Re: QR and Photographers

["Peter Dwyer" <peter.dwyer@qr.com.au>]

Brendan <nadnerb_2000@NOSPAM.com.au> wrote in message
01bf6bb2$40ad1960$970d65cb@nadnerb2000">news:01bf6bb2$40ad1960$970d65cb@nadnerb2000...

> Right. I'm 17, so a cop has every right to hassle me because I'm probably
> taking drugs or involved in underage sex or vandalism or something.
> Look at the statistics for crime in Australia and see just how much is
> commited by teens.

I didn't say it was fair did I? The perception is that young people are
wanton troublemakers, hell bent on our destruction. It's a trend that goes
back to the romans.

> This suspicion had no base. A person had a camera. A camera is a common
> item. /he had nothing with which to vandalise. The police were in the
> wrong, and if they had taken it further they could have been dismissed.

Did Kevin say what type of bag he was carrying? A camera case is a
distinctive item, if Kevin was carrying a duffel bag or backpack (for
carrying his equipment), I think the policeman could believe he was carrying
spray cans. Why he would store them with a camera is beyond me :-)

Best bag I ever recovered was from South Brisbane with about twenty cans in
it. Scared a vandal over the six foot fence :-)

> Police may legally search bags and people for knives and guns. But
(correct
> me if im wrong) not spray cans without a warrant.

If Kevin appears to be photographing a vandalised train (I'm not saying he
did) and also appears to be carrying a container for carrying tools for
vandalism does he have a "just cause".

I'm not au fait with the policemans right to search either. Maybe if Kevin
WAS carrying cans a good barrister would declare the search illegal.

> >  If Kevin had been fifty to sixty and doing the same thing, the cop
> > wouldn't blinked.
>
> That shows how severe police bias is.

Which is what I was trying to point out. QR staff would not haved searched
the bag, they would have tried to order him off the premises.


> It is very harsh. I'd prefer to be able to walk the streets without being
> arrested and having my civil rights breahed, and Kevin has those same
> rights. We already have enough of them breached, such as "gang" break up
in
> public places, "loitering" complaints etc.

Yes he has those rights, but while he's of an age that is still considered
to be 'dangerous' and he carries items associated unsavoury behaviour (large
bags), he'll be stopped.

You don't see too many thirty year old's hanging around in gangs and spray
painting trains. Nor do they dress as american kids or carry spray cans.

It's a matter of perception. Young people have the right to challenge the
beliefs of their elders, they have to do it in order to find out whether the
way they live is the best possible way.

But sometimes this leads to broken eggs, property damage & grief all around.
The rest of society just tries to ignore this & protect itself the best way
it can until they calm down and the next 'big thing' for youth to follow
comes around.

> > The initial incident would probably still have occurred had Kevin had
> > consent to take photgraphs. I don't believe the Railway Squad stop to
> > chat with the SM in their daily duties.
>
> Depends on wheter the SM pointed out Kevin to the cops.

Good point :-)