Handcuff for taking flood photos?

[dannyfoxy]

True. But the laws was amended to cater to SG environment. So whatever UK law stated currently is not applicable in SG. We still follow our own SG law not UK law ma.

I get from wiki, you can verify......


The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are almost completely statutory in nature.
Apart from referring to relevant Singaporean cases, judges continue to refer to English case law where the issues pertain to a traditional common-law area of law, or involve the interpretation of Singaporean statutes based on English enactments or English statutes applicable in Singapore. These days, there is also a greater tendency to consider decisions of important Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada, particularly if they take a different approach from English law.

 

[skylover]

I get from wiki, you can verify......


The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are almost completely statutory in nature.
Apart from referring to relevant Singaporean cases, judges continue to refer to English case law where the issues pertain to a traditional common-law area of law, or involve the interpretation of Singaporean statutes based on English enactments or English statutes applicable in Singapore. These days, there is also a greater tendency to consider decisions of important Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada, particularly if they take a different approach from English law.

Yap.. I google that before you mention but ar.. black and white in Singapore Statutes should be the one we should follow. It shows all the rights we have what we can do etc. You cannot tell the judge you follow Wiki ba.. Judge also follow what Singapore Law states in black and white. They cannot create or amend for own. Laws can only be amend in parliament and majority vote.

 

[tlvlx]

hmm after reading through the whole discussion , be it the PO or the photographer , both are just carrying out their duties professionally...It all depends on how u see it , standing on the photographer side , i assume the first thing that came into his mind will be to quickly take the shots , all photographers will know that its the moment that is crucial when you wished to have that moment captured down by your camera. All the focus will be of course be on the objects and not the surroundings. Many things could had happened around you which you won't realise and to put things in the worst case scenario , it may endanger your life. Which for this case , no one is hurt , which is good news.

Standing on the officer side of view , he may be on his duties to ensure the smooth flow of traffic or ensuring the safety of the public..At this point , he is carrying out his duties..Its not easy standing under the rain for tat long period of time. He could had noticed that the photographer safety was compromised / the photographer is trying to make the PO job difficult. (Imagine your superior task u something to do and u had to carry out the duties professionally?)

No one is on the winning side , at least no one is hurt and no one dies throughout this incident..

 

[dannyfoxy]

Yap.. I google that before you mention but ar.. black and white in Singapore Statutes should be the one we should follow. It shows all the rights we have what we can do etc. You cannot tell the judge you follow Wiki ba.. Judge also follow what Singapore Law states in black and white. They cannot create or amend for own. Laws can only be amend in parliament and majority vote.

so what is the the sg black and white said? PO can handcuff photographer for his own safety? lol.. if you can find the act, i guess it will be the same, it is common law, so no one will request o to amend is until something happend. it is a direct copy from UK law.

 

[skylover]

so what is the the sg black and white said? PO can handcuff photographer for his own safety? lol.. if you can find the act, i guess it will be the same, it is common law, so no one will request o to amend is until something happend. it is a direct copy from UK law.

Er.. i mention in my previous thread ma. The issue now is the real conversation between the PO and the photographer right from the start. The article didn't even state the whole conversation. If we do not know the whole conversation, we cannot judge anything base on it. The PO has given warning but what sort of warning? In between before he got cuff was there any further conversation? What was been said or mentioned that leads to him been cuff away? All these we do not know. These small details are the things we should get it right first before we can conclude base the PO's SOP and who's right or wrong.

 

[tlvlx]

so what is the the sg black and white said? PO can handcuff photographer for his own safety? lol.. if you can find the act, i guess it will be the same, it is common law, so no one will request o to amend is until something happend. it is a direct copy from UK law.

hmm i believe there are more to the incident.. Its not possible the PO handcuff the photographer just because of his own safety.. Eg: Maybe the photographer is not cooperating with the PO ? I think its not appropriate to bring in the laws when in fact we are still not sure what really happened...

 

[+evenstar]

I get from wiki, you can verify......


The legal system of Singapore is based on the English common law system. Major areas of law – particularly administrative law, contract law, equity and trust law, property law and tort law – are largely judge-made, though certain aspects have now been modified to some extent by statutes. However, other areas of law, such as criminal law, company law and family law, are almost completely statutory in nature.
Apart from referring to relevant Singaporean cases, judges continue to refer to English case law where the issues pertain to a traditional common-law area of law, or involve the interpretation of Singaporean statutes based on English enactments or English statutes applicable in Singapore. These days, there is also a greater tendency to consider decisions of important Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada, particularly if they take a different approach from English law.

SG laws are "based on" the UK laws, but that does not mean one can quote the UK laws and use them directly.

E.G.
i printed out a copy of the Terrorism Act and Photography circular issued by the Home Office in the UK and brought it around with me wherever i went to shoot just in case i was stopped by a PO or PCSO. that same piece of document is not valid/recognised in singapore.

 

[sci70716]

so what is the the sg black and white said? PO can handcuff photographer for his own safety? lol.. if you can find the act, i guess it will be the same, it is common law, so no one will request o to amend is until something happend. it is a direct copy from UK law.

In your words, sg black and white is the Singapore STATUETTES.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

What a Police can or cannot do is governed by it mostly under CPC Cap 68 and PC Cap 224.

Suggest you go read it before u start quoting from Wikipedia. That is unverified content.

