Police: Photographers should carry identification

[boyfalldown]

I carry my driving licence and passport in my camera bag which is with me most of the time. I also have to carry a warant card when at work (local government). Although the idea of the police/special branch et al abusing any powers horrifies me, it only takes a second to show any ID you might have.

Al

it does but its in thin end of the wedge - I carry id too always, but I object to being asked for it whilst carrying out a lawful activity in a lawful manner. Remember if we allow out civil liberties to be eroded in our 'defence' then the terrorists have won by fear alone



Hugh

 

[GREENGRASS]

A lot of response from narrow minded people towards the Police who if I recall we pay taxes for Policing the land and up holding law and order. I have a close friend who is a serving Police Officer I have asked him numerous questions in relation to this seemingly touchy subject in relation to photography. Just to state he is only a response officer in a major City Centre.
Firstly he laughs and states he wished he had time to question photographers, if you look suspicious your normally being monitored on CCTV within the majority of our cities.
As for bombers planning:-
1. The cell is normally hand selected and already has a mind set to die. And yes they do firmly believe they are going to a better place.
2. Recognisance of planned target. Maps, Major routes, busy shops, bus stops, train stations, coach stations. Video footage is normally completed and times of how long it would take for injured and none injured to clear the area etc.
3. What and where are the escape routes or exits after a critical incident? Now the second bomb can be found ( activated ).
4. Emergency services where do they have to come from. Where the police and other emergency services would rendezvous and tend to victims. Third bomb ( activated ). Emergency services would most likely have been tested and observed i.e. response time and numbers on numerous occasions prior to attack.
Let’s not forget it could be a chemical bomb not explosive.
As for ID the last suspect arrested he lived at home with his mother. He had 7 different passports and held a normal job down for the last 5 years no previous convictions and was well liked at his place of work. He was caught through the internet and being monitored by the Anti Terrorist Unit. He had been attempting to purchase a second hand Ambulance I understand these vehicles would get access to most areas without any normal human being thinking it could be full of gas bottles and explosives. This guy had also applied to become a tanker driver imagine the devastation if he had blown one up in a city centre.As for photographers being stop checked in the Street kind of insignificant really when you look at the bigger picture. Still you could all get some good shots of the dead and injured.
At this I thought it best to end the conversation as I still wanted to keep a friend. Kind of opened my eyes to reality when told by someone in authority.

 

[boyfalldown]

Bombers planning has nothing to do with somebody taken photographs - if somebody is behaving in a lergal manner, conducting a legal hobby or business they have the right to do so without the police advising them that they need to carry id (not actually a legal requirment in this country), or indicating that they will be questioned to account for that perfectly lawful activity

Hugh

 

[levihaynes]

Most people already do - it's called a driving-licence...

Honestly I have no idea why so many people are against ID cards...

I'm aware of all the arguments for and against, but honestly, your Credit/Debit Cards probably carry all of the information and more that you're concerned will be stored on ID cards...
Name, address, purchasing habits etc... a pattern of life could be generated quite easily from your purchasing habits alone.
If the authorities want that information, they can already access it - having an ID card will make no significant difference.
The only downside is that Govt wants US to pay for them...err... nope...they want me to carry one and make it mandatory, then they can provide it FOC...

Even if the information stored on them could be accessed by the authorities, most Govt Agency personnel are so thick they'd not be able to do it even with a Step-By-Step guide telling them how.

Have you ever tried getting a straight answer from your Local council?
Those people are pond-life!
Most of the people doing data-retrieval would be out earning big bucks in the Private Sector if they were any good at what they do...lol

hah hah hah love it!!

I wonder how the police can tell if a photo is taken with intent to blow its subject up?? Does it have guilty written on it??

mmm...

