pgk Posted October 4, 2008 Share #441 Posted October 4, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) BUT .... he pleaded guilty!!! A pointless way of determining whether there was a case to answer in this partcular circustance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 4, 2008 Posted October 4, 2008 Hi pgk, Take a look here Advice to photographers in Uk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
farnz Posted October 4, 2008 Share #442 Posted October 4, 2008 What a bizarre set of values the judge clearly has. The chivalrous thing to do would have been to help the "ill" woman or call for assistance. The judge said: "When somebody is in distress you leave them to it." I hope he's never first on the scene at a traffic accident ... Either way it's nonsense: she was in a public place so an expectation of a right to privacy is risible. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael-IIIf Posted October 6, 2008 Share #443 Posted October 6, 2008 Either way it's nonsense: she was in a public place so an expectation of a right to privacy is risible. Pete. Knowing absolutely nothing about the protagonists and the case, except what was written in the article, won't stop me offering my opinion: I guess we all know what the euphemism "ill' is referring to here. There are many young ladies on the public streets outside UK pubs, four-sheets-to-the-wind, barely able to stand up. How these have a right to privacy is intriguing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted October 6, 2008 Share #444 Posted October 6, 2008 He pleaded guilty to causing a breach of the peace (?) Surely, as the law stands, they can't have charged him for taking the photograph. I don't understand this one. Presumably the 'ill' lady would be captured on some CCTV or other so where's the privacy? Hasn't the judge seen Booze Britain on telly? Television? What exactly IS a 'television'?.............. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted October 9, 2008 Share #445 Posted October 9, 2008 I found what, seems like useful guidelines for photographers in public places and below find copy of that information Photography in Public Places- The Law Under UK law, there are no restrictions on taking any photographs in a public place or taking photographs of individuals, whether they are adults or minors. There is no right to privacy in a public place. Equipment may not be confiscated, or images deleted by any person or officer of the law unless a warrant for such action is issued. Any attempt without a warrant is an assault under UK law. Security guards have no powers in a public place. They can only call the police if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that you are committing a criminal offence. GUIDELINES FOR THE POLICE: 1. The public has a legitimate right to attend the scene of incidents. The presence of a photographer at an incident does not of itself constitute any unlawful obstruction or interference. 2. As long as the photographer does not break the law, or interfere with an investigation, or cross a cordon, a police officer should not impede the photographer. Photographers who break the law will be dealt with in the same manner as any other offender. 3. A crime scene remains closed whilst evidence is being gathered and detailed forensic examinations take place. The reasons for denial of access should be explained and access granted as soon as possible with permission from the Senior Investigating Officer. 4. The public have the right to photograph events that occur on public property. The police may allow the public on to private property where an event of public interest has occurred and they have the permission of the owner. They should enter peacefully and not cause any physical damage or attempt to alter any details for photographic purposes. The rights of an owner of private property should be respected and may lead to photographers being asked to leave. If the owner of the property does not give permission then any attempt to gain access would be trespass. 5. Police officers should not restrict the taking pictures or asking questions of other parties, even though the officer may disagree with the purpose. It is not a police officer's role to be the arbiter of good taste and decency. 6. Police officers do not have the authority to prevent a person taking a photograph or to confiscate cameras or film, and such conduct could result in criminal, civil or disciplinary action. 7. If a situation becomes an identifiable Breach of the Peace then a photographer has a duty to disperse if asked to do so. 8. Photographers should not park their vehicles in a way that will obstruct other traffic or hamper emergency vehicles or officers carrying out their lawful duty. These guidelines have been sanctioned by Chief Constable Steve Green and the National Union of Journalists. Human Rights Act 1998 Article 1 of Protocol 1: Protection of property Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. Everyone has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. Public authorities cannot interfere with a person’s property or possessions or the way that they use them except in specified limited circumstances. Protocol 1, Article 1 Protection of property The protection of property under Protocol 1, Article 1 has three elements: • A person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property. • A public authority cannot take away what someone owns. • A public authority cannot impose restrictions on a person’s use of their property. However, a public authority will not breach this right if a law says that it can interfere with, deprive, or restrict the use of a person’s