Police: Photographers should carry identification

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand peoples views, and respect them fully about not taking things lying down.

I especially appreciate the, how far do you let things go argument over being ok to show ID.

The same how far question can be posed the other way. How far are you willing to go about arguing over not showing a simple bit of ID and telling a copper whatphoto's you are taking innocently? At what point do you become a nuisance and a pest. At what point does it become wasting the polices time by arguing with them? Is it ok to keep cops tie up dealing with you arguing, rather than being on hand to deal with the muggin going on own the road?

It comes down to standing up for your rights Vs deciding when is approriate to do so, and how. I'm all for educating the cops, and standing up for your right, believe me I am. I think there are better ways than standing arguing.
 
btw - nice edit of your original post
Click to expand...

many thanks

Yeah. Let's just ignore it. It's not happening. Fingers in ears.
Click to expand...

don't ignore it, just don't overreact when confronted

How would that get you a criminal record?
Click to expand...

its a good question but if you watched the video of the (provocative) guardian media at the gherkin the police said they would arrest him for obstruction if he didn't show them the photographs.

So because you are happy to carry and ID card and show it as and when you are asked we should all do the same?
Click to expand...

it's up to you what you do but if it's a choice between showing security guards your ID or having the police come and having to show them your ID i know which i would choose. Why would security ask you in the first place? peace of mind perhaps? I'm happy to offer peace of mind. I'd rather that than offer a PIECE of my mind (see what i did there?) I'm not a violent guy and i prefer to avoid confrontation so if i know there's a "climate" which there obviously is at the moment, i would rather play ball and use a bit of tact to get me out any potential "situation"
 
bomberman said:
its a good question but if you watched the video of the (provocative) guardian media at the gherkin the police said they would arrest him for obstruction if he didn't show them the photographs.
Click to expand...

And do the police have the right to view the images? Under s44 they can only do so under VERY limited circumstances. So essentially, they can't view them most of the time but refusal to show them will result in arrest for obstruction.

Great.


bomberman said:
it's up to you what you do but if it's a choice between showing security guards your ID or having the police come and having to show them your ID i know which i would choose. Why would security ask you in the first place? peace of mind perhaps? I'm happy to offer peace of mind. I'd rather that than offer a PEICE of my mind (see what i did there?) I'm not a violent guy and i prefer to avoid confrontation so if i know there's a "climate" which there obviously is at the moment, i would rather play ball and use a bit of tact to get me out any potential "situation"
Click to expand...

If I'm in a building and am challenged by security within, no problem. I'd probably expect that. If I'm outside and nothing to do with them, on a point of principle I'm refusing. If that escalates then so be it.
 
Radiohead said:
If I'm in a building and am challenged by security within, no problem.
Click to expand...

If I was on private land or in a building and challeged by security I would just leave. They have no right to know my identity.


Steve.
 
If I'm outside and nothing to do with them, on a point of principle I'm refusing. If that escalates then so be it.
Click to expand...

completely up to you and good luck with it but just remember a bad experience might leave a nasty taste in the mouths of others and may even lead to a zero tolerance policy for photography around certain buildings. I photographed the gherkin a few months back and NOBODY challenged me, after the dim-witted guardian stunt at the gherkin the other week i'd be surprised if nobody challenged me now.
 
Then I say bring it on. The more they stop the more I'll fight back.

I'm guessing we won't be seeing you in London on 23rd January? And if things do return to normal you'll know it was people who stood up that made that happen.
 
bomberman said:
completely up to you and good luck with it but just remember a bad experience might leave a nasty taste in the mouths of others and may even lead to a zero tolerance policy for photography around certain buildings. I photographed the gherkin a few months back and NOBODY challenged me, after the dim-witted guardian stunt at the gherkin the other week i'd be surprised if nobody challenged me now.
Click to expand...

This is surely the point - under what grounds are they going to challenge you? Where is this zero policy going to come from?

