Jump to content

Advice to photographers in Uk


bill

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

... I will be writing to my MP, and any prospective candidates in the forthcoming General Election, and ask them whether they will fight to repeal, or amend Section 44, should they get elected. ...

I urge everyone to also write to their MP, and I have already done so and reproduce my letter below in case it helps.

 

It is VERY EASY to write to your MP. Simply follow this link, which will do most of it for you. Enter your post code and the website will find who your MP is, set up the letter, and once you have inserted what you want to say the website will send the letter to your MP.

 

The wording of my letter is not perfect but it may help others and it read:

 

Dear (MP's name),

 

I am deeply concerned at the level of misuse, by Police Community Support Officers and Police Officers in the greater London area in particular, of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is frequently being misused for Stop and Account or to Stop and Search members of the public who are innocently taking photographs in public places and who are lawfully going about their business.

 

Recently there have been several well-publicised instances of abuse of professional or otherwise innocent photographers who have been stopped under Section 44 despite there being no reasonable grounds for doing so and the officers concerned appeared to be ignorant of the extent of their powers, blind to the injurious effects on the members of the public that were stopped and unwilling or unable to inform the members of the public concerned of their rights in connection with stop and search powers.

 

Moreover, private security guards, particularly in the City of London, have been instructed by the Police Service to contact the local police if anybody is photographing the building - even from the public highway - that the private security guards are protecting, which is a gross invasion upon the public's civil liberties and a profligate waste of precious police resources.

 

Will you therefore, on my behalf, please act to have Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 repealed or otherwise amended so as to suitably protect the public's, and in particular photographers', civil liberties by requiring the Police Service or its authorised agent to at the time of intercedence produce suitable evidence and justification for questioning a photographer who is lawfully taking photographs in a public place and to require the Police Service or its authorised agent to record this evidence and justification?

 

Will you also please lobby the Association of Chief Police Officers to substantially increase its activity in disseminating the recently-issued guidelines from Chief Constable Andrew Trotter OBE QPM relating to "reasonable use" of stop and search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to the Police Service to ensure that the misuse of Section 44 is eradicated?

 

Yours sincerely,

Peter Farnsworth

IEng, MIET, NZCE, NZREA

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 763
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So this is what it's all been about.

 

The City of London police has just released this footage of transport sites in London supposedly filmed as reconnaissance for a terror strike.

 

It seems that there's been so much adverse publicity of late that the police feels there's a need to justify its sustained persecution of photographers.

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

I was about to post the same link. It's disgraceful - I know I keep repeating this but it's true. Personally I hope that plastic plod gets the sack. He keeps on saying that the student is being 'cocky' while he is just being a complete tosser.

 

How long can this go on for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that there's been so much adverse publicity of late that the police feels there's a need to justify its sustained persecution of photographers

 

In which case they chose a bad example since "Five men were arrested in July 2008, but none were ever convicted of terror offences." according to the article.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case they chose a bad example since "Five men were arrested in July 2008, but none were ever convicted of terror offences." according to the article.

I couldn't agree more, Steve. It sounds like the best they could do and smacks of desperation.

 

Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case they chose a bad example since "Five men were arrested in July 2008, but none were ever convicted of terror offences." according to the article.

 

Steve, I posted a comment in one of the other threads which are running about this. It would appear that the police were being 'economical with the truth' with their first press release which stated that they decided not to press terrorist charges as it 'wasn't in the public interest' - the CPS have since confirmed that terrorism charges were not brought against the men because there was 'insufficient evidence'.

 

As I said before, fair enough, the police caught some petty criminals, which is fine, but it seems to me that someone was scraping the bottom of a very dry barrel to come up with this as justification for their heavy handed treatment of photographers.

 

The fact that it was a mobile phone too - how many people have they stopped for routinely using a mobile phone in 'sensitive' areas? I would hazard a guess that there were other factors which led the police to apprehend the man in question.

 

Of course it makes much more sense for a terrorist to use a mobile phone camera, its going to be much more discrete and I'm sure they could make it appear that they were speaking to someone or playing a game rather than filming!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year, I asked my friend to take my Rolleiflex 6008 back to my parents, so I thought that I might as well finish the roll of film in the camera.

 

I was just finishing it off, when a Police Community Officer told me to stop and started taking my details...

 

...and...?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a useful guide to photographing in public places; the notes about Article 8 of the ECHR regarding privacy makes interesting reading.

 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf

 

It looks like the lady who wrote this is an expert in her field.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal watchers stunned as Sandringham officers swoop in and seize their cameras | Mail Online

 

A mistake they said, after the event. Granted it is on private property so they can have their own rules.

 

 

A spokesman for Norfolk Police, said: 'An officer, in error, requested cameras from members of the public. We will be allowing the public to keep their cameras, in accordance with a long-standing agreement.'

Seems like "the officer" planned "his" mistake well in advance because he came to the site prepared with at least two substantial tables, a quantity of plastic bags and several other officers to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...