BBC man in terror quiz for photographing St Paul's sunset

Fred Dawson

Fred Dawson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
231
Name
Fred Dawson LRPS
Edit My Images
Yes
A BBC photographer was stopped by police on suspicion of being a terrorist as he took pictures outside Tate Modern.

Jeff Overs, 48, was photographing sunset over St Paul's Cathedral when a policewoman, with a community support officer, told him she was "stopping people who were taking photographs, as a counter-terrorism measure" and demanded his name, address and date of birth.

The stills photographer said it so enraged him he sent the policewoman away with a "flea in her ear" but not before he had been issued with an anti-terrorism stop and search form.

"I was outraged at such an infringement of my liberty," he said. "I pointed out that nearly every other person walking along the South Bank was taking pictures of the view using their mobile phones and we had drawn her attention because we were using cameras.
story continues at
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do
 
Stupid nanny state once more! Good on the tog for complaining and fighting for his rights!
 
there's a MET police form you can download and print somewhere to shove in the face of any ill-informed coppers
 
Here it is:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

From the top:
Freedom to photograph/ film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.
Click to expand...

I think we should all download a copy of this document and keep it in our camera bag. It says they can search your photos but they're not allowed to delete them, or to stop you from taking them. They would have a hard time in court trying to prove you were a terrorist!
 
that's being printed and stuffed in a pocket of the camera bag, thanks for that!
 
Fred Dawson said:
A BBC photographer was stopped by police on suspicion of being a terrorist as he took pictures outside Tate Modern.

Jeff Overs, 48, was photographing sunset over St Paul's Cathedral when a policewoman, with a community support officer, told him she was "stopping people who were taking photographs, as a counter-terrorism measure" and demanded his name, address and date of birth.

The stills photographer said it so enraged him he sent the policewoman away with a "flea in her ear" but not before he had been issued with an anti-terrorism stop and search form.

"I was outraged at such an infringement of my liberty," he said. "I pointed out that nearly every other person walking along the South Bank was taking pictures of the view using their mobile phones and we had drawn her attention because we were using cameras.
story continues at
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...ror-quiz-for-photographing-st-pauls-sunset.do
Click to expand...

Nice to know he acted professionally then.

It's muppets like this that give most photographers a bad name. Yes, state you are not happy at being stopped, yes take a copy of the med guidelines - but follow due process politely then complain after the event.
 
What has is age got to do with anything?

>>Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism<<

How do they determine this?

1984 was ahead of its time (DOH)
 
bomberman said:
there's a MET police form you can download and print somewhere to shove in the face of any ill-informed coppers
Click to expand...

hey!!
do we tourists need those as well....:(
 
good point/
I would argue with a copper but I would not attempt to disrespect them for this sort of reason.
Taking away the right to photograph a monument because it's pretty is not the same as..for example...having your friend beaten up by coppers for little reason (fictional example I promise)
so why not reason with the copper, cooperate, show the images, question and ask for verification by the desk sergeant. surely they need reasonable cause to presume that you're a terrorist.

sorry for using the word 'reason' in there 5-6 times.
nice to see the article upholds the complaint though. these officers are going a bit ott
 
mrgubby said:
Do you mean we should stop taking photos & complain when we get home :thinking:
Click to expand...

No I don't. There is nothing that says the photographer was stopped from taking photographs, just stopped and questioned by the police. Big difference.
 
Of course you should complain to them at the time and continue photographing. Saying you shouldn't is like saying the protesters in Iran should have stopped protesting on the streets when ordered and simply write nasty letters to the government. Do you really think that would do anything?

One other top tip for kids, if you have a mobile phone with a voice recorder, when stopped show them you're turning it on and recording the conversation. Then explicitly ask for the name and number before answering any more questions. They have to give it by law and it will make them really consider if what they are asking is actually legal.
 
Surely we can counter the police questions with one question of our own.

How have i given you grounds to suspect me of being a terrorist?

If the only reason is that you are using a camera then i think the copper would be on really shaky ground. If they give you a legitimate reason, stalking around, looking nervous, trying to get to areas that are restricted for example then at least have a good enough reason.

