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

py6km said:
If the current guidance for police is emphasising that they have no power to stop someone from taking photos in a public place, what do you do if you get confronted?

For example, if police ask:

i) what are you doing/why are you taking photos here?
ii) please provide me with your name address etc?

What is the current state of the law with regards the powers of the police to stop and question or search someone? If the power requires that they suspect something, what is it that they must suspect, and what are the rights of the individual?
Click to expand...

Police officers can ask you any questions they like - you don't have to answer them.

In terms of "stopping you", the only time when this will generally happen is if you are about to be searched, for which there must be "reasonable grounds" to suspect that something is up. Bear in mind that if an officer thinks something might be wrong, and you don't do anything to correct that impression, it may only make an officer more suspicious. It doesn't create an obligation on you to cooperate no matter what; it's just what happens. If I suspect Billy Burglar is carrying a bag of tools at 2am while looking into someone's windows and he doesn't give me a reasonable explanation, that in turn is going to create more questions and suspicion in my mind.

I won't go into great detail here, because there are myriad laws covering Stop & Search - s1 PACE, s23 Misuse of Drugs Act, s43 Terrorism Act, s44 Firearms Act are all things that cover various reasons. I'm not sure that's what you're really after.

There is no power required for a police officer to ask you something, and they need no grounds to ask it. Searching is a different matter altogether.
 
Photo Plod said:
Police officers can ask you any questions they like - you don't have to answer them.

In terms of "stopping you", the only time when this will generally happen is if you are about to be searched, for which there must be "reasonable grounds" to suspect that something is up. Bear in mind that if an officer thinks something might be wrong, and you don't do anything to correct that impression, it may only make an officer more suspicious. It doesn't create an obligation on you to cooperate no matter what; it's just what happens. If I suspect Billy Burglar is carrying a bag of tools at 2am while looking into someone's windows and he doesn't give me a reasonable explanation, that in turn is going to create more questions and suspicion in my mind.

I won't go into great detail here, because there are myriad laws covering Stop & Search - s1 PACE, s23 Misuse of Drugs Act, s43 Terrorism Act, s44 Firearms Act are all things that cover various reasons. I'm not sure that's what you're really after.

There is no power required for a police officer to ask you something, and they need no grounds to ask it. Searching is a different matter altogether.
Click to expand...

That seems quite reasonable. There's nothing to stop me approaching a police officer and asking the time, or for directions. Providing I ask politely I will probably get a polite and helpful answer. The same goes the other way, if an officer asks me something. Provided he/she asks me nicely I'll almost certainly have a chat about what I'm doing and probably show them some pictures, if they are interested, even though I don't have to.

I have no objection at all to that type of interaction. It's the sheer number of compulsory, degrading, provocative and unnecessary stop and searches (in London in particular) that I object to. The number of reported incidents seems to have drastically declined recently and I get the feeling the message is finally getting through to the front line. I hope this is true, because the sooner we can draw a line under this issue the better. Then maybe we can get back to the practice of policing by consent and with public cooperation which in the past has always proved to be the most effective way. I'm more than prepared to be helpful and cooperate, going beyond what is legally required of me, but I won't be bullied in any circumstance.
 
Thanks for your helpful reply. I've seen a few videos and reports where folk are approached by policec and asked why they are taking photos. Generally, the response is why do you want to know. That will clearly put someones back up. However, if you respond with the answer that you're an amateur tog just out and about, will that suffice? The obvious next step is that the police will ask to see your photos to confirm this. If you say no as is your right, this would then probably turn sour with them telling you they have a right under section whatever.

If asked to show your images, should you comply? If you ask why, and the answer is "anti terrorism" you almost feel obliged to push back as that's not a complete enough answer for you to make a decision.

If someone who is clearly an amateur tog refused to show their images, what would be your next step for example?
 
py6km said:
....

If asked to show your images, should you comply? If you ask why, and the answer is "anti terrorism" you almost feel obliged to push back as that's not a complete enough answer for you to make a decision.

If someone who is clearly an amateur tog refused to show their images, what would be your next step for example?
Click to expand...


