British photographer arrested for street shooting Video embedded in article

<p>Freedom seems to be at a bit of a premium in the 'free' world...<br>

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest</a></p>

<p>I have had worse happen to me in NYC. Compared to the NYPD the UK police sound like they were kind. It is getting to be an uglier world.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>he should of just gave the cute cops his digits... problem solved</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. The police should have left him alone. Problem never existed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think he sounded a little sloshed...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Based on what? The articulate language he used? Contrasted with your use of a the F-bomb in the very first word of your post (which may be deleted by the time others read this)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>here in the states it wouldn't of went so smoothly... he's lucky...<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>While incidents happen, people taking pictures of holiday events are generally free from harassment. He's not lucky.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>sucks that the rest of the world is being policed like our socialist america... but get used to it...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Assuming the political hyperbole about the current President were remotely accurate, these "incidents" cited above arose long before then and certainly under the opposing and previous governance.</p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p><em><br /> </em></p>

<p>This is shocking!</p>

<p>The friend that cooperated with police walked way.</p>

<p>The guy that was trying to create a news story and did not cooperate lost 8 hours of his life being detained by the police he was snubbing.</p>

<p>What a shocker. I'd have given them my business card on the very first encounter, and I'm reasonably confident that I would have been free to continue to take photos. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Good thing being antisocial is legal in this country. I'd be in serious trouble.</p>

<p>Seriously, being "antisocial" is probable cause to arrest somebody? And taking photos is "antisocial"? You just can't win with these people! I'm going to Europe this summer and maybe I'll just leave the UK off the itinerary. I'll go to Italy instead. They kicked their fascists out years ago and apparently replaced them with sex addicts, which seems much more fun.</p>

<p>Being <em>anti-social</em> is not an arrestable offence. You can be cautioned for a public order offence but not arrested for it but this was not a public order offence either.</p>

<p>This sounds like a catchall law the police can use when they just want to give someone trouble and they actually have no cause whatever. Clearly the police in England do not intend to give up the right to harrass photographers without a fight.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Clearly the police in England do not intend to give up the right to harrass photographers without a fight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To be fair to them, it is probably a very small minority.</p>

<p>"<strong>sucks that the rest of the world is being policed like our</strong> <strong>socialist america</strong> " Maybe this absurdity should be deleted too! When a reasoned and factual response to this nonsense is deleted, maybe consistency would dictate that the nonsense is booted.</p>

<p>I've never had this sort of problem in the US. Or associated it with public ownership of the means of production. Is "socialism" the new word for "anything I don't like"?</p>

<p><em>Is "socialism" the new word for "anything I don't like"?</em></p>

<p>If you go around regurgitating slogans handed out by political propaganda talk show hosts even in photography related internet forums, then yes.</p>

<p>Mr. Henneberger...</p>

<p>It appears as if the post you were replying to was removed prior to my seeing your comments. From the highlighted parts above your answers, I'd say you gave some pretty good, common sense answers. They were well and nicely put. </p>

<p>As to the last quote and response, I dislike any government, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Nazi and/or Dictatorship to impose upon my freedom. Also, "but get used to it..."...NEVER. </p>

<p>Mr. Merrill...</p>

<p>Snubbing? I did not see any snubbing. The police were demanding something that they did not have a right to and were told "No." In fact, I see no difference between the incident and if a bum had approached the man, demanded a dollar and was told "No." That is not snubbing. </p>

<p>Give them my business card? No way! I'm an old man. I actually knew men, women and children who cooperated with their government and ended up going to the gas for their troubles. Most people who can say that, and especially Americans, are dead or not too far from it. When the last of us die off who will remember and say "No."? </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I dislike any government, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, Nazi and/or Dictatorship to impose upon my freedom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. I don't think the situation here is political and neither is my last comment although it may appear as such. If a pointless vitriolic slogan were paraded by someone of another view, my reaction would have been the same. I highlight the absurdity to which these situations are attributed in general when, in this instance, its about some particular law enforcement officers on a power trip. How dare the photographer assert his rights. There are other instances where its not a power trip and people see photography as a threat and overreact. Whatever the cause, its good to publicize such things but also good for us to not overreact as was done in the deleted post.</p>

