samwells Posted March 7, 2008 Share #81 Posted March 7, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, I've tried twice to contribute to this eminently frightening discussion – each time, the internet connection has failed...scary, huh? I've been stopped twice recently by the Ruritarian Guard (oh, well, the Community Police) – not for taking photos, but simply because I had a camera slung over my shoulder...last time, I was walking past our local technical college, when I was asked “You're not taking pictures of the kids, are you, sir?”. And a couple of weeks ago, we received a flyer from the local Neighbourhood Witch asking all dog walkers to immediately report anything strange (well, I did see a white German Shepherd bitch). Of course, all this will eventually lead to totalbreakdown of society, whereby no-one trusts the police, and neighbours don't trust each other. Sounds kinda familiar... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2008 Posted March 7, 2008 Hi samwells, Take a look here Advice to photographers in Uk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Michael Hiles Posted March 7, 2008 Share #82 Posted March 7, 2008 I have been sitting in Montreal watching this thread unfold, with my mouth open. In a different time all this would have meant "A letter to the Times" and "A Question in the House", where sensible and historically sensitive people would have shown the Met's (probably) well intentioned objectives to be going a few steps too far. The government should be controlling the Met, and the Opposition should be screaming at the government. A version of that tradition should continue, and my hat is way off to Andy Barton for engaging DSI Lawerence. Maybe I have no right of comment - I am not a citizen of the UK, and we have had no terrorist attacks here. But - Silence is very dangerous. Could or would the Royal Photographic Society raise a public and high profile row? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 7, 2008 Share #83 Posted March 7, 2008 Thanks for your support Michael. I do think that DCI Lawrence has been very responsive and reasonable, especially since he will be taking this up with other departments in the Met Police. I have also been contacted by a gentleman of the press this morning, who is preparing an in-depth article on this very subject. Where I do disagree with you, though, is where you say that the Government should be controlling the police. IMHO, it's the Met (or any other force's) job to enforce the law passed by the legislature, but without any interference in doing that from the people that actually make the laws. An independent police force, and judiciary, is vital to the maintenance of democracy. And, finally, long may Canada remain terrorism free. For 3/4 of my life someone somewhere has, on occasion, been trying to blow me and my fellow countrymen up. While the risk here mustn't be overstated (especially when compared to what people in say, Gazza have to endure on a daily basis), it's always at the back of your mind when travelling on the tube, or in a crowded venue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hiles Posted March 7, 2008 Share #84 Posted March 7, 2008 Where I do disagree with you, though, is where you say that the Government should be controlling the police. IMHO, it's the Met (or any other force's) job to enforce the law passed by the legislature, but without any interference in doing that from the people that actually make the laws. An independent police force, and judiciary, is vital to the maintenance of democracy. Absolutely, and counterexamples abound. We are probably reading "control" a little differently. But I wonder if a campaign to encourage or incite citizens in this way is what the legislature had in mind. If not, who reigns in the police? If Yes, the remedy is at the next election. I hope and imagine (but don't know) that this is a well intentioned but poorly aimed police initiative. But in our (common) system, who tells the police to think again? Here it would be the Solicitor General or (less likely) Minister of Justice. For you - the Home Secretary? You are standing up to be counted, but shouldn't one of the other branches of government be saying Attends Minute (to use the Québec phrase)? Your point is powerful and I think right. But it seems to me that as part of a strong democracy there needs to be an eye kept on authority - even the independent branches of authority that provide democratic checks and balances. This is complex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted March 7, 2008 Share #85 Posted March 7, 2008 Watching this unfold has reminded me of this, "Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose...... He loved Big Brother." In the larger cites here in the U.S. we have to deal with the same and the hysterical fear of every photographer being a pedophile.I carry in my bag or pocket anytime I'm out shooting this document. