thank god we dont live in the uk - section 44

positivenote

hi guys,
came across this video... shocking if you ask me


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

PaulieC

the video quality from the camera is quite good, though

Rb

That's absolutely disgraceful.

Paulw

He was finally detained under Section 2 - for anti-social behavior.

I'm so glad I live in a free country and not a police state.

Morrisseeee

Fcekin suspicious caniving photography terrorist..........:D
(its scary tho :eek:)

Chorcai

Slow day for the bill eh.

Eirebear

Whilst i dont particularly agree with the police and their initial approach, or the laws which let them do so, i do wonder about the motivation of the man who filmed it all.

What does it take to say, "yeah officer, my name is, i live here and i take photos because"

A little of the right attitude when dealing with people goes a long way in my experience.

ant_moore123

Antisocial behaviour

trooney

Eirebear wrote: »

Whilst i dont particularly agree with the police and their initial approach, or the laws which let them do so, i do wonder about the motivation of the man who filmed it all.

What does it take to say, "yeah officer, my name is, i live here and i take photos because"

A little of the right attitude when dealing with people goes a long way in my experience.

The guy should justify and prove his innocence because the police aren't big enough to back down and admit when they have stepped over a thresh-hold? Why don't we all just crumble to all demands from authority. He was well within his rights to withhold the information requested. The police then changed their tack and used an equally spurious reason to detain him. Should we all capitulate to demands of this nature? Just bow down and take it? It might seem like the easier option just to say “Yes sir, Mr policeman” but when people do that it just re-enforces the self-belief these cops have that they are doing something worthy and right. When, in fact, they are alienating themselves even more. And let’s face it. The police force in most countries is quite alienated already. Time to think about making moves forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling...

The right attiude needs to be reflected from both sides. But if one side is going to stonewall the other under the pretence of the law then can anybody expect any other reception?
I guess it’s quite easy to say these sort of things in a country which has (not yet) sunk to this level. But I find it hard to believe I would react in any other way myself then the way the video guy reacted. The police clearly had nothing concrete on this guy but couldn't ever be seen to be the bigger man and back down once the guy was able to give them a calm, coherent articulate response to their accusations, which they were unable to respond to other than to stumble over themselves and accsue the guy of 'holding his camera suspiciously'. WTF.

Slidinginfinity

trooney wrote: »

'holding his camera suspiciously'. WTF.

In total agreement with every troony has said.
I just want to know how one holds a camera in a suspicious manner?

Dara Robinson

Its getting out of hand. What do they expect, no one taking photos around Xmas?
The world has gone crazy!!

Paulw

Dara Robinson wrote: »

The world has gone crazy!!

Not the world, just the UK.

sheesh

I think he should have just given his name and address to the first officer and all that hassle would have been avoided she was nice about it.

Visuelle

Absolutely Ridiculous carry on.

Paulw

sheesh wrote: »

I think he should have just given his name and address to the first officer and all that hassle would have been avoided she was nice about it.

Why?

Would you give a total stranger on the street your name and address? The PCSO and the police had no greater power in that respect than any stranger on the street to ask for his name/address.

trooney

sheesh wrote: »

I think he should have just given his name and address to the first officer and all that hassle would have been avoided she was nice about it.

If a mugger asked you politely for your wallet would it persuade you all the more to give him (or her) your cash?

Dara Robinson

sheesh wrote: »

I think he should have just given his name and address to the first officer and all that hassle would have been avoided she was nice about it.

no offence sheesh but thats bullcrap. Its a form of harassment what happened to him. He was perfectly within his right to decline, thats the reason why they have the provision within section 44 so you can decline if you so wish. What they decided is fk him and went after him again and again and when he put his foot down the used another law to harass him agian. When he refused they arrested him.

I dont subscribe to the "and all that hassle would have been avoided" point of view. What they were doing, and she said it at the start of the video, was taking EVERYONE'S details who was taking pictures which is simply wrong. Its not what section 44 was intended for. Its intended to allow police to question people who are acting suspicious and not anyone who is in a specific area at a specific time or anyone doing a specific activity in a town centre cause there is the mild possibility that a terrorist could possibly maybe some time take photos of some place some where maybe doing research for a possible attack so lets take everyone's details who ever take a photo in public. Its blatant abuse of the section and he was totally right in my view. tbh I would have probably taken in further and sued the police dept. for harassment, false imprisonment and misuse of the law.

poochiem

sheesh wrote: »

I think he should have just given his name and address to the first officer and all that hassle would have been avoided she was nice about it.

next time he's in the airport his name pops up on a 'suspected' list and before he knows it he's being smuggled through Shannon. He's absolutely right to protest but when we're in that situation most of us don't have the courage of our convictions. fair play to him. If we don't respect the law the law doesn't respect us.

positivenote

so in ireland there wouldn't be this type of confrontation as we have the freedom to take photographs in a public place if we wish and the garda do not have the authority to demand our information? or am i wrong?

