You must be joking... The police have a right to get your particulars.Peacelovingguy said:u have the right to ignore the police officers as u r not commiting a crime.
Questioned by police?
- Thread starter Sausage
- Start date
- Status
Sion
Senior Member
V
vince123123
Guest
I think you should write to the press for such an issue, its worthy of public interest and I think there's a good chance that the press will print it. Just condense your intial post into a brief narrative and it should stand a good chance of publication.
IMHO,
Frankly, the Home Team (ie. Police, SCDF, etc) all have a THANKLESS job. This is not addressed to the threadstarter specifically but to some of the subsequent replies posted as well.
1) When they don't do anything, they're accused of wasting taxpayers' money
2) When they take certain measures, they're accused of being biased or "extra" or tight assed
3) When things go wrong, they're thrown into a "finger-pointing" game with the govt who need to answer to the population or subject to intense public scrutiny.
I sympathise with the thread starter, Sausage, BUT we must try to understand what limitations there are on the field.
Perhaps the police are given instructions from higher mgmt that to screen only the ones that deserve detailed scrutiny.
If they were to scrutinize everyone at the scene, imagine how much manpower would be required for such a "small" event? = waste tax payers money?
The police might as well just set up a gantry for pedestrians to clock in and clock out of the area? = "extra" ?
Exercising the policemen's personal discretion and training on whether to classify a spectator as "high risk probability"= biased?
Or better still ban the activity totally? = tight assed?
You can see that the above do not cover the plethora of situations that can be used to address the thread starter's scenario. But likewise, an even greater number of counter arguments can be used to admonish or criticise the chosen methods used.
The point of the long passage is that NO MATTER what the govt or people do, there will always be critics. Let's just take it in our stride and get on with our lives.
There is really NO POINT in using taunting behavior(ignoring the policeman, writing in to newspapers) to further aggravate the situation/ Home Team people who are merely doing their job.
If they screw up and a disaster befalls/ arises from the event, the public with the "wisdom" of HINDSIGHT will still create a big fuss over it. ie. It is always easy to say "I told you so!" or " I knew that this was bound to happen!" AFTER the disaster has occured. The finger pointing game will always perpetuate regardless.
My suggestion would be to comply and try to HELP the Home Team HELP us make our country a safe haven for us and our children.
Cheers
Frankly, the Home Team (ie. Police, SCDF, etc) all have a THANKLESS job. This is not addressed to the threadstarter specifically but to some of the subsequent replies posted as well.
1) When they don't do anything, they're accused of wasting taxpayers' money
2) When they take certain measures, they're accused of being biased or "extra" or tight assed
3) When things go wrong, they're thrown into a "finger-pointing" game with the govt who need to answer to the population or subject to intense public scrutiny.
I sympathise with the thread starter, Sausage, BUT we must try to understand what limitations there are on the field.
Perhaps the police are given instructions from higher mgmt that to screen only the ones that deserve detailed scrutiny.
If they were to scrutinize everyone at the scene, imagine how much manpower would be required for such a "small" event? = waste tax payers money?
The police might as well just set up a gantry for pedestrians to clock in and clock out of the area? = "extra" ?
Exercising the policemen's personal discretion and training on whether to classify a spectator as "high risk probability"= biased?
Or better still ban the activity totally? = tight assed?
You can see that the above do not cover the plethora of situations that can be used to address the thread starter's scenario. But likewise, an even greater number of counter arguments can be used to admonish or criticise the chosen methods used.
The point of the long passage is that NO MATTER what the govt or people do, there will always be critics. Let's just take it in our stride and get on with our lives.
There is really NO POINT in using taunting behavior(ignoring the policeman, writing in to newspapers) to further aggravate the situation/ Home Team people who are merely doing their job.
If they screw up and a disaster befalls/ arises from the event, the public with the "wisdom" of HINDSIGHT will still create a big fuss over it. ie. It is always easy to say "I told you so!" or " I knew that this was bound to happen!" AFTER the disaster has occured. The finger pointing game will always perpetuate regardless.
My suggestion would be to comply and try to HELP the Home Team HELP us make our country a safe haven for us and our children.
Cheers
A
Azrael
Guest
I think what sausage was asking was:
Why the police only took the particulars of LOCALS taking pics of a controversial scene. But did not bother FOREIGNERS who were doing the exact same thing?
Are locals less trustworthy and more deserving of suspicion as compared to outsiders. And for your info, sausage wasn't loitering at that scene for a long time.
Why the police only took the particulars of LOCALS taking pics of a controversial scene. But did not bother FOREIGNERS who were doing the exact same thing?
Are locals less trustworthy and more deserving of suspicion as compared to outsiders. And for your info, sausage wasn't loitering at that scene for a long time.
A
Azrael
Guest
Just to add on I think it was rather strange that the police should stop to take the particulars of photographers in a public space as phototaking in a public scene is not illegal and neither is it a public nuisance if the object of the photoshoot is not being harassed.
Ah well my friend, Civil Servants had always been accused of:
- Sucking on public's money
- Not doing anything
- Lazing on a simple job
And its not exclusively reserved for just the Home Team.
When nothing happens, everyone points fingers at Civil Servants.
When something happens, everyone also points fingers at Civil Servants.
U guys shld just try to work there for a few years with the full knowledge that u get criticised by the very people whom u are tasked to protect.
- Sucking on public's money
- Not doing anything
- Lazing on a simple job
And its not exclusively reserved for just the Home Team.
When nothing happens, everyone points fingers at Civil Servants.
When something happens, everyone also points fingers at Civil Servants.