It is frustrating, but lets remember that nobody wears a terrorist 'hat' and it not as easy as picking someone out in a crowd saying thats the target.
 
I don't blame the police officers on the ground for things like this , they tend to only be working from instructions higher up most of the time .
I don't know why he didn't flash his press card though, as he would more than likley have been left alone then . I belive if your ever in a situation like this you should remain calm and be polite and the officers will leave you alone after afew questions 99% of the time .
 
BigJohn said:
I don't blame the police officers on the ground for things like this , they tend to only be working from instructions higher up most of the time .
.
Click to expand...

That may be the case, but it doesn't exempt them from using a bit of common sense. It would appear to have been lacking in this instance.
 
This is always going to be an area where peoples opinion will differ.

The met police website states:

Officers have the right to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect of being a terrorist
Click to expand...

Although the guy wasnt searched he was still stopped under the 'anti-terrorism act'. If the officer was following the quote above then she should have been able to explain why she suspected him of being a terrorist.

There is no point getting worked up about it, its annoying at the time but just provide your name and date of birth and let the officer leave. I am quite happy in knowing that officers are being vigilant as they would be the first to get the blame if a terrorist was taking pictures and the police had the opportunity to stop them and chose not to do so.

As long as its just asking for my details in a friendly manner then I have no problem with being stopped. I would be quite happy to show them my pictures as I would be doing nothing wrong. If they wanted to search me or confiscate the camera etc then that would be a different story as that borders harassment unless they have reasonable grounds to do so.

The bloke in the story has made a complaint which I think is a bit over the top as he was only asked his details and what he was taking pictures of
 
Do terrorists do photo reconnaissance?

What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are? Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We’ve been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it’s nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.

http://projectsheffield.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/do-terrorists-do-photo-reconnaissance/
 
Maybe the Met should publish all the successful convictions of terrorists that have been captured by PC plod asking to see his/her camera :suspect:
 
Arguing would be pointless at the scene, but I think as a matter of course we should officially complain afterwards if it's genuinely felt that they have overstepped their authority.

Am I right in assuming that it's not unreasonable to ask the officers for their name, rank, number and where they're stationed? It's good (and probably pretty much essential) to know who you're complaining about.

We don't live in a police state yet... but I don't have any desire to either! The law should apply equally to everyone.
 
i'm a terrorist...i want to photograph st pauls...i go out there on the south bank with a big big camera and make myself obvious...NOT!

i dress up as a clergyman and use a little snapper which has been modified...hey they dont need modification...to take 12Mp raw shots...i have my daughter with me and my wife

we are out of towners....did you guess
 
ai3x said:
One other top tip for kids, if you have a mobile phone with a voice recorder, when stopped show them you're turning it on and recording the conversation. Then explicitly ask for the name and number before answering any more questions. They have to give it by law and it will make them really consider if what they are asking is actually legal.
Click to expand...

No they dont

They are only required to give their number which is a mute point anyway as it should be visible on their shoulder in normal circumstances.
 
Craig_B said:
No they dont

They are only required to give their number which is a mute point anyway as it should be visible on their shoulder in normal circumstances.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue the point because I just don't know if you're correct or not.
But is does beg the question as to whether there's any duplication of numbers in neighbouring police forces?

Of course in the recent G20 incidents it appears that quite a number of police officers had their number obscured anyway. I can see no reasonable excuse for that at all.
 
BigJohn said:
I don't blame the police officers on the ground for things like this , they tend to only be working from instructions higher up most of the time .
I don't know why he didn't flash his press card though, as he would more than likley have been left alone then . I belive if your ever in a situation like this you should remain calm and be polite and the officers will leave you alone after afew questions 99% of the time .
Click to expand...

I disagree. Such idiocy should be challenged on the spot at the time wherever and whenever it occurs and if that proves fruitless it should be challenged at every moment and time where ever possible and whenever possible until such time as such idiocy ceases. Photographing sunsets is not a crime.
 
Bill Roberts said:
I wouldn't argue the point because I just don't know if you're correct or not.
But is does beg the question as to whether there's any duplication of numbers in neighbouring police forces?

