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

somethingbeside
The police waited a week before seeing me after a burglary. They said that I could have a reference number for insurance, but they wouldn't proceed any further because I was a mile away from the railway station, and as they saw it, the villain probably robbed the house, then got on the train to somewhere else. This being the case there was little they could do apparently to track them.
I kinda understand this, but being told that they wouldn't try anything because of it, is a little disappointing.
However, in the main I am happy with Police. I would be polite and courteous to any which approached me, probably.
However, if one came up to me, demanding I identify myself, without first introducing themselves and the reason why, I would consider this to be rude, and at that point, if I could see no obvious reason (which from the same document I quoted earlier, even if there is an obvious reason, a policeman is obliged to state it, if the situation permits, which as far as I am concerned, if you have a camera on a tripod, you probably are not moving away too fast), then I would be requesting that they give me all the information they are obliged to first, a good reason, their identification etc.
It might just be 'reporting', but none of the recent threads which have pointed to newspaper articles seem to suggest that the police identified themselves and their reasons for suspicion before asking for ID.
 
matty said:
as far as Im aware (having looked into this before) a Police Officer on duty MUST have a warrent card that he can produce on request.

A Warrant Card is a proof of identification and authority
carried by police officers or special constables to perform
the functions of the office held. These are usually
displayed alongside a badge showing the service to which
the officer belongs. Police officers in plain-clothes are
required to identify themselves and produce their warrant
card when they are performing their police duties and
exercising their police powers. Normally, police officers in
uniform are not required to produce their warrant card,
however, they should do so upon the request of a
member of the public unless the circumstances do not
allow or the request is unreasonable.
The Warrant Card features a personal photograph of the
person, as well as holder's name and warrant number.
The warrant number is the officer’s Force identity
number. It also identifies the holder as either a ‘police
officer’ or ‘special constable’.



I dont know about scotland, but the police in London are far more strict and vigilant to what could be perceived as a problem


its highly likely that 'south of the border' policing is different to that in scotland, especially in London
Click to expand...

CT said:
If you want to know the identity of a police officer or are unsure if they are in fact police officers, whether they're in uniform or not, then ask to see their warrant card which you have every right to do, and no officer should have any reason whatsoever to refuse. If they refuse, or can't produce a warrant card you should at once be very suspicious. Certainly don't admit them to your home, and if you have access to a phone - call the local police station right away.

In 10 years of carrying a warrant card in uniform and 20 years in CID, it was amazing what a rarity it was to be asked to produce a card even on entry into people's houses. Don't be afraid to ask - no genuine officer will mind in the least.

The warrant card is literally the authority to execute the duties of the office of Constable - it's in fact one of the last things taken away from you when you retire and when you relinquish it you relinquish the powers of the office - not when you get the clock or the cut glass. :D
Click to expand...


:thumbs: Ta guys.

This link to the Metropolitan police for us Londoners also clearly states that officers should provide their names. ...possibly applicable to the rest of England even the UK, it certainly shouldn’t be far from the truth of most I'd suggest.



Metropolitan Police - stop and search.

11th down.

----
 
coldpenguin said:
Yes and no.
They are no longer allowed to ask for your details at any time. This law was repealed after the last war.

However, if they have good grounds for suspicion that you are in progress of performing something which is against the law, they can ask for whatever is required to prove that it was you breaking the law.
(i.e. if you are speeding, have a bald tyre or other item which might make your car of un-roadworthy condition, then name, address and driving license is suitable.)

I have a couple of reasons for not wanting to give my details to the police. I don't particularly like strangers anyway for a start.
The main reason why I do not want to freely give my information, is because of the mis-understanding above. The more people who believe the above, the further they stretch the boundaries.
The police are not above the law.
If you are in a public place they may ask for your details, but they may not demand them.
If they have good reason to suspect you of being in the process of breaking the law (or proof that you have just done, i..e shoplifting), they /may/ demand them, BUT, if practical, (and taking a photograph is not a high-speed chase), they MUST give the reasons as to why they are demanding them.
You are also allowed to refuse your details, if you do not wish to, or if you do not believe that their suspicions warrant the demand, but I am not suggesting that you do refuse. All I am suggesting is that the police are reminded that as a citizen, you are allowed to be anonymous, the police have no /right/ to your details.

