UKC

Front-page news again today in The Independent.

Apparently the number of photographers being stopped under Section 44 is on the increase. I thought it would have died-down a bit after the original furor but apparently not. Interesting article though and the BJP is reporting more and more cases apparently. Seems crazy given that in some cases the Police are continually abusing or misunderstanding the law. Factoring-in things like unlawful DNA swabbing and dodgy databases makes this sort of thing more of a worry, particularly if you don't cooperate with their interpretation in of the law

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/warning-do-not-take-this-pic...


Handy section on photograhers rights too:

* If police stop and search you, the first thing you should ask is on what grounds they are conducting the search and under what powers.

* Police are able to conduct searches under a number of different pieces of legislation but they usually use either the Public Order Act, the Criminal Justice Act or under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

* Police officers are obliged to ask for your given ethnicity. Once again, it is up to you whether you choose to answer or not.

* If police use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act they are entitled to view any images you have taken but they are NOT allowed to delete them. They can only do so with a court order.

* Under Section 58a of the Terrorism Act, police are only allowed to stop a photographer taking pictures of officers if they reasonably suspect the photos are intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

* Whether you are stopped and searched, or merely stopped and accounted for, the police officer should hand you a record of your stop.

In reply to Cerulean: Just thinking aloud, but presumably this includes videoing as well as still pictures?

In reply to owlart:

I think video is a tad more taboo actually, from what I've read around the topic, because terrorist surveillance often includes the recording of security-guard movements/ timings and key-code/ pass entry practices apparently.

In reply to Cerulean:

what about sketching them

In reply to Cerulean:
The really daft thing is that you can go on google earth and get pics of most of these places so stopping someone from taking the odd photo isn't going to do much.

In reply to Daithi O Murachu:

Apparently an artist had his chalks and sketchpad examined by the plod, Reuben Powell I think.

In reply to Cerulean: Do you mean that videoing is specifically allowed to be stopped, unlike taking still photos, or just that they're more likely to be touchy about you doing it?

In reply to Cerulean:
according to the article even Martin Parr has been stopped under this ham-fisted law - he's probably one of the country most consistent and original documentary photographers over the past 20 years - ridiculous!!

IMO you tend to make things worse for yourself when you start a fuss. It's easier to just tell them what your taking a picture of and offer to show them*


R.

* Obviously this doesn't apply if you actually are a terrorist!

In reply to FrankBooth:

"according to the article even Martin Parr has been stopped under this ham-fisted law - he's probably one of the country most consistent and original documentary photographers over the past 20 years - ridiculous!!"

You sound suprised. Documentary photographers are more likely to get stopped just because of what they shoot. Or do you expect police officers to recognise him?

In reply to owlart:

What he means is that a video is more likely than a still photo to actually contrevine the acts however the presumption is still that shooting video is legal. Not that this will make a blind bit of difference the act specifically states that taking a photograph of a police officer is NOT an offence yet PC R.F.Plod still thinks they have the right to arrest people taking photos of them.

In reply to Cerulean:

I posted about an incident I witnessed in February. I got off the tube at Charing Cross and because we had quite a lot of gear with us (we'd just come back on the overnight sleeper from a week's climbing in Scotand) we were a bit slow to clear the platform which just left just the two of us and a man of "Arab" appearance as the last to leave the platform. He seemed to hang back as we headed for the escalator. I glanced back to see him taking photographs on a digital camera of the platform and tunnel entrances. When we got to the ticket exit I reported it to a member of the station staff and they accosted him as he came up behind us and started questioning him including a request to look at the photos on the camera.

We had a train connection to catch so didn't hang around and I don't know what happened after that.

Out of curiousity how many of you would have reported that? I felt we were justified to do so in the circumstances because a tube train platform seems a very strange subject for someone to photograph.

