Funny how spin works...

**Plan C** · December 15, 2009, 11:04 AM

This is rather telling.

Not too long ago an award-winning photographer, Grant Smith, was stopped and searched by the police because he dared take snaps of a church in the City of London, link below:

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=871742

I was mildly annoyed to read some comments to the story on various websites, but not nearly enough as when I saw this, only a couple of days later:

LINK

Is it just me or does this smack of deliberate spin? How does this look to you?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 15, 2009, 01:38 PM

Well, no it's not spin at all, is it? It's the police making known a positive outcome from this policy. What are you angry about? This fact helps us to better debate the matter and decide whether the policy is a sensible one.

**Simon Cashmere** · December 15, 2009, 10:53 PM

Police in Australia will often seize cameras or mobile phones being used as cameras, or handicams from people videoing them, and then delete the photos. They have no power to do so, but that does not stop them. They do not like people videoing them being rough with suspects.

If you see police arresting someone in Australia, try videoing them with your phone and see what happens.

**Plan C** · December 16, 2009, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Well, no it's not spin at all, is it? It's the police making known a positive outcome from this policy. What are you angry about? This fact helps us to better debate the matter and decide whether the policy is a sensible one.

I'm not angry, now, Ferrets, am I? No, it just bemuses me how whenever those, somewhat authoritarian, practices of our government are called into question, there is always a reassuring bit of news handy, just to remind us how great a job they're doing of protecting us all from godless heathens.

I cannot recommend Bruce Schneier's various works strongly enough. Please look him up, maybe even sign up to Cryptogram newsletter, you will be amazed to what degree common sense has been disregarded in the quest for "tight security". All those procedures, stop & search, harassing photographers etc - achieve nothing. All for show. Now that IS spin, Ferrets, no?

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 16, 2009, 03:53 AM

Are you suggesting that this is fabricated?

**Plan C** · December 16, 2009, 04:17 AM

Anything is possible.

What I am saying is that this smacks of blatant propaganda. What is your impression of it?

**mongrel** · December 16, 2009, 04:23 AM

I do recall the terror raid the day after the death of that non-protester at G20. It received massive publicity, yet the only info they had was a bag of sugar and some brown person taking photos of his local area. Subsequent terror raids (BNP and far right) received little or no publicity.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 16, 2009, 04:23 AM

It's PR, yes, but it's not spin or propaganda. I am still sitting on the fence on this policy itself.

It's perfectly appropriate for the police to release information showing that this policy has potentially played its part in averting criminal activity. If we are ignorant of that we cannot properly debate the policy.

**Plan C** · December 16, 2009, 07:44 AM

What is the difference between PR and propaganda?

You see, the sad fact is that the majority of the British public have no interest in debating the policy as their mind is made up for them by Rupert Murdoch. In which context, news like the above is propaganda. All that Joe Bloggs requires is to be reassured, therefore chances for a proper public debate are slim.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 16, 2009, 08:48 AM

Sometimes no difference, but not in this case, I think.

The fact is that unless you have proof the police fabricated this then it does appear that this policy has resulted in stopping criminal activity. It is appropriate for the police to share this information.

**Plan C** · December 16, 2009, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Sometimes no difference, but not in this case, I think.

Sounds rather vague to me. Care to elaborate?

The fact is that unless you have proof the police fabricated this then it does appear that this policy has resulted in stopping criminal activity. It is appropriate for the police to share this information

Hmmm... You're the one banging on about a debate and yet when it comes to it you fob me off

It is by all means appropriate for the police to share the information, no one will question that.
No arrests were made, though, so I cannot help but wonder if the sole purpose of this excercise was to provide some reassuring news for the public.

**~~removeduser_487563287433~~** · December 16, 2009, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Skielve

Sounds rather vague to me. Care to elaborate?

Not really, they're both very vague words.

Hmmm... You're the one banging on about a debate and yet when it comes to it you fob me off

Hardly. I've already stated I do not know where I stand on this policy.

It is by all means appropriate for the police to share the information, no one will question that.
No arrests were made, though, so I cannot help but wonder if the sole purpose of this excercise was to provide some reassuring news for the public.

I'd read your own article if I were you; five people were arrested. But yes, that was the sole purpose of revealing this information, to reassure and inform the public. I do not see how that could be anything other than a good thing.

**aletoledo** · December 16, 2009, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ferrets54

Sometimes no difference, but not in this case, I think.

The fact is that unless you have proof the police fabricated this then it does appear that this policy has resulted in stopping criminal activity.

Since when is taking pictures a crime? That's right, since the government has wanted to expand it's police powers and made photography a crime. So the question you can't answer is whether these people are "terrorist" merely for taking pictures or if they actual terrorists taking pictures. If taking pictures is a crime, then they can be labeled easily as "terror suspects" for only taking a picture or two. All you are told is that they're terror suspects, which is odd, because if that was really the case, they should have been in custody long before they were able to take any pictures. Therefore the picture taking as the only evidence that they were criminals.