As to the question about the fact that this helps stop terrorism.
Quite frankly, IF I were a terrorist, and I gave my name and address to a policeman and community support officer, do you think they would recognise it out of the several hundred on the watch list? It is a waste of time. Ok, so at the end of the shift, some poor SOB is going to type these details into a computer. My name is commonly miss spelt, I have probably around 5 or 6 different spellings in my wallet at the moment because I cannot be bothered any more to correct people. IF my name were on the watch list, (and if it was, would I really give my real name?), and if they managed to spell it correctly, then all they would know is that I was in London, on the south bank, on Tuesday. This information, without context, means nothing. Even with context it means little.
Click to expand...

No this is wrong.

If you are stopped driving, they can ask your details, as already stated, to ensure you have a licence and insurance to drive that particular vehicle.

No laws have changed in relation to this.

And your name and dob would be checked there and then at the time of the stop over the radio, not later at the station.
 
swanseamale47 said:
I suspect you'd be better off calling John Nettles, at least he solves his cases.
Sadly our police seem to spend far too much time on anti drink driving campaigns, and stopping photographers doing what is legally allowed.
Maybe if they spent less time questioning togs they would be a little faster to the serious calls, a couple of days to respond to a burgalary isn't exactly speedy in my book..
Click to expand...

Erm, I'd say police conducting anti drink driving campaigns is a pretty worthwhile way to spend their time. FAR more people are killed by drink drivers than any other unlawful act in the UK.

And the reality is they dont spend much time harrassing 'togs, this web site is full of media reports about togs being stopped and other people moaning about it, very rarely are they actually members on here being stopped.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:thumbs: Ta guys.

This link to the Metropolitan police for us Londoners also clearly states that officers should provide their names. ...possibly applicable to the rest of England even the UK, it certainly shouldn’t be far from the truth of most I'd suggest.



Metropolitan Police - stop and search.

11th down.

----
Click to expand...

no not for suspected terrorist activity which is the act used

During a stop and search what information do the police have to give me?

The police who stop and search you must provide you with certain information including:

* Their name and the station where they work (unless the search is in relation to suspected terrorist activity or giving his or her name may place the officer in danger. They must then give a warrant card or identification number)
* The law under which you have been stopped
* Your rights
* Why you have been stopped and searched
* Why they chose you
* What they are looking for
 
Chaz Photos said:
no not for suspected terrorist activity which is the act used

During a stop and search what information do the police have to give me?

The police who stop and search you must provide you with certain information including:

* Their name and the station where they work (unless the search is in relation to suspected terrorist activity or giving his or her name may place the officer in danger. They must then give a warrant card or identification number)
* The law under which you have been stopped
* Your rights
* Why you have been stopped and searched
* Why they chose you
* What they are looking for
Click to expand...

Under the terrorism act, they would only give you a collar number. You would be issued a form with the relevent information on.
 
Ok, so only the part in () was wrong, an analogy which I thought might clear some confusion? Why quote the whole post?

The rest of it is true, the law on identity was repealed in 1952 after the last 'great' war. You are not required to provide your Identity details just on demand.

Also, if you are in the act of breaking the law (or going to), they can demand your ID upon arrest, at the first convenient moment, according to the Criminal Evidence act 1984, in order to obtain your identity. If they believe that the identity is correct, and that they can later contact you, you can be released immediately.
 
coldpenguin said:
Ok, so only the part in () was wrong, an analogy which I thought might clear some confusion? Why quote the whole post?

The rest of it is true, the law on identity was repealed in 1952 after the last 'great' war. You are not required to provide your Identity details just on demand.

Also, if you are in the act of breaking the law (or going to), they can demand your ID upon arrest, at the first convenient moment, according to the Criminal Evidence act 1984, in order to obtain your identity. If they believe that the identity is correct, and that they can later contact you, you can be released immediately.
Click to expand...

Its not about 'identity laws', its about proving to the police (which you have to do under the Road Traffic Act) that you have a driving licence and insurance. To do this you either provide said documents at the roadside which contain your details, if you cant you have to give your relevent details. Fail to do so and you could be arrested and have your car siezed!

The rest of your post (last paragraph) is also completely untrue! You wouldnt be released from arrest just because they know who you are if you've committed a criminal offence, lol!