<p>I applaud Bob Patefield for standing up for his rights. </p>

<p>Since 9/11 people with cameras have been looked down upon. I don't know why. If a terrorist wanted photos of a building, don't you think they would use a tiny cell phone camera? I don't know any terrorists, but I don't think they would use a Leica in plain sight for documentation. Every good spy knows that they should use a Minox <a href="http://www.minox.com/index.php?L=1">http://www.minox.com/index.php?L=1</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.minox.com/index.php?L=1"></a>In addition street photography by its own nature is anti-social. if Street photography was social, then everyone in the photos would be smiling, looking into the lens and reciting "Cheese!" Only grandma would want to see those photos. The art of street photography would be ruined.</p>

<p>My Thanks to Bob for standing up for his rights and bringing this issue to the media for all photographers around the world!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mr. Henneberger: </p>

<p>And I too agree with you. Re-reading what I wrote, I see it could have been interpreted as arguing your point, rather than agreeing with you, which I was. More simply, my point was: it doesn't matter to me which party, which government, or which individual in power attempts to limit freedom, we the people should say no. I'm also not one of these people who feels that the party I generally favor has all the right answers, nor will I agree with whatever they say. It's quite the opposite--I tend to take the party that I support to task quicker than I do the opposition. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I'm old enough to remember when both parties generally represented America's interest, but from the perspective of their political philosophy and support base. Although often not friendly, it would be still akin to friendly competition to work toward the same goal: a better America. For instance, one of the many differences 60 years ago was that the Democrats seemed to champion the needs of the union worker, blue collar worker, and assembly line person to see that they did not get left out of the American Dream. The Republican party seemed to champion the needs of the white collar worker, the professional, and small business owner to see that they weren't denied the fruits of their labors. Both parties had their super-rich and their poor. But today, neither party, unfortunately, seems to be looking after the bulk of middle Americans mentioned under both parties' banner above. </p>

<p>If you are stopped in the street by a Gestapo agent from taking a picture of your daughter standing by the Statue of Liberty, does it matter whether you are rich or poor? Does it matter whether you punch a time clock or are a salary man? Does it matter if you are a socialist/communist or whether you are a capitalist or Libertarian? Does it matter whether the man in the oval office (who really doesn't have that much power as we always seem to give them credit or blame for) is a Libertarian or a communist? You still don't get that picture of your daughter with the Statue of Liberty and you have still been accosted unjustly by a Gestapo agent. </p>

<p>I never vote the party line, but there is one party that I tend to vote more with. It's one of the two parties that have held the presidential office since I was born. Unfortunately, when I speak out against policies promulgated by the party I am more supportive of, when I speak out, other members of that party get quite angry and sometimes even disassociate themselves from me. The people I know from the other party can't believe I am sincere and would go against what they see as "my" party. </p>

<p>Wrong is wrong. It doesn't matter which banner the wrongdoer is flying. </p>

<p>Mr. Reklaitis....</p>

<p>I too applaud just about anybody who stands up against government tyranny. I subscribe to Amateur Photographer, a leading English photography magazine. They take the point for photographers' rights and devote a fair amount of each issue to that cause. I have been following their articles on the abuses the police have been committing under the Terrorism Act, specifically section 44. I parallel it to many of the abuses that we in America have tolerated under the name of the Patriot Act, although our abuses tend to be in non-photographic areas. Just because it doesn't affect me as a photographer, that doesn't mean I should not protest because I, along with the people it affects, am a fellow American. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"However, due to the fact that we believe you were involved in antisocial behaviour, ie taking photographs …"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Taking photographs is antisocial behavior? I could see that perception if they were paparazzi, but for taking pictures of a Santa, a pipe band, and people who were dressed up, all in a public Christmas parade? Bob Patefield is a hero for making the police arrest him. If we don't insist on keeping our freedom, we'll surely lose it.</p>

<p>I'll give the police in Accrington this, though: although they're evidently out to harass innocuous members of the public to sate their power trips, they're much more civil about it than US cops are. I wonder if anything in town got stolen or if any drugs were sold while they were busy rousting the photographers...</p>