Of course in the recent G20 incidents it appears that quite a number of police officers had their number obscured anyway. I can see no reasonable excuse for that at all.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I'm correct.

There will be duplication of numbers in all forces, what will distinguish the officers is the area in which you have dealings with them.

In the cases of events like G20 where you are dealing with officers in public order dress then their "identifier" is on the rear of their helmet which doesn't help when they are facing you!

As far as I'm concerned, when dealing with incidents such as this be calm, polite and measured and deal with the incident by official complaint if you feel you have cause to once you are home.
 
Can you show us some proof please Craig? :)

Because I've had a few disagreements with our excellent police force over the years, one just a few months ago and I asked for 'all of their names and numbers as per my rights' so I could complain ...So then, without thought they duly provided the lot.....

I believe its also necessary for any stop and search forms to be filled in with the all the officers names and numbers that took part in the S&S.
 
I think you should protest respectfully at the time (keeping calm and cool) then make a formal written complaint after, if enough people do this it will make them re-evaluate the time wasted dealing with the complains, and probably reduce the number of stops. The police really do need to have a proper suspician BEFORE stopping someone, not just because they have a proper camera.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I think you should protest respectfully at the time (keeping calm and cool) then make a formal written complaint after, if enough people do this it will make them re-evaluate the time wasted dealing with the complains, and probably reduce the number of stops. The police really do need to have a proper suspician BEFORE stopping someone, not just because they have a proper camera.
Click to expand...

Yep... that is what I would say / do. :thumbs:
 
Absolutely ridiculous state of affairs!

They said you could be doing a recce for a terrorist attack.
Click to expand...

Just in case you do fancy "doing a recce for a terrorist attack", I reckon instead of buying an expensive camera you'd be better off hiring a community support officer's uniform.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Can you show us some proof please Craig? :)

Because I've had a few disagreements with our excellent police force over the years, one just a few months ago and I asked for 'all of their names and numbers as per my rights' so I could complain ...So then, without thought they duly provided the lot.....

I believe its also necessary for any stop and search forms to be filled in with the all the officers names and numbers that took part in the S&S.
Click to expand...

No Police Officer is required to give you their name, only their number. Sadly the competency and knowledge of many new recruits these days is sadly lacking in many facets!

With regards to completion of forms, there is space on stop search forms to add a colleague's details however you can be stopped and dealt with by a single officer in Scotland who can take your details and record them in their notebook or not as is their choice. Best practice is a different matter but the afore mentioned is not a legal requirement.

Englands laws will be different (and certainly not for the better!!).

Interestingly I provide a link to a reply from Scotlands biggest Force in relation to a Freedom of Information request

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...tml/2/response letter excessive cost.pdf.html

There are no specific instructions with regards to photographers in Scotland for the Police other than the fact that officers on duty should be aware that they may be photographed and or video'd whilst on duty by members of the public.
 
I wonder when the governing bodies became terrified of the DSLR, it seems to be every week or so a story like this comes up, did they find DSLR's with long lenses in the 7/7 bombers houses, has every pervert ever arrested had a DSLR hidden away in a secret cupboard, it must have come from somewhere, they don't seem to be worried by compacts:shrug:
 
I really don't understand why people get so angry at being stopped and questioned. At the end of the day, if I was out taking shots around London and the police stopped me and asked for my name and address I'd happily tell them. If they tried to STOP me taking photos when they had no right, then I'd not be happy but just a simple 'can we take down your details' isn't exactly the end of the world now is it. And from what I can figure from this story, that's all they did...ask for his details as they did others along the riverbank.

And as to those who say 'do I really look like a terrorist?'. Well YES, because a terrorist could look like anyone. Should the police just stop people who fall in to the stereotype for what many people would assume a terrorist looks like? Can you imagine the outcry if that happened. Do you really think that major acts of terrorism where first pre-planned by terrorists that look like they just came off the set of Team America World Police? No, you'll probably find that when they scout out the locations in which they plan to do the unthinkable, they are dressed just like the rest of us.

And no, photographing a sunset isn't a crime...but then nobody said it was? That is just a massive over reaction. Would ir be better if the police stopped nobody and we just risked more bombs going off due to terrorists thinking there was no police presence?

