"I am not a terrorist!", "Photography is not a crime!" - The fightback starts here...

Finally got round to sorting out a picture



And yes I know I should have worn a hat!
 
At last I have managed to get one done for this - (Rather than just putting somethign together all Heath Robinson)

NACsub.jpg
 
Didn't quite work as well as I wanted, but I was in a hurry.

3765093441_5d4c27d7b8.jpg


Now posted to the group.
 
I have started a Facebook group, feel free to join

Not A Crime










P.S. Hope this is OK to post here, if not please remove
 
:thumbs: That's fine mate. The more people spread the word, the better!
 
Greetings to all I am new to photography and have been fortuitous to have found this site so please forgive my ignorance at times and lack of knowledge.
But could someone please explain or describe what a TERRORIST or PAEDOPHILE would look like??
Without stereo typing I would imagine the only way is for a police officer to speak to them and also conduct a stop check on them through the police computers to ascertain if they are known to the police and for what reasons. If they are not known then maybe there details need to be noted but that I would imagine is down to the individual police officer.
I have been stop checked and searched and the officers gave the grounds for the stop and search also a copy of a form with my details they had taken and their details for my reference.
I offered to show the pictures I had taken and explained it was a hobby I had taken up and there were no issues. The officers were respectful and courteous and I actually felt reassured with them being in the area.
I believe they were just doing their jobs, which I as tax payer expect the police to complete professionally and at times robustly.
Do I feel I was dealt with professionally? ( yes ).
How hard must the police job be. If they stop for example a photographer they are in the wrong. The flip side if they don’t stop a person who appears to be a photographer who then places a bomb in a public area and the result being fatalities. Who is in the wrong again?
Apologies for droning on and apologies if I have upset any one. If I have it was not my intention. My view on this BETTER TO BE SAFE THAN SORRY.
 
Hi and welcome to the forum :)
It sounds like youve had a very positive experience, and while I completely agree with you in that the police need to do their jobs, and that may involve checking with people what they are up to.

I'd also like to ask this

Why does having a camera mean you *might* be up to no good, and therefore need to be spoken to?
Do they randomly ask people to check their shopping bags incase they contain knives?
By the very nature of checking what a photographer is up to, means that they are doing so purely because they have a camera. Common sense dictates that if a paedophile is going to take pictures of children, they are going to do it behind closed doors. Same with terrorists...theyre hardly likely to use a whopping great DSLR on a tripod, and take time composing their shots are they?
No, theyre likely to walk past with a point n shoot or mobile and get it over with as discreetly as possible.
So why does having a camera mean there is an element of suspicion?


Secondly, while your experience is a positive one. You were simply spoken to and searched under s44 (I assume?), there are many out there who are not just asked what they are doing. There are many out there incorrectly moved on under the guise of laws that are wrongly applied or in some cases, completely made up. Not just by police, but security guards.

This is about re-educating everyone that photography is NOT illegal, to stop restricting a perfectly legitimate activity under such misapplied or made-up laws, rules and reasons, and to stop assuming that just because we have a camera, we *might* be up to no good :)

Again, welcome to the forum. Apologies to be quite blunt in my reply, I assure you it's made with the best of intentions :)
 
Ive not been around for a couple of months but i see people are still being stereotyped, togs are the spawn of Freddy Kruger.Surely people must understand through common sense alone, that the persson taking picks of the buildings, trees or whatever openly in living colour is not dangerous. Its more likely to be the nice person everyone knows thats the perve, it has been where i live. Another thing i dont know what its like where others live.Here an officer with a number of PCSOs, stop and check road tax, lights etc on vehicles.However as the officer slows the traffic right down while they select a vehicle another PCSO is taking pics or videoing people driving passed being held to a slow speed. Whats the purpose of this and do they have this right. What would happen if i was to ask them to prove their bonafide reason for this.Im sure it would be fully innocent dont you?
 
i put this in a while ago

3739591431_9b126c0c44.jpg
 
will add mine, tis funny though we do all look like criminals!! My 6 year old daughter found this thread pretty scary!!

Nice one though, had a couple of close calls with police while doing nothing more than walking about with my camera gear not even shooting, large policeman told me "you would've been strip searched if you'd been a bloke!" Charming.
 
i got a massive scare a while ago when i was taking pictures of buildings then all of a sudden this Police armed response unit stopped infront of me...then i realised it stopped cos this old couple was blockin up the road!
 
dont think the massive back pack i had helped me out.
 
Because it's a daily mail article and as such is laced with sensationalism and crap.
Im surprised they didn't blame immigrants for the photos.
 