<p>It is called cooperation.<br>

Put yourself in their shoes. They have to watch out for suspicious activity. You ignore some phototgraphers taking photos of a bus and who becomes obsinate when you question him. Later, there is an incident with the bus involving loss of life. How could you live with yourself.<br>

I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio during the sixities. Shaker Heights is a suburb. right outside of Cleveland. One day "nice young man," according to witnesses walked into the Shaker Heights Police department headquarters and blew it up. <br>

All "nice young men" in Shaker Heights were under serious suspicion after that.<br>

Given the terrorist attacks in Britain, even though they happen several years ago, if I were a police official, I truly would take my job very seriously.<br>

The anti-social behavior cited was probably the uncooperative attitude the police locked onto.<br>

Remember, the police left him and came back twice before confronting him. You better believe they went back and watch the video of his actions before confronting him a third time. Why? Hunches. The officer who stopped Timothy McVeigh had a hunch about him and questioned McViegh about his suspicous actions and dress. (McViegh had a concealed weapon and was driving without license plates when stopped.)<br>

The point is that if you act suspicous and unccoperative, you will pique the hunches and draw the unwanted attention of John Law.<br>

And yes, there probably were a couple robberies, some cars were probably stolen, and people got high and a couple of photographers were aggravated, but no one got blown up from a terrorist bomb in Accrington that day.</p>

 

<p>Corrected version--<br />It is called cooperation.<br />Put yourself in their shoes. They have to watch out for suspicious activity. You ignore some photographer taking photos of a bus and who becomes obsinate when you question him. Later, there is an incident with the bus involving loss of life. How could you live with yourself.<br />I grew up in Cleveland, Ohio during the sixities. Shaker Heights is a suburb right outside of Cleveland. One day "nice young man," according to witnesses, walked into the Shaker Heights Police department headquarters and blew it up. <br />All "nice young men" in Shaker Heights were under serious suspicion after that.<br />Given the terrorist attacks in Britain, even though they happen several years ago, if I were a police official, I truly would take my job quite seriously. Anyone less than cooperative, would put my meter in the red.<br />The anti-social behavior cited was probably the uncooperative attitude of the photographers the police locked onto rather than the photography.<br />Remember, the police left him and came back twice before arresting him. Plus they gave him an out, which his buddy took. You better believe they went back and watch the video of his actions before confronting him a third time. Why? Hunches. All police have hunches. And most of them credit their hunches in saving their lives and solving crimes.The officer who stopped the Oklahoma city bomber Timothy McVeigh had a hunch about him and questioned McViegh about his suspicous actions and dress. (McViegh had a concealed weapon and was driving without license plates when stopped.)<br />The point is, if you act suspicous and unccoperative, you will pique the interests, hunches and draw the unwanted attention of John Law.<br />And yes, there probably were a couple robberies, some cars were probably stolen, and people got high and a couple of photographers were aggravated, but no one got blown up from a terrorist bomb in Accrington that day.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"And yes, there probably were a couple robberies, some cars were probably stolen, and people got high and a couple of photographers were aggravated, but no one got blown up from a terrorist bomb in Accrington that day."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you actually serious...?</p>

<p>He sounds quite deadly serious after a male blew up a police station, hmmm males are suspicious. That's the level of logic he quoted.</p>