Paulw

The law in Ireland is very very different. We don't have a Section 44, thankfully. The vast majority of Gardai are well aware that photography is not an offence, and you can take pictures in public.

But, I believe (open to correction) that in Ireland, if asked, you are required to identify yourself to the Gardai.

Personally, I thought he was extremely disrespectful to the Police and I do agree with the "it all could have been avoided" line.


Saying "would you give your name and address to any stranger" is a bit of a cop out line in my opinion. If a stranger asked me for my name and address I'd assume the worst and think he will be trying to get one over on me. If a stranger, clad in a hi-vis vest with POLICE written on it, in Police attire and clad with the correct equipment (walkie talkie, hat, etc.) approached and asked for my name, I would know that such person has not got evil intentions and is obvioulsy under orders to get the names of photographers in their area.


If I were in the same situation i'd have given my name and not ruined my day, nor would I complain about it on the internet afterward.


I strongly believe that no matter what your interests, hobbies or profession are, you should have respect for the Police/Gardaì and other emergency services. He was not giving them any respect and was just being a dick for the sake of being a dick. I'm honestly glad he got arrested.

trooney

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I thought he was extremely disrespectful to the Police and I do agree with the "it all could have been avoided" line.


Saying "would you give your name and address to any stranger" is a bit of a cop out line in my opinion. If a stranger asked me for my name and address I'd assume the worst and think he will be trying to get one over on me. If a stranger, clad in a hi-vis vest with POLICE written on it, in Police attire and clad with the correct equipment (walkie talkie, hat, etc.) approached and asked for my name, I would know that such person has not got evil intentions and is obvioulsy under orders to get the names of photographers in their area.


If I were in the same situation i'd have given my name and not ruined my day, nor would I complain about it on the internet afterward.


I strongly believe that no matter what your interests, hobbies or profession are, you should have respect for the Police/Gardaì and other emergency services. He was not giving them any respect and was just being a dick for the sake of being a dick. I'm honestly glad he got arrested.

Well sure thats just ignorance.

Jim

Slidinginfinity wrote: »

In total agreement with every troony has said.
I just want to know how one holds a camera in a suspicious manner?

Only way I can think of is shooting from the hip or trying to conceal the camera while taking the photos. But that still wouldn't constitute anti social or suspicious behavior in any sane context.

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

Saying "would you give your name and address to any stranger" is a bit of a cop out line in my opinion. If a stranger asked me for my name and address I'd assume the worst and think he will be trying to get one over on me. If a stranger, clad in a hi-vis vest with POLICE written on it, in Police attire and clad with the correct equipment (walkie talkie, hat, etc.) approached and asked for my name, I would know that such person has not got evil intentions and is obvioulsy under orders to get the names of photographers in their area.

But, that's the thing. They are NOT under orders to get the names of photographers. Far from it.

I think you really should read Section 44 and understand it. You should also read the official police briefing sent from the chief constable of the MET to officers, which informs them that photography is not a crime and that if they do not have just suspicion then they should not harass innocent photographers out doing their thing.

In that clip, the photographer was well within his rights not to give his details, as was later clarified when he was released without charge.

Police abusing their powers (police state) is worse than people standing up for their rights, by a long shot. The UK police do not have the right to "get every photographer's name and details" under Section 44, which was claimed at the very start of the whole incident by the PCSO.

Effects

Paulw wrote: »

Why?
Would you give a total stranger on the street your name and address? The PCSO and the police had no greater power in that respect than any stranger on the street to ask for his name/address.

Would you call a total stranger if you car was stolen or your house was broken into?

poochiem wrote: »

next time he's in the airport his name pops up on a 'suspected' list and before he knows it he's being smuggled through Shannon.

Yeah, cause we all know loads of photographers that that's happened to.

bernard0368

I do think he was right to question the police officer and refuse to give his details. The police shouldn't be allowed to over step their powers. I wonder was eight hours in a cell worth it though. Also the one with the Italian girl is even better she ended up been done for harrasment.

