I left". Whereas, "man with camera", people might think, "oh I saw a man with a camera, but he wasn't doing anything dodgy, it was probably somebody else, no point wasting my time". To give too much info would prejudice the case and do precisely the thing you are supposedly concerned to avoid. 

 

You are acting as if collecting information is going to immediately lead to this person ending up in a cell. If all he was doing was taking photos of the street or of potholes, he has nothing to worry about, he has committed no crime and I do not see how somebody coming forward with information will do anything but help his case if that is what has happened. 

Edited May 20, 2015 by hjasga

[Ghostrider]

Beyond that, I'm out.

 

Well, that lasted a while.

[Colin]

 

Beyond that, I'm out.

 

Well, that lasted a while.

 

Yep..  I wasn't finished though..

[hjasga]

Yes, fair point, but when you both decided to misrepresent what I had said I felt the need to clarify. I wasn't raising any new points but you both seem insistent on reading what you (don't) want to from what I've said previously. 

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

Yes, fair point, but when you both decided to misrepresent what I had said I felt the need to clarify. I wasn't raising any new points but you both seem insistent on reading what you (don't) want to from what I've said previously. 

 

No.  You are responsible for what you type; what you meant to say is an entirely different matter.

 

 

No, that is exactly the point I am making! The definitions do not necessarily match, and if anybody was to have seen a man with a camera, I don't expect they will come forward unless they also beleived him to have been behaving suspiciously. This argument runs in contrast to your other points, since if they'd said (for example and not to suggest man met this description) "man in mid-40s of around 5'10" and stocky build, with dark hair, dressed in blue, carrying a large camera", anybody who saw a man matching that description would almost definitely come forward, thinking, "oh yes, I saw him, he didn't seem to be up to much but maybe it happened after I left". Whereas, "man with camera", people might think, "oh I saw a man with a camera, but he wasn't doing anything dodgy, it was probably somebody else, no point wasting my time". To give too much info would prejudice the case and do precisely the thing you are supposedly concerned to avoid. 

 

You are acting as if collecting information is going to immediately lead to this person ending up in a cell. If all he was doing was taking photos of the street or of potholes, he has nothing to worry about, he has committed no crime and I do not see how somebody coming forward with information will do anything but help his case if that is what has happened. 

 

 

"would almost definitely"?

 

If he has committed no crime and nobody has reported a crime, do the Police have the powers to interview?  Stop and search?  He wouldn't have a legal case to answer if he had not committed any offence or be suspected of being armed to commit an offence, say burglary ... the whole crux of the matter is that the Police or SIBC have not explained why he should be considered suspicious so why should the public assist?

 

I've helped the Police in the past.  "An armed robbery took place at X time and a white van was seen driving away from the vicinity of bank at X location.  The driver of the white van was described as being caucasian, height given, etc."

 

1984?  Police state?  They want to know his identity?  And isn't it the case that all anyone has to do when stopped by the Police is give their name, date of birth and address?

[hjasga]

 

Yes, fair point, but when you both decided to misrepresent what I had said I felt the need to clarify. I wasn't raising any new points but you both seem insistent on reading what you (don't) want to from what I've said previously. 

 

No.  You are responsible for what you type; what you meant to say is an entirely different matter.

 

 

To an extent, but if I say "Hitler believed Jewish people should be persecuted" and somebody actively misquotes me to suggest those are my own views, it would be entirely reasonable for me to clarify against their misrepresentation. 

[hjasga]

 

Yes, fair point, but when you both decided to misrepresent what I had said I felt the need to clarify. I wasn't raising any new points but you both seem insistent on reading what you (don't) want to from what I've said previously. 

 

No.  You are responsible for what you type; what you meant to say is an entirely different matter.

 

 

No, that is exactly the point I am making! The definitions do not necessarily match, and if anybody was to have seen a man with a camera, I don't expect they will come forward unless they also beleived him to have been behaving suspiciously. This argument runs in contrast to your other points, since if they'd said (for example and not to suggest man met this description) "man in mid-40s of around 5'10" and stocky build, with dark hair, dressed in blue, carrying a large camera", anybody who saw a man matching that description would almost definitely come forward, thinking, "oh yes, I saw him, he didn't seem to be up to much but maybe it happened after I left". Whereas, "man with camera", people might think, "oh I saw a man with a camera, but he wasn't doing anything dodgy, it was probably somebody else, no point wasting my time". To give too much info would prejudice the case and do precisely the thing you are supposedly concerned to avoid. 

 

You are acting as if collecting information is going to immediately lead to this person ending up in a cell. If all he was doing was taking photos of the street or of potholes, he has nothing to worry about, he has committed no crime and I do not see how somebody coming forward with information will do anything but help his case if that is what has happened. 

 

 

"would almost definitely"?

 

If he has committed no crime and nobody has reported a crime

 

 

We don't know that nobody has reported a crime. 

[Colin]

"To give too much info would prejudice the case and do precisely the thing you are supposedly concerned to avoid."

 

What "case" would that be?  The grevious offense of walking along the street "armed" with a camera?  SIBC made no mention of a "case".

 

"You are acting as if collecting information is going to immediately lead to this person ending up in a cell. If all he was doing was taking photos of the street or of potholes, he has nothing to worry about, he has committed no crime and I do not see how somebody coming forward with information will do anything but help his case if that is what has happened."

 

If all he was doing was walking along the street taking photos then, imho, it is no business of anybody and that includes the police.

 

Furthermore, if he ends up being aprehended by the police and refuses to "co-operate" then, he could easily end up in a cell...

 

If I had seen the person, and considered his actions to be "normal", then, why would I bother wasting a couple of hours of my life giving a statement against somebody who has (probably and, until we are told otherwise) done no wrong?

[hjasga]

Your first part is again based on the assumption that whatever he did was related to his possession of a camera, which is by no means a given. 

 

If I had seen the person, and considered his actions to be "normal", then, why would I bother wasting a couple of hours of my life giving a statement against somebody who has (probably and, until we are told otherwise) done no wrong?

 

This is entirely what I have been saying. If people are asked to come forward with information on somebody who is believed to have been acting suspiciously, they are only likely to report information if they agreed he had been doing so. If they didn't feel he was acting suspiciously, they are as unlikely as yourself to take the time to report it. 

 

Whereas if the report says, "police are seeking information on an accused peeping tom" (for example), people would be more likely to report having seen him even if they didn't see him doing anything they considered to be wrong at the time. 

 

 

I cannot for the life of me understand the reaction to this report, it is completely standard procedure in trying to gather more information on a police matter, and the prompt for doing so may well have been a report from another member of the public. The level of assumptive anger shown by people who clearly weren't in the vicinity at the time and don't have a clue about the matter concerned is about as perfect a microcosm for this forum as you could get.