<p>I have news for you Mr Wilson, Obstinacy is not a crime. In some situations it is the most healthy response. Non-cooperation is not a crime. In the US it is actually a guaranteed right - at least by the constitution. No one can be forced to testify in particular against themselves. No one can be dragged to a police to answer questions without evidence <strong>against</strong> them. Cops have been violating these rights well since there have been cops. A few years back an article ran in the LA times about LA police officers stationed at the California border (outside their legal jurisdiction) during the depression and turning people away if they did not have a check account or other "required" credentials. Power will always be a problem.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why you would think he isn't. It's a fair comment isn't it? it ain't just aljiwotwot that blows stuff up. IRA is back on the home grown action; works wonders for making officials try to stay on the ball. so while it probably ain't the likely target for some boom boom action, you can't rule it out.<br /> <br /> For some reason couldn't get past 4m56s so might get shot down by the content after that point, but ah well, I wanted to say something on it anyway..<br /> <br /> I'd say the suspicious behaviour was in not giving any details when asked nicely in a non-confrontational way to provide them so that he could be checked against known records of naughty folk so that everybody could go about their day. <br /> <br /> Fair enough not obliged. <br /> <br /> And ok the 2nd officer came across as a bit of a muppet , but most likely was just trying a delaying action so that people behind the scenes could run around and track movements etc rather than lose a 'potential' suspect(?). <br /> <br /> But you certainly ain't looking guilt free anymore mate; what you hiding?<br /> <br /> No it ain't ideal, but the world has changed aye. <br /> <br /> So, if they didn't ask the questions and something had happened, what then? That would have been a number of people having their job on the line during a review of the incident - did they follow protocol, did they do enough, oh my goodness what could be done to prevent it happening again! oh and now the media is involved. why oh why did they not just arrest the man right then They had him? oh my little jimmy would still be here now!<br /> <br /> eeek .<br /> <br /> Unlucky, they're going to give you a bad day everytime and deal with one irate photographer than a load of angry relatives wanting to know what went wrong... bit sad but true. And after all they do have a responsibility to everyone else in that town centre.<br /> If anyone has the answer on who should be left alone and who should be confronted then I'm sure they'd be only to happy to listen, yeah?<br /> <br /> It ain't great, but it is the world we live in these days. Don't be surprised at getting such a reaction if you are going to be needlessly obstinent - they didn't say stop taking shots, and they didn't know the last shots taken were of santa . No it ain't a crime in itself but surely a bit of give and take? That guy just knew the laws and seems to be flaunting the situation to make a point.<br /> <br /> It may seem like a slow decent into a big brother's world, but this ain't about a fascist state, etc, its about covering arses. Perhaps working together with the rozzas will help mitigate some of the problems. If every time they ask the question they get such a problem and waste so much time then it is surely going to be easier to just heavy hand the situation. Bound to just cause bad feeling on both sides and it is much easier to arrest the one guy just so they can get on with their real work. Everybody quick, you know your rights - cut that nose! spite that face!<br /> <br /> now that guy who was arrested for taking pictures of his son on a train; well that annoys me, so it ain't all cut and dry -- and yes I realise this subject has a billion facets and not all are the same and even this one can't be pigeon holed quite so tritely as I've put it, but I don't feel being pissy , which this guy blatantly was, deserves any applause.</p>

<p>Our man here, Patefield, certainly could have walked, but sensed that he was being bothered for some perfectly legal behavior, and decided to make a case of it.<br>

Most of us know that in the US when stopped for a 'rational suspicion' we must ID ourself, even if that 'rational suspicion' by a cop turns out to be balderdash.<br>

Remember those old Dashiel Hammet novels where the police chief would say, 'Go pick him up,' and the cop would reply 'For what, boss?'<br>

A. 'For spitting in the street, if you have to."<br>

There's really no defying the authority of the law if they want to make trouble for you except to follow their protocol or be 'punished' in the immediacy, such as Mr. Patefield was, by being detained for 8 hours, then released and with no charges to boot.<br>

I am unsure of 'Section 2' regarding so-called 'anti-social behavior', and what place 'street photography such as the very good photos were were shown falls into the quoted 'Section 2', and if police in the UK were to approach me and if I were a UK citizen and did the same thing, I had no outstanding warrants, had paid my taxes, etc., and wanted to make a point well, I might not have 'given my details' knowing I might be arrested (then go on television to further make the point). Sometimes it just comes to where someone will do that.<br>

The expedient part is to 'give details' of course, but suppose your name is the same as some bank robber, you know that, or some terrorist, and you know there's going to be a mix up. <br>

We have a 'no-fly' list in the US, and there are continual mix ups, and to remedy that now very belatedly there are 'redress numbers' for those who wrongly were stopped sometimes for years from flying, but suppose (quite counterfactually I am sure) that Mr. Patefield) knew of a namesake who was a forger who lived across the UK and had a long record and feared their two names might be mistakenly crossed and he might spend a weekend in jail while they worked it out. He then might have had a wonderful reason for not giving 'details' for fear of a known and foreseeable mistake from sloppy police work. <br>