Roy Rogers

Have to say, the impression I got from the Italian girl was that she was doing her best to antagonise the police so that she could get a nice little video of her rights being abused. I wouldn't have much patience for her, even though in that video, the police officer was much more of a prick.

In this one, the guy is very polite and is clearly just trying to stand up for his rights. The fact that they first use Section 44, and then turn around to use the Antisocial Behaviour act, is pretty disgraceful. I'd imagine it's good grounds to make a complaint.

Fionn

is the girl cop thats first seen in the video a full time cop? or a part timer on a power trip.

All seemed a bit ridiculous like who was going to get upset about someone taking photos when you've got Santa and a parade with a band and the whole works?
another case of some cops full of themselves and not actually knowing what they're there for and harassing the public. he should sue if he was kept for eight hours thats extreme given that there was no violence or threatening behaviour etc. they were way over the mark!!

Effects

Fionn wrote: »

is the girl cop thats first seen in the video a full time cop? or a part timer on a power trip.

The first girl isn't a full time cop. I've a few mates who have been stopped by them in the UK for various things and they have been in the wrong on each occasion. One time when a real cop arrived the PCSO got a bollicking for wasting their time.

Paulw

Effects wrote: »

Would you call a total stranger if you car was stolen or your house was broken into?

And I wouldn't call a PCSO. I would, however, expect the police to act within the law though, and not abuse their powers to suit their power trips.

Dara Robinson

Paulw wrote: »

But, I believe (open to correction) that in Ireland, if asked, you are required to identify yourself to the Gardai.

tbh I would like to know the answer to that one. Does anyone know for sure either way? Or if not, can anyone find out?

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I thought he was extremely disrespectful to the Police and I do agree with the "it all could have been avoided" line.......

.......I strongly believe that no matter what your interests, hobbies or profession are, you should have respect for the Police/Gardaì and other emergency services. He was not giving them any respect and was just being a dick for the sake of being a dick. I'm honestly glad he got arrested.

In section 44 (the bit of English law that caused the problem in the first place) there is a provision for the member of the public to decline. Its not there in other sections (for example section 2, the one he was arrested under) hence the reason why he was able to decline and move on.
At no time was he disrespectful, aggressive or raise his voice. In fact I think he comported himself much better than I would have under the same circumstances.
My main 2 problems with that whole thing is
1) They were blanket asking everyone one in the area (ie: town centre) who was taking photos to hand over their details and this is something that this law was never intended for. Its intended to allow Police to request the details of a suspect and check those against their database only in the case that the person is acting suspiciously. Not for you to take details of anyone doing a random activity in a random area. Technically this is miss use of the law and against the law. Hence I would have taken legal action in his case.
2) When they realised that they were not going to get him to comply to their idiotic requests they used another law to force him to hand over his details. When he refused they arrested him. He was in no way being anti-social and they lied when they said that members of the public had reported him as being so.

Its called abuse of power and the "Acting" Sargent should have known better and moved on. If there had of been a specific complaint of suspicious activity against him they would not have had to use section 2 (the anti-social law) to arrest him and his story would not have made the news.

Roy Rogers wrote: »

Have to say, the impression I got from the Italian girl was that she was doing her best to antagonise the police so that she could get a nice little video of her rights being abused. I wouldn't have much patience for her, even though in that video, the police officer was much more of a prick.

Italian Girl? was there a second vid that I missed?

Roy Rogers

Dara Robinson wrote: »

Italian Girl? was there a second vid that I missed?

I saw this one a while ago: http://boingboing.net/2009/12/15/photographer-beaten.html

The police were being ham-fisted in their application of the law, and the officer in question is definitely much more of a prick than in the OP, but it really does seem to me like the girl was deliberately trying to get herself into trouble. I wouldn't have much sympathy for her.

The guy in the OP's video is a much better example of reasonably exercising your rights and refusing the police more power than they have.

Paulw

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect

Another good one. Again, it just shows how the UK police abuse their "powers".

This is really worth reading - http://www.npia.police.uk/en/docs/Stop_and_Search_in_Relation_to_Terrorism_-_2008.pdf

sheesh

Paulw wrote: »

Why?

Would you give a total stranger on the street your name and address? The PCSO and the police had no greater power in that respect than any stranger on the street to ask for his name/address.

Sorry Paul a police officer asked him for his details not some random person you can tell a random person f-off you cannot say that to a police officer also the police officer will radio back to base as to what to do next. its about consequences

trooney wrote: »

If a mugger asked you politely for your wallet would it persuade you all the more to give him (or her) your cash?

