Now it's the Metropolitan Police ©

Flash In The Pan

Flash In The Pan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
27,793
Edit My Images
Yes
From the British Journal of Photography 24/12/08

Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped on Wednesday 10 December. The photojournalist had been covering the wedding of a couple from Dale Farm in Essex, the UK's largest travellers' site.

Hurd had been covering the wedding and had followed the couple to the Ramada Docklands hotel in east London for the wedding reception. At around 4.50pm, guests started leaving the reception. Hurd followed them and while shooting stills and video she bumped into a police car parked outside the hotel.

Hurd continued shooting the guests, but was called back by the officers. She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police authorities to question anyone they suspect are acting suspiciously. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, BJP has learnt, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken. Hurd was detained for 45 minutes and told not to use 'any of the footage that showed the police car or officers, for copyright reasons'.
 
That one cannot end well for the police.
 
"Hello Police? This is Ricky's mate, there is one of those photography types at a wedding, I think you should go over and sort 'er ahhhht"

Phone call is ended....

"Hahahaha one by one I shall pick them off, how dare they treat me disrespectfully, don't they know who I want to be? I mean am?"
 
Sorry 48thEagle , I have to report you to the MANAGEMENT........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................You're not allowed Good jokes till at least 200 posts................:razz:
 
how fitting. i was hassled by police tonight. cristmas night. a man with a tripod and a camera facing down a road. "ha lets go annoy that guy with the camera" is probably what they were saying and so they did. i had to explain to them what i was doing. why i was doing it. why my brother owns 2 honda civics???,

aahh policemen, you hear of nice policemen but you never meet one do you.
ahh i have contradicted myself. as i was doing light trails down the road after the police left and drove by they flashed there lights as they drove by me. made quite a nice photo. still dont like the guys though haha,
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The photojournalist had been covering the wedding of a couple from Dale Farm in Essex, the UK's largest travellers' site.
Click to expand...

Just playing Devil's Advocate here but anyone else think there might be more to this than meets the eye and maybe we are not hearing the full story?
 
i sus[ect it might have something to do with the wedding that was being covered
 
From my experience it's usually down to lack of decent police training, and as the previous post we don't know the full or whole story.

Security guards are worse, they have stopped and questioned me a few times just for walking through a shopping centre and "politely" I have explained to them what my rights are....
 
My 19 year old Son was taking a few nighttime photos in a remote carpark for a car club he belongs to.The police arrived and asked what they where doing,my son explained all to them.One of the officers went over to some of the drivers and told them to switch off their spot and fog lights as it was an offense, as it was not foggy and they could get done for this.They then sat and watched until my Son etc moved off.
 
JIMC said:
My 19 year old Son was taking a few nighttime photos in a remote carpark for a car club he belongs to.The police arrived and asked what they where doing,my son explained all to them.One of the officers went over to some of the drivers and told them to switch off their spot and fog lights as it was an offense, as it was not foggy and they could get done for this.They then sat and watched until my Son etc moved off.
Click to expand...

Not on private land...although I think there may be something if it has direct unrestricted access to the public highway?
Could be wrong, I'm sure if it's private land, it's private regardless.
 
JIMC said:
My 19 year old Son was taking a few nighttime photos in a remote carpark for a car club he belongs to.The police arrived and asked what they where doing,my son explained all to them.One of the officers went over to some of the drivers and told them to switch off their spot and fog lights as it was an offense, as it was not foggy and they could get done for this.They then sat and watched until my Son etc moved off.
Click to expand...
This seems to have little to do with the photography aspect and more to do with the fact the officers knew the car club drivers would have commited an offence when they all drove off with their fog lights still on.
OK, if the officers told people to turn their lights off in the car park then that would be a bit much as the law there only applies to the public roads - unless the car park was actually a large lay by...
 
..... "The Police have argued that Hurd was filming in a sensitive place due to its proximity to the London City Airport." .....

....."Press photographers continue to be targeted by law officers as several cases of heavy-handed policing were revealed and caught on video this month. Olivier Laurent reports

The National Union of Journalists has called on the Home Office to meet with representative associations after several incidents pitted police officers against press photographers.

The call comes after the Metropolitan Police announced that it would investigate the actions of one of its officers after he was caught on video trying to prevent press photographers form covering protests in front of the Greek embassy in London.

The incident took place on 08 December when two photojournalists were covering protests sparked by the shooting of a youth in Athens. While at work, a police officer deliberately obstructed them, trying to snatch away a digital SLR used by one of the press photographers, Marc Vallee. Along with Jason Parkinson, he has complained of being physically removed from any area from which they could document events." .....

The British Journal of Photography

Have a look at the last 4 minutes of this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxXfcgC67Z4

..... "On the streets, police and security personnel are exercising their own form of censorship of the public realm - by legal means or otherwise. There are dozens of examples of men in hi-vis jackets preventing photographers from shooting perfectly legitimate subjects, often (mis)quoting the Human Rights Act or spurious health and safety concerns. But police officers' willingness to use anti-terrorism legislation as a catch-all extension of stop-and-search is particularly alarming, and their use of these powers to harry press photographers - despite carefully negotiated agreements to prevent this - is an affront to our democracy.