(US experience with the NO-FLY list has proved how fallible official records can be when authorities check 'details', and I don't think it's stretching things too much to suggest that such problems transcend borders and agencies.)<br>

Such things happen, in the US, the UK and sometimes people spend months or longer in LA and other jurisdiction jails over such mix ups especially if they do not have a good public defender who actually believes them, as they get handed from public defender to public defender to public defender, or they're somehow unable to communicate (psychotic, retarded, intimidated easily, unaware of rights, etc.)<br>

Mr. Patefield may easily have taken the easy and expedient way out, but in a way, he made it more difficult for the next officer in the UK to approach any one of us, residents or visitors to demand our 'details' or to claim were were involved in Section 2 (Anti-Social behavior) for asking them to give us articulable suspicions (or similar words), as Mr. Patefield was so well able to request.<br>

His behavior other than simply refusing, was the model of propriety, but my God he was stubborn, and I am sure the police kept him under arrest the full eight hours just so they (1) could punish him and (2) figure out (after reviewing his captures) just what kind of hot water they had got themselves into with their town attorney (or similar) as that is how public officials/bureaucrats do think, as they were quite aware their 'catch' was a determined and highly articulate man capable of 'follow-through with much on 'video' which did not cast them in a very kind light.<br>

I'd simply have said 'I'm an amateur photographer, here's my name, and have your dispatcher open my name in Google.' and that would have been the end, but then I don't want to spend eight hours or longer in a town jail.<br>

But once in LA, when a cop having stopped me and demanded I delete certain photos or he (the lieutenant since I demanded a lieutenant come to the scene), would arrest me or detain me and they would 'impound my car' which had 10 terabyte hard drives in the trunk (to be possibly stolen or damaged by the tow/impound people) I relented.<br>

My life's work was in the trunk. <br>

I deleted.<br>

(And recovered later using special software).<br>

I figured I then knew when to fold 'em.<br>

But I admire what Mr. Patefield did and thank him, even if he is a stubborn bastard who could have saved himself and the really not too smart cops some time.<br>

And really, they were not too smart, if what we understand about his behavior is correct, based on what we observe about his behavior while confronted by cops, his speech during the interview, and (we think) representative photos.<br>

I CERTAINLY would be viewed as 'suspicious' by these people, just by walking, even without a camera, and once my cameras came out, they'd have been all over me.<br>

So Mr. Patefield, thank you very much for your obstinacy, being arrested to make a point that you might have avoided.<br>

Sometimes, someone must do that to preserve various 'freedoms' even if it is uncomfortable in the short run.<br>

Thank you, from John (Crosley) Mr. Patefield. You did a service for yourself, for your country and for us others who photograph on the street. I do not necessarily endorse what you did, but I cannot fault your choice, under the circumstances, and they do benefit us all.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

 

<p>Mr. Crosley... </p>

<p>"Sometimes, someone must do that to preserve various 'freedoms' even if it is uncomfortable in the short run. Thank you, from John (Crosley) Mr. Patefield. You did a service for yourself, for your country and for us others who photograph on the street. I do not necessarily endorse what you did, but I cannot fault your choice, under the circumstances, and they do benefit us all."</p>

<p>Well said. May I add a tip o' me Irish hat to the good man. </p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi, I wasn't going to respond initally as there was fair comment all round, but I would like to query a small snippet of the post (and I understand there is lack of intended tone in forum posts, so just to be clear this isn't being 'uppity'):<br>

"....You did a service for yourself, for your country and for us others who photograph on the street. I do not necessarily endorse what you did, but I cannot fault your choice, under the circumstances, and they do benefit us all...."<br>

I'm just curious as to what service was provided here, particularly for the country, and what benefit was brought to us all; indeed anybody by those actions.<br>

I'm know there are many examples of personal/small/silent protests and see the value/necessity. but in this instance I don't see the good this kind of action can bring to resolve the overall problem, especially given the nature of the current cause.</p>

<p>Interestingly there is a report in this month's Digital SLR Photography that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Section 44 of the Terrorism Act that permits police to stop and search without reasonable suspicion is a breach of the photographer's human rights. One of the reasons is that the Act lacks safeguards. </p>

<p>So common sense is starting to show through.</p>