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

Most security staff are idiots who have no idea of the law. This guy was out for a good old argument and good for him. I hate it when some pleb starts to quote laws to me . I gather that the second security pleb has been ordered not to talk to any photographers after this got into the media.

By in large it will only be a 'wally cop" that wants to flex his power. Most other cops dont give a monkeys.

I have shot outside the US embassy with a 800 and it was not a issue (3 months ago) I was asked very nicely by a cop and he had no issues . As he knew i was perfectly legal in where i was and what i was doing.
 
ammgramm said:
This was posted today:

http://londonphotographers.org/2010/05/abuse-terror-laws-continues/
Click to expand...

Once again the security staff have no idea of the law. And the Police have failed to protect a member of public from been harassed by the security staff. Whilst carrying out his legal rights to photograph ANYTHING from a public place.

let me give a example : Go to the Israeli Embassy and try to take pics outside the front. You are not allowed to.

1. Its private property
2. There is a Police notice saying no pics .

But stand by the main gate or the rear entrances etc with a bloody big 800mm and your fine. well.... they come over and asks what you are doing. BUT IN A VERY NICE MANNER. They know YOU are within the Law in those areas.
 
I had my first run in with the law today!

I was out taking pictures in Stockport town center today, as I usually do. Only this time it was my first outing with a pretty hefty zoom lens, so I wasn't really inconspicuous.

I had just left a store and I started taking pictures of one of the buildings nearby when a policeman on a bike came up to me, at least I think he was, or he could have been a community support officer. He asked me if I had permission to be taking photos so I replied saying I didn't think I needed any permission to take photos in a public area. area. It was funny because the first thing he mentioned to me was something along the lines of terrorist activity, I saw that coming a mile off.

So apparently the area where I was taking photos was actually private property, which I found bizarre as it's just a high street. He didn't seem to know which areas of the town center were actually public, other than the Stockport Market as that is owned by the local council. Now I would have thought of all places in the town center of Stockport that inside the market would be one of the no go areas, as it's an enclosed building. When I'm out taking pictures round the market I always take them from the outside, and just like when I'm in the high street I avoid getting my camera out inside buildings or closed off and roofed areas.

He seemed friendly enough, I was just annoyed that he couldn't really clarify where the boundaries of what was public space and what wasn't. He told me I'd have to go to the local office down the road to ask for permission but that I shouldn't bother anyway as they wouldn't be likely to give it to me. He also asked a rather patronising question.. "What are you taking pictures for anyway?"

So there you go.. an open spaced high street isn't actually public.

I also got told off for taking pictures of a CBBC filming set outside the market because apparently it's copyrighted by the BBC. :( However, I went back a couple hours later when the crew weren't there and there were mothers taking pictures of their children playing around with the set on their camera phones.
 
I got threatened with arrest for taking pictures of the Hoover Building in Washington. They tried to take my camera off me. Told them where to go and ran away!!
 
Latest incident also reported by The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/10/stop-search-photographer-grant-smith

As the police have clearly got nothing better to do, they must be prime candidates for some of the massive spending cuts that are bound to happen.

On a more serious note, if it is true that He was told he was being held under section 44 because of his "obstructive and non-compliant attitude" then that is not only a clear breach of Section 44 but proof that this ill-founded law is being cynically and deliberately missused by, it seems, more than just a few corrupt police officers intent on abusing civil liberties to fulfil their own agenda.

I used to think it was mainly a problem of institutional bad communication and individual police officer incompetence, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned that more sinister motives are driving this persecution of photographers. Orwell might not yet be turning in his grave but he is probably cringing........

As for private "Security Officers," they seem to think they have the right to dictate what people can or cannot do in a public place. On the whole they seem to be arrogant, aggressive, poorly trained, of low intelligence and completely ignorant of the Law. A private army would not be tolerated in Britain (or would it - watch this space.....), nor vigilantes, so why should we accept what is essentially a private police force? I think private security should be banned!
 
goldenlight said:
Latest incident also reported by The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/10/stop-search-photographer-grant-smith

As the police have clearly got nothing better to do, they must be prime candidates for some of the massive spending cuts that are bound to happen.

On a more serious note, if it is true that He was told he was being held under section 44 because of his "obstructive and non-compliant attitude" then that is not only a clear breach of Section 44 but proof that this ill-founded law is being cynically and deliberately missused by, it seems, more than just a few corrupt police officers intent on abusing civil liberties to fulfil their own agenda.

I used to think it was mainly a problem of institutional bad communication and individual police officer incompetence, but I'm becoming increasingly concerned that more sinister motives are driving this persecution of photographers. Orwell might not yet be turning in his grave but he is probably cringing........

As for private "Security Officers," they seem to think they have the right to dictate what people can or cannot do in a public place. On the whole they seem to be arrogant, aggressive, poorly trained, of low intelligence and completely ignorant of the Law. A private army would not be tolerated in Britain (or would it - watch this space.....), nor vigilantes, so why should we accept what is essentially a private police force? I think private security should be banned!
Click to expand...