possessions, and it is necessary for it to do so in the public interest. The Article requires public authorities to strike a fair balance between the general interest and the rights of individuals. Possessions and property: has a wide meaning, including land, houses, leases, money and personal property. Where possible, a public authority should try to ensure that policies or decisions do not interfere with peaceful enjoyment of possessions, restrict the use of possessions or take away possessions. If a public authority does decide that it is necessary to interfere with someone’s possessions or their use, there must be an objective and reasonable justification for that. A public authority can be asked to produce reasons for its decisions. Guidelines ________________________________________ On the basis that filming is restricted to public walkway using only a camera and tripod and portable sound equipment, no special licences or indemnities are required. Please note that crew and equipment must remain on the public walkway at all times, except where separate permission to film on private property has been obtained. Neither crew nor equipment may cause any obstruction or danger to pedestrians wishing to pass by on the walkway. If you are stopped in the street by officers with the intention of searching you, and you object to this, do the following:- • Make it clear that any stop and/or search is carried out without your permission and under compulsion, but that you will co-operate with the search. • Make sure the officers identify themselves properly. They must, if you ask, show you their warrant card, and allow you to make a note of their names and numbers. • You are fully entitled to be informed of the name, number, and station of each officer. If you are not told each of these, the search will be unlawful, and any arrest which follows will be unlawful. If it unlawful, you may be entitled to claim damages against them. • Ask what they are looking for, and on what grounds. They must have reasonable grounds for the stop and search. If they refuse to state their grounds make a note of the refusal. • They must record the stop and search. Ask them to give you a note which will allow to you to get the record of the stop. • If the place is very public, it is tempting to find somewhere less humiliating for the process. It is probably better to stay in public. Though such stops and searches are recordable by the police, it is notorious that they do not in fact make such records, particularly outside London. Above all, make it clear that you will co-operate. __________________ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted October 9, 2008 Share #446 Posted October 9, 2008 Was this not posted originally by Bill some time ago (earlier in this thread)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted October 9, 2008 Author Share #447 Posted October 9, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Was this not posted originally by Bill some time ago (earlier in this thread)? Yes, and rendered to a useful .pdf by Andy Barton here: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/505830-post102.html Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Posted October 17, 2008 Share #448 Posted October 17, 2008 I was recently accosted by three security guards in a Bangkok underground. I had not my Leica out of the bag, but my Rolleiflex. In fact I was testing the light meter. Three security guards blocked my path and made it clear I was not going anywhere until my camera was back in the bag. In a bookstore downtown BKK I was browsing books with my Leica around my neck. I spotted a girl standing near a window reading a book, and brought my camera up. Suddenly a guy in jeans and a T-shirt jumped between us. He waived his hand at me with an emphatic "NO!" I had seen him the store and had a feeling he was eyeing me, but thought is was because I am a foreigner. In fact he showed me his badge, and he was a plain clothes security guy. One other time, after having understood security guards are keen on preventing photography in malls, I set up my Rolleiflex in the street. I was about ten meters away from the mall entrance. Whenever an interesting passer-by, well...passed by, I took a photo as he/she had an interesting wall (my reason for positioning myself there) as a good background. After a few photos two security guards came rushing out of the entrance and again, stood in front of me blocking my camera. They claimed I could not take photos of the wall, because it belonged to the mall. Now talk about absurdity.....In any case, although I believe they are wrong and in fact we do have the right to take photos outside of these places, even of these places, I was not about to argue in a country where I am a stranger, nor would I want to keep taking photos after having to confront these guards. I tried charm, but their immovable bulk was all they communicated to me. It was effective. It bewilders me, to imagine these people thinking they are helping keep places secure by accosting photographers. I think it could be they have so little power to ever make themselves felt, seeing a photographer is like shooting lame ducks. (I know, it's a misuse of the phrase...) And what do they think? Do they think terrorists will walk around taking photos in bookstores and walls? It is like airport guards following guys around with big beards and turbans. Terrorists are hardly going to look the part. Other than this type of situation though, Bangkok is a fantastic place for street photos and people in out of the way parts of town. Just stay away from public malls, subways and, apparently, bookstores. Ronn