Article in Guardian re: police searching photographers
Discussion
Article in tomorrow's Guardian about the old chestnut of every photographer being a terrorist - links to some other recent cases too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
Puggit said:
Article in tomorrow's Guardian about the old chestnut of every photographer being a terrorist - links to some other recent cases too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
Quite simply the journalist is a complete knob who deserves a good slap. He is being deliberately obstructive for no reason other than to create a story.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
People like him are doing nothing but creating tighter legislation.
14-7 said:
Puggit said:
Article in tomorrow's Guardian about the old chestnut of every photographer being a terrorist - links to some other recent cases too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
Quite simply the journalist is a complete knob who deserves a good slap. He is being deliberately obstructive for no reason other than to create a story.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
People like him are doing nothing but creating tighter legislation.
Granted he was deliberately trying to create a situation, but his comments were all perfectly straightforward and were designed to highlight the, shall we say 'generous interpretations', taking place by police officers by trotting out the anti-terrorism legislation.
What was interesting was that the police officers were clearly in some doubt as to what to do with this bloke so kept trying the "it's the law' approach, when actually it's not.
On the one hand I agree they need to be aware of the possibility that people might be using cameras for nefarious purposes, but the reality is that 99.99% of people with a camera are utterly harmless and aren't looking to blow stuff up. And the sad reality is that you're not going to catch the other 0.01% because they're going to be a bit more clever about it.
Flip side is that if they're going to rely on legislation which give them powers to stop and check people then they need to make sure they know the legislation properly, and what they can and cannot do. Bullying and threats will just come back to bite them IMO. The more straightforward approach of asking people politely rather than throwing their weight around is more likely to pay off for most people, and if the really do have grounds to suspect some sort of terrorist behaviour then they should arrest the person.
Granted some photographers are being deliberately rebellious and creating situations to push the limits, but if that helps to raise awareness that the police can sometimes be guilty of abusing their powers then so be it. Provided both sides respect the laws then there shouldn't be a problem (for example, acknowledging that some places which appear to be public aren't and hence you can be legitimately asked not to take photos, especially if you have a 'professional' looking camera.... BTDT....).
Basically, we have rights, and I'm in no rush to see them eroded by having someone play the 'anti-terrorism' card every time they want to try and prove how ignorant of the law they really are.
I would have thought that the act of 'taking a photograph' is the same in law whether you use a mobile phone or a D3.
Of the two, I know which is more likely to be engaged in working out where to put the bomb - so why, I wonder, do they pick on the people using DSLRs? I suggest it is beacuse they know that if they picked on people using cameras of all sizes, they'd look pretty stupid pretty quickly. So they take an easy targets to flex their muscles on, then can go back to the station feeling they've done something useful.
Of the two, I know which is more likely to be engaged in working out where to put the bomb - so why, I wonder, do they pick on the people using DSLRs? I suggest it is beacuse they know that if they picked on people using cameras of all sizes, they'd look pretty stupid pretty quickly. So they take an easy targets to flex their muscles on, then can go back to the station feeling they've done something useful.
Biggish article in the Daily Mail today as well.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235241/Th...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235241/Th...
As a pro press photographer I was detained for 30 or so mins for photographing a prison front from a public highway. The prison was clearly marked with a sign, the police used the excuses of the official secrets act. Which I quickly shoot down.
During anti terror raids in Birmingham the police said I could not photograph that massed police operation even though I had shown my press card. The police were claim that I could not do so under section 44. However all the local youths were taking pictures on their camera phones.
It would seem that there is a much bigger problem. The police do not like press for photographing them, this is because of scenes like the London climate change protest where they aggressively provoked much of the problems that arose, not to forget the scene of police hitting a person from behind that latter resulted in his death. They don't like getting court out.
Ask your self why?
The police monitor your every movement in big cities, they monitor your vehicles movements on most major highways. The local councils are now using big brother tactic of section 44 Anti Terror laws to monitor people dustbins and many other things.
This country is becoming control state mad.
I find it most ironic that every year they remove aspects of your freedom and your civil liberties and then lecture the rest of the world. They have even sent their troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to offer them more of what we have.
Coopers nicking tourist for photographing major attractions like the houses of parliament, the Gurkin and london Busses?
You could not make it up - Well not unless you are in Barmy Britain. And they wander why there is an increase in people who vote for parties like the BNP!
As for the photographers highlighted in the story mention at the beginning of this posting. If it highlights the problem, Fair play, The police need a court warrant to view journalist material. Regardless of section 44.
I am amazed at how little some police officers know about the law.
As for the link to the Daily Mail Article that LongQ posted. Sums up the the situation fairly well.
Ask your self why the police want to stop and search everyone under section 44. They can put a tick in the box of Anti-Terror. Points make prizes in this tick box culture. It also exercises their control over the masses. Thing about it, "You Are In Breach Of Anti Terror Laws", it sort of stops you in your tracks.
Power corrupts and control is everything.
During anti terror raids in Birmingham the police said I could not photograph that massed police operation even though I had shown my press card. The police were claim that I could not do so under section 44. However all the local youths were taking pictures on their camera phones.
It would seem that there is a much bigger problem. The police do not like press for photographing them, this is because of scenes like the London climate change protest where they aggressively provoked much of the problems that arose, not to forget the scene of police hitting a person from behind that latter resulted in his death. They don't like getting court out.
Ask your self why?
The police monitor your every movement in big cities, they monitor your vehicles movements on most major highways. The local councils are now using big brother tactic of section 44 Anti Terror laws to monitor people dustbins and many other things.
This country is becoming control state mad.
I find it most ironic that every year they remove aspects of your freedom and your civil liberties and then lecture the rest of the world. They have even sent their troops into Iraq and Afghanistan to offer them more of what we have.
