- Messages
- 4,126
- Name
- Arthur
- Edit My Images
- No
Actually, it is based on "The Monarch, in Parliament, is supreme." Six words for a constitution, not bad eh?
Sorry ...
Arthur
Police: Photographers should carry identification
- Thread starter PickleB
- Start date
- Status
Actually, it is based on "The Monarch, in Parliament, is supreme." Six words for a constitution, not bad eh?
Sorry ...
Arthur
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
Hats are good. Everyone should wear at hat - just like they did in the 1950s. You could carry your ID card in the band too.
Steve.
Rob.Marsh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,520
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Nice one Stewart for starting the poll.
I hope that I have not been mis read in this discussion. I don't condone the way police handle some of the instaces we have heard about, nor do I condone forcing photographers to have ID to justify what they are doing. We shouldn't have to any more than a street artist doing paintings.
I just don't see the point in arguing for the sake of it. If you have ID with you and you are asked by a police officer to show it, be polite and show it.
If a security guard wanted to see it away from his/hers working area then fine, thats different, same as if they wanted to take a copy. I wouldn't do that. But flashing your name and a mugshot infront of them takes 30s, and could avoid a lot of greif.
I hope that I have not been mis read in this discussion. I don't condone the way police handle some of the instaces we have heard about, nor do I condone forcing photographers to have ID to justify what they are doing. We shouldn't have to any more than a street artist doing paintings.
I just don't see the point in arguing for the sake of it. If you have ID with you and you are asked by a police officer to show it, be polite and show it.
If a security guard wanted to see it away from his/hers working area then fine, thats different, same as if they wanted to take a copy. I wouldn't do that. But flashing your name and a mugshot infront of them takes 30s, and could avoid a lot of greif.
- Messages
- 4,126
- Name
- Arthur
- Edit My Images
- No
Hats are good. Everyone should wear at hat - just like they did in the 1950s. You could carry your ID card in the band too.
Steve.
I thought that was an instruction...
bomberman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,149
- Edit My Images
- No
If we all make a big fuss of this (this being a few incidents in the city which have been blown out of proportion by the media) then maybe it will force the police and the government (which it is doing) to re-think the laws on photography.
which way do you think it'll go?
which way do you think it'll go?
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I see where you are coming from - but where do you draw the line, a licence for an SLR, ban on photography, I'll always be polite, but to my mind its always worth politely being aware of, and ascerting your civil liberties - if you accept this it won't be long before some do good er introduces a camera licence
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
which way do you think it will go if we say nothing and just accept this?
It's not a few incidents in the city. There are photographers being stopped from going about their lawful business all over the country.
The latest Home Office Statistics report than there were almost a million stop searches in 2007 (latest available) Now work it out. That's less than 2% of the population.
Then look at Stewarts poll. That's 20% of the regular users of this forum.
That's a 10x increase in stop searches compared to those members of the public NOT carrying a dslr.
And you don't think there is a problem with that?
Can you not see that photographers are being targetted while carrying out a perfectly lawful activity? and that the rate with which we are being stopped is hugely disproportionate with the rest of society?
The latest Home Office Statistics report than there were almost a million stop searches in 2007 (latest available) Now work it out. That's less than 2% of the population.
Then look at Stewarts poll. That's 20% of the regular users of this forum.
That's a 10x increase in stop searches compared to those members of the public NOT carrying a dslr.
And you don't think there is a problem with that?
Can you not see that photographers are being targetted while carrying out a perfectly lawful activity? and that the rate with which we are being stopped is hugely disproportionate with the rest of society?
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I didn't read anybody saying that everyone with an SLR was a forum member? - and its true that self selecting polls always skew the result, but its fair to say it is a high % of the SLR owning population then of the population as a whole.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
intelligent as we've come to expect - not really up for a proper debate then? The thread, and debate was in response to a police statement - your then only one who has disregarded the few figures we have
Foggy
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,196
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Fundamentally, because if someone doesn't argue then it just becomes accepted. If enough people kick up a fuss and the more it is in the news and discussed then the more chance of people knowing their rights and the vaguest possibility that we will stop being harassed under the ridiculous assumption that we are all terrorists.
I have yet to be stopped by the police but I have on numerous occasions been told by security I am not allowed to photograph a building 'because of terrorism' whilst standing on public land. I can't imagine it will be long before I have a discussion with the police because I point blank refuse to stop taking photographs because a security guard has told me to.
I have a right to take photos in public places without harassment, without giving my details, without having to hand over ID and without having to show what is on my camera and I am damn well going to stand up for that right.
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
In that situation I would tell the security guard that if he doesn't stop, I would call the police myself and accuse him of harassment. I couldn't actually do it as I don't own a mobile phone but he wouldn't know that!