Interesting topic, i haven't been out with my DLSR as yet, but something tells me id look a bit like a terrorist with a headscarf, 'robe' and a big camera round my neck. :wave:

I assure you im not though ;)
 
I'm all for this and will happily chat politely with any policeman or woman who stops me whilst I'm out taking snaps.
no cheek from me, just co-operation and reason I like to think
however, the "I'm not a terrorist group" have organised a flash mob to protest this...to stand up for their rights...fine, excellent, why not...

but they're doing it at Canary Wharf which is technically private land....I thought...isn't that a bit short sighted?
however it seemed to go well
http://www.demotix.com/news/photographers-canary-wharf-flash-mob

http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=154492841997&view=all
 
DizMatt said:
I'm all for this and will happily chat politely with any policeman or woman who stops me whilst I'm out taking snaps.
no cheek from me, just co-operation and reason I like to think
however, the "I'm not a terrorist group" have organised a flash mob to protest this...to stand up for their rights...fine, excellent, why not...

but they're doing it at Canary Wharf which is technically private land....I thought...isn't that a bit short sighted?
however it seemed to go well
http://www.demotix.com/news/photographers-canary-wharf-flash-mob

http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=154492841997&view=all
Click to expand...


Its still a 'public space' though, which means it should come under the same laws in general terms.

..anyway don't we the public, own some of those banks now! .... ;) :rules: :lol:
 
public space subject to corporate law, for instance private grounds I think and health and safety rules.
like no tripods iirc.
because people might trip and sue the land owner....sheesh!
private security I think can remove you from their property too.
It's thnk it's like going to a shopping centre....area open to the public
 
Where it's private property open to public access I think the only thing they can do is moan about safety, unless they have specifically said no photography, like you often find on a admission tickets for concert and sport venues, stately homes and the like. Surely has to be up to the conditions of entry. If they've let you in with a camera then that's their problem, not yours.

Then again, photography is supposedly banned on the Underground and yet I'm not sure I've seen any sign saying so and don't think it says anything on the tickets. Not that it's stopped me anyway. I've probably sparked off a number of terror scares whenever I've got the camera out on the tube :D

Curious one recently was an open air gig on public land that was fenced off for the concert. They were turning away obvious SLRs. As with most concerts loads took cameras anyway and many smuggled SLRs in. The bigger fuss though was over videos. No one stopped at the time, but many posted them up on the net and Warner came stomping along and issued take downs on them all, including mine. What right do they have though? Copyright? An issue of permission? As I say the land was public property. There were no notices on tickets either about photography or videos.
 
Last edited:
DizMatt said:
private security I think can remove you from their property too.
Click to expand...

They can't physically remove you, only ask you to leave. If you refuse then it's a case of aggravated trespass and the police can be called to deal with it.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
They can't physically remove you, only ask you to leave. If you refuse then it's a case of aggravated trespass and the police can be called to deal with it.
Click to expand...

A lawful occupier, such as a security guard, can use reasonable force to remove someone from their property when they are trespassing. You'll see this most commonly in supermarkets with minor shoplifters, with bouncers in nightclubs, etc.

It only becomes Aggravated Trespass when someone does something to intimidate, disrupt or obstruct the lawful activity of the occupier. This wouldn't be the case if someone is simply "there", and not doing any of these three things.

Police can be called to assist with a trespasser if the owner cannot physically remove them, but any action the officers take is on behalf of the owner and in their capacity as private citizens, since there is no specific police power. Of course, if the trespasser commits other offences then they can be arrested. There are only a handful of exceptions (Railway lines, gasworks, power plants and sub stations) that make plain trespass a criminal matter.

Trespass = Civil matter
Aggravated Trespass = Police matter

Edit: I have just found this useful link, which backs up my post - http://www.trespasslaw.co.uk/common_misconceptions.html

Hope this helps fellow togs!
 
Last edited:
How could that cheeky little smile be the smile of a terrorist :p
 
Lead story on the local (South East) news tonight was a guy who was stopped by 2 PCSOs after taking pictures of the Xmas lights in a Sussex town!!!!!! At least iof nothing else all this garbage is being highlighted by the media and shown for how ridiculous it really is!
 
They did a piece on BBC Breakfast this week also with some guy stopped for taking photos of Palace of Westminster.

He complied with the stop. It went as far as them taking details and letting him go on his way, but it was the taking of details he objected to. Apparently the reason for stopping him was because he had a professional camera and a tripod!

Good grief. Are they really that deluded to think that a terrorist will use professional kit and make themselves so obvious! No, they'd use a little snapper compact and go around looking like a tourist (assuming the mythical terrorist snapper exists).

Was pleased to see the police representative they had on was actually siding with the photographer and said the power to stop was being abused. He didn't go as far as to say they shouldn't stop at all, but did say they should only just come over, ask what they're doing in a friendly manner and then move on with no details taken once they're happy.
 
Is this good news for us at last??

GFHRET

and sorry if links already been posted.

posted wrong blinking link see post below
 
Last edited:
okay im going to try something for this campaign.... whats the law on taking images of police officers, can i blur their faces out??? and still publish it
 
raven07866 said:
okay im going to try something for this campaign.... whats the law on taking images of police officers, can i blur their faces out??? and still publish it
Click to expand...

There is no law against taking photographs of police officers, so long as the material isn't being assembled or "likely to be useful" for terrorist purposes. The same section also applies to any member of HM Forces or the intelligence services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top