To be honest if a policeman asked to see the images in that situation then i would not have an issue in showing them.
What would be gained by not showing the images?


I find if you are polite and helpful that tends to be reciprocated, if you get uppity and defensive then I can see that might make the policeman suspicious
 
I agree. I'm just trying to find out the lay of the land. I think some of it has to do less with becoming suspicious if someone refuses to cooperate, but more to do with coming down harder if there is a bit of an attitude. I can understand that - to an extent. However, there does seem to be a fair bit of misunderstanding about what is and what isn't permitted in terms of requesting and providing information etc.

For example, the provision of requesting to take down someone's name address etc seems to be used quite a lot - it would be useful to know under what circumstances you should give that info to stop something escalating and what the result is, and when you needn't do so with no fear of arrest etc. (eg one concern seems to be that refusing to give name address etc can result in arrest for something which should never even have been an issue. But, to prove there is no issue in the first place you have to provide something which you're not obliged to - either way, if you happen to come across the wrong person on the wrong day, there seems to be a chance that you will come away with having details logged one way or another).
 
What gets my back up is the implied link between photography and terrorism, as if photographers are prime suspects. What about mobile phone users? In one small package they have a stills camera, video, communication device and the means to detonate a bomb. But are they ever approached? No, it's the bloke with a DSLR, five lenses and a tripod. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.

The same, unfortunately, holds true regarding paedophillia. The link between cameras and perverts now seems to be firmly established in the minds of the general public. Got a camera out when there's kids about? Must be a pervert!

Unfortunately an hysterical and deluded parent is far harder to deal with than an ignorant police officer who does have to adhere loosely to a rudimentary form of procedure.
 
birdy961 said:
What would be gained by not showing the images?
Click to expand...
What is to be gained by them seeing the images? Short of pictures on your card of Osama wandering around London with a Kashnkov what will the officer really learn from seeing your 'views of London' (or whatever)?
 
birdy961 said:
To be honest if a policeman asked to see the images in that situation then i would not have an issue in showing them.
What would be gained by not showing the images?


I find if you are polite and helpful that tends to be reciprocated, if you get uppity and defensive then I can see that might make the policeman suspicious
Click to expand...

Voyager said:
What is to be gained by them seeing the images? Short of pictures on your card of Osama wandering around London with a Kashnkov what will the officer really learn from seeing your 'views of London' (or whatever)?
Click to expand...

Tee hee, I knew i should not have taken that picture of him:D

I just wondered that by not showing an officer your images all you would be doing is antagonising the situation:shrug:
 
birdy961 said:
I just wondered that by not showing an officer your images all you would be doing is antagonising the situation:shrug:
Click to expand...
Probably would - but I am serious. What do the plod think they are going to learn by looking at images?

What are they looking for?

What pictures do 'terrorists' take?

I have really no idea what they expect to discover.
 
TBH me neither.

Not as if you would have sites marked up as anything, just pics of buildings etc

Unless there is secret training and super vision we are not aware of:suspect::suspect::naughty:
 
Voyager said:
What pictures do 'terrorists' take?
Click to expand...

The really funny answer to that question is none, I don't know if this is still the case but if I recal correctly the police in both this country and America have never uncovered a significant quantity of photo's related too a terrorist incident. I'm pretty sure that neither the 9/11 bombers or the London bombers had any photos.

Do agree though that to save an argument and escualting the situation I would show a police officer my shots in the unlikely event I was asked too.
 
Voyager said:
Probably would - but I am serious. What do the plod think they are going to learn by looking at images?

What are they looking for?

What pictures do 'terrorists' take?

I have really no idea what they expect to discover.
Click to expand...

I suppose if your shots are badly composed, underexposed and OOF they could arrest you for crimes against photography! :D
 
goldenlight said:
I suppose if your shots are badly composed, underexposed and OOF they could arrest you for crimes against photography! :D
Click to expand...


:eek:Well that's me snookered then
I give up, shall go and hand myself in immediatly, its a fair cop:lol:
 
a1ex2001 said:
The really funny answer to that question is none, I don't know if this is still the case but if I recal correctly the police in both this country and America have never uncovered a significant quantity of photo's related too a terrorist incident.
Click to expand...

It isn't the case at all. This is one of those arguments I could never win, though, because I effectively have my hands tied behind my back by being unable to go into detail.

Most photographs relating to genuine terrorist "incidents" have been seized at the planning stage, allowing officers to prevent attacks.
 
Photo Plod said:
It isn't the case at all. This is one of those arguments I could never win, though, because I effectively have my hands tied behind my back by being unable to go into detail.

Most photographs relating to genuine terrorist "incidents" have been seized at the planning stage, allowing officers to prevent attacks.
Click to expand...

So there have been some successful prosecutions then? :)
 
Photo Plod said:
Yes.

I appreciate this is a little old, but it's from personal knowledge:

http://cms.met.police.uk/news/convictions/terrorism/operation_rhyme_terror_convictions

I don't propose to trawl the net looking for links to argue with you.
Click to expand...

That's great news and thank goodness they were caught. it's a great example of things going right when we often only focus on the times they go wrong. I certainly don't want an arguement, merely a discussion. I assume photographs they had taken themselves were part of the evidence? If so I wonder if they were taken on a DSLR or a compact or a camera phone?

Cheers, and despite how it might seem I really do appreciate the good work the police do in general but there are some principles for which I do feel I need to make a stand. :)
 
goldenlight said:
That's great news and thank goodness they were caught. it's a great example of things going right when we often only focus on the times they go wrong. I certainly don't want an arguement, merely a discussion. I assume photographs they had taken themselves were part of the evidence? If so I wonder if they were taken on a DSLR or a compact or a camera phone?

Cheers, and despite how it might seem I really do appreciate the good work the police do in general but there are some principles for which I do feel I need to make a stand. :)
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter to be fair. The police really can't afford to think "He can't be a terrorist because they wouldn't a DSLR".
 
fabs said:
Doesn't really matter to be fair. The police really can't afford to think "He can't be a terrorist because they wouldn't a DSLR".
Click to expand...

I emphatically agree! But that's the whole point, it does seem that DSLR users have been disproportionally targetted. Taking what you say a stage further, they can't really afford to overlook mobile phone users either. As I've said before, in one small, discrete package the modern mobile provides stills and video capture, the means to communicate instantly with fellow terrorists and, with a simple modification, the means to actually detonate a bomb if they don't fancy the whole suicide thing. Yet how often do we hear of mobile phone users being stopped and questioned? Maybe I'm wrong and they are routinely stopped, but just don't tend to complian so much? I'd be interested in some statistics if there are any.

But in the wider picture since the change of government there has been a clear change of policy with, I perceive, far less cases. Those that have occurred have often been due to lack of communication of the new guidelines within the police forces themselves. This indicates to me that it always was a political thing rather than of any true value in the fight against terrorism and the police were to a large extent unfortunate to have been manipulated for political purposes. Hopefully we can now graduallly get back to sensible policing at which the police have traditionally been truely excellent and relations can be rebuilt between togs on the street and the front line police, cooperating together in a meaningful way in the fight against terrorism. :)
 
goldenlight said:
I emphatically agree! But that's the whole point, it does seem that DSLR users have been disproportionally targetted. Taking what you say a stage further, they can't really afford to overlook mobile phone users either. As I've said before, in one small, discrete package the modern mobile provides stills and video capture, the means to communicate instantly with fellow terrorists and, with a simple modification, the means to actually detonate a bomb if they don't fancy the whole suicide thing. Yet how often do we hear of mobile phone users being stopped and questioned? Maybe I'm wrong and they are routinely stopped, but just don't tend to complian so much? I'd be interested in some statistics if there are any.

But in the wider picture since the change of government there has been a clear change of policy with, I perceive, far less cases. Those that have occurred have often been due to lack of communication of the new guidelines within the police forces themselves. This indicates to me that it always was a political thing rather than of any true value in the fight against terrorism and the police were to a large extent unfortunate to have been manipulated for political purposes. Hopefully we can now graduallly get back to sensible policing at which the police have traditionally been truely excellent and relations can be rebuilt between togs on the street and the front line police, cooperating together in a meaningful way in the fight against terrorism. :)
Click to expand...