Steve.
bomberman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,149
- Edit My Images
- No
boyfalldown i was talking to aliB. I am all for the intelligent response to security guards, that is using tact and discretion at the time and place. we can get all flustered by the current media frenzy and blow it all up out of proportion - refusing point blank to show I.D etc because it is our "right", or we can do what i do when the security guards come out of their buildings which is have a little chat, show a bit of respect and mutual intelligibility. I've been stopped twice in london and both times after a quick chat i've been allowed to take the shot i wanted. Kicking and screaming like a defiant overgrown baby is just asking for trouble.
why is that so hard for people to understand? I am not saying we as photographers should give up our rights but it is not as cut and dry as people are making out, every situation on the streets is different and it requires tact and respect on both sides of the fence. I know how i will behave next time a security guard stops me and spitting my dummy will not be it. Hopefully this will get me the shot i want, which is all that matters.
why is that so hard for people to understand? I am not saying we as photographers should give up our rights but it is not as cut and dry as people are making out, every situation on the streets is different and it requires tact and respect on both sides of the fence. I know how i will behave next time a security guard stops me and spitting my dummy will not be it. Hopefully this will get me the shot i want, which is all that matters.
Now that "art" of debating means that you actually have to counter my statistics in a meaningful way but you appear incapable of doing so which is, I'm afraid, your lack rather than mine.
I'll reiterate that for you then 2% of the general population vs 20% of the membership of TP who voted. 140 photographers voted, statistically not hugely relevant in terms of the whole population but highly significant if it is representative of photography in general. That's probably why the BJP and AP are up in arms about it too but don't you worry. It's only a few folks in the city.
And you say that you getting the shot is all that matters, sorry but that's a totally self centred attitude and does nothing to address fact that a lot of these stop and searches under section 44 are actually illegal in the first place.
You manage to miss the point quite spectacularly.
bomberman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,149
- Edit My Images
- No
i disagree with that as i think it will just make the police and the government tighten the laws and tie up any loose ends. I'm pretty sure Mr Brown's primary concern is security, not photography. Force the issue if you want but i just think it is asking for trouble
bomberman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,149
- Edit My Images
- No
but you can't prove its representative of photography in general, so your argument is not valid. The BJP anf the AP are up in arms about it because the MEDIA go out and make videos of themselves provoking security guards after a few high profile toggers from the BBc and BJP got stopped in London.
Like i said before let's not blow it out of proportion
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
sadly, getting the shot you want is not all that matters, I've never said I will spit my dummy if appraoched by a security guard, but I will politley decline any request for ID from one for the reasons I've outlined above and which you seem unable to address
Hugh
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
Golly, we'd best not make any noise then had we. Best just go along with what our elected representatives has decided is right. After all, it's not like we have any say. The state knows best.
Take a look at the noise made over the CRB checks for people working with kids and the climbdown over the weekend.
And whilst I draw no analogy whatsoever with this quote, the point is a valid one:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak outbecause I was not a Jew;
Then they came for meand there was no one left to speak out for me.
It'll be a cold day in hell before I unilaterally accept that Parliament knows best.
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Please educate me on exactly what threat to national security is posed by carrying a dslr then?
Which terrorist cells used a dslr in the preparation of their attacks?
In fact I'll save you the trouble : there is no evidence that any terrorist attacks were recce'd using dslr's.
Could you please base your argument on something even remotely concrete?
Google will happily provide far more accuare information that anything I could shoot.
gingerjon
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,628
- Name
- Jon
- Edit My Images
- No
And some more low profile ones in Chatham ... oh and Ipswich ... oh and Hull ... oh and Milford Haven ... oh and Brighton ... oh and ...
And what proportion is that?
I've provided figures which I think are entirely relevant as do several organisations representing photographers. From EPUK (Editorial Photographers UK) The Editorial Photographers UK (EPUK) website has published several pieces incidents involving confrontations between Police and photographers. From an agency photographer in Birmingham being forced to delete images to a London based BPPA member winning substantial out-of-court damages for an assault the trend looks a little worrying
I could provide half a dozen organisations concerned with the recent trends.
bomberman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,149
- Edit My Images
- No
yes and me in london, but funny enough it's not made me change my mind i'd have no problem showing ID as said above. I've just had a CRB check done on me for a new job and i doubt that photography in a public place will ever get me a criminal record unless i go spouting off to some copper about how i'm not showing my ID or my photographs.
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
Oh so it's a media conspiracy?
And Andy Trotter sending out a communique to all police forces is part of that?
bomberman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 1,149
- Edit My Images
- No
No it's today's news. tomorrow's chip wrapper. Andy trotter - PR stunt maybe? Everyone else seems to be trying to keep the peace, just a few irate toggers who think they're getting a raw deal seem otherwise.
good job they don't live in iran
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
this would be the ID you're not required to carry, or the photos you don't have to show at the moment (without a court order)?
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
boyfalldown
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't think I'm above the law, nobody on here has said they are, but I won't be singled out for special treatment for carrying out a perfectly lawful activity in a peaceful way
btw - nice edit of your original post
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
Yeah. Let's just ignore it. It's not happening. Fingers in ears.
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
It's not true in practice - one reason why separation of powers between state and legislature is critical.
- Status