I would also say that after the guardian stunt you are actually less likely to be challenged.
 
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...hotographer_guidance_news_292930.html?aff=rss

The head of counter-terrorism at the Metropolitan Police has re-issued guidance to all staff to serve as a 'reminder' of their powers amnd to use 'comon sense' when approaching photographers, Amateur Photographer can reveal.

The move, this afternoon, follows widespread criticism of police policy under anti-terror legislation.

The Met's Assistant Commissioner John Yates has re-released guidance that already appears on the Met's website, to 'all 32 borough commanders'.

Yates said the Met risks losing public support if officers use their powers in situations that 'most reasonable people would consider inappropriate'.

However, for the first time the guidance will be distributed via the Met's internal 'intranet' website which is accessible to 55,000 officers and staff.

The guidance will also be relayed to officers directly via an 'internal briefing' prior to them patrolling London's streets, according to a spokesman for the force.

The spokesman said the Met hopes that by 'bullet pointing' the guidance (see below), it will be clearer to officers who are unsure of their powers under the Terrorism Act when it comes to photography.

Yates, assistant commissioner of Specialist Operations, said: 'People have complained that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. Those stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of the TACT [Terrorism Act].

'The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious.

Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that:

• There is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
• There is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff
• The act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop'

Yates added: 'Unless there is very good reason, people taking photographs should not stopped.'

Yates tells the Met's officers and staff today:
'An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters. You will find below what I hope is clear and unequivocal guidance on what you can and cannot do in respect of these sections. This complements and reinforces previous guidance that has been issued.

'You are reminded that in any instance where you do have reasonable suspicion then you should use your power under the Section 43 TACT 2000 and account for it in the normal way.

'There are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense.'

'We risk losing support when they are used in circumstances that most people would consider inappropriate.'

Still, we could just roll over...
 
bomberman said:
its a good question but if you watched the video of the (provocative) guardian media at the gherkin the police said they would arrest him for obstruction if he didn't show them the photographs.
Click to expand...

And that is the whole point that you a re missing by a country mile!

The Police have no authority whatsoever to arrest under those circumstances and that is at the very heart of what several of us are trying (obviously in vain) to communicate to you.

Wrongful arrest and false imprisonment are serious offences and not something we should tolerate. There are several such claims outstanding as well as damages claims after someones camera "went missing" from siezed property.
 
bomberman said:
Actually you're wrong:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

it clearly says there that the met advice under section 44 allows the images to be viewed but NOT deleted. Or am i missing something else?
Click to expand...

just most of the point, the whole of the section you refer to says

"Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism."

bit lost as to how the police thought the Guardian photos were for terrorist purposes

Thats OK you keep calm and carry on :shake:
 
bomberman said:
Now i just think you're an idiot
Click to expand...

Genius. It was you telling people to grow up wasn't it?

bomberman said:
Actually you're wrong:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

it clearly says there that the met advice under section 44 allows the images to be viewed but NOT deleted. Or am i missing something else?
Click to expand...

No, it says 'provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism'

So they have to have reasonable suspicion, and photography alone is not sufficient per se.
 
And having searched his bag and spoken to him they had no grounds for continuing with either a personal search or the threat of arrest for obstruction.
 
Thats OK you keep calm and carry on
Click to expand...

:lol:

The guardian set out to deliberately provoke a response and as such the police were responding to security guards who reported the incident. The security guards told the police that the photographer was being uncooperative (ie he refused point blank to tell them anything about who he was or who he was working for etc etc to provoke a DELIBERATE response. A la the guy on this thread who says he will refuse point blank) and as a result the response was that the police were told that the guy was being shifty. THAT was the reason they wanted to see his photos.

You guys make me laugh. You're the sort of people who take things way out of context and make a massive deal out of it. I know my rights, and if needs be i'll exercise them - albeit in a calm and cooperative manner.
 
bomberman said:
I know my rights, and if needs be i'll exercise them - albeit in a calm and cooperative manner.
Click to expand...

