Photography in Public Places

Photo_T

Photo_T

Suspended / Banned
Messages
41
Edit My Images
Yes
Not sure how many people have seen/signed this already or think it could actualy make the slightest bit of difference :shrug: but hey might aswell give it a try :)

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

Came across this after having a look on google about laws on Photography in public places and also Photographing police officers and after a good hour or so id say i was more confused than when i started, so does anyone know the law as it is to date on:

Photography in Public Places

Photographing Police Officers


Thanks :thumbs:
 
My faith in the e-petitions has gone completely, after one that I was really against (and it was a small, and quite reasonable request), which had a hundred thousand signatures or something was completely ignored. They just don't care what we think!

Currently, it is legal to take photos, or anything or anyone if you're on public land. Except police officers now, if they could be used for terrorist activities. Which is really quite vague, and open to interpretation! If you're selling the photos, it gets more complicated, but if it's just for your own enjoyment then you're fine. But I suppose technically if you photograph a police officer and give them some attitude, they could make life difficult for you.

There's a free download here of a PDF with more information on it!

Chris
 
It's fairly pointless really (although I have signed it) as the restrictions are not really as bad as the current paranoa makes them out to be.



Steve.
 
I didn't think there were any restrictions, aside from the usual "terrorist activities" stuff? Seems a bit of a pointless petition IMO.
 
under "more details" it says its illegal to take pictures of police officers since 16th feb .... can anyone confirm that or has is been worded for effect?
 
KIPAX said:
under "more details" it says its illegal to take pictures of police officers since 16th feb .... can anyone confirm that or has is been worded for effect?
Click to expand...

sort of the law is now really unclear IMHO, its now illegal to take a photo of a police officer that may be of use for terrorism.

What the police may class as use for terrorism is the real unclear bit

Hugh
 
so the petition is worded in such a way that it gives a false impression and making people want to sign it....

i took pictures of police on sat.. quite a few and have them online now... theres no way its illegal... just think the petitions a bit of a con if they dont make it 100% crystal what its about
 
If you read it more, it is more than Policemen you can't take photos of, any of members of the Armed Forces/Secret Service in case they can be used for terrorism purposes.

Secret Service I hope would hope keep their identity secret anyway, but the armed forces are all around. And with the well deserved parades they get after returning from overseas all togs need to be aware that they may be asked to cease when some of the units return dependant on where there next tour abroad may be.
 
Grumpidad said:
If you read it more, it is more than Policemen you can't take photos of, any of members of the Armed Forces/Secret Service in case they can be used for terrorism purposes.

Secret Service I hope would hope keep their identity secret anyway, but the armed forces are all around. And with the well deserved parades they get after returning from overseas all togs need to be aware that they may be asked to cease when some of the units return dependant on where there next tour abroad may be.
Click to expand...

see that to me is the issue = it so vague. Kipax taking photo's at a football match should be fine, but what about police batton charging a group of peaceful protestors and behaving in a questionable manner? The temptation not to allow photos in that situation must be great.

And the homecoming parade example - what about press photographers, proud family members or the units own record keeping?

Sorry - its badly written law (again) just my 2ps worth

Hugh
 
Grumpidad said:
If you read it more, it is more than Policemen you can't take photos of, any of members of the Armed Forces/Secret Service in case they can be used for terrorism purposes..
Click to expand...


but thats not how its worded is it..


On the 16th of February, the Government passed a law (in the Counter Terrorism Act) making it illegal to take a photograph of a police office, military personnel or member of the intelligence services - or a photograph which "may be of use for terrorism".
Click to expand...

It says you cant take pictures of police officers etc.. then it says OR a photograph which "may be of use for terrorism" thus it seperates the two and reads in such a way that anyone not in the know will think its now illegal to take pictures of police officers.
 
KIPAX said:
but thats not how its worded is it..




It says you cant take pictures of police officers etc.. then it says OR a photograph which "may be of use for terrorism" thus it seperates the two and reads in such a way that anyone not in the know will think its now illegal to take pictures of police officers.
Click to expand...

