One of the country's leading architectural photographers was apprehended by City of London police under terrorism laws today while photographing the 300-year old spire of Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church for a personal project.Guardian One of the country's leading architectural photographers was apprehended by City of London police under terrorism laws today while photographing the 300-year old spire of Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church for a personal project.Guardian
no, Smith started it by not saying who he was. you don't know (i don't either) how the BoA rent-a-cop asked him who he was and what he was doing. but Smith's refusal to provide that information appears (again, to me) to be escalation of the situation. simply telling the BoARaC probably would've been enough to stop what happened from happening.
Dudes, all i'm saying is we don't know more than what's stated briefly in the Guardian story, which is not enough to condemn the BoARaC or to martyr Smith. it might be the other way around - maybe the RaC asked Smith what he was doing (because that's what he's supposed to do according to his 3-ring orientation binder) in a nice, conversational tone, and Smith (who was maybe standing on the grassy bit marked "please keep off the grass" so that he could get that just-so photo of Christ Church because the light and the sky were just right, and who was angry because he'd burned his tongue sipping a venti a few moments earlier) got all defensive and confrontational.
i don't know. you don't know. don't villify the BoARaC because he's the guy who all of a sudden represents authority and Big Brother for merely asking a guy with a camera who's taking lots and lots of photos of a prestigious London architectural landmark for some id. we don't know who's fault it is that the police and their section 44 got involved.
like architechnophilia was putting it; that's the thing to be ashamed of, how paranoid the world has become. that, and how divisive it's made us.
yes, they were asked not to harass photographers, but they responded to a report of an aggressive male who was photographing Christ Church. it sounds like the police were amiable with Smith, commenting on his 'i'm not a terrorist' badge, but he refused to show them his bag, so, in the interest of security, they were well within their legal (no matter how paranoid, still very legal) rights to search his bag. it doesn't sound like there was a physical altercation, or any property damage. this does not sound like police harassment.
12 Comments
so BOA's rent a cop started this? disgusting...
no, Smith started it by not saying who he was. you don't know (i don't either) how the BoA rent-a-cop asked him who he was and what he was doing. but Smith's refusal to provide that information appears (again, to me) to be escalation of the situation. simply telling the BoARaC probably would've been enough to stop what happened from happening.
the BOA rent a cop doesn't have the right to demand papers from some geek on the street photographing the cathedral.
smith was within his legal rights, the BOA nutball got offended that he was being brushed aside, and called in the police.
Hey, ateliermitchell! Who are you, and what are you doing here?
- what has the world come to. And how does that make sense?
How much carbon was he using, thats the real question.
State your name and business, Klompus!
Dudes, all i'm saying is we don't know more than what's stated briefly in the Guardian story, which is not enough to condemn the BoARaC or to martyr Smith. it might be the other way around - maybe the RaC asked Smith what he was doing (because that's what he's supposed to do according to his 3-ring orientation binder) in a nice, conversational tone, and Smith (who was maybe standing on the grassy bit marked "please keep off the grass" so that he could get that just-so photo of Christ Church because the light and the sky were just right, and who was angry because he'd burned his tongue sipping a venti a few moments earlier) got all defensive and confrontational.
i don't know. you don't know. don't villify the BoARaC because he's the guy who all of a sudden represents authority and Big Brother for merely asking a guy with a camera who's taking lots and lots of photos of a prestigious London architectural landmark for some id. we don't know who's fault it is that the police and their section 44 got involved.
like architechnophilia was putting it; that's the thing to be ashamed of, how paranoid the world has become. that, and how divisive it's made us.
The police were asked NOT to harass photographers just a few days earlier.
`
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-uturn-on-photographers-and-antiterror-laws-1834626.html
yes, they were asked not to harass photographers, but they responded to a report of an aggressive male who was photographing Christ Church. it sounds like the police were amiable with Smith, commenting on his 'i'm not a terrorist' badge, but he refused to show them his bag, so, in the interest of security, they were well within their legal (no matter how paranoid, still very legal) rights to search his bag. it doesn't sound like there was a physical altercation, or any property damage. this does not sound like police harassment.
more importantly, why didn't anyone arrest the guy who took this photo:
from the guardian
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.