 

[Davie]

A lot of response from narrow minded people towards the Police who if I recall we pay taxes for Policing the land and up holding law and order. I have a close friend who is a serving Police Officer I have asked him numerous questions in relation to this seemingly touchy subject in relation to photography. Just to state he is only a response officer in a major City Centre.
Firstly he laughs and states he wished he had time to question photographers, if you look suspicious your normally being monitored on CCTV within the majority of our cities.
As for bombers planning:-
1. The cell is normally hand selected and already has a mind set to die. And yes they do firmly believe they are going to a better place.
2. Recognisance of planned target. Maps, Major routes, busy shops, bus stops, train stations, coach stations. Video footage is normally completed and times of how long it would take for injured and none injured to clear the area etc.
3. What and where are the escape routes or exits after a critical incident? Now the second bomb can be found ( activated ).
4. Emergency services where do they have to come from. Where the police and other emergency services would rendezvous and tend to victims. Third bomb ( activated ). Emergency services would most likely have been tested and observed i.e. response time and numbers on numerous occasions prior to attack.
Let’s not forget it could be a chemical bomb not explosive.
As for ID the last suspect arrested he lived at home with his mother. He had 7 different passports and held a normal job down for the last 5 years no previous convictions and was well liked at his place of work. He was caught through the internet and being monitored by the Anti Terrorist Unit. He had been attempting to purchase a second hand Ambulance I understand these vehicles would get access to most areas without any normal human being thinking it could be full of gas bottles and explosives. This guy had also applied to become a tanker driver imagine the devastation if he had blown one up in a city centre.As for photographers being stop checked in the Street kind of insignificant really when you look at the bigger picture. Still you could all get some good shots of the dead and injured.
At this I thought it best to end the conversation as I still wanted to keep a friend. Kind of opened my eyes to reality when told by someone in authority.

Yes there are alot of narrow minded people aren't there. Was this guy also illegally in possesion of a dslr as well, and can you ask your friend how many terrorists have been captured during questioning for having a camera. Mind your head.

 

[zilly]

most of use press tog's do carry NS cards anyway and have done for years . . . . . . . .

 

[swanseamale47]

A lot of response from narrow minded people towards the Police who if I recall we pay taxes for Policing the land and up holding law and order. I have a close friend who is a serving Police Officer I have asked him numerous questions in relation to this seemingly touchy subject in relation to photography. Just to state he is only a response officer in a major City Centre.
Firstly he laughs and states he wished he had time to question photographers, if you look suspicious your normally being monitored on CCTV within the majority of our cities.
As for bombers planning:-
1. The cell is normally hand selected and already has a mind set to die. And yes they do firmly believe they are going to a better place.
2. Recognisance of planned target. Maps, Major routes, busy shops, bus stops, train stations, coach stations. Video footage is normally completed and times of how long it would take for injured and none injured to clear the area etc.
3. What and where are the escape routes or exits after a critical incident? Now the second bomb can be found ( activated ).
4. Emergency services where do they have to come from. Where the police and other emergency services would rendezvous and tend to victims. Third bomb ( activated ). Emergency services would most likely have been tested and observed i.e. response time and numbers on numerous occasions prior to attack.
Let’s not forget it could be a chemical bomb not explosive.
As for ID the last suspect arrested he lived at home with his mother. He had 7 different passports and held a normal job down for the last 5 years no previous convictions and was well liked at his place of work. He was caught through the internet and being monitored by the Anti Terrorist Unit. He had been attempting to purchase a second hand Ambulance I understand these vehicles would get access to most areas without any normal human being thinking it could be full of gas bottles and explosives. This guy had also applied to become a tanker driver imagine the devastation if he had blown one up in a city centre.As for photographers being stop checked in the Street kind of insignificant really when you look at the bigger picture. Still you could all get some good shots of the dead and injured.
At this I thought it best to end the conversation as I still wanted to keep a friend. Kind of opened my eyes to reality when told by someone in authority.

Kind on insignificant and pointless, your terrorist had id and would have a passed a spot check so no point in stopping him in the first place. If they are catching them with intelligence than why stop innocent togs?, but then to the "intelligence" service harmless electricians are terrorists.

 

[hollis_f]

Most people already do - it's called a driving-licence...

Honestly I have no idea why so many people are against ID cards...

Well, for a start there's the huge amount of personal info they wanted to put on them. Then there was the massive list of people that could access that info. Then there's the fact that they wanted us to pay a large sum of money for one. But best of all - they would have zero effect on criminality and terorism.

What's the best form of ID we have? A passport. What were the London bombers carrying when they attacked? Passports.

 

[CarlukeDave]

I am not aware of any situation where a terrorist has been aprehended whilst carrying a DSLR and a tripod, or any evidence to suggest that photography was a security threat to anyone!

This argument has so many holes in it!

Someone trying to covertly survey a building is unlikely to do so with a big DSLR when they could use a phone or p&s, they aren't going to be bothered by a noisy image or poor exposure!

Just suppose they were asked for ID, it's not hard to acquire false ID, they can get passports, driving licences etc

Wouldn't they just use something like google earth?


Dave

 

[Biscuit761]

I was once stopped on the South Bank (of the Thames) while using a NikonD50 on a tripod at night. The private security guard said that I looked like a proffesional as I had a tripod and that I needed a permit. He added that if I was a tourist or student it would be ok but as I obviously wasn't (I am a fiftyyear old White Englishman ) I would have to stop. After moaning I went one way, he went the other, two minutes later I carried on shooting and had a good night !

Bill

 

[spaniel]

Notice to terrorists: Use Google Earth, you can study the layout of every military installation, every police station, every railway station, every port, every street etc etc. Why bother to use a camera?

Nigel.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

I don't get thie big deal.

Stick a bit of id in your bag incase you get approached and asked what your doing. Where is the scandal there?!
How many people objecting and moaning about the PCs and PCSOs have actually been stopped and asked about what they are doing? I have been to londen several times and never once been approached. If I ever do, so what? i have done nothing wrong so I'll intend to act reasonably. They can see my shots if they want,and check my ID. I have nothing to hide.
I fail to see, how, if photographers are reasonable if challenged and are innocent, how the end result can be being detained.

Cops have atough job, damned if they do, damned if they don't, in all areas, not just photography and terrorists.

They way i read that advice is "carry ID, it helps us, and will help you and avoid alot of hassell in the mean time". Hardly a big controversial thing to say.

 

[boyfalldown]

I don't get thie big deal.

Stick a bit of id in your bag incase you get approached and asked what your doing. Where is the scandal there?!
How many people objecting and moaning about the PCs and PCSOs have actually been stopped and asked about what they are doing? I have been to londen several times and never once been approached. If I ever do, so what? i have done nothing wrong so I'll intend to act reasonably. They can see my shots if they want,and check my ID. I have nothing to hide.
I fail to see, how, if photographers are reasonable if challenged and are innocent, how the end result can be being detained.

Cops have atough job, damned if they do, damned if they don't, in all areas, not just photography and terrorists.

They way i read that advice is "carry ID, it helps us, and will help you and avoid alot of hassell in the mean time". Hardly a big controversial thing to say.

The big deal to me is your not legally required to carry id in this country (yet) and photography is a legal and peaceful activity. Whilst I'll be polite why should we tolerate being stopped and questioned for a harmless and legal activiy? - to my mind if you no longer have a genuinely open society but one where a culture of fear exists instead then you've allowed the terrorists to win

Hugh

 

[Marcus Geezer]

I have spent time as a civvy on MOD sites (defence estates) and now spend time at Gatwick as a sub-contractor auditing infrastructure at Gatwick Airport. I walk round with a notepad, pen and P&S camera and becuase of my experience I have got into some very good habits with regards to being asked about what I am doing and for whom.

Regardless of how I am asked, I show ID immediately, I am polite and clearly state in a concise manner what I am doing. 99% of the time I receive a friendly response and they let me get on with it. The other 1% you just have to grin and bear it. My record for being stopped at the airport was 15 times in one day, (not counting landside to airside transition) but they are just doing their job.

Regardless of peoples pre-disposed mindsets of people with cameras, I act in pretty much exactly the same way when dealing with anyone when I am asked what I am doing, and it causes me minimum fuss.

Why is it so hard to want to be co-operative? Being uncooperative and sarky aint gonna do anyone any good even if the person asking you for ID is a jobsworth, and having ID and being pleasant aint hard work is it?

 

[boyfalldown]

snip

Why is it so hard to want to be co-operative? Being uncooperative and sarky aint gonna do anyone any good even if the person asking you for ID is a jobsworth, and having ID and being pleasant aint hard work is it?

no its not - you're right there, but you gave the example of your work at a major airport, why should I expect to be stopped for performing a legal activity in a public place, and asked for something not a legal requirement? -

 

[Marcus Geezer]

no its not - you're right there, but you gave the example of your work at a major airport, why should I expect to be stopped for performing a legal activity in a public place, and asked for something not a legal requirement? -

In a perfect world I completely agree. I would love to be able to walk down any road in any place, set up my camera, tripod and take pics of anything and everything I see without a care in the world.

Unfortunately we live in a world where idiots think that threatening our security with anything from basic crime such as theft right up to major terrorist attacks will make at least their own little world a better place, so we have to bear the brunt of living in what some people call a police state, whereas others would call it enhanced security.

I know it isnt always this cut and dry, but at least showing your willing to be co-operative to any 'official' by showing ID, being polite and pleasant, normally means that they'll leave you to carry on with your business.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

The big deal to me is your not legally required to carry id in this country (yet) and photography is a legal and peaceful activity. Whilst I'll be polite why should we tolerate being stopped and questioned for a harmless and legal activiy? - to my mind if you no longer have a genuinely open society but one where a culture of fear exists instead then you've allowed the terrorists to win

Hugh

At Christmas, in east grinstead they run checkpoints and randomly check for drink drivers. I don't drink drive, never touch a drop when driving so why should I tolerate that too? Me driving around is a peaceful activity, why should I be questioned and tested?

Your right, its not a legal requirement to carry ID, and the police arent insisting that you do. They are suggesting you do to help things. Still, I see no big deal in that. Yes its a pai to be approached, and ok, so maybe we should be left alone, but is it really so bad that the police are being cautious?
I also think that all the cases of poeple being questioned etc are in the minority amongst photographers.
Bottem line as I see it is Act smart, Think Smart, Co-operate and be Civil. We need to remember those on the ground are simply doing their job.

 

[Radiohead]

What is wrong with carrying some i.d. and showing someone in authority if they need to see it? I understand all the civil liberty stuff, but quite frankly, I would rather have my identity checked occasionally, than live with the threat of terrorism constanly spoiling my life!

Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

 

[Rob.Marsh]

so by carrying my photocard driving license I dont deserve to be safe?!

This is blown out of all proportion methinks!

 

[jerry12953]

Does anyone NOT carry ID? Driving licence etc?

Like others have said, I would just be cheesed off being asked for it for no reason other than I was carrying an SLR in a public place.

Far from being the thin end of the wedge, we're getting into the middle of the wedge now. Photography Licence anyone?

It's just plain un-informed harrassment. I just don't understand how it can be otherwise.

I could go on.......

 

[Radiohead]

so by carrying my photocard driving license I dont deserve to be safe?!

This is blown out of all proportion methinks!

When a photographer taking pictures of a church is told to stop by a private security guard, and that guard then phones the police which results in 3 cars and 1 van full of armed police descending and wilfully disregarding the law they are tasked with enforcing, then no - it hasn't.

There is no requirement to carry ID in this country. There is no law against photography. This is simply a heavy-handed response by lazy police forces who believe that a s.44 order gives them unlimited powers. It's easy to ignore when it's not you it's being used against.

The question to ask is why should you just roll over and ignore this kind of ignorance by the authorities.

 

[boyfalldown]

In a perfect world I completely agree. I would love to be able to walk down any road in any place, set up my camera, tripod and take pics of anything and everything I see without a care in the world.

Unfortunately we live in a world where idiots think that threatening our security with anything from basic crime such as theft right up to major terrorist attacks will make at least their own little world a better place, so we have to bear the brunt of living in what some people call a police state, whereas others would call it enhanced security.

I know it isnt always this cut and dry, but at least showing your willing to be co-operative to any 'official' by showing ID, being polite and pleasant, normally means that they'll leave you to carry on with your business.

If there is a genuine need for a national ID card then it should be legislated for accordingly.

Idiots threatening our security is nothing new - from petty crime - to major terrorist events. The culture of fear and removal of liberties with them used as an excuse is - my point still stands if you allow your liberties to be eroded by 'terrorists' then they have won without lifting a finger.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

When a photographer taking pictures of a church is told to stop by a private security guard, and that guard then phones the police which results in 3 cars and 1 van full of armed police descending and wilfully disregarding the law they are tasked with enforcing, then no - it hasn't.

There is no requirement to carry ID in this country. There is no law against photography. This is simply a heavy-handed response by lazy police forces who believe that a s.44 order gives them unlimited powers. It's easy to ignore when it's not you it's being used against.