In reply to Richard Carter:

So long as you then report the matter to the IPCC giving the officers number or time and location if as is likely the officers number is obscured. If every time they behave unreasonably they end up on the reciving end of a complaint they might stop doing it. If this behavior isn't challenged and stopped your legal right to take photos becomes at best a right in law as opposed to a right in fact.

In reply to Trangia:


it does sound odd, but then, didn't The Lemming just do a thread all about his photograph of a tube platform with some woman on it?

In reply to Trangia: Would you have reported it if he hadn't been of "Arab appearance"? Surely if it's a strange thing to photograph, then his appearance doesn't come into it?

In reply to owlart:

Yes, I would have. The Arabic appearance just heightened my suspicions, and that isn't rascism just the facts of recent history coming into play.

In reply to owlart:

Would you have reported in it either way?

In reply to Trangia:

So you had some poor trainspotter arrested because he had a bit of a sun tan?

Just think yourself lucky that some public minded citizen didn't report these two very suspicious "arab" looking carictors who were hanging around and moving slowly with these very large rucksacks....

In reply to davidwright:

Would you have reported it?

In reply to Trangia:

could have been doing stock etc or just photography of something he found interesting, nothing surprises me what people will take images of.

http://tinyurl.com/yhcvjeu

In reply to Trangia:

hmm - a small selection from Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=underground&m=text#page=2

In reply to Removed User:

great minds!

In reply to all those giving possible explanations:

Simple question. Not looking for possible explanations for his doing it. Given the circumstances we saw would you or would you not have reported it?

In reply to Removed User:

Well, that's the point really - no subject is really 'odd' to a photographer if it makes a good picture

In reply to Trangia:

No. I'd have presumed it was someone taking photos that would end up somewhere like flickr. Possibly because I like taking that sort of photograph too.

In reply to FrankBooth:

I hardly think the police can be blamed for failing to recognise a documentary maker that 99% of the population have never heard of.

In reply to Tall Clare:



one more reason to live in Derbyshire

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=868495

I was waiting to get my collar felt last year doing some architectural work in the middle of Manchester but I got left alone, I felt mildly cheated

In reply to Trangia:

Would I have caused all sorts of trouble for somebody with a mild autistic spectrum disorder just because I was a paranoid racist? Now let me think about that one for a bit...hmm er which part of No suprises you?

Tourists regularly take photos of the tube in much the same way that they take photos of black cabs, red double deckers and Westminster abbey.

In reply to Richard Carter:
This is what I did when stopped by armed officers just off Bond Street having photographed Queen Victoria's Elephant House.

We got into a bit of an extended conversation about it, possible I think because I was so jovial and reasonable about the whole thing, and I showed him my shots, plus he was obviously the real deal and not some jobs-worth Community Support guy trying to follow some guidelines. He did seem a little embarrassed as the 'truth' unfolded however. He admitted somewhat apologetically that it was a precautioary measure under Section 44, that they had tailed me for a short time, and thought I was acting suspiciously.

Personally I think the law itself is ridiculous, counter-productive, and largely unenforceable. If I were a terrorist I'd handle the above situation in exactly the same way as I did, and the Police would have left me alone to take more shots of my intended targets.

In reply to Trangia:

No, but then I don't think anyone who is a hobbyist, amateur or professional photographer would.

I saw a guy a couple of years back videoing the lifts going up and down the outside of the Lloyd's building. He was about 30, looked Egyptian or Saudi and was wearing khaki pants. I thought about giving a bobby the heads-up but then thought again why should that be suspicious, those lifts are pretty eye-catching.

Think about the law itself. The only reason behind it is to attempt to stop terrorists building target portfolios (or at least that's what I was told) and unless someone is stood there filming security staff with a stop-watch and making notes any other sort of personal recording of anything is not suspicious in any way. As you mentioned in your post you acted in response to 'recent history', in other words, the news.