The joke here isn't that he was stopped and asked for his details, it's that this 'story' made it in to the news.
 
Richard Peters said:
I really don't understand why people get so angry at being stopped and questioned. At the end of the day, if I was out taking shots around London and the police stopped me and asked for my name and address I'd happily tell them. If they tried to STOP me taking photos when they had no right, then I'd not be happy but just a simple 'can we take down your details' isn't exactly the end of the world now is it. And from what I can figure from this story, that's all they did...ask for his details as they did others along the riverbank.

And as to those who say 'do I really look like a terrorist?'. Well YES, because a terrorist could look like anyone. Should the police just stop people who fall in to the stereotype for what many people would assume a terrorist looks like? Can you imagine the outcry if that happened. Do you really think that major acts of terrorism where first pre-planned by terrorists that look like they just came off the set of Team America World Police? No, you'll probably find that when they scout out the locations in which they plan to do the unthinkable, they are dressed just like the rest of us.

And no, photographing a sunset isn't a crime...but then nobody said it was? That is just a massive over reaction. Would ir be better if the police stopped nobody and we just risked more bombs going off due to terrorists thinking there was no police presence?

The joke here isn't that he was stopped and asked for his details, it's that this 'story' made it in to the news.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you here. I have no desire to give my name or details to anyone while I am out going about my business lawfully. The police have published their guidelineshttp://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
Its a pity their own people don't read them thoroughly.
My recent experience leads me to suspect that the police are at war with everyone, and ****ing people off is likely to be counter productive.
 
Richard Peters said:
I really don't understand why people get so angry at being stopped and questioned. At the end of the day, if I was out taking shots around London and the police stopped me and asked for my name and address I'd happily tell them. If they tried to STOP me taking photos when they had no right, then I'd not be happy but just a simple 'can we take down your details' isn't exactly the end of the world now is it. And from what I can figure from this story, that's all they did...ask for his details as they did others along the riverbank.

And as to those who say 'do I really look like a terrorist?'. Well YES, because a terrorist could look like anyone. Should the police just stop people who fall in to the stereotype for what many people would assume a terrorist looks like? Can you imagine the outcry if that happened. Do you really think that major acts of terrorism where first pre-planned by terrorists that look like they just came off the set of Team America World Police? No, you'll probably find that when they scout out the locations in which they plan to do the unthinkable, they are dressed just like the rest of us.

And no, photographing a sunset isn't a crime...but then nobody said it was? That is just a massive over reaction. Would ir be better if the police stopped nobody and we just risked more bombs going off due to terrorists thinking there was no police presence?

The joke here isn't that he was stopped and asked for his details, it's that this 'story' made it in to the news.
Click to expand...

It is a fact that terrorists do not carry around SLR's and tripods to photograph their targets. The over-reaction is on the part of the police and wannabe police "officers" who think they are doing there job by hassling photographers.

These situations make the news regularly, week after week. They are regularly reported in the Amateur Photogrpaher, for example, as well as the national press. Still the police don't learn. It just makes them more and more unpopular.

It is not a joke.

Much as I would like to think I would react calmly and coolly, I have a horrible feeling that if I was subject to this sort of harrassment, I would react
angrily.
 
Photodiva said:
I have to disagree with you here. I have no desire to give my name or details to anyone while I am out going about my business lawfully.
Click to expand...
It's not anyone, it's the police. It's not like a random stranger is asking you who you are. Being asked to give details by the police, and nothing more, is not something that should get anyones back up and I can't see why it does.

To be clear again, I'm not talking about being asked to stop taking pictures when you are within your right to do so. I'm talking about just being asked to prove who you are - to make sure there is nothing suspect going on, perfectly reasonable. And exactly what was going on in this story.

Same reason police do random checks of motorists to make sure they are the owner of the car and driving legally etc. You may be insured and driving your own car but that doesn't mean the guy at the lights next to you is...so would you rather just run the risk of having more illegal drivers on the road to smash in to you or have something done about it?

It's not like the police can just hold up signs saying 'if you are doing something bad please stop', so spot checks have to be done - it's for your own safety.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top