The question to ask is why should you just roll over and ignore this kind of ignorance by the authorities.

Yes it has. The suggestion to carrying in ID card and the reaction as got blown out of proportion. Carrying and ID card does no one any harm what so ever.

Sayiong terrorists have won if you carry ID is way out too, I don't think thier aim is to have ID cards!

Re the cops turning up heavy handed, how was it reported to the police?

My point is, carrying an ID card does very little harm to anyone, and if it may make your life easier then what is really the issue with it?

I'm not condoning the misuse of s44, nor am I saying that we should all caryy ID. I simply mean, why make things more difficult for yourselves all for the sake of carrying a bit of paper or credit card sized driving license and showing it if your asked?

Maybe I see this as less of an issue as being 23 I am used to carrying ID from the moment I had any. The photocard driving license makes sense to stick it in my wallet. When I was younger, carrying ID to prove I was 18 in pubs was never an isuue either.

 

[boyfalldown]

Yes it has. The suggestion to carrying in ID card and the reaction as got blown out of proportion. Carrying and ID card does no one any harm what so ever.

Sayiong terrorists have won if you carry ID is way out too, I don't think thier aim is to have ID cards!

if thats true why not legislate a national id card for all groups of society - rather than one group carrying out a hobby.

You are misreading me if you think I said carrying id means the terrorists have won

 

[Rob.Marsh]

if thats true why not legislate a national id card for all groups of society - rather than one group carrying out a hobby.

You are misreading me if you think I said carrying id means the terrorists have won

As far as I read, they arent legislating it, they suggested it.

I am all for the national ID ard, simply as I think it will make things easier. But thats another discussion!

 

[Radiohead]

Yes it has. The suggestion to carrying in ID card and the reaction as got blown out of proportion. Carrying and ID card does no one any harm what so ever..

It does when you have no idea why you're being asked to carry it. But hey, if you want to carry it then that's fine. I generally have my driving licence on me. What I object to is being stopped unlawfully by ignorant police and PCSOs who should know better doing something I've done for years.

Sayiong terrorists have won if you carry ID is way out too, I don't think thier aim is to have ID cards!.

One of the many aims is the disruption of western society.....exactly what we're seeing here.

Re the cops turning up heavy handed, how was it reported to the police?.

A 'suspicious person' was refusing to move on. Laughable.

My point is, carrying an ID card does very little harm to anyone, and if it may make your life easier then what is really the issue with it?.

See above.

I'm not condoning the misuse of s44, nor am I saying that we should all caryy ID. I simply mean, why make things more difficult for yourselves all for the sake of carrying a bit of paper or credit card sized driving license and showing it if your asked?.

See above.

Maybe I see this as less of an issue as being 23 I am used to carrying ID from the moment I had any. The photocard driving license makes sense to stick it in my wallet. When I was younger, carrying ID to prove I was 18 in pubs was never an isuue either.

My question to you. With the availabilty of Google Earth/Streetview how many terrorists are going to wander around potential targets with a honking great SLR and tripod? How many IRA attacks used obvious photo recon? We managed for years under a far greater threat than this and it's symptomatic of the relentless erosion of civil liberty under this government in their desire to know every movement, and control every aspect of life. Once we give it up we never get it back.

Innocent until proven guilty - it's not up to me to prove my innocence on the streets of the UK.

 

[Radiohead]

London freelancer Jess Hurd was photographing guests leaving a wedding she was hired to shoot when police approached here to see what she was doing. She was trying to be cooperative so she could get back to work when police informed her she could be doing “hostile reconnaissance”. She was being stopped and questioned under ‘Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act”.

Unlike other stop and search powers that the police can use, Section 44 does not require the police to have “reasonable suspicion” that an offence has been committed, to search an individual. -wikipedia

Thats when the police forcibly took her camera and told her they can do anything under the terrorism act. Then they told her that she could not use the footage and the police owned the copyright.

http://www.digitalweddingforum.com/blog/im-a-wedding-photographer-not-a-terrorist

Still happy about the way police are acting?

 

[Rob.Marsh]

My answer, probably none, but thats got little to do with ID cards in my opinion. Its about us as photographers working with the police. The more we co-operate and the more they talk to people, the sooner they are likely to recognise that photographers are low risk. All the time people fight back and kick and scream, the more reason the cops have to think that something is suspicious.