Coopers nicking tourist for photographing major attractions like the houses of parliament, the Gurkin and london Busses?
You could not make it up - Well not unless you are in Barmy Britain. And they wander why there is an increase in people who vote for parties like the BNP!
As for the photographers highlighted in the story mention at the beginning of this posting. If it highlights the problem, Fair play, The police need a court warrant to view journalist material. Regardless of section 44.
I am amazed at how little some police officers know about the law.
As for the link to the Daily Mail Article that LongQ posted. Sums up the the situation fairly well.
Ask your self why the police want to stop and search everyone under section 44. They can put a tick in the box of Anti-Terror. Points make prizes in this tick box culture. It also exercises their control over the masses. Thing about it, "You Are In Breach Of Anti Terror Laws", it sort of stops you in your tracks.
Power corrupts and control is everything.
Edited by Snapper7 on Saturday 12th December 19:53
Edited by Snapper7 on Saturday 12th December 19:57
Edited by Snapper7 on Saturday 12th December 19:59
I cant believe the 'sensationalist' approach of the press once again. The police are damned if they do and double damned if they don't.
Plain and simple, if you get asked what you are doing, be honest, avoid being confrontational and you will be done and dusted in a few minutes.
Don't try and make yourself a name in the papers or some kind of photography martyr all you are doing is creating more and more unease between the police and photographers.
Plain and simple, if you get asked what you are doing, be honest, avoid being confrontational and you will be done and dusted in a few minutes.
Don't try and make yourself a name in the papers or some kind of photography martyr all you are doing is creating more and more unease between the police and photographers.
Snapper7 said:
During anti terror raids in Birmingham...
That may well be why I got stopped on Thursday, then. sidaorb said:
Plain and simple, if you get asked what you are doing, be honest, avoid being confrontational and you will be done and dusted in a few minutes.
Sorry, but HA! I was stopped twice within 45 mins, once by a police officer and once by a security guard, although that's another story. I explained that I was taking photos of a canal, was told that I couldn't take photos there, said that I thought I could, was asked to delete photos or I'd be arrested. Deleted them without arguing as I had my son with me and was worried what would happen to him if I was arrested. Next time, I plan to argue. It can't possibly have a worse outcome.
Is it me, or does using an SLR/ tripod make you far more noticeable? The tripod especially... I could go anywhere with my phone and take pictures without a word being said, but if I get my tripod out in a shopping centre I get stopped and followed for two hours. (Thank you, Bullring!)
katinahat said:
Is it me, or does using an SLR/ tripod make you far more noticeable?
See my post above.Anyway, if the coppers had actually been trained to deal with these 'scouts for Bin Laden', they would know that any deleted file can be easily recovered with free software. Therefore, logic dictates they are making their act up on the spot to look hard, and because of one or more of the following: they have nothing better to do, they need to justify their salaries, nice guys with cameras are easier to pick on than nasty people with knives who give false addresses.
Dogsey said:
katinahat said:
... if I get my tripod out in a shopping centre I get stopped and followed for two hours. (Thank you, Bullring!)
Well I would have thought a shopping centre is likely to be privately owned, therefore they'd be perfectly entitled to ask you to stop taking photos.14-7 said:
Quite simply the journalist is a complete knob who deserves a good slap. He is being deliberately obstructive for no reason other than to create a story.
What exactly did he do wrong other than try to stand up for his rights? He is perfectly and legally entitled to photograph there so why should the police try to stop him? Yes he was being slightly pedantic and as he really was doing nothing wrong he could have admitted it, but he was making a point. At no stage did he do anything illegal. And what b
ks from the guard about "you can photograph the top half but not the bottom half."I am a press photographer, and have been threatened with anti-terrorism legislation, on a number of occasions, most recently for photographing the scene of an accident in leafy Surrey. WTF? The police are abusing the powers granted to them for very necessary anti-terrorism action in all manner of ways to try and control photographers and what the press report, and it must be brought to wider attention.
14-7 said:
Puggit said:
Article in tomorrow's Guardian about the old chestnut of every photographer being a terrorist - links to some other recent cases too.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
Quite simply the journalist is a complete knob who deserves a good slap. He is being deliberately obstructive for no reason other than to create a story.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-...
People like him are doing nothing but creating tighter legislation.
remind me to tell you not to complain the nest time you are unnecessarily hassled by the police.
mybrainhurts said:
14-7 said:
Quite simply the journalist is a complete knob who deserves a good slap. He is being deliberately obstructive for no reason other than to create a story.
People like him are doing nothing but creating tighter legislation.
Guardian...what do you expect?People like him are doing nothing but creating tighter legislation.
why do you bother?
katinahat said:
That may well be why I got stopped on Thursday, then.
I explained that I was taking photos of a canal, was told that I couldn't take photos there, said that I thought I could, was asked to delete photos or I'd be arrested. Deleted them without arguing as I had my son with me and was worried what would happen to him if I was arrested.
Whoa! I understand your reasons for complying, but they're not allowed to do that. The guidelines recently issued to ACPO chief constables clearly states:I explained that I was taking photos of a canal, was told that I couldn't take photos there, said that I thought I could, was asked to delete photos or I'd be arrested. Deleted them without arguing as I had my son with me and was worried what would happen to him if I was arrested.
guidelines said:
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.
See here for the full text.I would suggest that a letter of complaint is in order. Don't let the buggers grind us down.
Simpo Two said:
katinahat said:
there's such a climate of fear, it's ridiculous.
It's not a climate of fear, it's a climate of something much more insidious. Fear (think 1940) pulls society together. This nonsense pulls society apart.The compact would be my "weapon" of choice from now on in London. Still produces fine detail.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff