Police and Photographers

What's really good about this story, and what people should realise, is that there are police who are out there to help. I think the constable that stepped in in the last paragraph deserves a bit of praise.
 
What i never understand about these situations is for every person stopped with a DSLR there are another 100 standing around taking photos with compacts or camera phones, i really think it's about time the plod had this drummed into them, at the end of the day an image is an image albeit a DSLR is much better quality.

On another note, i didn't realise the police could just take your fingerprints for something like this, could you not request a solicitor before they went ahead and did this so you could plead your case :shrug:
 
This just happened to me today (similar, but nowhere near as bad as the OP). I went into my local town centre to take some photos of the local buildings and some of the parks (as it is quite a nice rural area) and only about 10 minutes after taking my camera out I was stopped by the police and questioned for ~15 minutes on what I was doing. I asked them what I was doing wrong, and even though they admitted that there was no offense being committed they still demanded to see the photos that I had taken.

When they asked for my details I asked why, and was told that I had to give them my details or they would seize my camera (and I still don't quite understand what law they intended to do this under) so I did give them my details in the end.

It's beyond me really; I know for a fact that if anyone else was taking photos, perhaps with a P&S, they wouldn't have cared at all - but the simple fact that I had what looked like a 'professional' camera made me a target. Considering that it was the middle of the day on a normal public throughfare and I was obviously a school student (in uniform, went in a free period) I don't see what made my stand out except my camera.

After they had stopped me and already seen the photos I asked why I had been stopped again, and was eventually told that there had been a few robberies in the area - what I don't get is how a few shots of the front of buildings could ever pose a risk.

I don't think it's a very good show when an otherwise law-abiding citizen (I have *never* been stopped for anything in the past) gets stopped for something like taking a few photos.

My commiserations to the OP; that sounds like an absolutely terrible experience.
 
TG. said:
On another note, i didn't realise the police could just take your fingerprints for something like this, could you not request a solicitor before they went ahead and did this so you could plead your case :shrug:
Click to expand...

I don't think that would help. I'm fairly sure it's an offense to refuse to give finger prints.
 
I suppose I phrased that a bit wrongly. Remove the 'I know for a fact' :D . It was written when I was still overtly angry about it. Now.. well, I stand by what I say - I don't think for a second that a compact camera would have caught the police's attention at all.
 
TempusV said:
I suppose I phrased that a bit wrongly. Remove the 'I know for a fact' :D . It was written when I was still overtly angry about it. Now.. well, I stand by what I say - I don't think for a second that a compact camera would have caught the police's attention at all.
Click to expand...

Probably because compact cameras aren't as easy to spot. What you have to consider is that there are all sorts of reasons why police officers may stop you. Believe me, they do not think you are a potential terrorist JUST because you have a big camera. They will be looking out for any suspicious behaviour and that may include body language that you don't know you are even exhibiting. If you demand to know why every time they ask you a question, that will only serve to raise further suspicion and delay the matter even further. If you are polite and co-operative, they will be likewise and you will only be held up a very short while.
 
I understand that totally - the only time I specifically asked 'why?' was when they asked for my details; I dislike the idea of anyone, especially the police, having my details on record - when they explained their reasoning I gave them though. And when they requested to see the photos I did of course let them see straightaway.

I'm not saying the police themselves weren't polite - they were, and they were only doing what they have been trained to do. Sometimes what they've been trained to do isn't right though, and stopping someone in the street for a totally legal activity without so much as an apology following such I consider to be wrong.
 
As I said, you may have been unknowingly acting in a way that aroused suspicion. They are trained to look for someone who may possibly commit a crime, not wait until they actual commit it.

I agree that they should have apologised for taking up your time though. I never said that all coppers are polite. ;)
 
I would love it if a copper asked to see my photos.

Nobody else does...............:'( :'( :'(
 
Can I make an "off topic" comment on TempusV's post?

How remarkably literate it was. If only more posts were like this.

Thank you TempusV. :clap:
 
tiler65: That's one way to look at it :D

Irish/Rover: Thanks :)
 
TempusV
Why are you not back in school? heck of a long free period.:)
 
I employ a number of freelancers to help with websites that we run and only yesterday one of them had an anti-terrorism prevention order served on him for taking photographs of places of interest in London.

Bit crazy, really.
 
altyfc said:
I employ a number of freelancers to help with websites that we run and only yesterday one of them had an anti-terrorism prevention order served on him for taking photographs of places of interest in London.

Bit crazy, really.
Click to expand...

What is an anti terrorism prevention order, apart from a double negative? :thinking:
 
fabs said:
What is an anti terrorism prevention order, apart from a double negative? :thinking:
Click to expand...

That reminds me I must nip out to B&Q and buy my Uncle Terrorism something for Chrimbo...................:nuts:
 
Irish/Rover: It happened earlier on today; my lessons for the day finished hours ago :)
 
Maybe I've got the wording wrong. Perahps it was just a 'terrorism prevention order'. But you get the gist of it. :)
 
fabs said:
They are trained to look for someone who may possibly commit a crime, not wait until they actual commit it.
Click to expand...

Mmm not so sure about that one fabs, there are quite a few instance's where they won't touch anyone until they actually commit the crime.
 
TG. said:
Mmm not so sure about that one fabs, there are quite a few instance's where they won't touch anyone until they actually commit the crime.
Click to expand...

No, they will question someone if there is a potential to commit a crime, but there are times when they are sure someone is about to commit a crime and will wait to catch them in the act. The skill is to know which is which.
 
fabs said:
If you are polite and co-operative, they will be likewise and you will only be held up a very short while.
Click to expand...

While i agree with the sentiment of being polite, why should we have to keep pussy footing around these so called professional prats who should by rights should "KNOW THE LAW" their supposed to be enforcing, instead of harassing members of the general public trying to enjoy their hobby, i think their has been enough on forums and the like about photography laws for the police to get their act together.
 
TG. said:
While i agree with the sentiment of being polite, why should we have to keep pussy footing around these so called professional prats who should by rights should "KNOW THE LAW" their supposed to be enforcing, instead of harassing members of the general public trying to enjoy their hobby, i think their has been enough on forums and the like about photography laws for the police to get their act together.
Click to expand...

The problem is that people think they are stopping them for being photographers, nothing could be further from the truth. It's not pussyfooting, it's co-operating in order to help them do what is a very difficult job. At no point are the police saying that they are actually breaking the law, so it's got nothing to do with them knowing the law.
 
fabs said:
The problem is that people think they are stopping them for being photographers, nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

So why exactly are they stopping them and asking them to show/delete their photos, they clearly do not know the laws they are supposed to be enforcing in these instances, their is a prime example HERE albeit video and not still photography.
 
Yes, I can understand it... to a point.

I asked him what the prevention order means and, as far as he knew, it didn't mean much. They had him provide all his details and presumably information on what he claimed to be doing. My guess is that if he refused to comply with providing this information, he would have been arrested... but I don't know for sure.

I don't think it actually stops him from carrying on doing what he was doing. I suppose it's just their way of saying "we're watching you". :)
 
why is everything in this crappy country so god damn pathetic? so much for a free country.
if you were a terrorist would you really draw attention to yourself taking pics of places you plan to bomb with a dslr with a MASSIVE lens, bag full of camera gear and tripod and such like?? no! more than likely not as you would want to be discreet so you would use a fairly decent SMALL indiscreet point and shoot so you would blend in with other tourists, just a bit of common sense is all you need ,lol
the law in this country takes the EDITED.
 
Teehee :D

3118786560_193baf2531_o.jpg


He didnt see me, thank god. Just for practise, pants shot.

Gary.
 
hahaha i love it. id have it framed and send it to the cop shop as a xmas pressie with a little note saying ''were watching you'' lol
 
That photo is class :D
 
TG. said:
So why exactly are they stopping them and asking them to show/delete their photos, they clearly do not know the laws they are supposed to be enforcing in these instances, their is a prime example HERE albeit video and not still photography.
Click to expand...

I've yet to hear of police officers demanding that anyone delete photos, that tends to be security guards/officious council pr*tts. Police are more than aware of the rules with regards to evidence. If they stop someone for whatever reason and that person happens to be a photographer then of course they will ask to see any photos. Otherwise it would be a bit like searching someone and only looking in one of their jacket pockets.