To clarify. I suspect you are reading some form of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) online and have misinterpreted sections about identity of suspects. The ONLY time you would arrest someone to confirm their identity is if the ONLY reason you have done so is that they have committed an offence (or are suspected to have) which you wouldnt normally arrest for (ie littering, speeding etc) and that person has refused to provide details. You then have a power of arrest in order to take them to the station to confirm their identity. You would then report them and release them once that has been ascertained. Thats only for minor offences you wouldnt normally arrest for anyway, and is actually an additional arrest power.

You wouldnt release them for a criminal offence that needs investigating.

Oh, and I couldnt be bothered to edit your quote which I why I did the whole lot.
 
Chaz Photos said:
During a stop and search what information do the police have to give me?
The police who stop and search you must provide you with certain information including:
* Their name and the station where they work (unless the search is in relation to suspected terrorist activity or giving his or her name may place the officer in danger. They must then give a warrant card or identification number)
* The law under which you have been stopped
* Your rights
* Why you have been stopped and searched
* Why they chose you
* What they are looking for
Click to expand...

You see, it could be the way that it is being reported, but none of the reports state that this has happened.
I do not consider 'terrorism' as a good write-up/explanation on 'Grounds for Search'.
Personally, /IF/ a policeman came up to me, and said I had a 400mm lens pointed at a window where there might be some sensitive documents, what am I doing? I would be happy to oblige.
However, if they come up and say, What is your name and address? without so much of an explanation or please, then I would be irritated.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
...and the names of the officers will appear on the form provided in that case.

!?!

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

No they wouldnt as they dont have to give them (its a hand written form by the officer)! :thumbs:
 
Normally yes. But not if the power used was under the terrorism act, which is what all the current debate is about. Any other act and they would hav to provide their name on the form.

"Their name and the station where they work (unless the search is in relation to suspected terrorist activity or giving his or her name may place the officer in danger. They must then give a warrant card or identification number)" (from the link which explains it well)

Thats what I was explaining above, in the situation where you are stopped under the terrorism act they would not be obligued to provide you with their name, just a collar number.
 
Yes we will NEVER provide a name on a terror stop / search slip.
 
But they would be required to show their warrant card still, even if they do not supply their name.

And, I would suspect, given the wording, which in the articles states that this exemption is if the giving of the name would put the officer in danger, once it is clear that a camera is not a lethal weapon, that if then asked for a second time, that they should give their name.

According to the Met Office website, about stop and search, all policemen who perform a stop and search must provide:

your name or a description if you refuse to give your name – you do not have to provide the officer with your name and address.

So in the other case being discussed on this board, they did not state what they were looking for, did not identify themselves correctly, and incorrectly mis-informed the 'suspect' that he was required to give his name.

However, I am thinking that the page I am looking at, at the moment, may not be particularly accurate. It directly contradicts itself within a couple of paragraphs. (a reasonable suspicion is not required) (a police officer must have a good reason for stopping and searching you [i.e. they must have something particular to look for])
http://www.met.police.uk/stopandsearch/what_is.htm#whatinfo

Other quotes: (You may be stopped as the officer may have grounds to suspect that you are carrying)

(The grounds the police officer must have should be based on facts, information or intelligence or could be because of the way you are behaving. )
>(Where a terrorist threat has been identified. [Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000]
Where there is evidence that serious violence has or may take place. [Section 60 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994])

So, if you can believe this website (which is debateable, but it is a met police website), then the only (sensible) reason this chap could have been stopped, is if there had been a direct (verified) threat against a building/place in the area where he was. This in my world would be a security level of black-amber or more. A threat has been identified, and either a target or a date exists and has been verified.
 
odd jim said:
Erm, I'd say police conducting anti drink driving campaigns is a pretty worthwhile way to spend their time. FAR more people are killed by drink drivers than any other unlawful act in the UK.

And the reality is they dont spend much time harrassing 'togs, this web site is full of media reports about togs being stopped and other people moaning about it, very rarely are they actually members on here being stopped.
Click to expand...

While it may be worthwhile it shouldn't be at the expence of other policing, and judging by the figures it's more miss that hit. A burglary may be not be urgent to the police but it is the the person burgled.

Around 478 people died as a result of drink driving 2007 (last figures I can find) in the same year in over a few weeks police had stopped almost 150,000 cars with 1163 drivers facing prosecution for drink-driving. thats around 1 in a 150 by my calculations being over the limit. Thats a lot of time spent stopping innocent drivers, and while they are doing that somebody somewhere is getting burgled.
 
odd jim said:
You wouldnt be released from arrest just because they know who you are if you've committed a criminal offence, lol!