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JE Posted March 7, 2008 Share #86 Posted March 7, 2008 John, I live in one of the larger US cities, Chicago, and have never been stopped (by any authority, that is) for taking photos...Never even thought about carrying a card with my rights on it...This is a frightening thread and one that I hope will not become a reality in the US...although I'm sure there are similar campaigns already in the works... Tighten the laces on those trainers boys, time for the shoot and run technique. What is even more alarming is what Andy mentioned about having to submit to DNA swabbing just for being stopped...Good luck to you all. JE Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted March 7, 2008 Share #87 Posted March 7, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) We await the outcome of this with great interest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted March 7, 2008 Share #88 Posted March 7, 2008 John, I live in one of the larger US cities, Chicago, and have never been stopped (by any authority, that is) for taking photos...Never even thought about carrying a card with my rights on it...This is a frightening thread and one that I hope will not become a reality in the US...although I'm sure there are similar campaigns already in the works... Tighten the laces on those trainers boys, time for the shoot and run technique. What is even more alarming is what Andy mentioned about having to submit to DNA swabbing just for being stopped...Good luck to you all. JE Unfortunately, it's becoming a reality here in the U.S. I know of one photographer stopped in Dallas who was just standing on a corner for an hour taking street shots. On the Texas Photoforum several train shooters who were not now railroad property have been stopped and in one case detained for almost an hour. We keep the Photographer's Rights as a sticky on the Texas Photoforum for people to have. At least we've not gotten to DNA here. Another thing we have to deal with in Texas is a very vaguely written law which makes it a crime to take a photograph in public, "...with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;.." At least one Photographer got arrest on this until it was finally thrown out. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JE Posted March 7, 2008 Share #89 Posted March 7, 2008 Unfortunately, it's becoming a reality here in the U.S. I know of one photographer stopped in Dallas who was just standing on a corner for an hour taking street shots. On the Texas Photoforum several train shooters who were not now railroad property have been stopped and in one case detained for almost an hour. We keep the Photographer's Rights as a sticky on the Texas Photoforum for people to have. At least we've not gotten to DNA here. Another thing we have to deal with in Texas is a very vaguely written law which makes it a crime to take a photograph in public, "...with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;.." At least one Photographer got arrest on this until it was finally thrown out. Wow, I had no idea! I hope that doesn't make its way up here. How have the authorities responded to your showing them the Rights? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2008 Share #90 Posted March 7, 2008 Och, well, in the good old days of IRA attacks, numbers of innocent Sainsbury bags were blown up by the Bomb Squad. This too will pass. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinepressto Posted March 7, 2008 Share #91 Posted March 7, 2008 It's Sounds like photographing is an 8th sin the new sin in this age Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted March 7, 2008 Share #92 Posted March 7, 2008 On a slightly parallel track..... a piece on the BBC national news programme this morning featured parking wardens in the City of Salford who are now wearing head mounted miniature video cameras which record everything which occurs during their working shift. Every alleged parking violation, every exchange with Joe Public, in fact everything. These people are in official-looking uniforms but are employed by a private company. I would join the other forum members in writing to my MP, but unfortunately he is Gideon Osbourne, the shadow chancellor, or something. Poor fellow seems slightly brain-damaged, long hair round blue glasses, swears a lot. His wife Sharon seems nice enough, in a dim-witted sort of way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 7, 2008 Share #93 Posted March 7, 2008 I would join the other forum members in writing to my MP, but unfortunately he is Gideon Osbourne, the shadow chancellor, or something. Poor fellow seems slightly brain-damaged, long hair round blue glasses, swears a lot. His wife Sharon seems nice enough, in a dim-witted sort of way. He's a country member. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biglouis Posted March 7, 2008 Share #94 Posted March 7, 2008 Dissenting view: This is a very interesting thread and one I have 'enjoyed' reading, if that is an appropriate response. Despite being on the wrong end of 'jobs worths' when I've been photographing (as Brian reminded me) I'm still not as upset about this campaign as others are. Firstly, I hate to say this but it will make about zero difference to 99.9% of the public and for that matter the Police. The Police are not looking at most of us in this group when they are profiling threats (and yes, sorry to the PC brigade but they are profiling and they'd be mad not to). As to walking around London courting confrontation with Police, some of you will know, all I do is pretty much walk around London photographing buildings and urban landscapes. The best thing about central London, away from the retail areas, at the weekend is that no one is around. Typically, I recently spent some time on a Saturday afternoon photographing the Old Bailey and the Royal Courts with only pigeons and the occasional tourist for company. No police, no members of public and I suspect little if any CCTV footage to record the event or question my motives. Secondly, I don't think in fact this campaign is designed to get the public to work with the police. Sure, the Police may get some intelligence from it but I'm