The mugger is not getting my money unless he is bigger than me or is armed
again its about consequences and yes if the mugger was polite it would make the mugging less of an ordeal

Dara Robinson wrote: »

no offence sheesh but thats bullcrap. Its a form of harassment what happened to him. He was perfectly within his right to decline, thats the reason why they have the provision within section 44 so you can decline if you so wish. What they decided is fk him and went after him again and again and when he put his foot down the used another law to harass him agian. When he refused they arrested him.

I dont subscribe to the "and all that hassle would have been avoided" point of view. What they were doing, and she said it at the start of the video, was taking EVERYONE'S details who was taking pictures which is simply wrong. Its not what section 44 was intended for. Its intended to allow police to question people who are acting suspicious and not anyone who is in a specific area at a specific time or anyone doing a specific activity in a town centre cause there is the mild possibility that a terrorist could possibly maybe some time take photos of some place some where maybe doing research for a possible attack so lets take everyone's details who ever take a photo in public. Its blatant abuse of the section and he was totally right in my view. tbh I would have probably taken in further and sued the police dept. for harassment, false imprisonment and misuse of the law.

He probably could sue the police for wrongful arrest yes but this idea that the police cannot track you in other ways is ridiculous they can track you phone you car if you are in a congestion area or speed cameras they hold everybodies internet activity for 6 months! they can easily find out where you work and what you buy if they have probable cause and he has just given them probable cause I hope if he bought his new camera off a hong kong ebay shop he paid the duty because they will probably be checking his purchases over the last 6 months.

poochiem wrote: »

next time he's in the airport his name pops up on a 'suspected' list and before he knows it he's being smuggled through Shannon. He's absolutely right to protest but when we're in that situation most of us don't have the courage of our convictions. fair play to him. If we don't respect the law the law doesn't respect us.

this is my point the last thing he wants is to do is to be refusing to help the police.
You say if he does not give his name they cannot track him and if he left the area after the first encounter with the police they would not have it but he stayed around and continued to take pictures and then the second officer asked him for his details he could have left but he didn't.

the police then made it their business to find out who he was because they needed to cover their own asses because if he was up to something and they did not find out who he was they would could get into trouble in the aftermath.

I am not saying that the arrest was right (it was clearly an abuse of power) I am saying that if he had given his details to the first poilce officer he would go down in the system as a amatuer photographer. once he has refused to give his details he only escalates the situation and this escalation was foreseeable. He made a choice.

Paulw

sheesh wrote: »

Sorry Paul a police officer asked him for his details not some random person you can tell a random person f-off you cannot say that to a police officer also the police officer will radio back to base as to what to do next. its about consequences

But, the police had no right and no power to ask him for his details. Under the UK law, he had a right not to provide that information. So, within the law, he has as much right to tell the police officer to f-off (very very politely) as he has a total random person.

The initial PCSO comments just go to show that they do not know what the actual law is. "We need to get everyone's details who's taking pictures of the town." So, they should be stopping every person with a camera phone, P&S, and any other type of camera and asking for their details. This is NOT what Section 44 was put in place to do, and it is clear that even quoting Section 44 is an abuse of power.

loldog

Eirebear wrote: »

What does it take to say, "yeah officer, my name is, i live here and i take photos because"

Whatever happened to "it's a free country"? Once you meekly give away that freedom, what else are you prepared to give away?

.

TinyExplosions

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I thought he was extremely disrespectful to the Police and I do agree with the "it all could have been avoided" line.

If I were in the same situation i'd have given my name and not ruined my day, nor would I complain about it on the internet afterward.

I think that that's the attitude the Police are hoping for in the UK, but I would be very uncomfortable giving any details out without a damn good reason as you have no idea or control over where those details are going to end up, and how they could affect you in future. It's all well and good to say "you should respect a police officer", but you could be logged on a database without knowing what comments or connotations it has.

I think that some photographers (including the Guardian journo a few months back) went out of their way to provoke confrontation, but I think it was to highlight how, in these cases, the law is an ass.

Roy Rogers

Sheesh, it's the trade-off between what's easy and what's right.

People are using the analogy between a random person and a police officer telling you to do something. Turn it another way: you're sitting in the park eating some lunch on a Saturday afternoon. A garda walks up and tells you to move on, that you're not allowed sit there.

