PCO's Preventing Photography In Public

A

adrian00

Suspended / Banned
Messages
17
Name
adrian
Edit My Images
No
I have read in the past that photographers have been prevented from using their cameras in public usually by PCO's rather that PC'c under "new anti terror legislation".

There was a report in our local paper this week about a pro photographer, with a press card, who was working in the high street taking images of the last day of the Woolworths shop.

She was approached by a PCO who said she was not able to continue as she was in a public place and the current anti terrorist legislation gave the PCO the power to prevent her from taking any more images.

Has anyone had similar experiences, either pro or amat ????
 
adrian00 said:
I have read in the past that photographers have been prevented from using their cameras in public usually by PCO's rather that PC'c under "new anti terror legislation".
Click to expand...

Where have you read this?
 
This took place in Wallington Surrey, near Croydon. The report was in our local free paper.
A...
 
adrian00 said:
This took place in Wallington Surrey, near Croydon. The report was in our local free paper.
A...
Click to expand...

You give the impression it happens a lot with the bit I quoted... are you saying you have only read about one instance..
 
It's a oft discussed topic here but really I think it comes down to poor training of the officers, poor or no communication of current guidelines and a few individuals who are a little too eager in their role.

For the photographer there's little they can do at the time without escalating the situation. Rather than confront it might be possible to resolve it by asking which section of which law you are breaking. If the officer is unable to provide an answer ask if they can get the details from someone else - it might lead to the officer being corrected and everyone being happy with the result. If it doesn't look like it will stay calm and friendly get their details and follow it up later, but do follow it up as it's the only way the officer can be given accurate and current information about these situations.
 
I had staff at Woolworths trying to stop me. When I told them it was public property they gave up and left me too it.
Same old story we hear all the time I'm afraid. A press card will get you into downing st to photograph the PM, but not in your local high st on public streets.
 
pxl8 said:
It's a oft discussed topic here .
Click to expand...

Is it? I dont recal any where a photogrpaher has been stoped by a PCO under the new anti terror legislation .. If there is then I wouldnt consider it a lot? :)
 
KIPAX said:
Is it? I dont recal any where a photogrpaher has been stoped by a PCO under the new anti terror legislation .. If there is then I wouldnt consider it a lot? :)
Click to expand...

My reply was to the OP, not your response.
 
pxl8 said:
My reply was to the OP, not your response.
Click to expand...

But thats what the OP is saying... OP says read about photographers (more than one) have been stopped usually by PCO and not PC and under new anti terror legislation
 
pxl8 said:
It's a oft discussed topic here but really I think it comes down to poor training of the officers, poor or no communication of current guidelines and a few individuals who are a little too eager in their role.

For the photographer there's little they can do at the time without escalating the situation. Rather than confront it might be possible to resolve it by asking which section of which law you are breaking. If the officer is unable to provide an answer ask if they can get the details from someone else - it might lead to the officer being corrected and everyone being happy with the result. If it doesn't look like it will stay calm and friendly get their details and follow it up later, but do follow it up as it's the only way the officer can be given accurate and current information about these situations.
Click to expand...

Pretty much the only course of action if you find yourself in that situation, if you want to avoid a scene. Sad, particularly that you know your rights, but I wouldn't recomend disobeying a Police Officer. Not sure what the score is with PCSOs though :shrug:
 
But thats what the OP is saying... OP says read about photographers (more than one) have been stopped usually by PCO and not PC and under new anti terror legislation
Click to expand...
Which hair are you splitting exactly? PCO instead of PCSO or PCO/PCSO's over PC's?
 
pxl8 said:
Which hair are you splitting exactly? PCO instead of PCSO or PCO/PCSO's over PC's?
Click to expand...


i think the whole thread is b***ks actually.. i dont believe the op has read more than one story about this.. i dont believe its a case of usally pco than pc and i dont believe its always anti terrorism..


sorry but :)
 
The Thisislocallondon link shows the original article I read.

I have seen other similar articles in the various photo mags over the last year or so.