In reply to Trangia:

No, I wouldn't, any more than I'd report somebody stodd on a platform hanging around to catch a train. When I used to travel by train in Birmingham there were always trainspotters at the end of the platform with big cameras round their necks, but as tey were not of "Arab appearance" I guess they were perfectly ok to go about their business!

In reply to Cerulean:


Looking at this from the other side of the debate (the police), I agree with you, particularly on the counter-productive and unenforceable points, and I'm pretty much there with the ridiculous bit too.

I'm grateful that I work somewhere with this has never come up (i.e. reports of suspicious photography), because in all honesty I would feel pretty uncomfortable with the whole thing. Perhaps I shouldn't, but in situations like this, I would.

Notwithstanding the fact that some police force employees are utter jobsworths, and some are perfectly reasonable and unjobsworthy, the reality is that the threat/fear of terrorism is drummed into them constantly, especially in certain parts of the country, which I suspect has a bearing on how these powers are used.

In reply to davidwright:

Why should that have bothered me? I'd rather be stopped everytime I go on a train with a large rucksac than have one more poor innocent die due to a terrorist outrage. Similarly I have no beef at all with airport security and accept that sadly that's now become a fact of life.

As the head of counter terrorism has said. These guys only have to get lucky occasionally, counter terrorism has to get lucky every time.

Surely overeaction and over vigillance must be better than apathy when you think what could be at stake?

It's only a matter of time before there is going to be another horrific terrorist attack.

Incidently I was arrested and detained for several hours in 1989 by the Indian Army for taking photographs of the Himalayas. There was a military camp nearby which I hadn't noticed so intent was I on getting my shots!

In reply to Cerulean: I suspect all real terrorists know all that.

In reply to Trangia:

Ah so you really do deserve neither safety nor liberty to quote Ben Franklin

In reply to Al Evans:

Exactly Al. Exactly.

In reply to thegreatape:

Nice to have a police opinion, I'd criticise the dissemination and guidance more than anything but then it must be a nightmare to 'teach' to police on the beat. Suspicion in this respect isn't always so tangible, but the law itself fosters a bit too much pro-activity in my view.

In reply to Al Evans:

Perhaps plod is happy with the flak, letting the mentalists know they are still on the case. Still it has to be combatted irrespective.

In reply to Removed User:

seems there is a new item with the journo concerned on breakfast news tomorrow

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871670

In reply to Cerulean:
>>If police use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act they are entitled to view any images you have taken

What do they do if you're enough of a luddite to still be using 35mm? Stand there making polite conversation for four days while you both wait for the slides to come back?

In reply to Cerulean:

It's pretty new legislation. Hopefully with time and experience the police will strike a better balance when using it.

From the same article...

Craig Mackey, who speaks for the Association of Chief Police Officers on stop-and-search legislation, said he does have sympathy for photographers, but said that part of the problem was that some officers were not aware how best to use the "complex" legislation. He said: "It goes back to the issue of briefing and training of staff and making sure they are clear around the legislation we are asking them to use. There is no power under Section 44 to stop people taking photographs and we are very clear about getting that message out to forces.

In reply to thegreatape:
I have had a home visit from the polis for photographing the Lammermuir Hills.

One of three visits for photography in Southeast Scotland. I have been left alone for the last couple of years though.

In reply to thegreatape:

Its worth noting that ACPO is not a government body but merely an association with more influence than it should have. It a slightly nefarious and Orwellian construct that blurs the line between legitimate authority and political will. It has growing business interests and has been caught trying to manipulate public opinion and government policy with pronouncements that wouldn't harm these interests(eye passim).

On a similar theme to the no video fiasco, the languange and therefore implication of the interpretation of the existing draconian 'terror' legislation has re - branded old fashioned protesters as domestic extremists - yes that's right - domestic extremists. This linguistic nuancing shifts the perception of legitimate protest to something more sinister that would, surprise surprise justify the employment of the growing arsenal of anti terror legislation at the disposal of the state to stifle opposition.

