British Plods score another PR disaster - with a wedding photographer this time

<p><a href="http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672">http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672</a></p>

<p>I don't think this has been mentioned on this site before - Jess Hurd shooting a wedding gets hassled by the police.</p>

<p>I understand the need to use the odd present tense when reporting news, since you never know exactly when or how it will be read (a la, "Man is run over by train," even though, let's face it, man <em>was</em> run over by train). In you example, Jess Hurd <em>gets hassled</em> really needs to be taken into proper context: Jess Hurd <em>was hassled a year ago</em> is what matters. I believe there's been slight change in the last 12 months, by all reports.</p>

<p>Doesn't surprise me. In the UK, almost anyone using a camera is fair game for police abuse, it's beyond ridiculous. Section 44 means they can dish out any treatment they wish, seemingly for the sake of it. Good luck to Ms Hurd in bringing her complaint. I know from personal experience that complaints are dealt with 'internally' (the IPCC filters and refers the matter to the division in question) and the prospect of any satisfactory resolution is probably nill. As for the 'slight changes' - I doubt this makes any practical difference.</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I believe there's been slight change in the last 12 months, by all reports.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's been a change in policy at the top, with statements from Andy Trotter, Chief Plod at the British Transport Police who speaks for the ACPO on these matters - insructing Chief Constables, basically, to have their men "back off" from photographers. But there's no let-up to "Photographer hassled by cops" stories in this country - with at least three or four new high profile cases this month. The good news is that the mainstream press has picked it up and they can go and manufacture stories at their pleasure just by pointing cameras at tall buildings and waiting for the inevitable reaction from security goons. And good luck to them, I say.</p>

<p>I do take your point that the hassle should have been referred to in the past tense. But the complaint has been filed recently, and the law firm published the story late last week, so the PR disaster (if that's what it's judged to be) is unfolding now.</p>

 

 

 

<p>The police officers in this situation do not need further special training...they need to be fired. I cannot possibly believe that they could be so obtuse as to think that the photographer at a wedding....with all the guests present....was a terrorist. These two individuals are simply not intelligent enough to work as police officials and should be removed. Maybe if cops like this were fired, there would be far less incidents of stupidity being reported.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Section 44 means they can dish out any treatment they wish</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No it doesn't. It is being abused.</p>

<p>aagh " big brother is alive and well in the UK":<br>

sounds worse than china or north korea</p>

<p>Steve Smith - I completely agree. S44 has become a license for them to (at times) behave in a manner which is reprehensible. I'm all for national security, but I've become a little weary of them throwing their weight around just for the hell of it, at our expense. </p>

<p>It might be emotionally satisfying to fire the cops involved, but I might favor the solution of making them apologize and only considering disciplinary action if they become repeat offenders. I don't like the way photographers come under threat from various stripes of law enforcement officials (here and in the UK) but it would be nice if both parties kept their head and their tempers and kept these incidents from escalating to a lawsuit or violence.</p>

<p>In the litigious US, I wonder if the only way such policies here are going to change though is if they are successfully sued. Perhaps only then would the heads of the departments see that sort of thing as a threat to their budgets.</p>

<p>In the UK it's all but impossible to bring an action against the police. The complaints procedure is a joke and as far as I know they're incapable of apology. That's why it can be hard to keep your head.</p>

<p>"Section 44 means they can dish out any treatment they wish"</p>

 

<p>"No it doesn't. It is being abused."</p>

<p>In my book "...means they can dish out any treatment they wish" means the same as "...is being abused." The end result is the same.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>Alan</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>as far as I know they're incapable of apology.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, if you look at all of the cases of photographers being hassled by police (wrongly) under section 44 terrorism laws, you will see that most of them end up with the police making an apology.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my book "...means they can dish out any treatment they wish" means the same as "...is being abused." The end result is the same.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes............ an apology.</p>