You refuse, the garda invokes the rules about obeying garda instructions, you argue politely, and finally you get taken to the local station, processed, and released without charge six hours later.

The easier choice would have been to move, but the core of the matter -- regardless of what's practical, easiest, or best for all concerned -- is that the the garda had absolutely no right to tell you to move in the first place.

You admit that the police are abusing their powers, but at the same time you're saying that it's okay because it's not really that much of an invasion. It's that kind of attitude that leads to these laws being gradually extended, bit by bit, until 5 years from now someone in London needs to file an application a month in advance to take a camera into the city centre at the weekend.

the_syco

If a Garda asks you for your name and address here, and you refuse, they can arrest you (if they choose to). If the Garda was told that a male by the name of X Y with a red top was recently seen attacking an old lady, and you fitted the description, you'll get asked your name. Refuse, and they'll arrest you. Perfectly legal.

Furthermore, this topic is old (see here). Same thing happened a while back, expect the person asked wasn't a dick about it, and was allowed on his way. He even got a few nice pictures of the police on their horses.

It's all to do with respect: you act the knob, and they can arrest you. Be polite, and they'll continue on their way. Not cooperate with the police, and you'll be seen as someone who has something to hide.

Paulw

the_syco wrote: »

If a Garda asks you for your name and address here, and you refuse, they can arrest you (if they choose to). Perfectly legal.

But, that is the difference between the Gardai and the UK Police. The UK police do not have the power (under Section 44) to arrest you for not providing your details. You have the right to refuse. You have no legal obligation to provide the UK police with your details when stopped like that.

In Ireland (AFAIK), you do not have that same right. Here you must provide the Gardai with your details.

Totally different circumstances.

sheesh

Paulw wrote: »

But, the police had no right and no power to ask him for his details. Under the UK law, he had a right not to provide that information. So, within the law, he has as much right to tell the police officer to f-off (very very politely) as he has a total random person.

The initial PCSO comments just go to show that they do not know what the actual law is. "We need to get everyone's details who's taking pictures of the town." So, they should be stopping every person with a camera phone, P&S, and any other type of camera and asking for their details. This is NOT what Section 44 was put in place to do, and it is clear that even quoting Section 44 is an abuse of power.

well actually they can ask them what ever they want, they have no right to compel people to give their details unless the are arresting them afaik. I agree that what eventually happened (the arrest for antisocial behaviour) was an abuse of power (imho obviously!!) but also I am saying was that it was deliberately done to provoke the reaction from the police.

After the second cop asked him to identify himself he should have twigged something was up and left if he really was concerned about maintaining his anonymity and complained to the relevent authority about Harassment of photographers. He wouldn't get any satisfaction from the authorities but that was the option open to him.

Unless the person was completely naive they could see what was going to happen next. I believe the photographer had decided that he was going to find out what would happen if he just kept refusing to give his details which is his right to do and this was deliberate and eventually the cops got his name out of him.

I'm not saying it was fair but if his chief concern was not giving his name to police his actions were wreckless.

If his chief concern was not turning up in a police database as a photographer he has failed but now he is also down as a civil liberties nut (no bad thing)

If he was trying to make a point about police picking on the wrong people he has succeeded but he can probably forget about travelling to the US for a while....

Paulw

sheesh wrote: »

If he was trying to make a point about police picking on the wrong people he has succeeded but he can probably forget about travelling to the US for a while....

Why? He was released without charge. He has no criminal record (that I'm aware of), so can travel to the US under the Visa waiver programme.

trooney

the_syco wrote: »

If a Garda asks you for your name and address here, and you refuse, they can arrest you (if they choose to). If the Garda was told that a male by the name of X Y with a red top was recently seen attacking an old lady, and you fitted the description, you'll get asked your name. Refuse, and they'll arrest you. Perfectly legal.

Furthermore, this topic is old (see here). Same thing happened a while back, expect the person asked wasn't a dick about it, and was allowed on his way. He even got a few nice pictures of the police on their horses.

It's all to do with respect: you act the knob, and they can arrest you. Be polite, and they'll continue on their way. Not cooperate with the police, and you'll be seen as someone who has something to hide.