To clarify. I suspect you are reading some form of PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) online and have misinterpreted sections about identity of suspects.
---
You wouldnt release them for a criminal offence that needs investigating.
Click to expand...

But we are not discussing traffic laws here. It was a bad analogy, I apologise.
You are correct, that is what I am reading through. Failing to give your identity is not an arrestable offence, which is why I believe that this section is valid, on what other 'law'/act could they arrest someone? The other thread has a person detained, in handcuffs (apparently arrested, then 'de-arrested'), because they did not wish to give their details.
If a person truly had grounds to search someone on suspicion that they had tools which could be used in a terrorist act, then surely a full investigation, including a background check on the identity that they have given is required?`
 
swanseamale47 said:
. thats around 1 in a 150 by my calculations being over the limit. Thats a lot of time spent stopping innocent drivers, and while they are doing that somebody somewhere is getting burgled.
Click to expand...

Yes, I kinda agree with both of you here. It would be nice if a section could be hired, perhaps in a similar way to the PCSO, which could deal with drink driving offences, roadside tests etc., and leave those with experience to deal with burglaries.

Swansea, do you have any figures for the year before? I am wondering whether the thought that the number of police looking for drunks might have reduced the number attempting it.

I have to admit, I have been stopped 3 times for testing. Never at a roadblock type event (although my wife was). All three times the policeman was content to just smell my breath (wierd). It is a deterrent (not that I would)
 
coldpenguin said:
All three times the policeman was content to just smell my breath (wierd). It is a deterrent (not that I would)
Click to expand...

Usually trying not to waste people's time by making an initial call. Sometimes getting the machine to test can take forever as they aren't issued to every car where I work.
 
odd jim said:
Normally yes. But not if the power used was under the terrorism act, which is what all the current debate is about. Any other act and they would hav to provide their name on the form.

"Their name and the station where they work (unless the search is in relation to suspected terrorist activity or giving his or her name may place the officer in danger. They must then give a warrant card or identification number)" (from the link which explains it well)

Thats what I was explaining above, in the situation where you are stopped under the terrorism act they would not be obligued to provide you with their name, just a collar number.
Click to expand...

Ah I see where you and others are coming from now, excuse me. :thumbs:

But, that section you referred to.... Pace Code A pdf. Para is 4.4 ...does not mean a casual stop and search in the street, even though its under the terrorism act, allows an officer to immediately claim that hes endangered and theirfore is not obliged to provide his name.

In the majority of normal S&S under the terrorism act I'd like to assume the citizen acted correctly, provided his details, helped the police to their job and if he wanted to complaint could then ask for the officers names and details even though hed just been stopped and searched under the Act.

I can fully understand officers needing protective methods in tricky situations, so its understandable that they need flexibility.

Are you guys saying it the norm to claim that your being endangered and theirfore will not provide your name?
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
...Are you guys saying it the norm to claim that your being endangered and theirfore will not provide your name?
Click to expand...

Common sense normally prevails in most situations, so as long as the person is not deemed a threat, the officer could provide their name on request. 9 times out of 10 this wouldnt be an issue.

My points were based on peoples mis-interpretation of PACE where discussions were saying police have to give their names, when legally under the act being talked about, its the one thing they dont have to do.
 
coldpenguin said:
Yes, I kinda agree with both of you here. It would be nice if a section could be hired, perhaps in a similar way to the PCSO, which could deal with drink driving offences, roadside tests etc., and leave those with experience to deal with burglaries.

Swansea, do you have any figures for the year before? I am wondering whether the thought that the number of police looking for drunks might have reduced the number attempting it.

I have to admit, I have been stopped 3 times for testing. Never at a roadblock type event (although my wife was). All three times the policeman was content to just smell my breath (wierd). It is a deterrent (not that I would)
Click to expand...

I haven't got the figures handy but I'm sure they are about somewhere.
I have been stopped loads of time coming back late from events, only once was my breath "sniffed" and I was away quickly, usually it's about 10-15 minutes wasted while they fill in forms/do checks, the last time they even wrote down my description and gave me a copy and that was 2 trafic cars to stop one person going home, 4 cops for 10-15 minutes, thats an hour of police time wasted really.
Don't get me wrong, I despise drink driving, it's stupid and dangerous, but I do think a disproportionate amount of time is spent on motoring crime in general.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Don't get me wrong, I despise drink driving, it's stupid and dangerous, but I do think a disproportionate amount of time is spent on motoring crime in general.
Click to expand...

