Home Secretary green lights restrictions on photography

S

Slipper-one

Suspended / Banned
Messages
805
Name
Russell
Edit My Images
No
Beggars belief but;

From thee BJP site:

'Local restrictions on photography in public places are legitimate the Home Secretary has stated in a letter to the National Union of Journalists.

While Jacqui Smith reaffirmed that there are no legal restrictions, she added that local Chief Constables were allowed to restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances.

The letter dated 26 June, which BJP has seen a copy of, is in response to correspondence sent by the Union secretary general, Jeremy Dear, who expressed concern at police surveillance of journalists, in particular photographers.

'First of all, may I take this opportunity to state that the Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press, and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public places,' Smith writes. 'Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.'

However, the Home Secretary adds that local restrictions might be enforced. 'Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.

'It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.'

The Home Office does not produce any guidance on photography in public places, and has not produced any specific guidance to [Forward Intelligence Team] officers, the Home Secretary says. 'I recommend, therefore, that the questions in your letter are best put to the Commissioner.'

The NUJ is expected to meet with MP Tony McNulty – Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing – to discuss the issue, the Home Secretary confirmed.

In May, Dear had written to the Home Office after press photographers noticed that the Metropolitan Police's FIT was monitoring them.'
 
Slipper-one said:
The Home Office does not produce any guidance on photography in public places, and has not produced any specific guidance to [Forward Intelligence Team] officers, the Home Secretary says. 'I recommend, therefore, that the questions in your letter are best put to the Commissioner.'

The NUJ is expected to meet with MP Tony McNulty – Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing – to discuss the issue, the Home Secretary confirmed.
Click to expand...


Its the out come of that meet that'll be interesting ... we are after all, IMO, just after the officers, PCSO's and the security services being educated as to what the law actually is.

end of hopefully. :(:gag::shrug:
 
Give it a few years and owning a DSLR will be like owning an Air Rifle, you're allowed to take it out in public but only in a locked case and if you point it at a child you'll get locked up
 
I've mentioned this before but I think it's worth repeating here.

I can see this subject reaching a point where the Gov. will end up imposing restrictions for a couple of reasons.

1) At the right time and with the right spin to win votes in the name of protecting the public and its privacy.

2) Because it would be simpler (and probably cheaper) to write a law that enforces the common misconception held by the Polics/PCSO/etc. than to try and educate them.
 
Am I missing something here? This is just affirmation of existing legislation and a good thing if people trying to enforce the legislation actually understand the law and how to implement it.
There will always be doom mongers who see bad in everything, but, i dont see any resemblance between an air rifle, which is a firearm and could injure or kill, and a camera that records images, unless of course, you the sort of person that thinks if someone takes a photograph of you, they are stealing your soul!
:suspect:
Allan
 
allanm said:
Am I missing something here? This is just affirmation of existing legislation and a good thing if people trying to enforce the legislation actually understand the law and how to implement it.
There will always be doom mongers who see bad in everything, but, i dont see any resemblance between an air rifle, which is a firearm and could injure or kill, and a camera that records images, unless of course, you the sort of person that thinks if someone takes a photograph of you, they are stealing your soul!
:suspect:
Allan
Click to expand...

The thing is, this government is notorious for this sort of move.

It goes like this:

Step 1 - assure people of the law (ie. you can take photos in public places).

Step 2 - give them a caveat to this (ie. unless a police officer says otherwise in extreme or unusual circumstances).

Step 3 - use the caveat in non-extreme and unusual circumstances (ie. harass a 'tog using the grounds provided in step 2 - even when circumstances do not warrant it).

It's why I'm also anti the 42 day detention limit.

This government does not give a **** about civil liberties. It's terrifying and it makes me sick.
 
Nothings changed as yet.

But we must remember to fight for our rights if and when they try and sneak of with bits of it.

And I mean stand up and fight, like the protest meet in Manchester, we may/will have to make large ripples into the main press to inform the general public that they are losing there rights too...

But until that happens, or not, we must embrace the laws as it stands... rather than instigating fear and confusion...grrr.

:thumbs: :D
 
What it means is that the police or the mickey mouse cops can do what they want and make you stop photographing.. because push comes to shove and the chief constable will back his officers decision.. the quoted letter says no rules but the chief policeman can decide..

Not only are photographers no better off.. you now have a letter from the goverment saying the police can decide.... way to go.. shot ourselves in the foot :(
 
The people saying "nothing changed" are missing the point - it is changed.