Cop: "Excuse me sir, may I ask what your taking photo's of, and do you have any ID with you that I may see?"

Tog:"Hi, I'm taking photos of street scenes and landscapes, here look, isn't in beautiful? Here is my drivers license?"

Or

Tog:"Go away, I don't have to talk to you, answer your questions. You can't touch me, search me or look at my photo's as its not in your remit. I know my rights!! Leave me alone!!"

Which is more suspicious?!

I fail to see how showing an ID card when asked is harmful to me (wether the PC/PCSO is ill informed or not). It does me no harm at all showing it. Nothing is lost by doing so. Screaming civil liberties is IMHO completely OTT.

I think we need to agree to disagree, this discussion will be a forever raging one.

I see no probes in carrying ID and showing if asked, I have nothing to hide and I don't see any problems with it. You see it as an issue.

This will always be a split camp. If they ban hotography in public all together, then you may see me arguing about civil libertoes and rights.

EDIT In response to your last post RadioHead

I have never once condoned the way police act. I am simply saying carrying ID is not a big deal and that only by us ALL co-operating will things have a chance of improving. I also don't judge what happened by the papers or other accounts unless two side are heard. Unless we are there we can never know what really happened. With tabloids like the Daily Mail sensationalising events, its hard to see the truth from the situation at times.

 

[Marcus Geezer]

My answer, probably none, but thats got little to do with ID cards in my opinion. Its about us as photographers working with the police. The more we co-operate and the more they talk to people, the sooner they are likely to recognise that photographers are low risk. All the time people fight back and kick and scream, the more reason the cops have to think that something is suspicious.

Cop: "Excuse me sir, may I ask what your taking photo's of, and do you have any ID with you that I may see?"

Tog:"Hi, I'm taking photos of street scenes and landscapes, here look, isn't in beautiful? Here is my drivers license?"

Or

Tog:"Go away, I don't have to talk to you, answer your questions. You can't touch me, search me or look at my photo's as its not in your remit. I know my rights!! Leave me alone!!"

Which is more suspicious?!

I fail to see how showing an ID card when asked is harmful to me (wether the PC/PCSO is ill informed or not). It does me no harm at all showing it. Nothing is lost by doing so. Screaming civil liberties is IMHO completely OTT.

I think we need to agree to disagree, this discussion will be a forever raging one.

I see no probes in carrying ID and showing if asked, I have nothing to hide and I don't see any problems with it. You see it as an issue.

This will always be a split camp. If they ban hotography in public all together, then you may see me arguing about civil libertoes and rights.

EDIT In response to your last post RadioHead

I have never once condoned the way police act. I am simply saying carrying ID is not a big deal and that only by us ALL co-operating will things have a chance of improving. I also don't judge what happened by the papers or other accounts unless two side are heard. Unless we are there we can never know what really happened. With tabloids like the Daily Mail sensationalising events, its hard to see the truth from the situation at times.

Nicely put.

 

[Radiohead]

My answer, probably none, but thats got little to do with ID cards in my opinion. Its about us as photographers working with the police. The more we co-operate and the more they talk to people, the sooner they are likely to recognise that photographers are low risk. All the time people fight back and kick and scream, the more reason the cops have to think that something is suspicious.

Why should we be targetted as a group. If we're agreed that the chances that a terrorist being so stupidly obvious are slim to none, and slim just left town....we are low-risk. They know that already. The evidence is there.

Cop: "Excuse me sir, may I ask what your taking photo's of, and do you have any ID with you that I may see?"

Or, Cop - 'You've been reported for suspicious activity. You're being searched under s.44 and you need to give me your camera now. Failure to do so will result in arrest and detainment.

Because you don't honestly think that all police ask so nicely do you....

I fail to see how showing an ID card when asked is harmful to me (wether the PC/PCSO is ill informed or not). It does me no harm at all showing it. Nothing is lost by doing so. Screaming civil liberties is IMHO completely OTT.

So you see nothing wrong with police/PSCO being ill-informed and disregarding explicit instructions from one of their own Chief Constables?

I think we need to agree to disagree, this discussion will be a forever raging one.

It's one worth having.