Yes, I've seen that video before and the guy with the video didn't exactly help matters as he was specifically filming them in the first place. They may have been a bit prattish about it but I could see where they were coming from.
 
fabs said:
I've yet to hear of police officers demanding that anyone delete photos
Click to expand...

Well your just about too because it happened to me personally, and i was told in no uncertain terms if i didn't delete them they would arrest me, when i asked what would they arrest me for they told me "breach of the piece" :shrug: i didn't know how the law stood at the time and if i did i would have let them arrest me and let them face the consequences later.
 
fabs said:
Yes, I've seen that video before and the guy with the video didn't exactly help matters as he was specifically filming them in the first place. They may have been a bit prattish about it but I could see where they were coming from.
Click to expand...

He may not have helped the situation but the point is he wasn't breaking any laws, how can you say you can see where there coming from :shrug: it's more than apparent they didn't have a clue about the law on photography which they should have, if their job is to enforce the law the least they could do is "KNOW IT" and this is my whole point of what i have posted.
 
I've been stopped by the police a number of times in the past and questioned when I was photographing something/somewhere. Like other people it's got my back up to an extent and...........

As a bit of a two-fingered joke initially, I had a high-viz jacket printed with the word 'PHOTOGRAPHER' in big black letters on the back of it. Guess what - I haven't been stopped in a couple of years now. Or at least I haven't been stopped and given a hard time. They're just interested as opposed to suspicious of me. I never thaught that would be the outcome but it seems there IS more than one way to skin a cat! Even security guards talk to me like I'm their mate these days. They're still a bit more difficult though.
 
TG. said:
Well your just about too because it happened to me personally, and i was told in no uncertain terms if i didn't delete them they would arrest me, when i asked what would they arrest me for they told me "breach of the piece" :shrug: i didn't know how the law stood at the time and if i did i would have let them arrest me and let them face the consequences later.
Click to expand...

Even so, you can't tar all coppers with the same brush.

TG. said:
He may not have helped the situation but the point is he wasn't breaking any laws, how can you say you can see where there coming from :shrug: it's more than apparent they didn't have a clue about the law on photography which they should have, if their job is to enforce the law the least they could do is "KNOW IT" and this is my whole point of what i have posted.
Click to expand...

Personally, I see filming police officers as a little bit suspicious so they were entitled to have a word with him. He got gobby so it's not surprise that their hackles were up. As I said, they were a bit prattish about it but not totally in the wrong. My point is that most times when photographers have these run ins it's because they get defensive and don't co-operate. Then the stories get into the media and suddenly there's some mass conspiracy by the police against photographers.

Police officers come into contact with the public thousands of times a day across the country. Once in a blue moon these incidents come up yet nobody seems to highlight the other 99.9999% where the police do their job well. Sweeping generalisations do no-one any good.
 
fabs said:
Even so, you can't tar all coppers with the same brush.
Click to expand...

You can if they keep on making the same mistakes over and over again, which it seems they keep on doing, going by the various experiences of many photographers that bears this out.


Sweeping generalisations do no-one any good.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but as i've said above it's happening far to often for it to be a sweeping statement, and all because the police involved who are supposedly enforcing the law don't know it !
 
TG. said:
You can if they keep on making the same mistakes over and over again, which it seems they keep on doing, going by the various experiences of many photographers that bears this out.
Click to expand...

So, a handful of incidents over a number of events out of thousands of contacts per day is over and aver again? So out of this we can decide that there is some sort of anti photographer stance amongst the police? Sounds like a major over reaction to me.

TG. said:
Agreed, but as i've said above it's happening far to often for it to be a sweeping statement, and all because the police involved who are supposedly enforcing the law don't know it !
Click to expand...

We seem to be covering the same old ground all over again. I've never said that police don't make mistakes, they're as human as anyone else. You can't actually expect them to know EVERY law otherwise they'd be lawyers, not coppers. The fact is that we only ever hear the photographers' side of these experiences and I never judge based on one side of a story. Too many of them involve so-called victims ranting on at the officer about their rights and how they have not committed a crime in taking photographs. This helps no-one and I honestly believe that it is our duty as citizens to co-operate with police as much as possible. Too many people see the police as some sort of enemy and start of as overly defensive, provoking confrontation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top