Whilst it may seem annoying at the time, bad driving due to drink, drugs or just carelessness causes more deaths in this country than any other crime - 1000 deaths per year are attributed to speeding alone, so I can see why this is a major focus point for the police.

Yes, burglaries are a crime too but they don't usually result in death.


Steve.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Around 478 people died as a result of drink driving 2007 (last figures I can find) in the same year in over a few weeks police had stopped almost 150,000 cars with 1163 drivers facing prosecution for drink-driving. QUOTE]

i wonder how many of those would have gone on and wiped out someones family if they hadnt have been stopped?
Click to expand...
 
donutagain said:
swanseamale47 said:
Around 478 people died as a result of drink driving 2007 (last figures I can find) in the same year in over a few weeks police had stopped almost 150,000 cars with 1163 drivers facing prosecution for drink-driving. QUOTE]

i wonder how many of those would have gone on and wiped out someones family if they hadnt have been stopped?
Click to expand...

Thats the problem, possibly none or all of them, theres lots of drink drivers all the year around, but the campaign targets the Christmas period, I wonder how many will DD's stop over the Christmas holiday campaign time and start again in the new year?.

Plus I'm not saying we should stop the anti drink driving campaigns, just that too much resources are being spent on a fairly small number of ofenders, there might be 478 deaths (many of those the DD's themselves) this year there were 744.000 burglaries,and over a million other household thefts.
Click to expand...
 
odd jim said:
Common sense normally prevails in most situations, so as long as the person is not deemed a threat, the officer could provide their name on request. 9 times out of 10 this wouldnt be an issue.

My points were based on peoples mis-interpretation of PACE where discussions were saying police have to give their names, when legally under the act being talked about, its the one thing they dont have to do.
Click to expand...

I understand Jim. ...BUT.

And this is my point!

PACE doesn't say its the one thing they don't have to do. .. Its says under a stop and search under the act, all officers must provide their names. ....unless they feel that in doing so they will be endangered.

I feel,( and many replies on this thread hold testament to my opinion) that it's become a general cop-out for officers to use this section of PACE to avoid using their names.

What and why they would want to avoid this other than for endangerment is a worry, and why its become acceptable practice is even more so...

I do think its important for police officers to lead by example, stand by their actions with conviction and personal responsibility. Anything else starts to make a charade out of the example, which nobody needs, not us civvies and definitely not you officers.

(not directed at you Jim) By using the section 4.4 incorrectly . and then saying on a public forum (quite loudly and defiantly for many) that officers don’t have to provide their names is misleading, in-fact I’d go so far to say it can be viewed as intimidating.

Either way, … its not a good example being set, especially when it would have been so easy to be clear from the start. .


...which bring us back to the OPs post. ;)
 
All the Kavannagh QC wannabees make me giggle at threads like this...............:naughty:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
I feel,( and many replies on this thread hold testament to my opinion) that it's become a general cop-out for officers to use this section of PACE to avoid using their names.

What and why they would want to avoid this other than for endangerment is a worry, and why its become acceptable practice is even more so...

I do think its important for police officers to lead by example, stand by their actions with conviction and personal responsibility. Anything else starts to make a charade out of the example, which nobody needs, not us civvies and definitely not you officers.
Click to expand...

I have always given my name, shoulder and warrant numbers on all stops and searches but I can promise you if I thought by doing so any of my family could be endangered such as dealing with organised crime or terrorists then I would, where possible, potect them.

Unfortunately, I've heard of cases where people have stated exactly how they will get officers home addresses and have been quite believable.

Having said that the police work I do I am happy for people to always have my details. In the community in London where I work they all know me anyway lol.
 
:D That’s good to hear, fair point, of course I agree it is necessary you do have the choice to opt out under those truly dangerous situations. :thumbs:

I can imagine the job is quite stress full and scary at times ...but its your career choice after all, you get paid well and get an early pension. Which seems like fair trade for the stress to me.

Don't mean to be harsh, just being honest. :)
 
Craig Mackey, who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on stop-and-search legislation, said he does have sympathy for photographers, but said that part of the problem was that some officers were not aware how best to use the "complex" legislation. He said: "It goes back to the issue of briefing and training of staff and making sure they are clear around the legislation we are asking them to use. There is no power under Section 44 to stop people taking photographs and we are very clear about getting that message out to forces.