In reply to Wingnut:


Ask them if they will pay for the development of the slides, and not pass the charge on to you when they get them back from the police labs. Ask about their turnaround time, and - if it's good - ask if you can always use them for your slides...

In reply to FrankBooth:

Consistent and original........ Mmmmm one original idea, stuck to the same formula... kerching!

In reply to Cerulean: Suggest you read this

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

In reply to Wingnut:

"What do they do if you're enough of a luddite to still be using 35mm? Stand there making polite conversation for four days while you both wait for the slides to come back?"

They'd probably ask to open your camera and see what's inside :-P
That's the advantage of digital - if you get told to delete a picture you can do so. And then promptly undelete it when you get home :-P

In reply to thegreatape:

Good words and taken on board but the reason I posted again is that it has been a good while since the original uproar and it appears to be getting worse rather than better. There was a lot on poor dissemination at the time. Giving it time in this case seems to have exacerbated the situation, and although in no terms equal in ramification the phrase; 'terrorists only have to be lucky once, the police have to be lucky every time' also needs to be married to 'the innocent (potentially arrested, swabbed, distressed) person only has to be inconvenienced once'. These incidents never leave a persons memory and the concurrent 'backlash' in whatever form against the authorities is much less tangible in long-term effect. I for one will never forget being stopped by armed police for using a camera. Fully accept that some are prepared to accept this, but it isn't the right way to do things.

I'm sure much of the debacle is down to the coincidental introduction of hoards of Community Support bobbies who are never going to be as polished as full-time professionals. Saying all this, even a fervent committed terrorist taking photos of targets must not significantly increase the chances of a terrorist act taking place in that spot. We have access to the internet, Flickr, Google maps, all manner of satellite imagery, town maps, sat-nav etc etc etc. Granted taking a photo is perhaps easier but I could build a terrorist portfolio from the web in my lunch hour and the police would be none the wiser, or you'd just do what drug/ gun runners do and get kids to do it for you.

In reply to icnoble:

Why? The instruction isn't in doubt, the practice is however.

In reply to Wingnut:

I've often got a film SLR in my bag. I don't honestly know, I suppose they'd likely try to confiscate it or ask you to escort them whilst they develop and scrutiinse the images. Is Parr digital these days...?

In reply to Ada:
I was startled to read that ACPO is actually a private limited company - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/henryporter/2009/feb/10/police-civi... That means that it isn't subject to legislation like the Freedom of Information Act.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Murky waters indeed. Somewhat akin to the 'private security forces' at work in Iraq and the like...

The sort of organisation that The Home Office can very quickly wash their hands of if they begin to over-step the mark.

In reply to Cerulean:

I'll take your word on that - you've experienced the issue, I haven't (from either side of the fence). If it's getting worse that's a shame.


I wouldn't disagree with anything there.


Me too. I always thought it was similar to the Police Federation but for the CC's etc. but obviously not.

In reply to Cerulean:

It is unfortunate that one bad experience with the police tends to be multiplied a hundred-fold by gossip and media outrage, whilst a hundred good experiences might only produce one media article.

In reply to Cerulean:

Incidentally, it's worth being aware of the powers of PCSOs - http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/community-policing/List_of_Pow...

In reply to Tangler:

It depends on your view of the media, if you buy a paper daily or watch the news daily I believe you're more inclined to be led by what is presented. And there is no doubt that in the UK good news isn't newsworthy. Regardless, I was talking about the effect personally and how this is presented to your peers, and on. The Trident scheme in London is a good example of this, bad-blood spreads like wild-fire.

As I said my own experience was not entirely unpleasant, and whilst it clearly remains with me (significant enough to repeatedly talk about) it has not tarnished my view of that police officer or his equivalents. Had my experience been different however my reaction and concurrent actions may have been. This is why consistency is vital.

You can youtube around to see some of the behaviour and responses to stoppages under Section 44 (thank goodness we have cameras).

