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

thats been a very interesting read, is there anyway that has a guide to the law for photography, i mean i would love to have a quick read as one never knows when it could come in handy.
 
Lets hope the tories do reduce the number of police out there, starting with these numbskulls!
 
I'm not so sure the police weren't set up. He seems very knowledgeable and self-assured for 16 years old - new exactly what to say and do. And seems he had a solicitor who specializes in this type of case within hours of the Romford incident. :thinking:

Not that I'm excusing the police in any way. What the officer on the video clip said was virtually all fiction. Are they really that dumb stupid or is it a blatent and cynical misuse of the law? Either way they've got what they deserve - more bad publicity, egg on their faces and probably another big compensation payout.

Sounds like a nice little earner.......I'm off out to catch a copper, using my camera as bait! :D
 
is dad is a photojournalist so he knows the law and yes he did get a solicitor quick thats what the nuj do.
 
clowds said:
is dad is a photojournalist so he knows the law and yes he did get a solicitor quick thats what the nuj do.
Click to expand...

No critisism implied, BTW, good for him! :)

I just can't believe the Plods could be so stupid :bang:

.....or maybe I can. :bonk:
 
clowds said:
SECTION 44 SUSPENDED BY THE HOME SEC
Click to expand...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jul/08/1

The Guardian said:
12.24pm: Theresa May, the home secretary, has just announced changes to police stop and search rules in response to a European court of human rights judgment earlier this year.

The police will not be allowed to use section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to stop and search individuals, she said. Section 44 will only be allowed to be used to authorise the search of vehicles. Police officers who want to use the Act to stop and search individuals will have to use section 43 which - unlike section 44 - says officers have to have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is a terrorist.

She also said that she was changing the rules so that police can only use the stop and search powers in the Act where it is "necessary" for the prevention of terrorism. Previously officers could use these powers were it was "expedient" for the prevention of terrorism.

Alan Johnson, the shadow home secretary, criticised the decision, which May announced in an oral statement in the Commonns. But it has just been praised by the Tory MP David Davis.
Click to expand...
 
Starastin said:
great ! finally !!
Click to expand...

Don't worry...they still have the equally draconian S.43.

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.
(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.
(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. .
(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom
Click to expand...
 
I saw this on the news earlier today, its fantastic that atleast things have eased a little. Let hope this does improve things for us or at the very least stops the victimisation of harmless photographers.
 
jamesb84 said:
Don't worry...they still have the equally draconian S.43.
Click to expand...

It's nothing like a draconian as S. 44. as the police officer now has to have "reasonable suspicion" that you are a terrorist which makes it very easy to form a case for harrasment if you are stopped without any justification. The things the Home Secretary says in the rest of her statment are also very positive.

Stop looking for negatives, stop and search powers are never going to be abolished but it does appear that the new government are taking the issue seriously. Hopefully now the MET police will come in line with every other force in the country and stop abusing their powers and we can finally put this issue to bed.
 
a1ex2001 said:
It's nothing like a draconian as S. 44. as the police officer now has to have "reasonable suspicion" that you are a terrorist which makes it very easy to form a case for harrasment if you are stopped without any justification. The things the Home Secretary says in the rest of her statment are also very positive.

Stop looking for negatives, stop and search powers are never going to be abolished but it does appear that the new government are taking the issue seriously. Hopefully now the MET police will come in line with every other force in the country and stop abusing their powers and we can finally put this issue to bed.
Click to expand...

It's the "reasonable suspicion" bit that worries me to be honest. S.44 had an element of "reasonable grounds to implement a s.44 area" which was so rampantly abused. Given the increasing stock of evidence that police officers can't apply the law sensibly and/or correctly, I don't hold much hope for "reasonable suspicion" to be used reasonably.

Does "reasonable suspicion" include using a camera?

