UK Government Response to Photography Petition

<p>

I recently signed a petition (and also wrote to the UK government) about the misuse of terrorism legislation to prevent people from taking photos in public. Today I had a reply from Gordon Brown's office (link below). Here is my reply:

<br>

 

 

<br>

 

Rt Hon Gordon Brown<br />

The Office of the Prime Minister<br />

10 Downing Street<br />

London SW1A 2AA

<br>

 

Dear Mr Brown,

<br>

 

Thank you for your response (http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20750) to the petition that I signed regarding freedom to take photographs in public places. I am writing this reply as an open letter published on the popular photography web site, photo.net. I encourage you to read the comments on the page where I have published it. The link is here: (Note to PN readers: I will provide a link to this forum thread).

<br>

 

In essence, your response is that section 58A (of the Terrorism Act 2000, inserted by section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) does not make it illegal to photograph a police officer. You point out that "An officer making an arrest under section 58A must reasonably suspect that the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". However, there are documented cases of police officers preventing members of the public from taking photographs (or shooting video footage) and using recent terrorism legislation as a justification for doing so. For example:

<br>

 

Gemma Atkinson was detained, handcuffed and threatened with arrest under section 58A of the Terrorism Act for filming a police officer who was conducting a routine stop and search of her boyfriend at Aldgate East underground station.<br />

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court">http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court</a>

<br>

 

Alex Turner was arrested under section 44 of the Terrorism Act for taking a photograph of a police officer and a police community support officer in Chatham High Street.<br />

<a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/</a>

<br>

 

Klaus Matzka and his son, Loris, were prevented by police from photographing Walthamstow bus station. The police also intimidated them into deleting their photographs. The police said that this was in order to prevent terrorism.<br />

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos">http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/police-delete-tourist-photos</a>

<br>

 

Despite your assurances that photographers have nothing to fear from terrorism laws, the above newspaper reports argue the contrary. None of the people involved in any of the above incidents could be reasonably be considered terrorists. Yet the police invoked terrorism laws in order to stop them from taking photos.

<br>

 

Mr Brown, photography is not a crime, and photographers are not terrorists. It is time to repeal the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, and replacing them with more clearly worded legislation which, rather than merely extending police powers, protects the open and free society that most people in the UK value highly.

</p>

<p>Yes, there was a time - and I can remember it - when we in Britain lived in what was called a 'liberal democracy'. Was it Hemingway who said, 'the past is another country'? It certainly seems to me as if I'm living in a different country to that I was born in.</p>

<p>IMO it comes down to interpretation on the ground by Police Officers, although the act does seem to criminalise the act of taking photos <em>under specific circumstances</em> which it terms as information and intelligence gathering by terrorists (or potential terrorists - begs the question on whether someone gathering info on train routes etc. is actually a terrorist - I guess it depends on intent, which is notoriously difficult to prove).</p>

<p>It seems sensible to have a legal framework for the offence of intelligence gathering by terrorists, it allows a prosecution before a specific campaign has advanced to the stage of putting the public at risk.</p>

<p>The problem at present is in the understanding of the legislation by police officers, and their ability to discern a genuine photographer (whether professional, amateur or tourist) from a potential terrorist. I presume it is easier to identify someone who is <strong>not</strong> a terrorist from someone who <strong>may</strong> be. (a Clue should be the amount of equipment that they are carrying around, and the amount of attention they are drawing to themelves).</p>

<p>The examples you give <em>should</em> (on the basis of the articles at least) be fairly straight forward, and in each case you could argue that it is the police that were at fault rather than the legislation.</p>

<p>Interesting - hopefully it wall focus some of the intent and interpretation of the law by the authorities and clarify their implementation on the ground.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

 

<p>Although living in the US I have heard that London has more surveillance cameras than any city in the world. If they can photograph the general public why can't the public photograph them?<br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 <br>