The Home Office has finally admitted there is a problem, but police chiefs haven't done enough to address concerns. Quoting their willingness to abide by service guidelines to protect the rights of the media is completely meaningless when offices wilfully ignore them, seemingly with impunity." .....

British Journal of Photography
 
Flash In The Pan said:
From the British Journal of Photography 24/12/08

Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped on Wednesday 10 December. The photojournalist had been covering the wedding of a couple from Dale Farm in Essex, the UK's largest travellers' site.

Hurd had been covering the wedding and had followed the couple to the Ramada Docklands hotel in east London for the wedding reception. At around 4.50pm, guests started leaving the reception. Hurd followed them and while shooting stills and video she bumped into a police car parked outside the hotel.

Hurd continued shooting the guests, but was called back by the officers. She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police authorities to question anyone they suspect are acting suspiciously. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, BJP has learnt, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken. Hurd was detained for 45 minutes and told not to use 'any of the footage that showed the police car or officers, for copyright reasons'.
Click to expand...


As already said, one wonders if this is the whole story in this instance - however, the Met, bless their cotton socks, are rather known for their over application of certain laws that were never intended for such use - having said that, as a commercial photographer who was being paid for the photo/video footage, it may well be that copyright laws are applicable, I seem to recall there being something on their website about filming rights and stuff.....need to go check, but 45 mins detention seems a little over reactive :thinking:
 
JIMC said:
My 19 year old Son was taking a few nighttime photos in a remote carpark for a car club he belongs to.The police arrived and asked what they where doing,my son explained all to them.One of the officers went over to some of the drivers and told them to switch off their spot and fog lights as it was an offense, as it was not foggy and they could get done for this.They then sat and watched until my Son etc moved off.
Click to expand...


Have a look at this:

http://www.durham.police.uk/bikewise/documents/offroadFAQ.pdf
 
JIMC said:
My 19 year old Son was taking a few nighttime photos in a remote carpark for a car club he belongs to.The police arrived and asked what they where doing,my son explained all to them.One of the officers went over to some of the drivers and told them to switch off their spot and fog lights as it was an offense, as it was not foggy and they could get done for this.They then sat and watched until my Son etc moved off.
Click to expand...

Remote Car Park, Fog Lights and Camera, then the Police turn up to said remote Car Park - probably thought they were Doggers !
 
matty said:
i sus[ect it might have something to do with the wedding that was being covered
Click to expand...

I hear that lots of Essex based traveling families plan terrorist attacks under the guise of a traditional wedding party

;)
 
Flash In The Pan said:
She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police authorities to question anyone they suspect are acting suspiciously.
Click to expand...

I think the question that should be asked is had the area been designated for stop and search by a senior officer and the home secretary notified:

http://www.terrorismlaw.info/index.php?id=23

When s.44 is quoted I often wonder if it has used correctly as the law stipulates?
 
russbates said:
I hear that lots of Essex based traveling families plan terrorist attacks under the guise of a traditional wedding party ;)
Click to expand...

Totally untrue - its actually only the PHOTOGRAPHERS at the weddings of Essex based travelling families that pose the direct threat to homeland security.

You really can't go around spreading misinformation like that :nono:, well not as as amateur - have you considered a career in the police:thumbs:

Only kidding Russell :D
 
RichardtheSane said:
This seems to have little to do with the photography aspect and more to do with the fact the officers knew the car club drivers would have commited an offence when they all drove off with their fog lights still on.
OK, if the officers told people to turn their lights off in the car park then that would be a bit much as the law there only applies to the public roads - unless the car park was actually a large lay by...
Click to expand...

It was a shopping centre carpark after the shops closing hours,and the foglights where only on for the photos,but rather then argue with them about what might be right or wrong,they just left,less hassle in the long run,But I think if it had of been me I would have stood my ground, and kept on shooting
 
It was a shopping centre carpark
Click to expand...

Therefore a place to which the public usually have access, paid or otherwise. It counts as a road.

after the shops closing hours
Click to expand...
Therefore they were technically trespassing... however see above.

the foglights where only on for the photos
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The car was on the road(car park) the visibility was not severely reduced, therefore it was an offence to have the fog lights illuminated.

Having said all that I suspect that the Police were acting on information received. Perhaps they were a bit OTT, perhaps not. It is impossible to say without being there and hearing their side of the story.

B.
 
russbates said:
I hear that lots of Essex based traveling families plan terrorist attacks under the guise of a traditional wedding party

;)
Click to expand...

terrorism was the police excuse, ANY traveller gathering will have the police around in force, due to the reputation that preceeds...
 
It's pretty disgusting how the police have the ability to do this under the anti-terrorism laws. What are the police allowed to do with the details they took, is it logged on the journalist's record that he has been stopped and searched? Is this likely to stand against him in the future in any way?
 
matty said:
terrorism was the police excuse, ANY traveller gathering will have the police around in force, due to the reputation that preceeds...
Click to expand...

True matt but my point was that the police shouldn't be using laws in that way. If they had genuine reason to believe those involved were doing wrong they should use the correct section of the law to punish them.

The point i was making is the police shouldn't use the terrorism law in unrelated crimes, you reinforce my point perfectly in your first statement "Terrorism was the police excuse".
 
exactly, it was the excuse they used, i was answering the question as to why the police where there
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top