Photographing thugs 'is assault'.

[-..__...]

And this from a country whose citizens are probably the 2nd most closely monitored in the world by their own government (I imagine North Korea takes the top spot in that department).

Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder snapping proof of anti-social behaviour

By Neil Sears
Last updated at 9:44 AM on 21st July 2008

A householder who took photographs of hooded teenagers as evidence of their anti-social behaviour says he was told he was breaking the law after they called the police.

David Green, 64, and his neighbours had been plagued by the youths from a nearby comprehensive school for months, and was advised by their headmaster to identify them so action could be taken.

But when Mr Green left his £1million London flat to take photographs of the gang, who were aged around 17, he said one threatened to kill him while another called the police on his mobile.

And he claimed that a Police Community Support Officer sent to the scene promptly issued a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, and could lead to a charge of assault.
Concern: David Green

Concern: David Green

Last night Mr Green, a television cameraman, said he was appalled that the legal system's first priority seemed not to be stopping frightening anti-social behaviour by aggressive youths, but protecting them from being photographed by the concerned public.

Mr Green, a father-of-two, lives with his programme-maker wife Judy in a penthouse flat close to Waterloo station.

He said: 'We've had problems with this group shouting abuse and throwing stones for months, and were asked to identify them.

'When I went to take photographs of eight of them throwing cans of Coke around, six of them ran away, one threatened to kill me, and another one started phoning the police.

'A couple of hours later, a Police Community Support Officer told me I had been accused of assault, though no such thing occurred, and told me I was not allowed to take photographs of teenagers on the street.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036728/Photographing-thugs-assault-police-tell-householder-snapping-proof-anti-social-behaviour.html">Full story

[Danger Mouse]

1. And if they kill him, the authorities will dig up his body and charge him with hurting the thugs'

precious feelings.

[Kutjara]

2. Stuff like this is what made me leave the UK after 20 years.

Youth crime is spiraling out of control and nobody has any idea how to control it. My neighborhood in London went from a family-oriented community to a no-go area in the space of five years. Smashed windows, scratched and scored cars, stolen garbage cans, muggings, assaults, knifings: it's all business as usual in any of the inner cities. The kids don't care about the 3 million surveillance cameras in Britain, because the hoodies that have become the uniform of teen thuggery do an excellent job of hiding the features.

Thugs rule the roost and know how to play the system for all it's worth. Call the cops on them and they'll start screaming "sexual abuse" at the tops of their lungs. What's worse, the cops will take them seriously.

Of course, none of this steep rise in crime has anything at all to do with the fact that thousands of police officers have been sucked into "anti-terrorist" duties, leaving a very thin line indeed to patrol the streets.

Also, to suggest that this crimewave plays into the hands of authoritarians who want to turn Britain into even more of an electronic surveillance state would be cynical indeed.

[Nevernose]

6. Hoodies are a huge problem here, too

Arguably, it started here with hip-hop culture.

At my high school we're asked to check surveillance stills a couple of times a week, and whenever the kids are doing something seriously wrong they have their hoodies up. We tried to ban hoodies, but stay-at-home moms blocked the attempt. Cold weather was an expressed concern, and nobody even bothered to mention the fact that we're in the Mojave desert -- it just doesn't ever get that cold. The real reason was fashion. Kids whined about what was in fashion and mommies agreed that fashion should be the primary concern. Scary. Baggy pants, btw, were the same story, except without even a legitimate reason to ban them, like the weather. The super-baggy clown pants were a hip-hop innovation taken from Southern California gang culture that began catching on in a big way in the early 90s. Why? Because hidden guns are less noticeable (don't believe that crap about prison that's occasionally spread around), as are any stolen items. The pants were indeed banned, but it has had no discernible effect. So many students ignore it and are supported by their parents in ignoring it that it might as well not even exist.

I don't even blame the kids. They're kids; by definition they don't know any better. It's the job of parenting that Generation X (of which I'm at the tail end of) has done in the industrialized world that's to blame. We've spent so much time buying useless shit, working overtime to afford more useless shit, and generally let the TV and Baby Einstein raise our kids, that we really don't have any right to act shocked when our kids turn out fucked up. It's like instant gratification and self gratification had a one night stand and are now trying to raise children, and the only Boomer guidance their taking is from Dr. Phil. To top it off, half the goddamned parents I know think that they're supposed to be their kids' "friend" and that their kids are supposed to be happy. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO MAKE YOUR CHILDREN HAPPY. It's to make sure they're clothed and fed, reasonably well protected, and have been taught to be intelligent, responsible and productive.

And do you know why they don't care about the cameras, here or in Britain? Because the worst possible thing that could happen to them is a few months in juvenile detention. Most prisons and jails, even those for juvenile offenders, are full up anyway, so they only take the most severe, chronic cases. For most normal children, the deterraet isn't anything the government can do, it's the fear of what their parents will do when the government informs them.

[XOKCowboy]

10. You may get flamed but I agree all the way...

To top it off, half the goddamned parents I know think that they're supposed to be their kids' "friend" and that their kids are supposed to be happy. YOUR JOB IS NOT TO MAKE YOUR CHILDREN HAPPY. It's to make sure they're clothed and fed, reasonably well protected, and have been taught to be intelligent, responsible and productive.

Amen.

[silverojo]

8. Cops who don't carry guns

Gee, I wonder why the punks aren't afraid to break the law? :sarcasm:

This was bound to happen, just a matter of when.

[Kutjara]

11. I don't think arming the police is the answer.

What's needed is more police back on the beat and off pointless "terror" related activities. Basically, up until 9/11, 7/7 and the Iraq war, violent crime in Britain was a fraction of what it is now. Somehow it seems kids have started to think that violence is an acceptable means of getting what they want. I wonder where they got that idea?

[XOKCowboy]

12. Gun nuts have been waiting for this to happen in Britain...

to justify their agenda here in the US. The idea of "Bobbys" without guns has always upset their idea that the more armed you are the more secure you are. It's seems ironic to me that this all came about in the last 8- years also.

[bananas]

3. But it's ok for the dailymail to post the photo

One of Mr Green's pictures shows two hooded teenagers, one making an obscene gesture towards the camera

[gatorboy]

4. Sounds like a job for the community of Sandford!

Nicholas Angel optional.

[Tindalos]

5. Good one

:thumbsup:

[varkam]

7. Seems like it is "protecting the children" run amok.

Save the children!

[lonestarnot]

9. D fucking student!