"Police seize photographer's film "

kelack

kelack

TPer Emerita - But she's back!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,607
Name
Kelly
Edit My Images
Yes
Ooer - just found this on BBC Kent:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7202847.stm

An amateur photographer has told how police seized his film as he was out taking snaps in a Hull shopping centre.
Steve Carroll, of Kent, was visiting relatives in Hull in December when he decided to do some "street photography" in the city's Prospect Centre.

Shoppers reported him to the police, who took his film because he seemed to be operating in "a covert manner"..........
Click to expand...
Continues in linky
 
:shake: Photographer using film camera taking pictures gets harrassed, time for an Freedom of Information request I think. How many photographers have been stopped in this way, how many people using mobile phone cameras have been stopped?
If I wanted to be covert I'd use my phone camera not my DSLR or other type of camera.
 
Don't really see the problem. I know in Scotland that unsolicited photographs can (note I say can not are) be a Breach of the Peace. If the guy was genuine then I assume he got his photos back free of developing fees;). It's a pain I know but it's been highlighted on here many times so we all know the risks we take in photographing in public.

I'd like to think if something concerned me in a public place the Police would do something about it, as they did here. Believe it or not there are people out there with nefarious intent.
 
BRASH said:
Don't really see the problem. I know in Scotland that unsolicited photographs can (note I say can not are) be a Breach of the Peace. If the guy was genuine then I assume he got his photos back free of developing fees;). It's a pain I know but it's been highlighted on here many times so we all know the risks we take in photographing in public.

I'd like to think if something concerned me in a public place the Police would do something about it, as they did here. Believe it or not there are people out there with nefarious intent.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree with anything you've said there Brash. I find this sort of thing frustrating because someone with a camera in a public place is percieved to be up to no good. We are possibly the most surveilled society in the world and yet you and I are mistrusted by those around us.

There is clearly more to this case than has been reported and there could have been grounds for suspicion, I just hope it wasn't that he was using a camera in a public place
 
Right i think its time they also report everyone using mobile phones that have inbuilt camera's!

sigh
 
JumboBeef said:
He was NOT taking pictures in a public place, he was on private land.
Click to expand...

Fair point. As I said earlier there may be more to this than has been reported, perhaps he was less than helpful when approached, perhaps a shopping centre guard had tried and failed to deal with him, who knows. My point is that if the suspicion were merely due to fact that he had a camera it's sad and depressing to think that we've chosen a hobby that society is so mistrusting of. :shake:

As Brash has already said he should have his negs back and will have had them processed for free:)
 
JumboBeef said:
He was NOT taking pictures in a public place, he was on private land.
Click to expand...

Again there is a difference in Scotland. A place is deemed to be a public place if the public have right of access at the material time (whether by payment or not). So if it is a shopping centre during opening hours, then it is a public place, regardless of whether the land, ground or property is privately owned. A football ground during a game is another example, this time where payment is due to gain access. It is still a public place during tie time it is open to facilitate a game. Hope this makes sense.
 
Lock up your kids, stockpile your food, stay indoors!

Where will this widespread public hysteria and fear end?
 
When my Dad was in the army, i'd take photos of the camp where he worked and of a pre-production tank etc any nobody said a thing. Amusing that someone has got into trouble for taking picture in a shopping centre :)
 
This is not the story I read in AP last week, it has an entirely different slant to it, but still the same incident.
It says, he was taking photos in the area of the Prospect Center, he himself says he was taking pictures of people crossing the road, the police officers objected to him photographing "sensitive buildings", the official stop and search form issued states the reason for the stop as obtaining photos of a possible sensitive nature.
He says he took most of his photos openly, it was his first attempt at "street" photography, "youths drinking from beer cans" "big issue seller" "people crossing the road"
He used a Voigtlander Bessa 35mm.
We wont really know what were the actual circumstances but, I really dont think theres any point in trying to use a camera in a public place with this ridiculous rubbish going on.
Took them 4 weeks to give him his clearly non sensitive material photos back...its just getting stupid now.
Public place/not public place/what they do in Scotland....who cares, its hardly the point, the point is I can stand on a street corner and watch people all day with my eyes, break out a crappy disposable camera, and use it (my god) and I'm liable for a good shake down and my personal property confiscated..
 
I to don’t understand all this hype about taking pictures in public places I remember reading a thing about someone taking pics of the London eye and being told to stop by police as it could be useful to terrorists when almost every other tourist was taking pics with point and shoot camera or phones
 
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showpost.php?p=503820&postcount=30

TBH

The more and more these threads come up the less I think of that as a joke...:(

There has been/is wayyyyy to much histeria about terrorism in recent years. Its not like the 70's, 80's and 90's when bombs were gooing off evey few months. We've had one in 6 years since the 'war on terror' started. The government spin machine and the press are going into overdrive, because both of them stand to benefit, the press will make more money selling sensationalist headlines and the government find it easier to push through draconian bills (such as banning protests in parliament square) and identity cards, all in the name of terrorism.

What the terrorists haven't achieved is being done by the government/press for them. Terrorism has started to dictate our lives to an extent, not because of terrorism itself but because of the idiots in government.:bonk:
 
It is very worrying isn't it.

Its one of the reasons why I sometimes hesitate to take the camera with me/don't get it out of my bag when I'm in certain places.

Gah.
 
There is nothing new in NOT being allowed to take pictures in shopping centres - this has been the case for at least 30 years in my experience. It is a private site and the owners can choose to allow or disallow photography. Usually it is dealt with by security having a quite word. If you need to take pics in a shopping centre for legitimate reasons it's usually not difficult to get the necessary permissions in advance.
 
I do a lot of shooting in public places usually up a mountainside pointing my big lens at the RAF as they scream past every now and again along comes plod in their little paraffin budgie and we take pics of him too :-

cops.jpg


because just at the moment there is b****r all they can do about it. The UK and Switzerland are probably the only country in the world where you can do this legally. I wonder how long it will be before they get round to changing that.

Bill
 
they should have at least waved back...miserable b*ggers.

basically what we all need to do is walk around with t-shirts saying 'terrorist intel' or 'amateur surveillance college 2007-2008' on them and continue taking pics as normal. at least you can then take the p*ss as much as they do only more openly for all to see...mass hysteria ensues? only from jobsworths and stupid people.
 
They might have waved just after that shot was taken, don't assume they were being miserable. The camera may never lie but it rarely tells the whole story ;)
 
i think they got on his case coz he had a t shirt with * im from sittingbourne * on it !
 
zeroeseight said:
That's a rangefinder camera I use. Thought a main point of them was they are meant to be less threatening than SLRs :(
Click to expand...

Exactly, I mean it is less noticable, doesn't attract much attention but if some nonce member of joe public gets it into their head your up to no good with it, the police will just do their job.
They should decide there and then what your motives are.
I mean, what self respecting terrorist, scoping targets in....err...Hull, would rely on a 50 year old film camera for his/her blueprints....ridiculous.
The police are just acting on a report from a member of the public, they ended up just being stupid about it.
I think its a sign of the times, the explosion of camera use generally means togs are shooting in places where the general public aren't used to seeing them, who bats an eyelid when you get the camera out anywhere in Blackpool.....nobody...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top