No the petitions worded that way - the actual legislation is written in such a way as it can very easily be read as its now illegal to tak pictures of police officers., but its vague which is atleast from ym percpective the big issue with it

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
No the petitions worded that way -
Click to expand...

eeerm yes and thats what i am talkign about if you follow the thread.. i have not mentioned the law.. the thread is about the petition and I stated that i think the petition is worded in such a way that it gives a false impression... so your talking about something else are you. ? :) :) i think the threads getting divided and we are all crossing paths and its like a plate of spaggeti
 
KIPAX said:
eeerm yes and thats what i am talkign about if you follow the thread.. i have not mentioned the law.. the thread is about the petition and I stated that i think the petition is worded in such a way that it gives a false impression... so your talking about something else are you. ? :) :) i think the threads getting divided and we are all crossing paths and its like a plate of spaggeti
Click to expand...

:):) confused now - but its easily done. For what its worth I think the petition is worded as well as the actual law, and makes no deliberate attempt to mislead or create a false impression. I also think that for me it gets the issue as I see it across.

Hugh
 
boyfalldown said:
:):) confused now - but its easily done. For what its worth I think the petition is worded as well as the actual law, and makes no deliberate attempt to mislead or create a false impression. I also think that for me it gets the issue as I see it across.

Hugh
Click to expand...

I get mixed up a lot.. makes threads more fun :) ... if the law is written the same way as the petition then it is illegal to take pics of policement full stop... or other stuff.... the bit i quoted gives the wrong impression.. its written for effect IMHO... But thats all it is an opinion :)
 
KIPAX said:
I get mixed up a lot.. makes threads more fun :) ... if the law is written the same way as the petition then it is illegal to take pics of policement full stop... or other stuff.... the bit i quoted gives the wrong impression.. its written for effect IMHO... But thats all it is an opinion :)
Click to expand...

:):) no comment :):)

yep - the law is written in pretty much the same poor way - it can easily be read as 'its illegal to take a picture of a police officer in case you use it for terrorist purposes and haven't got a good excuse for taking it in the first place':gag:
 
KIPAX said:
so the petition is worded in such a way that it gives a false impression and making people want to sign it....

i took pictures of police on sat.. quite a few and have them online now... theres no way its illegal... just think the petitions a bit of a con if they dont make it 100% crystal what its about
Click to expand...


These petitions are supposed to be vetted to prevent that sort of thing.
 
I think this is really low down and cruel to police officers.

We're going to be raising a segment of society who won't be able to tell what their parents look like.
 
Myky D said:
I think this is really low down and cruel to police officers.

We're going to be raising a segment of society who won't be able to tell what their parents look like.
Click to expand...

Assuming they know in the first place ;)

*apologies if this offends anyone, was only meant tongue in cheek
 
boyfalldown said:
What the police may class as use for terrorism is the real unclear bit
Click to expand...

What the police may class as terrorism is irrelevant for a conviction. A court judgement would be needed for that.

As ever though, a very small percentage of officers may choose to misinterpret the law and illegally stop you photographing.

It will be very rare and will usually end up with an apology being issued as has been the case with most of the recent cases.


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
yep - the law is written in pretty much the same poor way - it can easily be read as 'its illegal to take a picture of a police officer in case you use it for terrorist purposes and haven't got a good excuse for taking it in the first place':gag:
Click to expand...


I don't agree. I think the actual law is clear enough. However, if the police have enough evidence against a person to be sure that their photography is 'likely to be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism' (as the act is written) then a charge of illegal photography will be well down on the list of offences they will be charged with.

I'ts quite a pointless part of the act if you think about it this way.



Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I don't agree. I think the actual law is clear enough. However, if the police have enough evidence against a person to be sure that their photography is 'likely to be of use to a person planning an act of terrorism' (as the act is written) then a charge of illegal photography will be well down on the list of offences they will be charged with.

I'ts quite a pointless part of the act if you think about it this way.



Steve.
Click to expand...

I agree with the pointless bit - but the rest of your points - sorry I don't. You've completely ignored the bit about 'without a reasonable excuse' which is also in the act. Obviously there's not reasonable excuse for planning an act of terrorism, but a 'reasonable excuse' for photographing a policeman? My point is its badly written and ill concieved law,its not clear and hows photographing a police officer of use to terrorists?.

Your quotes a bit out of context and I think you need to consider that whole part of the act


editted to add - I also don't think its very clear whats 'useful to terrorists' and how this section will be used.
Cheers

Hugh
 
That part of the act is poorly written as you do not need a reasonable excuse to do anything. In law, a person is innocent until proven guilty but some people have taken that phrasing to mean guilty until proven innocent which it could not possibly be.

