I am usually the first to support the police who in my view get more than their fair share of bad press.

However in this case I have to say, based on their own video footage, that they were too aggressive and used force out of all proportion with the crime committed and the age of the individual involved.

Because he drove off, albeit under the illusion that he had been dealt with, the police then set off in hot pursuit as if they were the stars Police, Camera, Action.  At no time during the pursuit did pensioner Robert Whately exceed the speed limit and he finally stopped when a police office deployed a “stinger”.

So why then was it necessary for police officers to smash the side windows of Mr Whatelys car and for one officer to leap onto the bonnet of his car and start kicking the windscreen. The officers eventually pulled Mr Whately unceremoniously from his car. After viewing the video I have come to the conclusion that there was no valid reason for the bully boy tactics employed by these officers.

When you consider that the police had originally pulled over Mr.  Whately for not wearing a seatbelt does anyone else find it interesting that “ Mr Whatley was found guilty of not wearing a seat belt, failing to stop for a police officer and having tinted car windows that did not conform to legal requirements. He was cleared of failing to stop after an accident. He admitted having a registration plate which didn’t adhere to regulations and was fined a total of £235 and ordered to pay £300 towards prosecution costs.”

This situation sounds very similar to that of a friend of mine after his parked car was damaged by a police vehicle, being driven by a police mechanic.  My friend was at work several miles away from his car at the time of the accident. Neighbours described how his car, parked outside his house, was subjected to severe scrutiny by several police officers. These officers looked into all aspects of how his car was parked, checked to see that it had valid MOT, insurance and that the tyres, lights etc. were all legal.

It seems to me that it doesn’t pay to cross / upset the police as what starts out as a minor issue can rapidly become a major one with only one outcome.

Once again a photographer has been subjected to harassment purely because he is  going about the business of his hobby – taking pictures. Latest fiasco … HERE

It doesn’t seem to matter how much publicity is given to these incidents the message isn’t getting through. In this case Mike Evans was prevented from going about his lawful business under the guise of anti-terrorism laws.

The regulations, under sections 43 and 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 – state there is “no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances”.

I carry a copy of the regulations whenever I am out with my cameras but it is probably a waste of time if Mr Evans experience is anything to go by. He was also carrying a copy of the regulations but found that the jobs-worths at the Liverpool Echo Arena chose to ignore them.

So where does that leave the poor photographer who is rapidly becoming one of societies pariahs ?

Well things have come to a bit of a head, to the point where several hundreds of photographers, both professional and amateur, gathered to protest the misuse of official powers…. (See Here)

It’s not only anti terrorism that is cited as reason to prevent photographers from taking pictures. Every snapper risks being accused of other nefarious crimes.

Take the experience of  Betty Robinson who was told she couldn’t take pictures of an empty paddling pool because, according to a Southampton Council Official, she might be a paedophile !!! (Story here)

Well I have a thought. Surely coarse fishermen are much more suspicious. After all they also carry bags packed with all manner of strange objects and they carry long cylindrical bags full of tubes perhaps packed with plastic explosive. Don’t they wear camouflage clothes and creep around hiding in the bushes. I wonder how many anglers have been stopped under anti terrorism laws ?

Should all amateur snappers have to be licenced like the coarse fishermen have to have a rod licence. There really is no point if the so-called authorities then ignore the regs that they claim to be enforcing.

At least your average photographer is standing out in the open, quite blatant. Well except the wild life photographers, twitchers in particular. But then that’s the subject of future post perhaps.