In reply to thegreatape:
It's not my word, it's in the article;

"The British Journal of Photography says it has received a steadily increasing number of complaints this year."

In reply to Blackadder:

I now carry them in my camera bag, along with the Section 44 rights (as published by Liberty), a Section 44 search and monitoring form to record officers details, and the Macpherson guidance on UK Photographers Rights.

In reply to Tangler:
I never forget a name, it's suddenly come back to me... You were the bobby on the last thread coming back with;

"So long as you consider the threat to be minimal you will consider the legislation draconian."

It's a reasonable point, albeit having frightening Stasi-esque ramifications, and incidentally whilst the terror threat has been dropped...

https://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/threat-levels.html

...the actions taken by police on the ground in the UK have apparently increased in respect of the reason behind the law. More stoppages in response to a lower threat, or maybe there are just more people are reporting problems with it....?

Valid here that a quote from the same thread is brought back to life:

"The state should know no more about us than is absolutely essential, the onus should always be on those proposing ever more intrusive restrictions on freedom and gathering of random information to justify every reduction of civil liberties, never the other way around. Just like the burden of proof in criminal cases is, and must always remain, on the prosecution - you do not and should never have to prove your innocence. Also each restriction of freedom and intrusion into privacy should be regularly reviewed and withdrawn as soon as the strongest possible justification for it can no longer be made, so that there is not a perpetual process of racheting away of freedom and privacy.

Much indeed most of what we do, the state just has no right to know about - it is simply none of their business, we are not their property. It doesn't matter if the state were fantastically efficient and scrupulously honest, or (like the current government), ridiculously incompetent, intrusive, deeply and patronisingly authoritarian by instinct or, even worse, overtly commited to dictatorial methods as a future government could well be, once it has been supplied with the tools for repression during a period of relative freedom. How I conduct my life as long as I do not break the criminal law, largely common law, not incredibly vague and all-embracing, sloppily drafted statute law, has nothing to do with the authorities.

Any tool that places citizens under perpetual surveillance will always be subject to massive misuse and scope-creep, while any assurances that some repellent measure will only be used for some closely circumscribed, emergency purpose have been and will always be worthless, as we have already seen on many occasions. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, the biggest threat to our freedom is our own government."


The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not our fault, we are not guilty, the problems created by the government should be solved by the government, and the free citizen who elected that government and agreed to be policed should not have to answer to it whilst going about his every-day business.

In reply to Cerulean:

That's a good quote - where's it from?

In reply to Bob Kemp:

Tis isn't it. I first came across it on a thread on here about conservatism I think, penned by one of the Simon's registered on here.

I quoted it chiefly for this bit:

"...each restriction of freedom and intrusion into privacy should be regularly reviewed and withdrawn as soon as the strongest possible justification for it can no longer be made, so that there is not a perpetual process of racheting away of freedom and privacy."

Section 44 of The Terrorism Act 2000 was implemented to give police stop and search powers in situations where there is reasonable evidence of a terrorist threat. Since the threat level has been published it has flipped between 'Severe' and 'Critical' and then it dropped in July 2007 from 'Critical' to 'Severe' for two years, before again dropping earlier this year to 'Substantial'. Two changes in favour of relaxing the cautionary measures, but there have been no changes in the law, or apparently its administration. This is an example of freedoms being gradually eroded.

In reply to Cerulean:

looks like there might be some movement in this. link to the independent article.

http://tinyurl.com/yfh3mnh

In reply to Cerulean: According to the Met's own guidelines

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/jan/uk-met-stop-and-search-s44-terr-act...

the strategic vision behind stop-and-search is that "counter-terrorism stop powers, if used appropriately and effectively, will serve to reassure the people of London and in doing so will install (sic) trust and confidence of all communities".

They now seem to have realised that inappropriate use of these powers is having completely the opposite effect.

In reply to Howard J:

another high profile incident.

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871742