I don't know how a picture of a policeman could be of use to a terrorist and until last week, I didn't think there would ever be a use for this part of the act.... Then someone took a picture of a senior officer carrying a top secret document!

I don't keep up with the news much but I don't think the photographer involved has been charged under this law. (I may have missed it). And if he hasn't then there's not much chance that anyone else will be either.


Steve.
 
That's a good point Steve about the tog who snapped Bob Quick with the secret files.

If he's not done then (since they have proof that it was of sensitive material) how the hell can they do anyone else just for taking a pic of a cop?

Oh - that's right - they've got truncheons and we haven't.
 
Steve Smith said:
That part of the act is poorly written as you do not need a reasonable excuse to do anything. In law, a person is innocent until proven guilty but some people have taken that phrasing to mean guilty until proven innocent which it could not possibly be.

I don't know how a picture of a policeman could be of use to a terrorist and until last week, I didn't think there would ever be a use for this part of the act.... Then someone took a picture of a senior officer carrying a top secret document!

I don't keep up with the news much but I don't think the photographer involved has been charged under this law. (I may have missed it). And if he hasn't then there's not much chance that anyone else will be either.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Hi Steve,

I agree completly with most of what you say. But If, as you rightly point out its b******* then why does it need to be law at all? you also make a comment about it never been used again why write it if thats the intention?

The big problem I have with it is its pointless and badly written but will be used for something...they used exisiting terror legislation to freeze Icelandic banks assets last year and I'd never of thought of that use for it

Cheers

Hugh

editted to add - I'm not making comment about the rights and wrongs of that, just pointing out they'll come up with ways of using it you and I haven't even thought of
 
boyfalldown said:
Hi Steve,

I agree completly with most of what you say. But If, as you rightly point out its b******* then why does it need to be law at all? you also make a comment about it never been used again why write it if thats the intention?

The big problem I have with it is its pointless and badly written but will be used for something...they used exisiting terror legislation to freeze Icelandic banks assets last year and I'd never of thought of that use for it

Cheers

Hugh

editted to add - I'm not making comment about the rights and wrongs of that, just pointing out they'll come up with ways of using it you and I haven't even thought of
Click to expand...

I got stopped and searched as a student, and was quite freaked out by it, so was shaking a little.

The copper said to me, in a proper cockerney gangstah drawl, "You're shaking, Michael - are you nervous? 'Cos if you've got nuffink to hide, ven you've got nuffink to fear, have you Michael?"

The fork tine.
 
Myky D said:
I got stopped and searched as a student, and was quite freaked out by it, so was shaking a little.

The copper said to me, in a proper cockerney gangstah drawl, "You're shaking, Michael - are you nervous? 'Cos if you've got nuffink to hide, ven you've got nuffink to fear, have you Michael?"

The fork tine.
Click to expand...

:D:D maybes..................:D:D but do you really believe that anymore???????? :suspect::suspect:
 
boyfalldown said:
:D:D maybes..................:D:D but do you really believe that anymore???????? :suspect::suspect:
Click to expand...

I've never believed it.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is one of the most dangerous mentalities one can subscribe to.

DNA databi - maybe it isn't being abused. But that isn't a guarantee against it's abuse in the future.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Herman Goerring at the Nuremburg Trials
 
Myky D said:
I've never believed it.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is one of the most dangerous mentalities one can subscribe to.

DNA databi - maybe it isn't being abused. But that isn't a guarantee against it's abuse in the future.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Herman Goerring at the Nuremburg Trials
Click to expand...

nor me - and I'll start to sound parinoid but I really believe if laws are written then they'll be used for something............
 
New York seems to have the right idea:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04132009/news/regionalnews/shutterbugged_164159.htm

QUOTE:

"Faced with complaints from photographers and tourists alike, the NYPD has issued a department order reminding cops that the right to take pictures in the Big Apple is as American as apple pie.
"Photography and the videotaping of public places, buildings and structures are common activities within New York City . . . and is rarely unlawful," the NYPD operations order begins.
It acknowledges that the city is a terrorist target, but since it's a prominent "tourist destination, practically all such photography will have no connection to terrorism or unlawful conduct."
The department directive -- titled "Investigation of Individuals Engaged in Suspicious Photography and Video Surveillance" -- makes it clear that cops cannot "demand to view photographs taken by a person . . . or direct them to delete or destroy images" in a camera."

As the UK law is more or less the same as the US in this case, this would be a good idea here too.



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