 

[Canonised]

IMHO, how I wished this incident never happened. This incident is actually a very bad sign for all of us. If you read carefully, the photographer did not show his credential. Then when he kpkb, the MIBlue started claiming that the photographer ..... (a very long list of flouting the laws) :dunno:

If the MIBlue can make a case out of these, I am taking this like this country is going toward the MIBlue treating the ordinary little people with little or no respect. I fear the day when handcuffs becoming a normal way of life for the MIBlue to restrain people with no credential.

After handcuffs, don't noe what else? :dunno: I hope this time the MIBlue will just issue an apology because I am really sick of all those "once in a 50yr" excuses and that no one in our garment divisions is at fault!

 

[stonefish35]

In your words, sg black and white is the Singapore STATUETTES.

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/

What a Police can or cannot do is governed by it mostly under CPC Cap 68 and PC Cap 224.

Suggest you go read it before u start quoting from Wikipedia. That is unverified content.

I second this. I almost fell off my chair when I read people rather base their flawed argument on wiki-whatever then to check out the statutes.

 

[+evenstar]

IMHO, how I wished this incident never happened. This incident is actually a very bad sign for all of us. If you read carefully, the photographer did not show his credential. Then when he kpkb, the MIBlue started claiming that the photographer ..... (a very long list of flouting the laws) :dunno:

If the MIBlue can make a case out of these, I am taking this like this country is going toward the MIBlue treating the ordinary little people with little or no respect. I fear the day when handcuffs becoming a normal way of life for the MIBlue to restrain people with no credential.

After handcuffs, don't noe what else? :dunno: I hope this time the MIBlue will just issue an apology because I am really sick of all those "once in a 50yr" excuses and that no one in our garment divisions is at fault!

according to the article, there were many other passer bys in the vicinity also shooting the flood scene, some were standing in the same area as the press photographer.

i don't think these people got handcuffed when they did not show their credentials (not that they were from the press to begin with)

 

[+evenstar]

In response to media queries, preliminary inquiry revealed that while police was conducting rescue operations and traffic diversion at the flood hit area along Bt Timah Rd, police came across a man who was taking photographs at the said location. He was observed to be standing on a manhole within the centre road divider which was submerged in waters and taking photographs in a dangerous position.

Due to safety considerations, Police officers repeatedly advised the man to move away from the centre road divider and move to a safe place on the pavement.

However, the man refused to take heed of police's advise and continued to walk along the side of the road divider and continued with his photography. Police again tried to advise the man but to no avail. As he was causing obstructions to the Police officer in the discharge of his duties and causing danger to himself and others, the officers decided to restrain him and move him to safe grounds but the man resisted and put up a struggle.

The officers then had to use force by handcuffing him and moving him to safe grounds. After verifications of the identification and assessment that police rescue operation will not be compromised, the photographer was released.

Police have classified the case under Sec 186 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 and investigations are currently ongoing.

Police urge for cooperation from the public. Anyone who obstruct an officer from discharging their duties is culpable of the following offence; 186. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.

from today's papers

 

[Shoooters]

I'm don't think we should blame the whole of the police force for what this stupid one has done. imo.. i think this policeman is really stupid!! how can he handcuff the photographer? if the photographer accidentally slip and fell and get himself drown in the drain.. how?? he is actually putting his life in danger. if there is a tsunami how? is he going to handcuff him? if he really is causing obstructions or endangering his own life then let him be.. the most he can rescue the photographer and then slap him with a heavy fine and not to the extend of handcuffing him..I hope the management will sack him.. :sticktong

 

[WISHBONEASH]

erm... can let us know why the police did not handcuff the guy who took the video (maybe because shame Singapore Orchard Road on YouTube a short while before YOG), hand cuff the guy waving his hands in the middle of the road (reason - for his safety...from the reckless sbs bus) and also hand cuff the bus driver for speeding and nearly mowing down a person on the street.

the bus driver was reckless? what about the guy who was standing in the middle of the road? must be stoned out of his mind!

 

[arttl]

Suggest read for everyone: http://www.singsupplies.com/showthread.php?t=66940

 

[WISHBONEASH]

[vid]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/u8BStwDkoV0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/u8BStwDkoV0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/vid]


WTH! The BUS Driver speeding, Nearly hit him!
This is bad. Speeding is already serious offence furthermore it is flooding, the driver can lose control easily and what if the brake failed. No wonder there are so many bus accidents.

speeding is bad, standing in the middle of a main road is worse, no wonder there are so many accidents with all these people who think they are impact-resistant.:bsmilie:

 

[reachme2003]

i think whether he wears a credential pass or not is not the issue here. police have classified the case under section 186, penal code, about obstructing a public servant in discharge of his public duties.

 

[eyes]

Next time...

 

[+evenstar]

Next time...

SPF does carry that, but only SSG i think

 

[WISHBONEASH]

I dun know how matured or informed in separating the facts from the fiction you watched in TVs and US Movies. May I suggest u go read up on criminal procedure code and penal code. Google Singapore Statuettes.Maybe u want to stop commenting and start reading the rest of the posts in this thread. There are a lot of good info based on our law i.e. Singapore. It is one way to grow and make others take you more seriously.

I am not familiar with the Terrorism act, but u sure there is a section 43 and 44? Which act? CAP 324A or 325?

Maybe I am wrong but before u cut and paste from other forums, u better checked and make sure its there first. Though I might be wrong too and did not go through both Caps in detail.

i think u mean statutes, otherwise he will hunt around for oscars and golden horses statuettes!:bsmilie: