Metropolitan Police issue official guidance on the laws surrounding photography

Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,411
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

A much needed official document covering the laws surrounding the issues photograhers are facing when out taking photos in public.

It covers the relevant sections of the Terrorism Act that many Police Officers, PCSO's and security guards are (usually incorrectly) trying to apply in order to restrict a perfectly legal and innocent hobby.

Please read, digest, discuss, and don't forget to print a copy out to put in your camera bag!
 
Marcel said:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

A much needed official document covering the laws surrounding the issues photograhers are facing when out taking photos in public.

It covers the relevant sections of the Terrorism Act that many Police Officers, PCSO's and security guards are (usually incorrectly) trying to apply in order to restrict a perfectly legal and innocent hobby.

Please read, digest, discuss, and don't forget to print a copy out to put in your camera bag!
Click to expand...

I bet they'd claim it was a forgery, given to you by one of those fake police officers,you know, like the one the Met claimed shoved Ian Tomlinson :suspect:
 
would be interested to know if this is for all forces or just the MET. have looked on the GMP site nd cant fond anything. is the MET the governing body for all forces?
 
schrismonkey said:
would be interested to know if this is for all forces or just the MET. have looked on the GMP site nd cant fond anything. is the MET the governing body for all forces?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately they are the 'leading force' Basically because they were directly funded by the Home Office and they are the biggest and they have the most money, they usually direct everything relating to legislation and any other 'this is what the government have come up with and we need some guidelines' kind of idea.

Its scary but true:suspect:
 
Yep, whilst these are released by and aimed at the MPS, the same principals apply across all forces as it refers to the current UK laws as they stand [though they may be different in Scotland, not sure] so worth printing off even if you are outside London.
 
That looks like the "get out of jail" card we've all been waiting for.

Dave:thumbs:
 
Yv said:
Yep, whilst these are released by and aimed at the MPS, the same principals apply across all forces as it refers to the current UK laws as they stand [though they may be different in Scotland, not sure] so worth printing off even if you are outside London.
Click to expand...

Nail, hit, head :thumbs:

I't might have been issued by the MET, but the important part - the Terrorism Act 2000 - is an Act of the Parliament for all of the United Kingdom. So it applies to all in Blighty...
 
Seems quite straighforward when you read it. Police can ask you any questions and thats about it. As long as there is no semtex in your pockets you're laughing.
 
Have to say, I'm a bit bemused (and amazed) by the way that these laws are being implemented. Different perspective, I suppose.
 
thanks for posting that marcel i dont think it could be any clearer :thumbs:
 
This posting is absolutely brilliant. I was out taking a few shots at the weekend, not in London but on a public footpath along a river in Southampton. I was taking a photo of a house when a guy asked if he could help me. No I dont think you can, I replied and continued to take another shot. The guy then asked me what I was doing to which I replied, I am taking a photo of this building. The other guy become quite agitated and asked me if I had permission to take a photo of his neighbours house. I informed him that I did not have any permission as i did not require it. He then went on to tell me a story about someone getting knocked off of their feet by a cyclist a few weeks ago. I replied that I didnt have a cycle and cant see why he is telling me this. He again told me that he didnt think it was right that I could take a photo of his neighbours house without their permission. My reply this time was that if I wanted to I could go on to the www and go on google earth and look right into his back garden if I liked. He asked me if I would like it if someone was stood outside of my living room window taking photos. I told him that I live in a penthouse on the 23rd floor, so I would be amazed and I would try and take a photo of them taking a photo of my apartment. He kept going on and on so I thought I would up the anti and told him when I had finished taking photos of his neighbours I was going to set my tri pod up outside of his house and start taking photos of his. By this time he did have smoke coming out of his ears, but I kept nice and cool and proceeded to take some more photos. I have now printed this article off which will be finding its way into his letter box at the weekend.

Thanks for posting

Stew
 
stewsmith said:
This posting is absolutely brilliant. I was out taking a few shots at the weekend, not in London but on a public footpath along a river in Southampton. I was taking a photo of a house when a guy asked if he could help me. No I dont think you can, I replied and continued to take another shot. The guy then asked me what I was doing to which I replied, I am taking a photo of this building. The other guy become quite agitated and asked me if I had permission to take a photo of his neighbours house. I informed him that I did not have any permission as i did not require it. He then went on to tell me a story about someone getting knocked off of their feet by a cyclist a few weeks ago. I replied that I didnt have a cycle and cant see why he is telling me this. He again told me that he didnt think it was right that I could take a photo of his neighbours house without their permission. My reply this time was that if I wanted to I could go on to the www and go on google earth and look right into his back garden if I liked. He asked me if I would like it if someone was stood outside of my living room window taking photos. I told him that I live in a penthouse on the 23rd floor, so I would be amazed and I would try and take a photo of them taking a photo of my apartment. He kept going on and on so I thought I would up the anti and told him when I had finished taking photos of his neighbours I was going to set my tri pod up outside of his house and start taking photos of his. By this time he did have smoke coming out of his ears, but I kept nice and cool and proceeded to take some more photos. I have now printed this article off which will be finding its way into his letter box at the weekend.

Thanks for posting

Stew
Click to expand...

Sorry mate but I'm surprised you did not get knocked on your a** as you ceratinly came across as an arrogant ar*e, if that is a true record of what went on. Maybe that's why there are sometimes confrontations, as a simple non smarmy explanation may have left those two men, less aggresive the next time they come across another tog, who wants to photograph that (I'm assuming) nice house:shrug: . It takes two to tango, as they say:suspect:
 
hiddybiddy said:
Sorry mate but I'm surprised you did not get knocked on your a** as you ceratinly came across as an arrogant ar*e, if that is a true record of what went on. Maybe that's why there are sometimes confrontations, as a simple non smarmy explanation may have left those two men, less aggresive the next time they come across another tog, who wants to photograph that (I'm assuming) nice house:shrug: . It takes two to tango, as they say:suspect:
Click to expand...


I have plenty of muscle and trianing in a certain field if i should ever feel threatend. I was not confrontational, he was. I was answering his questions. He was the one shouting not me. Like I said I kept my cool ( i have been trained to ) Nothng that i said was said in a " smarmy " manner, and everything i said was true.

Sorry for taking this posting off topic, but i feel i should defend myself to hiddybiddy's comments.

Stew
 
at the risk of taking this further off topic im not sure how the met guidelines would tell him youre allowed to take pics from public property, doesnt say anything like that on there :shrug:

marcel - thanks for the link, will be printing it out later :)
 
neil_g said:
at the risk of taking this further off topic im not sure how the met guidelines would tell him youre allowed to take pics from public property, doesnt say anything like that on there :shrug:

marcel - thanks for the link, will be printing it out later :)
Click to expand...

"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places..."

:D






:p
 
hiddybiddy said:
Sorry mate but I'm surprised you did not get knocked on your a** as you ceratinly came across as an arrogant ar*e, if that is a true record of what went on. Maybe that's why there are sometimes confrontations, as a simple non smarmy explanation may have left those two men, less aggresive the next time they come across another tog, who wants to photograph that (I'm assuming) nice house:shrug: . It takes two to tango, as they say:suspect:
Click to expand...


Hi Hiddybiddy. :)
But that’s just it! ...He wasn't the arrogant ar*e, the man you came and harrised him is.

He had no right to hassle Stew.
He had the law and his rights all wrong.
And he may have been passionate but he was provoking an argument based on bull manure.

Stew could argue that its him being harassed.

Personally when someone starts poking my rights ..I'll poke back, politely at first, but if they don't want to listen I can't be bothered to humour them Just for the sake of not upsetting their egos. I'd rather be part of some sort of solution and correction, anything less means I'm just helping to invite even more uneducated attacks on our freedoms.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Hi Hiddybiddy. :)
But that’s just it! ...He wasn't the arrogant ar*e, the man you came and harrised him is.

He had no right to hassle Stew.
He had the law and his rights all wrong.
And he may have been passionate but he was provoking an argument based on bull manure.

Stew could argue that its him being harassed.

Personally when someone starts poking my rights ..I'll poke back, politely at first, but if they don't want to listen I can't be bothered to humour them Just for the sake of not upsetting their egos. I'd rather be part of some sort of solution and correction, anything less means I'm just helping to invite even more uneducated attacks on our freedoms.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to not believe stew, and althought my post appears badly worded I'm not saying you are an arrogant so and so) as I wasn't there but to go on and tell him he was going to take a photo of the other guys house(funny and smarmy at the same time!) I think we sometimes don'thelp our cause by coming over all hurt when some uninformed individual reaises an issue. I think stew's ego won on this occasion. To be impatient and hostile is to be the same as those who we criticise constantly on this forum for failing to take into consideration out views and rights. That guy although il informed was not left educated by Stew, just further wound up, directly by what stew had said, not in his failure to understand what our rights are, although he did learn that stew lives in a penthouse. Upon reflection my post may be construed as aggressive although it wasn't meant to be but the sentiment I stand by.
After all what about that persons rights to challange a stranger looking into their property and getting a polite and non dissmissive explanation.
 
hiddybiddy said:
and althought my post appears badly worded I'm not saying you are an arrogant so and so)
Click to expand...

hiddybiddy said:
Sorry mate but I'm surprised you did not get knocked on your a** as you ceratinly came across as an arrogant ar*e,:
Click to expand...

Uhm I think you were.

hiddybiddy said:
I think we sometimes don'thelp our cause by coming over all hurt when some uninformed individual reaises an issue
Click to expand...

maybe a case of pot calling the kettle black

hiddybiddy said:
I think stew's ego won on this occasion.
Click to expand...

No I think the law is what won on this occasion

hiddybiddy said:
To be impatient and hostile is to be the same as those who we criticise constantly on this forum for failing to take into consideration out views and rights.
Click to expand...

Maybe another case of pot and kettle

hiddybiddy said:
That guy although il informed was not left educated by Stew
Click to expand...

which is why i printed off the " freedom to photograph/film " document and said i would post it this weekend

hiddybiddy said:
After all what about that persons rights to challange a stranger looking into their property
Click to expand...

who was doing this, i was stood on a public footpath, " as mentioned " in my posting.

I will not waste any more of my time on this but hiddybiddy if you are going to reply in haste please read what you are replying to properly.

Stew
 
I can't do the fancy quote grabbing thing. But I'm not hurt, honest. You were dismissive and smarmy with the 'well i'm going to photo your house next' line!

I'm always happy to reflect on my actions. That's how we learn is it not. I accept you were out standing on a public footpath and so was he. He might have come accross as aggressive. You matched him with your charm(me being smarmy:D).

You don't think you handled the sitaution badly? Like I said I stand by my sentiment.

Lets hope he doesn't have a big dog to intercept you on your unofficial postman duties. Your muscles and 'certain field training' might struggle with that one:thumbs:

Are you going to post the shot of the house to see what all the fuss was about?
 
hiddybiddy said:
I have no reason to not believe stew, and althought my post appears badly worded I'm not saying you are an arrogant so and so) as I wasn't there but to go on and tell him he was going to take a photo of the other guys house(funny and smarmy at the same time!) I think we sometimes don'thelp our cause by coming over all hurt when some uninformed individual reaises an issue. I think stew's ego won on this occasion. To be impatient and hostile is to be the same as those who we criticise constantly on this forum for failing to take into consideration out views and rights. That guy although il informed was not left educated by Stew, just further wound up, directly by what stew had said, not in his failure to understand what our rights are, although he did learn that stew lives in a penthouse. Upon reflection my post may be construed as aggressive although it wasn't meant to be but the sentiment I stand by.
After all what about that persons rights to challange a stranger looking into their property and getting a polite and non dissmissive explanation.
Click to expand...

Again my point, there is no right to challenge is there! ...the strangers doing nothing wrong.

.....Build a high fence if you don't want anyone to look at your castle I'd say to them...

But challenging people for doing what their entirely free to do... well that’s harassment in my book.

I do get your sentiment Hiddybiddy, :thumbs:
I'm just sick of defending my perfectly legal and morally satisfactory (Im quite thoughtful of people overall ) street photography ... many many times now, way to many in all... :gag: :bang:
 
keep it civil guys, hibbybiddy you havent helped by poking a stick up the mans backpassage. put the stick down, and step away.

thank you
 
Reading this thread I can see both sides of the argument.

From Stew's viewpoint he was out on a public path, doing what he enjoys - taking photos, perfetly legaly, and not causing a nusiance to anyone.

From the Neighbours point of view, a complete stranger was taking photos of the back of his neightbours house - he was concerned so went to investigate.

Frankly, both sides could have been more polite. Stew's initial reply sounds a little dismissive, which iriates the neighbour and the situation escalates.

We need to stand up for our rights, but also remember that what we find as normal, reasonable behaviour may seem odd or suspicious to others.

If Stew had initaily replied with 'No, I'm fine - this is the perfect angle to get a great shot; That house and the light combine perfectly' for example, he would have come across as polite and helpful - probably allaying any fears the neigbour had of ill intent.

Perhaps we shouldn't need to take the extra effort like this, but there are lots of threads and comments of people reacting in a negative way to photographers - if we ALL take the effort to be as polite and helpful as we can, then perhaps this will change.
 
To be frank, regardless of your "right" to take a photograph, there is also his right to privacy.

What if you had been using a telephoto lens to photograph him in his house for instance ?

The Met's advice is clear, simple and sensible -it's only when you get officious people interpreting the law to suit their own whims that problems arise.
 
Sadly this is all based on the opinion of the officer of what constitutes "reason to suspect".

That's the great get-out clause. Then they can stop, search, and seize, and ... the rest is in the histories we never learn from.
 
Myky D said:
Sadly this is all based on the opinion of the officer of what constitutes "reason to suspect".

That's the great get-out clause. Then they can stop, search, and seize, and ... the rest is in the histories we never learn from.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. It's not so much a "get out clause", but more that the law would be wholly unworkable if it tried to be prescriptive in all circumstances, because every incident is different. The only alternative would be to remove the ability to use discretion from police officers. If this is what you want to happen, you will be living in a far greater Orwellian nightmare than you are right now.

While stopping and searching is common, seizure of articles is far less common. Assuming that the thrust of this thread is directed towards seizure of articles resulting from s44 stops, this is a very rare occurrence - to the extent that I have never seen it happen.

To seize items from somebody under s45 of the Terrorism Act, an officer must show that they have reasonable grounds to believe that the article is for use in connection with terrorism. They do not need to have these same grounds to initiate the s44 stop in the first place. As such, the bar of "reasonableness" has just been raised far, far higher. Items seized in such a manner would also undoubtedly lead to the arrest of the person stopped in connection with a terrorism offence. This, I do not believe, is the main irk for most photographers.

I'm not about to start rattling on and taking this off-topic, but the guidelines have been issued to officers, they're on the website for the public, any stop is fully documented and accounted for, traceable back to any officer who stops you, and you have two avenues of complaint (with the force and the IPCC) if you don't like it. I can't change the fact that the law is there, and I'm not going to go into my personal political beliefs over it. Like all other laws, however, you will have to rely on my discretion in enforcing it; the trade off for that is that I promise I will only use it when it is reasonable to do so. I realise that trust between police and public has eroded - that's a whole huge discussion that isn't appropriate for here - but guidelines like these are meant to improve things, and they are being taken to heart by officers.

I have far better things to do with my time than harass innocent members of the public...like harassing criminals :)
 
Admirable sentiments, Plod, but I'm not sure Joe necessarily trusts all of your brethren to feel the same way - especially considering recent public footage from the G20 Climate Change camp, etc. I'm certainly not one to put the boot into Roz, but I can understand why there's a certain feeling of trepidation in the air these days.
 
Faldrax said:
Reading this thread I can see both sides of the argument.

From Stew's viewpoint he was out on a public path, doing what he enjoys - taking photos, perfetly legaly, and not causing a nusiance to anyone.

From the Neighbours point of view, a complete stranger was taking photos of the back of his neightbours house - he was concerned so went to investigate.

Frankly, both sides could have been more polite. Stew's initial reply sounds a little dismissive, which iriates the neighbour and the situation escalates.

We need to stand up for our rights, but also remember that what we find as normal, reasonable behaviour may seem odd or suspicious to others.

If Stew had initaily replied with 'No, I'm fine - this is the perfect angle to get a great shot; That house and the light combine perfectly' for example, he would have come across as polite and helpful - probably allaying any fears the neigbour had of ill intent.

Perhaps we shouldn't need to take the extra effort like this, but there are lots of threads and comments of people reacting in a negative way to photographers - if we ALL take the effort to be as polite and helpful as we can, then perhaps this will change.
Click to expand...

I wish I had said my point like that, very lucid and succint.:thumbs: My literature skills:thumbsdown:
 
matty said:
keep it civil guys, hibbybiddy you havent helped by poking a stick up the mans backpassage. put the stick down, and step away.

thank you
Click to expand...

Haven't grasped the interpretation here (no pun intended) but stick dropped and walking away, yet always facing the threat :coat:
 
Marcel said:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Please read, digest, discuss, and don't forget to print a copy out to put in your camera bag!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link.

A very short but informative read.

This section interests me the most

Guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews

Members of the media can, like any other person, be stopped and searched under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They may also be stopped and searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if an officer reasonably suspects that they are a terrorist. However, where it is clear that the person being searched is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.

Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfil their duties without hindering each other.
Click to expand...

I'm flying back home to London for christmas after 9 years in Europe so this is perfect for me as I will be shooting a lot.

Laws concerning photography down here in the deep S.W. of France exist but are quite relaxed.
 
Blink'n heck. A geezer taking a pic of my house without an explantion would certainly have alarm bells ringing. Especially one who doesn't say why he is taking the pic. Though, being a togger myself, I can understand why Stew felt he didn't have to offer an explantion.

However, the object being a residential home, might well house a family with kids. The man is rightly looking out for his neighbour. This is not aimed at Stew (just a general point) but as already stated, for all he knows, the togger might well be a perv with a zoom lens trying to get pic of woman or kids in the house. We shouldn't assume everyone knows about photographer or loves this hobby.
 
back on topic..................marcel thanks for the link..........i've printed off two for my camera bag..:thumbs::thumbs:
 
HI

Just getting back to taking a few pics again, I never realised it was getting so dangerous to photograph street scenes, most of my photos uset to be in this area, nice to have read the met info, and had a bit of warning before maybe getting greif from the Police.


Dave
 
I will have to print this guide of and keep it with me.

I had my first run in with the Law last night, i havnt been Togging that long and im just getting used to the setting etc so i thought i would try something different last night so i went to Birmingham Airport.

I set myself up on the top of the Multistory Carpark opposite the Airport in Terminal Road. I had been there about 1/2 hour when along came the plod.

He asked what i was doing and commented on my kit and then told me i shouldnt be taking photographs without permision from the Airport.

I asked him to show me the signs that states that im not allowed to take photographs and he said that they were inside the Airport, when i pointed out to him that i wasnt in the Airport he wasnt happy and asked if i was aware of the Law and that i couldnt carry on taking Photographs he then asked me to leave :'(
 
If the police are determined to stop you photographing they will.
If you argue with them they will just arrest you for breach,you cant win.:shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top