We have no real way of knowing that though. DSLR users are far more likely to kick up a fuss about it, post on internet forums etc. Compacts and mobile phones tend to be used in places where a lot of other people would be doing the same (tourist spots, place of interest etc) whereas people who have been stopped whilst using a DSLR tend to be the only ones around with a camera and so just stand out. I'm pretty sure I could wave my camera around in Trafalgar Square for hours on end and not even be looked at by a Police officer.
 
fabs said:
We have no real way of knowing that though. DSLR users are far more likely to kick up a fuss about it, post on internet forums etc. Compacts and mobile phones tend to be used in places where a lot of other people would be doing the same (tourist spots, place of interest etc) whereas people who have been stopped whilst using a DSLR tend to be the only ones around with a camera and so just stand out. I'm pretty sure I could wave my camera around in Trafalgar Square for hours on end and not even be looked at by a Police officer.
Click to expand...

As I said, maybe I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time in my life! However, I would appreciate some informed opinion (i.e. does Photo Plod have a view on this?) or even better some statistics. Also, the message I seem to be hearing from the new government is "lay off photographers," not "lay off photographers and mobile phone users."

It's ironic that you should chose Trafalgar Square as an example because it is one public place that is a bit of a grey area concerning the right to film (stills or video). Normally the restrictions do only apply to commercial photography but it still can be an issue for amateurs as acknowledged in this link by Paul Cavanagh from the Facilities and Squares Management Team http://benjam.in/filming-in-london-trafalgar-square - once again amateurs with expensive equipment being singled out.

:)
 
goldenlight said:
As I said, maybe I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time in my life! However, I would appreciate some informed opinion (i.e. does Photo Plod have a view on this?) or even better some statistics. Also, the message I seem to be hearing from the new government is "lay off photographers," not "lay off photographers and mobile phone users."

It's ironic that you should chose Trafalgar Square as an example because it is one public place that is a bit of a grey area concerning the right to film (stills or video). Normally the restrictions do only apply to commercial photography but it still can be an issue for amateurs as acknowledged in this link by Paul Cavanagh from the Facilities and Squares Management Team http://benjam.in/filming-in-london-trafalgar-square - once again amateurs with expensive equipment being singled out.

:)
Click to expand...

I think the message is in regards to photographers as per my previous post, it's photographers that have been making the noise rather than mobile phone users.

As for Trafalgar Square, well it's the first tourist spot that came into my head as I was there last weekend. Most of the time it is filled with people all using cameras from mobile phones to pro spec DSLRs. The case you link to appears to be regarding an incident where they were filming in a group with a separately held microphone (as oppsed to a bog standard touristy camcorder) and I'm not really surprised that t may look commercial to a Heritage Warden.
 
fabs said:
I think the message is in regards to photographers as per my previous post, it's photographers that have been making the noise rather than mobile phone users.

As for Trafalgar Square, well it's the first tourist spot that came into my head as I was there last weekend. Most of the time it is filled with people all using cameras from mobile phones to pro spec DSLRs. The case you link to appears to be regarding an incident where they were filming in a group with a separately held microphone (as oppsed to a bog standard touristy camcorder) and I'm not really surprised that t may look commercial to a Heritage Warden.
Click to expand...

Nevertheless Paul Cavanagh, who is quite upfront and helpful, does acknowledge that there is an unfortunate problem which is hard to address:-

"The Heritage Wardens also try to ensure that filming or photographs taken on the Square will not be used commercially. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to determine a tourist or visitor as opposed to a professional photographer is by looking at the type of equipment they use. Whilst we realise that this may sometimes mean that a keen amateur photographer or filmmaker is prevented in taking photographs for his or her own use, it is often the only way that we can prevent commercial mis-use of the Square."