not convinced it is the objective of the campaign. Thirdly, I don't subscribe to the view that the point of this campaign is to keep us in a perpetual state of fear. A perpetual state of righteous indignation, mild amusement or credulity maybe but you'd have to be pretty susceptible to panic to find this raises your blood pressure. I hope everyone who reads this is realistic enough to appreciate that hostile surveillanceis taking place in the UK. It is a fact that hostile surveillance of targets in the UK, i.e. people, places of worship, schools etc, has been going on for over 10 years by people with connections to the middle east. The Police know it (and before 7/7 did little about it) and segments of the UK population are aware of it. Most of the UK population is blissfully unaware and untroubled. Clearly, since the invasion of Iraq and since the surveillance capability is in place, that surveillance has shifted to wider targets. It is known, for example, that several of the 7th of July bombers visited their target areas the week before the event and I've no doubt that someone would have spent even more time before that scoping out the whole plan. Counter terrorism has got to instill a state of fear into terrorists. I'm not saying this campaign on its own will do this but it does say in a pretty direct way to people involved in hostile surveillance, "We know you do it, now you know we know do it, so if someone asks you to do it, you might want to think twice". If that means a suceptible youth who is asked to do something by someone finds it less attractive because he's aware of the consequences then I'd say that is a move in the right direction. Anyway, what do I know? LouisB Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest suilvenman Posted March 7, 2008 Share #95 Posted March 7, 2008 On a slightly parallel track..... a piece on the BBC national news programme this morning featured parking wardens in the City of Salford who are now wearing head mounted miniature video cameras which record everything which occurs during their working shift. Every alleged parking violation, every exchange with Joe Public, in fact everything. These people are in official-looking uniforms but are employed by a private company. Yes, Pete, isn't it disturbingly ironic that this issue should occur in what must be the most CCTV recorded piece of land on the entire planet. Cheers, Ken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angora Posted March 8, 2008 Share #96 Posted March 8, 2008 Major laugh. It seems that being one of the most CCTV polluted country in the world isn't enough for the UK. Now the government wants people to feel even more insecure - sure the mass would never think that "terrorists" can discreetly take pics of the CCTV with their mobile phone or simply memorize their location. What's next? Photographers eat babies? Photographers kill insects by using their lenses as loupes? 2008 Counter-Terrorism advertising campaign: more like 1984 Counter-Photography advertising campaign. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuny Posted March 8, 2008 Share #97 Posted March 8, 2008 I still have not had any problem photographing anything I like in New York, including bomb sniffing dogs and ESU (kind of super commando police). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted March 8, 2008 Share #98 Posted March 8, 2008 NYPD aren't as oppressive as the Met. Clearly. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted March 8, 2008 Author Share #99 Posted March 8, 2008 This: Four Thirds User discussion forum - View Single Post - Photographers Rights in the UK Makes interesting and useful reading. It's the first time I have seen a properly thought through statement of rights including recent anti-terrorism considerations. Regards, Bill I've now rendered this into a slightly more user-friendly layout in Word, with clear separate sections for your basic rights, stop and search, police guidelines, the Human Rights Act, then finally the Terrorism Act. I've paginated so that each section starts on a new page, meaning you only need to carry what you want (I'm a little dubious about getting a fair hearing from an officer in the street if I start waving the Terrorism Act under his nose...) If anyone in the UK wants a copy, please PM me with a suitable email address and I'll send it to you. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael-IIIf Posted March 8, 2008 Share #100 Posted March 8, 2008 Collection of information. A person commits an offence if— (a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or ( he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind. (2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record. (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession. That's the scary bit. Under the 2000 Anti Terrorism Act (extract above) pretty much anybody taking any photograph in any public space of any 'normal' photographic subject could be accused of making a record of a kind likely to be useful to a person preparing an act of terrorism. Given that terrorism can be, and has been, visited upon buses, roads, bridges, buildings, trains, you-name-it; everything falls into the category "likely to be useful to". Gosh, even the BBC broadcasting a shot of the Palace of Westminster on the News at Ten would be culpable under this insane wording. The truth is under this Act the police have been handed shocking powers by our legislature who were criminally asleep at the wheel when they allowed ZaNu PF Labour to pass it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.