Comments on: MEN photographer arrested for taking pictures outside court

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:06:25 +0000

I hope the MEN pursue this matter relentlessly. The police should not get away with the suppression of people’s rights like this.

Report this comment

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:53:30 +0000

You can’t de-arrest or unarrest someone… they aren’t even real words either. Once arrested you stay arrested and must be detained until trial unless bonded out. This is a case of false arrest.

Report this comment

By: Kevin Duffy

Kevin Duffy — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 09:16:52 +0000

Dohhh…there goes the proof-reading contract…Only Sean was arrested…OK, comments remain as stated otherwise.

Report this comment

By: Kevin Duffy

Kevin Duffy — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 17:49:59 +0000

I wasn’t there and didn’t see what happened. But from my time with Channel M/MEN Media, I recall Sean and Steve and I remember them as professionals who know their job. Whether the same can be said for some of GMP’s finest is another matter. I wonder if the officers involved have read the letter sent by Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of the Association Of Chief Police Officers’ Media Advisory Group, to all Chief Constables in September 2010, (HTFP link http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2010/news/is-tide-turning-in-favour-of-photographers-rights/), in which he said:
“There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
“We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
“We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
“Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service. Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.”
The whole saga is utterly depressing and if the facts are as stated above, Steve and Sean should do their best to sue GMP for damages in connection with their wrongful arrest. That might concentrate minds in the training suite at GMP HQ.
If the two photographers do take action, they might want to think about checking the location of public/private CCTV cameras in the area where it all kicked off, and seeking access to any footage. It may show who did what, and when. Also, Manchester City Council has a CCTV control suite in the city centre which monitors a huge number of cameras – it is highly likely that the event was captured on their cameras.
One final point, for Digger – the media’s role does not include functioning as evidence gatherers for the police. Police wanting access to any material gathered by the media must seek a court order and they are required to have bloody good reasons for doing so before one ever granted, thank heavens.

Report this comment

By: Digger

Digger — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:01:20 +0000

I’m guessing the cops in question didn’t consider the fact that perhaps the photographs might have been useful as “evidence” against those allegedly involved in the brawl.
I’d say it would be much more reliable than the recollections of those busy trying to separate the group and make the arrests.
Just a thought…….

Report this comment

By: voice of reason

voice of reason — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:59:35 +0000

Can I suggest that police officers responsible for such ridiculous knee-jerk reactions should be de-employed.

Report this comment

By: ex-Newsquest

ex-Newsquest — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:31:30 +0000

Old Bill, clueless again. They ought to be reminded that we pay their wages, they don’t pay ours!

Report this comment

By: Charlotte Peters Rock

Charlotte Peters Rock — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:01:27 +0000

The police seem to have transmogrified into a group of mobsters, who feel themselves to be above the law.

In Greater Manchester, Senior Police Officers deny the right of knowledge of their own complaints system, which is enshrined within their own legal constitution.

They also arrest people for the most curious reasons.

Michael Parnell has been harassed and arrested by GMP Officers in Stockport on so many occasions, that I lost count when the harrassment and arrests soared well above the 100 mark. His crime? Objecting peaceably, outside Stockport Town Hall, about the severe letting down of his Stockport family over many many years, by Public Officials in Stockport.

That is what GM Police is prepared to do to an innocent citizen, who exercises his democratic right of protest in his own democratic (ho-ho) country.

In South Yorkshire they refuse – for years – to investigate well documented, provable murders. (put ralphwinstanleyofwath into google and read the proof for yourself)

In Cheshire they state that if a murder was committed in another area, it is not their responsibility to arrest the killer,when that killer is known to have entered their police area.

In other areas, the disabled and fearful can raise – with their local police force – formal complaints about thuggish behaviour towards them, until the cows come home. The only way to make any one take such complaints seriously is to set your family alight.. which is what recently happened to one poor woman and her daughter. No investigation after so tragic an event can possibly remove the fear and the harm which led them to so terrible a death.

And in the case of Tony Martin, having reported fear, harrassment and robbery, over a long period, he eventually shot the burglars. His Police Force then acted, against him. (Aah, wonderful! Policing in the 21st Century)

It might be an interesting exercise for the public to enquire into the reasons why we pay the police, and what results we might expect from them.

Report this comment

By: Romas

Romas — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:33:10 +0000

It would of immense interest to all, if the term “de-arrested” were explained both in terms of the concept and how it fits with British jurisprudence. It sounds to me that the GMP are trying to have it both ways. They remove the news representative from the scene, but afterwards can claim that nothing happened, since he was “de-arrested”. How convenient!

Report this comment

By: Blonde

Blonde — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:24:13 +0000

‘De-arrested’… seriously !
This story appears to show GMP violating freedom of the press and aims of the campaign for plain English…

Report this comment