I'm not specifically looking for negatives, but as a pro tog who covers news and public events that put me into contact with the police...I can't see this being a particularly large step. As long as the big scary "T" word is still around, I/we will continue to be harrassed and prevented from working properly. I agree with Stop and Search where there is a proven risk, based on evidence-based intelligence, but at present the current strategy is one of "targeting"...black/asian/photographer/old man with a beard in a park.

This is simply a discriminatory practice that in reality does nothing but alienate the targeted people from the police. I don't view the police as someone to protect me anymore at large-scale public events...I view them as someone to avoid and not engage with for fear of being detained/harrassed or otherwise victimised. Surely that's not the point is it?
 
At the point which the officer says " you have not been detained" after the togger asked why he was, I'd have said OK then, toodloo and walked off.



boyfalldown said:
its a start though - and at least you *shouldn't* get searched anymore for just being in London
Click to expand...

I've waved a camera around on the streets of London and have not been searched.
 
jamesb84 said:
It's the "reasonable suspicion" bit that worries me to be honest. S.44 had an element of "reasonable grounds to implement a s.44 area" which was so rampantly abused. Given the increasing stock of evidence that police officers can't apply the law sensibly and/or correctly, I don't hold much hope for "reasonable suspicion" to be used reasonably.

Does "reasonable suspicion" include using a camera?

I'm not specifically looking for negatives, but as a pro tog who covers news and public events that put me into contact with the police...I can't see this being a particularly large step. As long as the big scary "T" word is still around, I/we will continue to be harrassed and prevented from working properly. I agree with Stop and Search where there is a proven risk, based on evidence-based intelligence, but at present the current strategy is one of "targeting"...black/asian/photographer/old man with a beard in a park.

This is simply a discriminatory practice that in reality does nothing but alienate the targeted people from the police. I don't view the police as someone to protect me anymore at large-scale public events...I view them as someone to avoid and not engage with for fear of being detained/harrassed or otherwise victimised. Surely that's not the point is it?
Click to expand...

How many times have you been a 'victim' of this 'Rampant Abuse'?

You make it sound like every person in London with an SLR will be searched often and repeatedly when in reality it is a minority problem and outside of London is so rare as to be almost unheard of.

You are looking for negatives instead of reflecting positively on the first sign that the new government is taking seriously the issues around stop and seach which the previous government so roundly ignored!
 
a1ex2001 said:
How many times have you been a 'victim' of this 'Rampant Abuse'?
Click to expand...

4 times in London, once in Bristol and once in Cardiff. All under s.44. In 2 of the London occasions and both outside of London the appropriate authority was either unwilling or unable to provide me with the justification for the s.44 authorisation. In fact, both those that took place outside of London were at large sporting events.

You make it sound like every person in London with an SLR will be searched often and repeatedly when in reality it is a minority problem and outside of London is so rare as to be almost unheard of.

You are looking for negatives instead of reflecting positively on the first sign that the new government is taking seriously the issues around stop and seach which the previous government so roundly ignored!
Click to expand...

I will reflect positively when today's political announcements make a difference to police officers and journalists on the ground.

I seem to remember the former Home Secretary stating that "photography in public places is not illegal"...and what happened to the on the ground policing?! Nothing.

The larger and (to me) more concerning issue is whether s.43 over-rides the Special Procedure Materials legislation from PACE. I've still not had a concrete answer for this, and I'll be damned if I get shafted over that. That IS my livelihood.
 
The real problem now will be how this change of policy is communicated to the front line police and whether they understand it. To make it easy for them this short nursery rhyme might help:-

Geogie Porgie PCSO
Chased the togs and hassled them so
But he can't do it anymore
Because they've scrapped Section 44.
 
goldenlight said:
The real problem now will be how this change of policy is communicated to the front line police and whether they understand it. To make it easy for them this short nursery rhyme might help:-

Geogie Porgie PCSO
Chased the togs and hassled them so
But he can't do it anymore
Because they've scrapped Section 44.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
Agreed: a good thing, but it needs to be fully promulgated throughout the Police Forces right down to grass roots level, including PSCOs - and since no-one on the street seemed to have the faintest idea how to implement S44 properly, I doubt we'll see a sudden end to 'stops' like we've been seeing recently.