slideshows: Site Title Ronn Aldaman Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted October 18, 2008 Share #449 Posted October 18, 2008 Yet more:= >Re: PHOTO Blog Archive Police attack Photographers Police target journalists at protest against arms manufacturer EDO MBM in Brighton (15.10.08). marc vallée Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted October 22, 2008 Share #450 Posted October 22, 2008 govt to act on rights - from BJP British Journal of Photography - Gov acts on photographer rights Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted November 5, 2008 Share #451 Posted November 5, 2008 police have inappropriately restricted photography in public places More at:British Journal of Photography - New police rules on photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 5, 2008 Share #452 Posted November 5, 2008 Early days but at least better news! Thanks for posting, Chris, and I'll keep my fingers and toes crossed that this is the start of HM Police recognising that they are stepping way over the mark and rectifying it. I won't hold my breath though. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted November 6, 2008 Share #453 Posted November 6, 2008 I won't hold my breath though. Pete. Nor indeed hold your camera near Wimbledon station : Schoolboy, 15, held as terror suspect after taking photos of railway station for GCSE project | Mail Online Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted November 6, 2008 Share #454 Posted November 6, 2008 Nor indeed hold your camera near Wimbledon station : Schoolboy, 15, held as terror suspect after taking photos of railway station for GCSE project | Mail Online That's got to be the daftest yet. It's high time that these hobby bobbies were properly sorted out by the MET and only allowed out with a real copper. And on a leash. Anyone fancy an excursion to Wimbledon? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth Posted December 17, 2008 Share #455 Posted December 17, 2008 Perhaps the next advertisement will read: THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEAR BEARDS EVERY DAY WHAT IF ONE OF THEM SEEMS ODD? Terrorists wear beards to help plan attacks, stroking them and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone wearing a beard, we need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take. Pete. Saddened by the seriousness and short-sightedness. Oh shit I have a beard as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 17, 2008 Share #456 Posted December 17, 2008 Oh shit I have a beard as well Dan-dan-dannnnn!!!! Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnG Posted December 19, 2008 Share #457 Posted December 19, 2008 It 's not just the UK! A couple of weeks ago at Perth (Western Australia) train station I was told at the platform entrance "You are not allowed to take photgraphs on the station" I just had my camera over my shoulder and was going to get on the train. We have also been told by private security guards that we cannot photograph an office block becasue it has government offices in it. Tet we can photograph the Parliament building! Whilst taking tripod mounted night shots in one of the main streets my friend and I had three Federal police cars descend on us wanting to know what we were photographing, some idiot of a private security guard in one of the buildings had called the police. John Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
petewayne Posted December 23, 2008 Share #458 Posted December 23, 2008 Reminds me of the December following the 9/11 atrocity.......I was living north of Bristol in the UK and noticed that there was an aurora glowing faintly to the north. As the village I lived in had lots of sodium lights, I jumped in the car and headed a few miles north, pulling into a layby. I got my tripod out and mounted the camera to take some shots of what was now a faint auroral storm, green and red curtains forming to the north. The time was about 2215hrs when a car pulled into the other end of the layby, lights on but not moving; a few minutes later another car pulled into the other end effectively blocking me in. About 30 seconds later the police helicopter flew over, nitesun illuminated on me and the cars at either end lit up with blue lights. Along strolls a policeman to ask what I am doing, which I explained with a certain amount of growing anger not only at the situation on a quiet country road but also at the waste of taxpayers money having two squad cars and the police helicopter. Fortunately, the policeman was an amateur astronomer so he was interested and called the other units off, explaining that someone had called in to say that they had seen a car pull into a layby and start taking photographs!!! Overkill even for the post 9/11 period. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 6, 2009 Share #459 Posted January 6, 2009 More B.S. from the Met in today's Independent. So, the Met's promises to stop this nonsense by their officers was all hot air. There must be something that can be done about this. We don't live in a police state... or do we? Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted January 6, 2009 Share #460 Posted January 6, 2009 Thanks for the link, Andy, although it's depressing to see yet more police hooliganism! The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is an ever-present, loud and powerful body in the U.S.A.; presumably Liberty is its counterpart in the UK although I can't remember hearing much from it recently. Does anyone know if Liberty is the major watchdog for civil liberties in the UK or is there another body with more clout? Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.