"In the past there has been a build-up around photographers and policing. That said, it is difficult to imagine a scenario where someone taking pictures of Christmas lights would be something we should be dealing with."

The common sense answer to all of this. If I find you taking pictures expect to me to stop you (but only for a friendly chat to check out what gear you are using lol)!
 
This is being talked about on the radio at the moment on LBC (london) 97.3 Loads of people ringing in saying they have been stopped. :(
 
somethingbeside said:
The common sense answer to all of this. If I find you taking pictures expect to me to stop you (but only for a friendly chat to check out what gear you are using lol)!
Click to expand...

I don't particularly like strangers, but if that were the attitude of a policeman coming up to me, then I would accept it, no problems. One of the times I got stopped in the car, the reason given by the policeman was quite funny ('we wanted to check, and I am sure you can sympathise sir that it does happen, that the car hadn't just been stolen from a scrap heap').
At the end of the conversation (police always make me feel nervous too), he said that as he had stopped me, he did need to take a record of the stop, and would I mind giving my details. This is fine with me.
They had a clear reason for suspicion, and freely gave it. After a quick check on the computer of my address and registration it was clear that it wasn't from a scrapheap (the Tax disc with valid MOT kinda gave it away as well).

I think what I am most irritated with (and it could just be the reporting fashion), is the presumed right to demand the identity (and it could just be a few individuals which have gotten a uniform and feel big in it. Now, if there is a good reason, then fine, but just giving my name and address smacks to me, of someone who needs to fill out a form. If I had my monopole sticking out of a bag, it could look like a electric cattle prod, so fair enough, ask what it is, search the bag. But just my name and address is not enough to prove I am not up to a felonious act. I am not sure that this is really, a 'Police' issue, and is why I don't think my suggestion of a 'squad' to just stop drink drivers at Christmas time wouldn't work too well).

If I were in the way (which given that I don't take a tripod to crowded places), then I would happily try and reduce the effect once it were pointed out. If it were demanded though (without good reason, car/wheelchair or I am stopping people from getting past?), that would immediately get my hackles up.
 
So you know the met police intranet today featured a message about s.44 and photography. It stated that

1) We can view images on a camera as part of a search BUT
2) We cannot stop people taking photographs in public.
3) We cannot make anyone delete images on a camera (laughable if indeed this has happened)

Clearly this has come to the notice in the management and they are trying to address the problem. I hope it makes you feel a bit happier that on the whole myself and a lot of my colleagues are not trying to criminalize the photographer.

Interestingly if its a journalist's camera we cannot view images without a court order. Its all protected.
 
somethingbeside said:
Interestingly if its a journalist's camera we cannot view images without a court order. Its all protected.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info :) but how can the law / rules apply differently depending on someones employment :thinking:

Steve
 
Splog said:
Thanks for the info :) but how can the law / rules apply differently depending on someones employment :thinking:

Steve
Click to expand...

Sorry Steve, didn't say it was fair. Reason is to do with a lot of journalistic information being only accessible by court order.

I still don't see myself stopping a photographer for just photography UNLESS they were photographing something like CCTV or security measures and I accept that even this photography can be for a total innocent purpose.

artyman said:
What if you were to say you are a journalist.
Click to expand...

They would expect some press accreditation (think thats how you spell it?)
 
somethingbeside said:
So you know the met police intranet today featured a message about s.44 and photography. It stated that

1) We can view images on a camera as part of a search BUT
2) We cannot stop people taking photographs in public.
3) We cannot make anyone delete images on a camera (laughable if indeed this has happened)

Clearly this has come to the notice in the management and they are trying to address the problem. I hope it makes you feel a bit happier that on the whole myself and a lot of my colleagues are not trying to criminalize the photographer.

Interestingly if its a journalist's camera we cannot view images without a court order. Its all protected.
Click to expand...

3) We cannot make anyone delete images on a camera (laughable if indeed this has happened)

April Two Austrian tourists told to delete pictures of Walthamstow bus station. Unaware that police have no right to enforce deletion of images without a warrant, they comply.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...arch-amp-photos-know-your-rights-1833327.html

In january I may be going to London for a few days, I am now wondering if it`s worth taking the camera and tripod to take a few night scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top