When professional photographers (for example) are stopped and questioned – under terrorism powers no less – for, basically, doing their job, knowing that those powers should not be used against them, that they (should) have the freedom to take photographs in public places, and that it seems the police officer does not know what he’s talking about I think it’s easy to see why they might think such behaviour by someone in authority is unreasonable and therefore feel less inclined to cooperate, even to the extent of getting visibly annoyed.

Of course we should note that most interactions between the police and other members of the public (for the police are members of the public) probably pass without incident. We should be careful not to get hysterical (to use one of Aaronvitch’s favourite words).

But those in authority ought to consider that it takes two to tango.

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

Apart from general apprehension and confusion, there is another obvious reason why this is no longer true. We cannot be sure what is a \straightforward\ question – or even if anything the police do is straightforward.

How many innocent, well-intentioned members of the public have got themselves into deep trouble (trial, or even a prison sentence) as a result of answering \straightforward\ questions? The police may like to think that only hardened criminals refuse to cooperate or say anything at all when questioned – but is that because they are criminals, or just because they know how the justice system works?

It is impossible to differentiate safely between individual honest, well-intentioned coppers and the system to which they belong. You might say something fairly innocuous to an individual police officer, only to find that she is obliged to write it down and place it on record, thereby making you liable to suspicion or criminal proceedings.

Donc, d’accord (mais, comme des autres commentateurs ici, je suis assez priviligé, aisé et cetera, et c’est clair mon éxperience c’est pas celle de tout le monde.

As an example: In the U.S. the large interstate highway system has a consistent speed limit of 65 mph and typically is lowered to 55 mph in sections close to cities where regular on-and-off of traffic makes that sensible. One of the roads I travel frequently is a 55 mph section of Interstate 95 west of Boston, MA. When there are no significant backups, it is rare to see *any* drivers going 55. Many are going even faster than 65 as they also do when the limit is set to that higher speed. These drivers may give themselves the excuse that the surrounding traffic is also going too fast and they need to keep up. The reality is that the general driving public seems to have abandoned their responsibility.

Having abandoned their responsibility to live by the rule of law in traffic, I suspect that these drivers are inclined to feel somehow cheated if they get pulled over. They may feel they have been unfairly \singled out\ by getting caught. Whether because of an inaccurate sense of outrage, or because of an underlying embarrassment at being judged a scofflaw, they are often disrespectful or verbally brusque.

The police become a burden to people with the attitude illustrated in the preceding paragraph. Sure, they are valuable when they direct traffic around the frequent accidents on I95, but even then, some drivers steam in anger while waiting in the backup and make every effort they can to make up the time by accelerating as soon as possible after passing the crunched cars of an accident scene.

There’s also the common sense angle; if I were a terrorist I wouldn’t be photographing potential targets with a large DSLR but would either make use of the internet, or use the camera built in to most modern mobile ‘phones.

My dominant thought after writing that today wasn’t actually about societal respect, but more an overwhelming sense that we don’t generally know our basic rights. And we don’t know where we’d go to find out the basic facts, either. At least I don’t.

Do we really know under what circumstances we’re expected, or required, to do certain things? I feel we should. Particularly as the comments on my blog indicated quite a bit of opinion about what might, or might not be reasonable. Perhaps more opinion than actual fact?

Mind you, I failed the official citizenship test, but that’s another story…