farnz Posted December 8, 2009 Share #561 Posted December 8, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Sounds to me like the police were conned by the security guards after Mr Smith rightly refused to give them his personal details. But then the police should have found out the story before immediately whipping out Section 44. Are banks classed as 'sensitive areas' now? Apologies to Mr Smith, but the more wrongful, high-profile stop-and-accounts we have the better because the issue will stay in the limelight and the police will eventually have to take proper measures to control it so that the publicity goes away. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 Hi farnz, Take a look here Advice to photographers in Uk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
DavidStone Posted December 9, 2009 Share #562 Posted December 9, 2009 Sounds to me like the police were conned by the security guards after Mr Smith rightly refused to give them his personal details. But then the police should have found out the story before immediately whipping out Section 44. Are banks classed as 'sensitive areas' now? Apologies to Mr Smith, but the more wrongful, high-profile stop-and-accounts we have the better because the issue will stay in the limelight and the police will eventually have to take proper measures to control it so that the publicity goes away. Pete. Two sides to every story. It was clear that he was taking shots of the church and not making any attempt to hide this, and that the security people were "trigger-happy". And as I read it, he decided that he would stand up for his rights, regardless. But he could have just as easily defused the situation, had a chat to the excessively jumpy security people, saved the bother he had with the police and made some good PR for the profession. That, at least, is what I would have done. But it wouldn't have made any headlines. David Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted December 9, 2009 Share #563 Posted December 9, 2009 .............. Are banks classed as 'sensitive areas' now? Pete. "Sensitive areas": not quite so simple as that. As far as I can tell, an area cannot simply be designated i.e. "authorised" under Section 44 for a period of more than 28 days, maximum, and any such authorisation must "initially made by police officers of ACPO rank, they must be confirmed by the Secretary of State". So unless this bank/church area had been authorised under section 44 less than 28 days previously; a bunch of armed rozzers pitching up would seem to be operating outside the law. Unless I'm misreading what is written here: Authorisations of stop and search powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 | Home Office Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted December 10, 2009 Share #564 Posted December 10, 2009 That's interesting Pete. But..... Try asking that when you're confronted and see where it gets you....! Attitude test - FAILED! Incidentally - Grant Smith on More 4 News - with thanks to Twitter, More 4, and phnat. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted December 10, 2009 Share #565 Posted December 10, 2009 OK now the world has definitely gone mad - have a read of this... ITN film crew stopped while covering photographer story news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share #566 Posted December 10, 2009 OK now the world has definitely gone mad - have a read of this... ITN film crew stopped while covering photographer story news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Kafkaesque... you could not make it up. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes...? Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 10, 2009 Share #567 Posted December 10, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) ...Quis custodiet ipsos custodes...? Vae nemo ... Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 11, 2009 Share #568 Posted December 11, 2009 M6 user arrested in Hounslow for photographing posters Police detain photographer with Leica M6 in London suburb (update 6.20pm) news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted December 11, 2009 Share #569 Posted December 11, 2009 City Police crackdown - scandalous! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cidereye Posted December 11, 2009 Share #570 Posted December 11, 2009 M6 user arrested in Hounslow for photographing posters Police detain photographer with Leica M6 in London suburb (update 6.20pm) news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums M16 being stopped for yes, I can understand. M6 ...... ?!?! Orwellian Britain in 2009. {sigh} Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted December 11, 2009 Share #571 Posted December 11, 2009 Parallel chat going on in Barnack's at the moment: http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/barnacks-bar/109070-screw-tightens.html Can I draw your attention to the ACPO memo detailed in my post #20? This is a "must carry" document for all you naughty snappers and tells plod/plastik plod in no uncertain terms what Section 44 means in relation to photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 11, 2009 Share #572 Posted December 11, 2009 Why can't we just have ONE thread for this? Why do we need three? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indecisive Posted December 11, 2009 Share #573 Posted December 11, 2009 Why can't we just have ONE thread for this? Why do we need three? Holy Trinity Three musketeers Three Amigos .. Good things comes in three Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascarpone Posted December 12, 2009 Share #574 Posted December 12, 2009 Good things comes in three That's why I'm a three-hugger :-) The Guardian has a cartoon now: PCSO - The War On Photography. Steve Bell: I'm a train spotter! | Comment is free | The Guardian Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascarpone Posted December 12, 2009 Share #575 Posted December 12, 2009 One question that only the British can answer: who is actually responsible for that nonsense? Is there a plan to keep tourists out of Britain, is it the police officers who don't know what they do... why? And why don't they stop that even if the world laughs at them and many people complain? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 12, 2009 Share #576 Posted December 12, 2009 The Government is responsible for this nonsense. They are the ones that drafted the Terrorism Act 2000. They are the ones that drafted Section 44. This is the actual wording of the Act itself Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) It is so short, that it can be reproduced here, easily Power to stop and search 44 Authorisations (1) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a vehicle in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search— (a)the vehicle; (b )the driver of the vehicle; (c )a passenger in the vehicle; (d) anything in or on the vehicle or carried by the driver or a passenger. (2) An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search— (a) the pedestrian; ( anything carried by him. (3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2) may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. (4) An authorisation may be given— (a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph ( or ©, by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable; ( where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police; © where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force; (d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable. (5) If an authorisation is given orally, the person giving it shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable. Note - very important this, I reckon - only a constable in uniform is authorised to stop and search a pedestrian. Not a security guard. Not a plain clothes officer. Not a PCSO. Unfortunately, there is a "reasonableness" clause in there, that makes the question of whether a constable may stop and search you all down to him, and what sort of a day s/he has had. I don't think that there is a concerted effort to keep tourists out of Britain (this problem is much, much worse in London than anywhere else, from what I have read), but if you are from the Middle East and you want to be a tourist in London and take photographs in Trafalgar Square, or of The Palace of Westminster, etc, you'd better be prepared to explain yourself to a constable. Given the prevalence of existing photographs of everything in London, (and everywhere else for that matter) this is a national disgrace. The fact that people laugh at the Government for having such a ridiculous law, means absolutely nothing to them. 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. My MP is, unfortunately, so toeing of the party line, that it will be a waste of a stamp to write to him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascarpone Posted December 12, 2009 Share #577 Posted December 12, 2009 The law does not say anything about the reasons WHO can be stopped and WHY. So, there must be some orders either from the responsible ministry or within the police that tell them to stop anyone who holds a camera. Any idea who could be the origin? Do these high achievers actually question people who use Google StreetView from an Internet café? :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 12, 2009 Share #578 Posted December 12, 2009 It may be somewhere elsewhere in the Act, but basically they want (and have) the ability to stop and question anyone "whom they believe to be engaging in suspicious activity, relating to terrorism". Taking a photograph of anything in the street, could be seen to be suspicious activity. I have a friend who is very close to the Iranian opposition. They don't have laws against photography this draconian in Iran. What we have to do is try to understand the law as it is, and especially know what our rights are under that law, particularly with regards to giving out names, addresses etc, as well as showing digital photographs to police officers. As I have said in another thread, if you complain too much, they just arrest you for obstruction anyway. If they arrest you, but don't formally charge you, they still take, and keep, your DNA. When I was a kid, the police were on OUR side. Not any more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mascarpone Posted December 12, 2009 Share #579 Posted December 12, 2009 anyone "whom they believe to be engaging in suspicious activity, relating to terrorism". Well, some told them photography is suspicious and needs to be monitored. But who? As I have said in another thread, if you complain too much, they just arrest you for obstruction anyway. What I would do is to tell them what I am doing, show them whatever they want and then tell them that they waste time on photographers because terrorists will just use Google Streetview or postcards and a map or a hidden camera. Wel, and I would also ask them who told them photographers are a dangerous species. I really want to know who is the mastermind behind that nonsense. He deserves an award... If they arrest you, but don't formally charge you, they still take, and keep, your DNA. If they clone me they will still find I am not a terrorist. But I think that taking and keeping my DNA would probably break several european laws. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 12, 2009 Share #580 Posted December 12, 2009 Keeping DNA has just been the the European Court of Human Rights (or somewhere) and that is why they can no longer keep your DNA FOR EVER if you have only been arrested and not charged. It's the Police themselves that have decided that taking photographs is a potentially terrorist activity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.