Surely in this case it is impossible to exercise your rights in a co-operative manner? You have a right not to give your details, exercising them is 'being unco-operative'.

Beyond that, the security guards have no rights whatsoever to ask for ID or details. If you leave when asked to do so that is as far as they can take it.
 
when i say cooperative, i mean if anyone asks what i'm doing i'll just say i'm interested in architecture. That's my response, my bit of cooperation. Nothing hard about that surely?

as soon as you start to argue with security "refuse point blank" as radiohead puts it, the security have reason to suspect you're up to no good and this is how it gets communicated to the police. they then have reasonable grounds to come in and look at your photos.

The law is pretty clear to me i think the key to avoiding any trouble is your attitude towards security. Like i said i've been stopped a couple of times in london and both times have been amicable
 
bomberman said:
:lol:

The guardian set out to deliberately provoke a response and as such the police were responding to security guards who reported the incident. The security guards told the police that the photographer was being uncooperative (ie he refused point blank to tell them anything about who he was or who he was working for etc etc to provoke a DELIBERATE response. A la the guy on this thread who says he will refuse point blank) and as a result the response was that the police were told that the guy was being shifty. THAT was the reason they wanted to see his photos.

You guys make me laugh. You're the sort of people who take things way out of context and make a massive deal out of it. I know my rights, and if needs be i'll exercise them - albeit in a calm and cooperative manner.
Click to expand...


I suspect the Guardian photographer was fishing for a reaction - but by the same context he got it - what reason or right did those private security guards have to ask for an explanation of his actions? - I would also of refused them, the same as I'd refuse any other member of the public who wanted to question me or see my ID, to my mind thats common sense - no need to be anything but polite, but not reason to comply either

I don't thing anything in this thread is taken out of context
 
bomberman said:
:lol:

The guardian set out to deliberately provoke a response and as such the police were responding to security guards who reported the incident. The security guards told the police that the photographer was being uncooperative (ie he refused point blank to tell them anything about who he was or who he was working for etc etc to provoke a DELIBERATE response. A la the guy on this thread who says he will refuse point blank) and as a result the response was that the police were told that the guy was being shifty. THAT was the reason they wanted to see his photos.

You guys make me laugh. You're the sort of people who take things way out of context and make a massive deal out of it. I know my rights, and if needs be i'll exercise them - albeit in a calm and cooperative manner.
Click to expand...

It's so out of context that a Chief Constable has seen fit to re-issue his own advice based on the law, and not made-up-on-the-spot ideas.

Now you carry on as you are, but please don't call those of us a little more concerned with our liberty idiots.
 
bomberman said:
as soon as you start to argue with security "refuse point blank" as radiohead puts it, the security have reason to suspect you're up to no good and this is how it gets communicated to the police. they then have reasonable grounds to come in and look at your photos.
Click to expand...


Now did I say that?

Or did I say that if I'm in their building then I'll happily talk to them and explain why I'm there (and would have done so first anyway). If I'm not then it's a different story.

If you're going to refer to my position at least do so accurately.
 
bomberman said:
:lol:

The security guards told the police that the photographer was being uncooperative (ie he refused point blank to tell them anything about who he was or who he was working for etc
Click to expand...

Precicely. That's his perogitive and in doing so he is doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Even the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Met themselves have issued advice to officers that it is not necessary for a photographer to give ID unless (like any other member of the public) they are behaving suspiciously. And that TAKING PHOTOS IS NOT IN AND OF ITSELF SUSPICIOUS.

It's honestly not that difficult a premise!
 
