Trainspotters = Mostly Harmless (unless your Dyfed Powys Police)

View Larger Map

Has combating terrorism and universal CCTV become the acceptable excuse for the UK abandoning that expensive idea of policing by consent?

I’ve already blogged about my concerns that the Police are using anti-terrorist legislation to curtail legitimate oversight of their activities (http://www.anabscenceofbalance.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-all-cash-over-1000-now-dirty-in-uk.html )and of my concerns that they will police the compliant rather than difficult criminality.

I also worry that when it comes to modern policing the use of the phrase “possible terrorist” has become the excuse for abandoning proportionate, sensible and decent behaviour. If this is accurate then this could be a huge problem for the AML / CTF regulated sectors.

Why? Well, here we go again. The Daily Mail today carry’s a report of a trainspotter, Mr Stephen White, whose enthusiasm for hobby led him to photograph some unmarked train engines in use at the strategically important oil depot in Milford Haven (Picture from Google Maps). The civil servant was on holiday in Wales with his sister and her two young children. Mr White and his sister’s car (especially its number plate) registration were caught by CCTV operating in the oil depot.

According to the this UK national paper there then followed what might only be described as a litany of police activity which might remind readers of either the Stasi or Keystone Cops (delete as appropriate) in their heyday. Have a read and decide for yourself.

What worries me most about the sort of behaviour described in the article (assuming it’s an accurate record) is the following:
1. That it is this sort of behaviour that alienates people. It will drive a wedge between the Police and the community that they are allegedly serving.
2. Was there a police officer responsible for evaluating and co-ordinating this activity?
3. Was the person experienced enough and or afraid to use their judgement?
4. If so, why did they pursue their enquires so vigorously once they had met Mr White?
5. Are the police using photographic information to achieve their ends whilst attempting to deny members of the public their legal hobbies using cameras?
6. Why are the Police afraid to admit that they may have been heavy handed and apologise for their actions? After all, the UK Government’s mantra is “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear”. Or is that just a slogan that doesn’t apply to the State?

Were this an isolated incident and or Mr White, his sister or his young niece and nephew in some way related to recent Islamic terrorists or Irish Republican terrorists (Who Have Not Gone Away, BTW!) one might have some sympathy with the way at least two forces conducted themselves.

However, it is the most recent of a long line of incidents. Take this quote from a similar news story in the Independent on January 2009: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminalised-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html

“Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the NUJ, said: "It's time the police realised that taking photographs doesn't automatically mean you're a terrorist. Every month the NUJ finds itself dealing with yet more cases of officers infringing journalistic freedoms and, very often, exceeding their legal powers.

"Even the police's own guidance makes it clear that there's nothing in the Terrorism Act that can be used to prohibit the taking of photos in a public place. The authorities have got to do more to ensure that those people charged with upholding the law don't keep on contravening it by trampling over well-established civil liberties."”

My concern remains that whilst senior police officers rely on CCTV rather than effective policing, then they fail to protect civil liberties and actually appear to be undermining them. Combined with supine Labour MP’s failing to hold Gordon Brown’s government to account, then in the UK the struggle against continuing terrorism will be undermined.

Why? Because if you the police continue to alienate law abiding citizens going about their normal lives, whilst building the Government’s DNA database on the quiet and they then also overreact to normal day to day life (by failing to exercise reasonable judgment), then they may well come to be seen as ineffectual, politicised problem who are too dangerous to talk to.

IMHO, the natural reaction of the British public will be to have less day to day contact with the police, which in turn could decrease actual information flow vital to identifying and preventing actual terrorists rather than trainspotters.

That can only increase the chances of a seriously dangerous terrorist nutter getting through.