I see no probes in carrying ID and showing if asked, I have nothing to hide and I don't see any problems with it. You see it as an issue.

I have nothing to hide either. Carrying an ID means nothing for that though.

This will always be a split camp. If they ban hotography in public all together, then you may see me arguing about civil libertoes and rights.

Fingers crossed it doesn't come to that.

 

[Steve Smith]

The more we co-operate and the more they talk to people, the sooner they are likely to recognise that photographers are low risk. All the time people fight back and kick and scream, the more reason the cops have to think that something is suspicious.

I agree with this entirely and would happily show a police officer ID if I had it on me.

I would object to it being made compulsory to carry it though.


Steve.

 

[Radiohead]

I agree with this entirely and would happily show a police officer ID if I had it on me.

I would object to it being made compulsory to carry it though.


Steve.

And that's the crucial point here. The police have now said - if you're a photographer carry ID. Thus making it compulsory in order to carry out a lawful act.

2 further points:

1) Almost every one has a camera on them, all the time. In their phone. So why target enthusiasts only?

2) The 7/7 bombers all had genuine, UK ID and no criminal records whatsoever.

It solves nothing, and creates problems.

 

[Kashmire]

How does carrying an ID card stop you being a terrorist?

 

[Rob.Marsh]

Why should we be targetted as a group. If we're agreed that the chances that a terrorist being so stupidly obvious are slim to none, and slim just left town....we are low-risk. They know that already. The evidence is there.



Or, Cop - 'You've been reported for suspicious activity. You're being searched under s.44 and you need to give me your camera now. Failure to do so will result in arrest and detainment.

Because you don't honestly think that all police ask so nicely do you....

I never said that, I am simply saying we should look to be well behaved and not kick for the sake of kicking. Just because cops can be heavy handed and rude, does not mean we should be.


So you see nothing wrong with police/PSCO being ill-informed and disregarding explicit instructions from one of their own Chief Constables?

again, I never said that. My point is about the way be handle things, and that showing ID if asked is, really no big deal and doesn't actually hurt anyone!!

It's one worth having.



I have nothing to hide either. Carrying an ID means nothing for that though.

No, but if asked why not show it? It shows willing, and eliminates a further chance for hostilies.

Fingers crossed it doesn't come to that.

I am getting to the point where all I have to say on the matter has been said. I see no harm in showing ID if asked, if nothing else it eliminates a chance for hostile contact. We need to take the high ground here, be willing, be co operative and talk to cops when/if ever challenged.

 

[Radiohead]

Fair enough - let's hope when you are stopped things go as smoothly.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

And that's the crucial point here. The police have now said - if you're a photographer carry ID. Thus making it compulsory in order to carry out a lawful act.

No they haven't. They have said you should. but not forced us too. It is not illegal to photograph anything without a form of ID.

 

[Radiohead]

No they haven't. They have said you should. but not forced us too. It is not illegal to photograph anything without a form of ID.

Oh come on - that strikes me as missing the point.

They've said carry ID. The implication being that if you don't life won't be easy. Ergo ID is a must.

 

[Rob.Marsh]

Fair enough - let's hope when you are stopped things go as smoothly.

We'll see I guess.

I would like to see a stat though that shows out of all SLR owners/pro/amateur photographers, what percentage have been stopped and challenged, and how many have had big issues.

We only see the problems talked about in the media.

 

[Radiohead]

We'll see I guess.

I would like to see a stat though that shows out of all SLR owners/pro/amateur photographers, what percentage have been stopped and challenged, and how many have had big issues.

We only see the problems talked about in the media.

Equally, I'd like to see one that shows SLR owners who were actively involved in terrorism.

I'm guessing a big fat 0.

 

[Steve Smith]

And that's the crucial point here. The police have now said - if you're a photographer carry ID. Thus making it compulsory in order to carry out a lawful act.

It hasn't been made compulsory. It has just been suggested that it would be a good idea.

Your points are valid though. Anyone can get I.D. All it shows is who you are though. It doesn't mark you out as terrorist, burglar, or paedophile even if you are.

If a police officer is investigating a photographer, possibly from a call from the public or a security guard, the person's identity is not relevant.

Once the officer has ascertained that the activity is perfectly legal, that is the end of the matter. There is no need for the officer to know the photographer's identity.


Steve.