In all fairness, the guy in the first video wasn't being a knob. Co-operating with the police and not being a knob are not synonymous. You can fail to bow to their jumped up ideas whilst not being a knob about it. He was maybe being a little obtuse. But thats not a criminal offence. In fact, he was following the letter of the law closer than the police were. I'd agree that if you start acting the prick they are more likely to get wound up. But standing up for your rights shouldn't impinge on you in anyway whatsoever and for the guardians of the law to bend their interpretation of a law is completely unacceptable and anybody who says different is condoning a police state. And standing up for your rights does not make you a prick. Taking the longer route rather than the easy one does not make you a prick.
You are right. Respect plays a large part of any incident of this nature. But if the police are found to be obviously not respecting the law how can they expect to be treated respectfully themselves. The police are breeding this them & us attitude, not the photographers. The more people stand up to them the more likely these laws are to be repealed ort amended.

sheesh

Paulw wrote: »

Why? He was released without charge. He has no criminal record (that I'm aware of), so can travel to the US under the Visa waiver programme.

I said probably, I think the UK and US share soft info with each other this might possibly include incidents like this. if it does he might have a long interview when he reaches US soil. Its not a criminal record but it is a record.

Paulw

I can just see the Homeland Security guy now - "So, you were stopped for taking photos .... hmmmmm". :rolleyes: I doubt any of that info is ever shared. Hell, if they can't share info about a guy who has known extremist views and is travelling to the US (recent bombing attempt) then I doubt any photographer has anything to fear.

Thankfully, the US police show a lot more common sense when it comes to photography, as do the Gardai.

In fact, the UK is about the only place where photographers get frequently stopped and harassed.

I travel to the US frequently (I'm heading there this weekend) and I've never once had an unpleasant encounter with US police/security. In fact, any time I've been approached in the US by a police officer it's out of their curiosity as to what I use, what I shoot, and what's good to see in the area.

Thankfully, it's been a long time since I've been to England, and I've no plans to go there any time soon.

Roy Rogers

sheesh wrote: »

I said probably, I think the UK and US share soft info with each other this might possibly include incidents like this. if it does he might have a long interview when he reaches US soil. Its not a criminal record but it is a record.

Which, if true, is even more of a reason to fight against these laws/policies.

The guy did everything according to his legal rights and he gets stuck on a watch list?

the_syco

Paulw wrote: »

But, that is the difference between the Gardai and the UK Police. The UK police do not have the power (under Section 44) to arrest you for not providing your details. You have the right to refuse. You have no legal obligation to provide the UK police with your details when stopped like that.

In Ireland (AFAIK), you do not have that same right. Here you must provide the Gardai with your details.

Totally different circumstances.

Thanks for correcting me on that. In saying that, I'd give all details, due to being Irish, having an epic beard and wearing a trenchcoat

gman2k

In Ireland, it's quite common to be asked the following questions at a Garda traffic checkpoint:
Where are you going? and why?
Where are you coming from?

You don't have to answer these questions, as they are none of the Garda's business - they are your private business.
Now if they ask what your name and address are? that's something you have to answer.

humberklog

gman2k wrote: »

In Ireland, it's quite common to be asked the following questions at a Garda traffic checkpoint:
Where are you going? and why?
Where are you coming from?

You don't have to answer these questions, as they are none of the Garda's business - they are your private business.
Now if they ask what your name and address are? that's something you have to answer.

Ha! Reminds me of an encounter on the Kilmore Rd in Coolock heading up to Atlantic Homecare (for mounts don't you know) a couple of weeks ago. An ERU checkpoint ahead, I couldn't stop staring and laughing at them as I rolled up to the Ban Garda...roll window down...

Her- Hi, where are you going?

Me- Atlantis (still laughing like a drain).

Her- (squinching nose in confusion) Atlantis?

Me- Oh (pointing ahead) Atlanta!

Her- The airport?!

Me- WTF? Airport?

Her- Where?

Me- The Airport?

Her- Going to Atlanta?

Me- I'm only getting a bag of screws and some picture frames ffs.

Her- Have you any ID or you licence on you?

Me- No, I don't. I'm not going to the airport I'm only going to Atlantic.

Her- Eh...Ok...that's grand, seeya'.

Me- Seeya. Eff's sake.

On topic...The Lancashire police were wrong and he was a dick.

rowanh

i dont think he was being a dick, i think more people need to stand up for what they believe is right rather than just doing what they are told.

daycent

gman2k wrote: »

In Ireland, it's quite common to be asked the following questions at a Garda traffic checkpoint:
Where are you going? and why?
Where are you coming from?

You don't have to answer these questions, as they are none of the Garda's business - they are your private business.
Now if they ask what your name and address are? that's something you have to answer.

Are you sure about this? It's something that's always really annoyed me....