U guys shld just try to work there for a few years with the full knowledge that u get criticised by the very people whom u are tasked to protect.
Any ex-policeman from NS day in CS member??can enlighten us on this issue??
i was told that unless we take pic of plioce station or army camp,then WILL u be in deep sh...
i was told that unless we take pic of plioce station or army camp,then WILL u be in deep sh...
Sausage said:
actually I don't think you can "ignore" the police, per se. even if you have committed no crime, the police does have a right to speak with you or ask questions.
on the other hand, look on the bright side, they may wish to buy you pictures :thumbsup:
Azrael said:
Agree with you that it is not illegal to photograph in public neither is the photographer harassing anyone. I don't think the police is checking on him based on this. IMO they are merely exercising their discretion (at that point in time) and felt the need to do their job by ascertaining that this person is not a threat. So to clear their doubts, the only way is to conduct a spot check on the individual. They are just doing their job and there's nothing strange or wrong with that either.
As to why they did not check foreigners, maybe the foreigners, from their observation did not look suspicious. Whatever the reason, only those officers will know. We can speculate all day, blame it on discrimination or whatsoever. But we'll never know the real reason.
Azrael said:
Without going into a flame war with anyone, I did substantiate my stmt when i said that there MIGHT be reasons/ protocol that WE DO NOT KNOW ABOUT that resulted in Sausage getting questioned. It could be the camera eqpt, behavior, tip-offs by informants even the color of his hair?? that have TRIGGERED SPECIFIC PROTOCOL in choosing whom to question. You can't possibly question EVERYONE at the scene.
I'm not totally unsympathetic to Sausage or the rest of the replies made by other people. All I'm saying is that the taunting suggestions given by SOME are uncalled for and immature IMHO. (eg. choose not to offer your particulars when requested).
I'm surprised by the strong reactions to my suggestion to comply/ cooperate when others are merely doing a public duty that they are PAID and TRAINED to perform.
For example, you do not question a surgeon on how to operate on you just because you read up on some new surgical procedures on the internet when the surgeon has the technical expertise to decide on the matter. The analogy doesn't fit 100% but you get the general idea right?
Personal freedom is good but hopefully by now people will understand that sacrifices may have to be made in exchange for the greater public good. More checks MAY be required for locals as it is more prudent to guard against " the enemy within"?
Psychological defense is a key point when the "unseen enemy" try to set off dis-satisfaction within the community to undermine govt efforts.
Rather I'm rather disturbed by what appears to be a typical "Herd mentality". People naturally feel safer when everyone is "in the same boat". Questions like " why u question me BUT NOT HIM? Am I being singled out?" and paranoia will start to set in. The police may have stopped the thread starter for 1001 reasons but we may be blowing things out of proportion when we start to justify WHY.
My rant is not against Sausage or anyone in an attempt for a personal attack or a character assasination but more of a CSer who is appalled by suggestions that DO NOT HELP the situation or serve to enlighten the public. (eg. remain silent when approached by a policeman for details)
As Vince123123 suggested it may serve us well if we write in AMICABLY to the press to ENQUIRE MORE and not merely to stir up trouble due to one's paranoia setting in. (like calling the Straits Times vs The New Paper? Which in my PERSONAL opinion tend to sensationalise news a fair bit... Possible Headlines= "Colonialism still rampant in Sgp ":sweat: lol)
Cheers
PS. I'm surpirsed that Azrael registered a new nick just to post 2 replies to my honest reply on this matter. If Azrael is another CSer that I may have offended in my previous postings in this thread then I offer my sincerest apologies.
Azrael said:
actually the trained police can tell, or sense, who to pick out from a crowd they should pay attention to. as you said, the rest are touristy types who can be ignored or at least are low down or the "suspect" list. you, as a local, are "deserving" of further attention. I think this is not illogical and I for one am glad that they are at least being watchful.
anyway they seem to have done their jobs professionally, you have not been harassed and your rights not being invaded upon. I'd say this is a good thing.
Many years ago, a civil servant who I know told me this real scenario. His colleague was checking on arrivals at the airport. When checked on this singaporean, the fella, in a defensive and rude matter, questioned the officer as to why was he checked instead of foreigners?
The officer, perhaps he had a bad day, gave a 'not so professional' or 'sarcastic' reply: "Sir, don't you know that most of the prisoners in changi are locals?" :bigeyes: :bsmilie: :bigeyes: :bsmilie:
The officer, perhaps he had a bad day, gave a 'not so professional' or 'sarcastic' reply: "Sir, don't you know that most of the prisoners in changi are locals?" :bigeyes: :bsmilie: :bigeyes: :bsmilie:
V
vince123123
Guest
Actually, I do ask my doctor about things that I read to make sure he knows what he's doing - there's nothing wrong with that. When a close loved one went for Lasik operation some years back, I made sure that I asked the surgeon the correct questions to make sure that he knows what he's doing. Sometimes by asking a few pointed questions, you know whether he knows what he's doing or he doesn't. That is not to say that I'm medically trained, but you get some confidence based on how the doctor answers your questions and his mannerisms and disposition when he does so.
cphile said:For example, you do not question a surgeon on how to operate on you just because you read up on some new surgical procedures on the internet when the surgeon has the technical expertise to decide on the matter. The analogy doesn't fit 100% but you get the general idea right?
eric69 said:
Nope.... the police must have certain grounds to conduct a check on you. Sometimes, I feel that these officers are not well trained in the way they cheack people. I feel digusted at the unprofessional officers but I certainly reapect those who has good PR. However, the good ones are rare but they certainly make a difference to their organisation.
- Status
Similar threads