There are no restrictions...except now there are. Rights are not something that is balanced, offset or granted only conditionally upon the whim of an unaccountable, unelected, officially appointed representative. They are MINIMUM standards which are granted to each and every person, and intended to protect the individual from the state. When the state starts taking them back, step by barely discernible step, we say no. Or we ultimately lose them all
 
police are there to enforce the law not make them up as they go along!
 
KIPAX said:
What it means is that the police or the mickey mouse cops can do what they want and make you stop photographing.. because push comes to shove and the chief constable will back his officers decision.. the quoted letter says no rules but the chief policeman can decide..

Not only are photographers no better off.. you now have a letter from the goverment saying the police can decide.... way to go.. shot ourselves in the foot :(
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, the way I interpret it is that the restriction has to be in place BEFORE the fact, and for a limited amount of time.

The CC of GMP can't just say "No photography anywhere in Manchester......ever" for no reason and it stick.
 
I personally cannot stand those community police support officers telling me what to do with my camera every time I go out on the streets.

They are utter clowns in uniforms.
 
why don`t the government go the whole hog and rename the u.k .....RUSSIA

REBUILD THE WALL :bang:
 
I noticed yesterday that our traffic wardens are now called 'Civil Enforcement Officers'. Just the name fills me with dread... That's just what we need, a new tier of Warden Hodges types, below even the CSO's, gleefully punishing people for throwing the wrong type of litter in the bins. Doubtless even the 'Civil Enforcement Officers' will soon see it as their duty to harass innocent photographers.
 
Marcel said:
Not necessarily, the way I interpret it is that the restriction has to be in place BEFORE the fact, and for a limited amount of time.

The CC of GMP can't just say "No photography anywhere in Manchester......ever" for no reason and it stick.
Click to expand...

That's how I interpreted the situation as well. For example "We're having an event in this public space, and will restrict photography for the duration of that event". I still don't agree with it, but it's not the same as "You can't take photos because I don't like the look of you".

Incidentally I've been wandering round Notts with a 100mm lens, no one's said a word. Maybe they don't like picking on the gus who are 6'3" and 'broad' :D
 
KIPAX said:
What it means is that the police or the mickey mouse cops can do what they want and make you stop photographing.. because push comes to shove and the chief constable will back his officers decision(
Click to expand...

Exactly spot on, f*****g country makes me sick, they worry about a section of society enjoying a hobby and yet again just yesterday they let another terrorist out of prison to walk the streets of London or wherever, no doubt he will get state benefits to carry on his war on this country just like his crony mates Abu hamza and Abu quatada have for the last x amount of years, when oh when is this government going to take responsibility for what they have done and are doing, if i won the lottery tomorrow i would be out of this country in a heart beat, sorry for the rant and going slightly of track but it infuriates me like you couldn't imagine :annoyed::annoyed::annoyed::annoyed:
 
Under a so called Labour Government that is an absolute disgrace.

We are sleepwalking into a ready made environment for Dictatorship. Absolutely sickening. And the Tories will be even creepier. The political classes of our once great nation need hanging!:razz:
 
Now if everyone who feels this way goes out and votes Lib Dem then we could do something about it. :clap:
 
That's what people were thinking in Germany in '33, in the US in '00 and so on... Your vote matters. Let's keep it that way. ;)
 
Jamougha said:
Now if everyone who feels this way goes out and votes Lib Dem then we could do something about it. :clap:
Click to expand...

At the risk of starting a political debate, you're damn right.
 
Don't the politicians only say what the civil servants tell them to say and the civil servants aren't elected. :( (Or have I seen too many episodes of Yes Minister? :D**
 
Shogun said:
Don't the politicians only say what the civil servants tell them to say and the civil servants aren't elected. :( (Or have I seen too many episodes of Yes Minister? :D**
Click to expand...

Probably! It's an excellent series. One that I've been meaning to get on DVD for a while :)
 
Yet another reason I'm glad I live in Spain :) that and the temperature is in the 30's!

But I'm sure it will arrive here eventually. The only place in my area you definitely can't photo is the Guardia Civil Headquarters in the towns and cities. And that's because of ETA.

The other downside is having to buy lenses, inks, printers etc in the Uk and get them brought out as photography doesn't seem to be that popular outside of the main cities. And there's little competition - but, as I said earlier, the weather makes up for it. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top