To me, it seems this country is no longer the beacon of freedom it once was. In fact the situation in London appears to be little different to Moscow, which once would have seemed preposterous:- http://www.mn.ru/news/20100208/55409909.html

But getting back to the issue of whether or not photographers are unfairly targetted (or until recently have been) it is not just me that thinks so. Apparently, judging by the latest guidelines, so do the Government and senior police officers. Are they wrong as well as me? :)

BTW This is more fun than a spam thread! ;)
 
goldenlight said:
The same, unfortunately, holds true regarding paedophillia. The link between cameras and perverts now seems to be firmly established in the minds of the general public. Got a camera out when there's kids about? Must be a pervert!

.
Click to expand...

I must agree, I am a former member of the constabulary, recently on holiday I visited a seaside village one evening and felt very very very self conscious with the amount of children about and me taking pictures. I did get stop checked as someone had reported "concerns" to the local Police. I saw the and heard the panda car coming on blues and twos, knew it would be for me. Sat down got my drivers license out, DP lens cloth with Sec 44 powers on and awaited the Police. They were more than courteous and asked to see my images, which I obliged. I was given a record of my encounter and they left me to it.
 
SimonM said:
I must agree, I am a former member of the constabulary, recently on holiday I visited a seaside village one evening and felt very very very self conscious with the amount of children about and me taking pictures. I did get stop checked as someone had reported "concerns" to the local Police. I saw the and heard the panda car coming on blues and twos, knew it would be for me. Sat down got my drivers license out, DP lens cloth with Sec 44 powers on and awaited the Police. They were more than courteous and asked to see my images, which I obliged. I was given a record of my encounter and they left me to it.
Click to expand...

Certainly can't fault the police in this instance, they have no option but to respond vigerously to this type of report. The problem is, how do we restore the tarnished image of photgraphy in the eyes of the general public? It's a far more difficult conundrum than the terrorism issue. We can reason with police officers and even disagree with them. We can campaign (and have done successfully) to redress the balance of a flawed and unjust policy. But how do we cope with the hysterical and irrational fears of a paranoid parent who's mind has been addled by The Daily Fail? I'm afraid I don't have any answers to this one. :(
 
goldenlight said:
Certainly can't fault the police in this instance, they have no option but to respond vigerously to this type of report. The problem is, how do we restore the tarnished image of photgraphy in the eyes of the general public? It's a far more difficult conundrum than the terrorism issue. We can reason with police officers and even disagree with them. We can campaign (and have done successfully) to redress the balance of a flawed and unjust policy. But how do we cope with the hysterical and irrational fears of a paranoid parent who's mind has been addled by The Daily Fail? I'm afraid I don't have any answers to this one. :(
Click to expand...

To quote someone for whom I have little respect, "Education, education, education"
 
TinaC said:
To quote someone for whom I have little respect, "Education, education, education"
Click to expand...

Maybe, but how? Keep chipping away, I supose. Maybe we should all organize presentations to local PTAs, schools, under one's clubs, WI, NCT, Neighbourhood Watch, etc. But how long would it take to put right? At least a generation, I would think. Meanwhile, we risk having virtually no pictorial record for posterity of a whole generation. How would Cartier-Bresson have coped? :shrug:
 
However, we are drifting off topic as this is a thread specifically about photography and terrorism, although it does all come under the umbrellor of photography in public. Maybe we need a seperate thread. One thing is sure; thirty years ago or more I never envisaged that my harmless hobby would one day be considered a security risk by the government and be villified as the hallmark of paedophiles by the general public. I never foresaw that I would be forced to become politicized and radical in the defence of my right to pursue that hobby. I wish I could go back to living in the '60s or '70s - oh how I long for yesterday!
 
goldenlight said:
One thing is sure; thirty years ago or more I never envisaged that my harmless hobby would one day be considered a security risk by the government and be villified as the hallmark of paedophiles by the general public. I never foresaw that I would be forced to become politicized and radical in the defence of my right to pursue that hobby.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. People associate photography with harm, yet the harm actually done by any photography is generally minimal. Certainly, terrorists do take photographs of buildings, and paedophiles do take photographs of children. But they also drive cars, go to work, own computers and so on; we don't target drivers, workers or computer owners on suspicion of being paedophiles and terrorists, nor is there any hysteria about people that fall into these groups. Photography is simply one facet of their lives that enables the commission of criminal offences.