Especially as many incidents began with private security personnel reporting photographers to the police - they won't have a bloody clue still...

I predict the arguments will now be along the lines of:
"why have I been stopped?"
"because we have had a report that you were acting suspiciously and are duty-bound to investigate such reports/complaints as they constitute a 'reasonable suspicion' of potential terrorist activity under S43..."

Same shi'ite, different jargon...
 
Arkady said:
I predict the arguments will now be along the lines of:
"why have I been stopped?"
"because we have had a report that you were acting suspiciously and are duty-bound to investigate such reports/complaints as they constitute a 'reasonable suspicion' of potential terrorist activity under S43..."

Same shi'ite, different jargon...
Click to expand...
Only if you think the stop to be unjustified you can complain and they'll be in the position of perhaps having to evidence the 'report' in court. :D
 
You'll still have the problem and inconvenience of being stopped in the first place though...very few charges were ever brought as a result of all these highly-publicised 'stops'...
 
Arkady said:
You'll still have the problem and inconvenience of being stopped in the first place though...
Click to expand...
We have had the inconvenience of potentially being stopped but without any possible reason to lodge a complaint for a few years....
 
I certainly don't think it is a solution or an end to the problems, but it is a step in the right direction and maybe an indication that the tide is starting to turn. As such I feel it can be cautiously welcomed. :)
 
clowds said:
if i ever see a police officer in trouble i will turn my back and walk the other way.
Click to expand...

:shake: I guess you never made a mistake then? ....
 
clowds said:
and so it goes on when is the home office going realise these officers are breaking the law and do something about it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745 if i ever see a police officer in trouble i will turn my back and walk the other way.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your anger and resentment but I really think that is taking it too far. Surely the inconvenience and infringement of rights caused by an illegal S&S doesn't compare to a police officer maybe getting seriously injured or even killed in the line of duty.

I'm anti Section 43 & 44, not anti police. Sure the police in general are making some serious mistakes and seem to have an attitude problem with these issues but I wouldn't want to see an officer hurt over it.

What I want is a police force that I feel I can trust, have confidence in and feel proud of once more - like I did about ten years ago. I think the best way to achieve that is through education rather than confrontation. By all means resist, complain and protest when they are in the wrong, but let's do it responsibly and keep to the moral high ground.
 
goldenlight said:
I appreciate your anger and resentment but I really think that is taking it too far. Surely the inconvenience and infringement of rights caused by an illegal S&S doesn't compare to a police officer maybe getting seriously injured or even killed in the line of duty.

I'm anti Section 43 & 44, not anti police. Sure the police in general are making some serious mistakes and seem to have an attitude problem with these issues but I wouldn't want to see an officer hurt over it.

What I want is a police force that I feel I can trust, have confidence in and feel proud of once more - like I did about ten years ago. I think the best way to achieve that is through education rather than confrontation. By all means resist, complain and protest when they are in the wrong, but let's do it responsibly and keep to the moral high ground.
Click to expand...

I agree, there are a number of occasions where the police have been very helpful for me...not least in the "newsgathering" part of the job, especially if it is a grab on the shoulder to yank me out of the way of a flying object that I hadn't seen! :thumbs:

However, the police officer in question here, who is senior enough to know better (edit: maybe not though - misread the story as the Roads Policing Inspector was the arresting officer), should not under any circumstances delete images that are on the camera already. The work gathered by a journalist is considered Special Procedure Material and authorisation from a magistrate must be sought before inspecting it, and even then deleting can be considered an offence in itself.

There are STILL numerous areas where education needs to be improved. Cameras are not going to go away, and nor should they...documenting history is a vital part of society. However, there needs to be a greater understanding of the rights (and responsibilities) of the photographer and how the police should deal with them.

I for one would willingly offer to go and do some education sessions for them!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top