Where our views differ is that i see a distinct difference between a member of the public and a security guard. A member of the public has no rights over me and nor does a security guard, but as someone employed to look after a building's security i can understand why they might be defensive. It's a job for them and i respect that.
 
bomberman said:
Where our views differ is that i see a distinct difference between a member of the public and a security guard. A member of the public has no rights over me and nor does a security guard, but as someone employed to look after a building's security i can understand why they might be defensive. It's a job for them and i respect that.
Click to expand...

yes - employed to look after a building, or site, or whatever, not the public street and with no more rights to ask explanations or for ID from anybody away from that site then you or I have.

eta - and a security guard is as much a member of the public as you or I are also.
Hugh
 
Radiohead: If I'm outside and nothing to do with them, on a point of principle I'm refusing
Click to expand...

That is what you said, and to be honest I'm getting sick of you now, you just seem like an out-and-out argumentative guy.

I can understand that it is our right NOT TO show ID to a security guard, but as has been said by others on here i would much rather just have quick word if it means avoiding police confrontation. My advice to all photographers is to not have a chip on your shoulder and to be polite and courteous at all times and cooperate TO A NECESSARY EXTENT. I'm no expert but the link to the met document i gave and here it is again

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

clearly says that if police have reason to suspect you're up to no good you could be subject to a stop-and-search under section 44. DON'T GIVE THEM A REASON.

That is all
 
Like many (I assume) I've been watching this with interest (and as a mod also watching it to see that we all play nice :))

My own view is that there is a time and place to stand up for our rights which of course we shouldn't ever take for granted. Perhaps the 'un-cooperative' stance our brave reporter took was not the right time and place :)

I have been approached various times in London while out with the camera gear by station staff and security guards (not police yet!). Thats if I havent approached them first, just out of courtesy.

Each time a simple chat is all thats been needed and they have either let me carry on or I have, with no issue, moved on.

The reporter, to me, came across as deliberately provocative and there simply to 'test' the police. They knew that and were, understandably, irritated by it.

He invited suspicion and attention...he's a reporter looking for a story and got it.

If I were to be approached in such a manner I would happily comply as far as I could - no probs with showing ID or telling them why I was there and why I was taking photographs and in fact showing them what I'd taken. Maybe I'm naive maybe not.

I have kids. When they were young and acting a little furtively and I asked what they were up to they would respond 'Not telling' or 'Nothing' ...well thats what the intrepid reporter reminded me of...which only makes you more suspicious :)

Ah well thats my tuppence worth!

For what its worth I agree with bomberman's statement

I can understand that it is our right NOT TO show ID to a security guard, but as has been said by others on here i would much rather just have quick word if it means avoiding police confrontation. My advice to all photographers is to not have a chip on your shoulder and to be polite and courteous at all times and cooperate TO A NECESSARY EXTENT.
Click to expand...
 
bomberman said:
Actually you're wrong:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

it clearly says there that the met advice under section 44 allows the images to be viewed but NOT deleted. Or am i missing something else?
Click to expand...

The problem may be that the Met Police document is trying to précis more explicit guidance; for instance this, from the ACPO/ NPIA (National Policing Improvement Agency) guidance (for which see this thread):

2.8 PHOTOGRAPHY
The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is prevented by other legislation.

If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 or an arrest should be considered. Film and memory cards may be seized as part of the search, but officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.​

Then there is this from ACPO's reminder to all Chief Constables and Commissioners dated 4 December:

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public
building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers. (my emphasis)​

It does seems that the chiefs are sending out the right message, but the indians aren't getting it! And, being the cynic that I am, I wonder if they are receptive to it. They have a lot on their plate and it is notoriously difficult to convince people not to over-react to any risk, let alone terrorism police privacy photography!
 
bomberman said:
That is what you said,
Click to expand...

You love to take things out of context don't you.

I would refuse to show him ID. I wouldn't refuse to have a conversation. I thought that was fairly obvious. I guess not.

bomberman said:
and to be honest I'm getting sick of you now, you just seem like an out-and-out argumentative guy.
Click to expand...