Photography is increasingly being seen as something to be controlled. I could not disagree with the principle more, no more than we should seek to control walking, looking at things or eating. In itself, it does no harm. It is ironic that, in the most media-intense age ever known, photographers should be given such a hard time.
 
Photo Plod said:
I totally agree with you. People associate photography with harm, yet the harm actually done by any photography is generally minimal. Certainly, terrorists do take photographs of buildings, and paedophiles do take photographs of children. But they also drive cars, go to work, own computers and so on; we don't target drivers, workers or computer owners on suspicion of being paedophiles and terrorists, nor is there any hysteria about people that fall into these groups. Photography is simply one facet of their lives that enables the commission of criminal offences.

Photography is increasingly being seen as something to be controlled. I could not disagree with the principle more, no more than we should seek to control walking, looking at things or eating. In itself, it does no harm. It is ironic that, in the most media-intense age ever known, photographers should be given such a hard time.
Click to expand...

That's the real nub of the problem. None of it is ultimately the fault of the police, they have just become the unwilling enforcers of government rhetoric about the security risks of photography and media fuelled public paranoia. As in any cross section of the community there will be some police officers who personally feel that photography poses a greater security risk than it actually does or that in public it is indeed an unsavoury and questionable practice. There will also be many, like Photo Plod, who are much more enlightened and realistic, and many more of course who fit somewhere in the middle.

The real challenge we have is not how we deal with police officers on the streets who, despite any personal prejudices they may have, are only acting in what they feel are the best interests of the community. The real challenge is how we change the perception of photography in the eyes of politicians and the general public and persuade the media to stop overstating the risks of paedophillia by strangers, which are a lot less than people are led to believe.
 
goldenlight said:
"The Heritage Wardens also try to ensure that filming or photographs taken on the Square will not be used commercially. Unfortunately, sometimes the only way to determine a tourist or visitor as opposed to a professional photographer is by looking at the type of equipment they use. Whilst we realise that this may sometimes mean that a keen amateur photographer or filmmaker is prevented in taking photographs for his or her own use, it is often the only way that we can prevent commercial mis-use of the Square."
Click to expand...

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"

So the Heritage Warden doesn't like the look of my camera and decides not to listen to me when I tell them I'm an amateur photographer. They ask me to stop taking pictures or to leave the Square, I get very ****ed off as the light is wonderful and I've just got started. Where do we go from there?.

Surely it's up to them to see if I've made inappropriate use of the images and take it from there?

I'm wondering if a few of these Jobsworth departments will be Quangoed into next week later this year??

David
 
Not sure if anyone has already linked to this but seen a fair few people asking "what should I do / say / not say if I'm stopped". A while ago I wondered this too and came across the website http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

The website provides a really useful "bust card" which I've printed and have in my wallet at all times. Haven't needed it but worth reading over every now and then to remind you that you don't need to do a lot of things they could ask such as:
- see your images
- take your images
- take your equipment

ok, in some circumstances they can, but get the bust card and keep it with you so you know when they can!
 
On the London News yesterday
A gang on 5 motorcycles smashed a jewellers window with a sledgehammer,
4 of them were caught by bystanders and sat on them until the police arrive:thumbs:

The police then put out an appeal for any photographs taken by the public

Guess its alright to take photographs in a public place then:)
 
Over 100,000 stops-and-searches: zero terrorists [theregister.co.uk]

The Register said:
When it comes to wasting police time, the biggest offenders appear to be...the police. That, at least, appears to be the conclusion of the Home Office. Its official statistics, published today, show that while police stopped over 100,000 individuals last year to "prevent acts of terrorism", there was not a single arrest for a terror offence as a result of these stops.
Click to expand...

Are we surprised?
 
I have a letter from the chair of ACPO's telling i can urbanshoot wherever i like, and advising me of the powers police officers don't have.

Merc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top