This was reported in tonights London Evening Standard . Again. security staff have no idea of the law and the Police are failing to confront them for illegal harassment of members of the Public.

I think there is only one thing to do

Using the Power of the net and social groups. A "flash mob" photographers type event should be organized at "One Aldermanbury Square" during the week at lunchtime to show these pathetic security staff, their managers and the Police that this madness cannot continue.

if you have ideas about how to get this idea across the net then please assist.
This is a blatant miss use of Police powers and one that needs to be addressed quickly
 
Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition deal: full text

The Guardian/New government said:
10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

• A freedom or great repeal bill;

• The scrapping of the ID card scheme, the national identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point database;

• Outlawing the fingerprinting of children at school without parental permission;

• The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency;

• Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database;

• The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury;

• The restoration of rights to non-violent protest;

• The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech;

• Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation;

• Further regulation of CCTV;

• Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason;

• A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.
Click to expand...

[emphasis added] :thumbs:
 
Voyager said:
On the other hand the 'Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.' comment in the Con-Lib-Dem coalition document just released might help.
Click to expand...

What are the chances of us both posting that at exactly the same time? :D
 
I agree that the noises coming from the new coalition government are encouraging. Let's wait and see. :)
 
Musicman said:
What are the chances of us both posting that at exactly the same time? :D
Click to expand...
Quite high I would have thought - I read the press release when it came out and thought 'I must remember to see if anyone has noticed that on TP later' and was quite surprised no-one had when I did!

I look forward to the day the hard-of-thinking are told that being in possession of a camera and taking pictures of their building/people in the street is not any sort of offence!
 
It's good that this information is comming out, it might lend some urgency to the new Government's pledge to review these powers and policies. Also there doesn't appear to be any attempt to water down the facts or fudge the issue as I suspect there might have been from the previous administration - another encouraging sign. Whether or not this cautious optimism proves to be justified we'll just have to wait and see.
 
I nearly got stopped yesterday near the port.... they followed me all the way down and stopped until I turned round and parked up.... after driving past slowly ( and I guess getting my reg ) they went..... may be they where just looking at the view.... oh and I hadnt got the camera out at this point but I know they have a habit of stopping people for it where I was. TBH I wish they had just stopped and talked to me.... nothing to hide and it would have been far less sinister.

Terran
 
clowds said:
even other officers agree it was stupid to stop him http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=108953
Click to expand...
Thanks for that.

Love that the comment -
If the photographer starts blathering on about how he's not committing any offences & has a right to take photos, I reply that I also have a right to permit or refuse my own picture being taken by someone else. It's not a police thing, it's my basic human right to privacy.
Click to expand...
- is immediately refuted by other specials! :lol:
 
Last edited:
clowds said:
tog stopped in romford this officer should learn the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE
Click to expand...

Just watched/listened to this, you have to laugh at the officers of the "law" not knowing the "law", respect for the tog not backing down. i hope the officer(s) involved got a right royal roasting and were sent back to class to learn what's allowed and what's not, also had to lol at one of them saying he has a right to privacy in public, if that's true, let's get rid of all the cctv they rely on the catch proper criminals :) what a power hungry numpty.
 
Having watched the Youtube video this all strikes me as frighteningly familiar. Having been doing this since I was the same age as Mr Mattson, I found a large number of police officers to behave in this manner when I was that age.

Seems that the police haven't changed in 10 years and still treat a 16yr old as a child and assume that they have no knowledge of the law.

The police have absolutely NO RIGHT whatsoever to do ANY of the things that they've done in the video/audio.

I hope those officers get a right royal roasting over this. Another payout on the way I suspect.
 
Just watched the 'Romford' clip again courtesy of the other thread posted in TP...

Outrage is too weak a word to describe how I felt watching this...
It's a public parade - they are on display for the public to see and photograph.

What planet did those useless fat, sweaty coppers come from?
 
arkady it all started when a adult t/a officer who was looking after the cadets told the tog that he needed permission to photograph the cadets.

i did read somewhere that the cadets sign a form to say that they can be photographed when out on parades if true the t/a officer should have known.
 
clowds said:
arkady it all started when a adult t/a officer who was looking after the cadets told the tog that he needed permission to photograph the cadets.

i did read somewhere that the cadets sign a form to say that they can be photographed when out on parades if true the t/a officer should have known.
Click to expand...

That officer should have had the benefit of a brief from the Division or District Media Ops Branch, or the parent unit's UPO prior to the parade: it's SOP and a mandatory requirement when conducting Public Duties.
I'm probably better-informed as the the do's and don'ts of military etiquette, but the tog should have pointed out that any cadet whose parents didn't wish him/her to be photographed on a public parade should not be in attendance at all...

The other thing that really P'd me off was the officer who said that he couldn't be photographed because it would compromise his ability to operate on "future covert taskings" - I get that sometimes:

"you can't take my photo because I'm thinking of going for SAS-selection!".

Well, you're in uniform and in public now, so shut the 'eff' up!
 
Lets hope a big fat complaint goes in to the MPS as the more complaints go in the more chance there is of coppers being properly educated in this matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top