These articles seem to suggest that the "law" was there to prevent photography of stations airports etc rather than just anything public..
 
adrian00 said:
The Thisislocallondon link shows the original article I read.

I have seen other similar articles in the various photo mags over the last year or so.

These articles seem to suggest that the "law" was there to prevent photography of stations airports etc rather than just anything public..
Click to expand...

I think you worded your OP for effect :)
 
KIPAX said:
But thats what the OP is saying... OP says read about photographers (more than one) have been stopped usually by PCO and not PC and under new anti terror legislation
Click to expand...

There's 2 photographers mentioned in the article, both stopped by PCSOs who used terrorist legislation as the reason.

And this is the official line, also in the article:

But Sutton Police media spokesman Colin Walden said police and PCSOs used powers under the Terrorism Act to ask people to account for their activities in relation to photographing public spaces, especially in areas where large numbers of people frequent.

He said: “Once an explanation had been given, the PCSO completed the form and appears to have handed a copy to the person in question.

“This is normal procedure to ensure people are aware of the reasons they have been stopped.

“There is no specific profile of a potential terrorist and as such people from any background or appearance, even if their activities subsequently prove to be innocent, can be stopped and asked questions in relation to their behaviour or activities.’’
Click to expand...
 
gingerjon said:
There's 2 photographers mentioned in the article, both stopped by PCSOs who used terrorist legislation as the reason.

And this is the official line, also in the article:
Click to expand...

The original post didnt link to an article did it ?
 
Keep you hairs on !!

To be specific the article reffered to a PCSO. Stories I have read in the past tend to refer to PCSO rather than warrant card holding police officers.

Just thought I would raise the topic, to see what everyone thought. I dont have any particular axe to grind.

A...
 
KIPAX said:
sigh.. I ahve an opinion.. it might be different to yours but that doesnt mean i am not calm... smile or no smile..
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

The OP did mention an article - print rather than online. The quotes showed that the police are using terrorist legislation to check on photographers - the media officer confirmed as much. The two incidents referenced involved PCSOs not PCs -- that seems to be pretty common across most other reported incidents away from airports and stations ... and that would fit with the PCSO role as street patrollers as against PCs out fighting crime.
 
Awesome, I've not seen a topic like this for AGES.
I wonder how the discussion will turn out
:popcorn:
 
I dont mind photographers being stopped and searched under s.44 (or whatever no. they call it) as long as this also includes pencils and notepads (both can be used for terrorist surveillance) ....

“There is no specific profile of a potential terrorist and as such people from any background or appearance, even if their activities subsequently prove to be innocent, can be stopped and asked questions in relation to their behaviour or activities.’’
Click to expand...

How about if photographers were to go around stopping and searching PC's and PCSO's on the same grounds?
 
PCO should actually be PCSO - Police Community Support Officer
 
I refer the honourable posters to the post I made some posts ago - it's not new news, it's not really even news in my opinion.

We know it happens and we know they know less than they think, but they're tasked with a job that you and I (probably) aren't doing - because we don't want to - and I think I'd rather them get this wrong than something else more costly.
 
KIPAX said:
Maybe a petition to the goverment :)
Click to expand...
Someone beat us to it...

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Photogrpahy/

Although reading the text it is not very well put together - tbh it is written more like a rant than something that would get a good response.
Might see if I can start writing something, not sure if they would have two similar ones running at once though.
 
i think it was badgerbaiter? or matty that doesnt like this sort of thread :) lol
 
Ashers said:
i think it was badgerbaiter? or matty that doesnt like this sort of thread :) lol
Click to expand...

Quite, as it's counter productive and benefits no-one apart from a) someone trolling for agitation or b) the OP getting something off've their chest.
 
Gravyboy said:
but they're tasked with a job that you and I (probably) aren't doing
Click to expand...

I agree with that to an extent -- and there are plenty of folk whose first response seems to be to shout about their rights rather than engage with the officer who has stopped them.

That said, I do find the level of ignorance from the police (and their support officers) about what is or isn't permissable in a public place with a camera to be pretty shocking - however many times I read about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top