I could really care less to be honest. I'm just not quite as keen as you to let some jobsworth security guard dictate what I can and can't do outside the building he works in.

bomberman said:
I can understand that it is our right NOT TO show ID to a security guard, but as has been said by others on here i would much rather just have quick word if it means avoiding police confrontation. My advice to all photographers is to not have a chip on your shoulder and to be polite and courteous at all times and cooperate TO A NECESSARY EXTENT. I'm no expert but the link to the met document i gave and here it is again

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

clearly says that if police have reason to suspect you're up to no good you could be subject to a stop-and-search under section 44. DON'T GIVE THEM A REASON.

That is all
Click to expand...

You seem to really struggle with the distinction between surrendering any information asked for simply because someone is wearing a uniform and being polite and courteous. They're not the same thing.

As you seem so keen on linking to that document and completely ignoring the responses I'll try again.

'"Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism."
'

I'll make this nice and clear for you, and they're the words of Assistant Commissioner John Yates:

The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious.

Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that:

• There is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances
• There is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff
• The act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop'

Yates added: 'Unless there is very good reason, people taking photographs should not stopped.'

Yates tells the Met's officers and staff today:
'An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters. You will find below what I hope is clear and unequivocal guidance on what you can and cannot do in respect of these sections. This complements and reinforces previous guidance that has been issued.

'You are reminded that in any instance where you do have reasonable suspicion then you should use your power under the Section 43 TACT 2000 and account for it in the normal way.

'There are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense.'

'We risk losing support when they are used in circumstances that most people would consider inappropriate.'

Now is there any of that that's a problem for you? Or do you honestly think that not telling a private security guard who you are OUTSIDE the building he works in is sufficient reason for suspicion of a terrorist activity?
 
Under section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 a police officer may stop and search a person they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist, to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist. This power can be exercised at any time and in any location.​

and

Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enable uniformed police officers to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles will be found.​

Both of which are taken from a Home Office circular (for which see this thread).

Photojournalists believe that freedom of the press should prevent the police from viewing their photos and are aggrieved that the police continue to do so even when they produce their id card. Otherwise, what is the point of asking journalists (rather than all photographers) to carry id (I believe that is what the City of London Police were asking for in the article that started this thread)? Otherwise, journalists are simply members of the public along with the rest of us!
 
Radiohead said:
I could really care less to be honest.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean couldn't really care less.

On the subject of giving your identity to security guards, I wonder what they could possibly do with it. They don't have access to any of the computerised records which the police have.

On or off their premises, security guards are just members of the public and should be treated as such.


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
Ok to look at this another way does it not bother you at all the police are saying you are a member of a group they regard without justification as suspicious
Click to expand...

No, because I don't think they are really. They are, heavy handedly at times admittedly watching the way and what people take photo's of. I don't think they are branding all photographers as risks and terrorists.

All I am trying to say it, being completely and utterly unhelpful and obstructive is not going to help any reputations that photographers have.

As far as people incorrectly having views of groups and organisations, I have gotten very used to that. I am a scout leader....You learn to live with it and move on.
 
radiohead, i am not struggling with anything as far as understanding the argument. Nor am i ignoring any responses. I simply don't agree with you.

some jobsworth security guard
Click to expand...

just about sums up your attitude to the whole issue

Now is there any of that that's a problem for you?
Click to expand...

No i completely understand. It's just that some of us are not as easily offended as you. If i get asked who i am and what i'm doing i will give a simple answer "i'm just a guy taking photographs" SIMPLES!
 
Rob.Marsh said:
No, because I don't think they are really. They are, heavy handedly at times admittedly watching the way and what people take photo's of. I don't think they are branding all photographers as risks and terrorists.

All I am trying to say it, being completely and utterly unhelpful and obstructive is not going to help any reputations that photographers have.

As far as people incorrectly having views of groups and organisations, I have gotten very used to that. I am a scout leader....You learn to live with it and move on.
Click to expand...

Telling one group in society that they should carry id is singling them out as suspicous though

For what it's worth I've not seen anybody in this threadsay they will not cooperate but being polite and cooperating is not the same as doing everything demanded
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top