 </p>

<p>Yes it does indeed seem that the police officers were at fault in the examples that I gave. And the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr Shahid Malik) has clearly stated in parliament that "the taking of photographs in a public place is not subject to any rule or statute" (the full debate is <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090401/halltext/90401h0005.htm"><strong>here</strong> </a> -- quite interesting reading, by the way). And the Metropolitan Police recently issued a clarification that photographing a police officer is not, in itself, an offence. </p>

<p>But there seems to be some dissonance between what Mr Malik said in parliament and the reports that I linked to above (and I could have provided more, but three seemed enough). The Terrorism Act is written so that the police can act on "reasonable suspicion". But the police in my examples acted on what could <strong>at best</strong> be described as an unreasonable suspicion. The examples I gave do not represent grey areas where someone was acting suspiciously, was rightly challenged by the police, but turned out to be innocent. That would be entirely correct behaviour by the police. Rather, I believe the police were deliberately misusing the law in order to intimidate members of the public whom they did not actually suspect of being terrorists at all. And the weakness of this law is that it invites precisely this type of abuse.</p>

<p>I would encourage anyone who feels strongly about this to write to Gordon Brown, even if you are not from the UK. This law can affect anyone who visits the UK and intends to take photos. For example, Mr Matzka and his son, whom I mentioned in my letter, were visitors from Austria.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If they can photograph the general public why can't the public photograph them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But they can!</p>

<p>Gerry,</p>

<p>It seems that by summer 2010 we shall have a new government anyway, one that is committed to rolling back state intervention (and cost). So while I agree with your putting pressure on the present goverment it is probably not going to make a lot of difference. The best thing you can do is to make sure you vote.</p>

<p>I agree with the poster above that most of the incidents mentioned are down to over-zealous officers using the terrorism acts as a cover for what they want to do. If a policeman wants to arrest someone they need to find a reason and the 2 terrorism acts can be seen to provide that. However the incidents you cite in your letter have brought that legislation into disrepute to the extent that the Home Office and Met Police have both issued guidelines as to their use. So the message is getting through.</p>

<p>Persoanlly I have never had any problems with police while photographing in London and I think that it really is a case of a few unfortunate cases which needed correcting and clarifying.</p><div></div>

<p>Vote Conservative, these idiots have had their chance at ruining a reasonably good country, and have done rather well(at ruining the country)</p>

<p>It certainly does look like the present government is on its way out. But I remember the Conservatives as having an agenda that was similarly authoritarian, and I very much doubt that they will roll back the power of the state in this particular area (i.e., civil liberties). However, without wanting to get too party-political here, you can be sure that I will not be supporting Labour.</p>

<p>That's an impressive shot, Colin. Robert Capa would certainly not be able to fault it!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is a big problem with the police , i have been stoped and harassed and told i will bee arested if i did not stop taking photos of a empty sand pit that birmingham council had put there for the summer . and i was told to move on by 2 jobsworth copers . it seems im not the only one having problems taking photos of my city . have a look at this site <a href="http://www.epuk.org/News/818/police-officer-forced-photographer-to-delete-images">http://www.epuk.org/News/818/police-officer-forced-photographer-to-delete-images</a></p>

<p>Ken,<br>

Your experience is just typical of the idiocy of the police under this government. I would suggest that every time anyone has a problem they should write a letter of complaint to the Chief Constable, and copy it to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, their own MP, Austin Mitchell MP (himself a photographer who has raised this issue), the Leader of the Opposition and Lord Carlile (who has ruled quite clearly on the matter). If enough people do this, the powers that be will back off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Vote Conservative, these idiots have had their chance at ruining a reasonably good country, and have done rather well (at ruining the country)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As the conservatives did before them. They are all politicians and share the same virtues of greed and incompetence.</p>

<p>The only people who should be allowed to be politicians are those who don't want to be politicians.</p>

<p>It may be more productive writing to Sir Hugh Orde - he is now in charge of ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) - their link is:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.acpo.police.uk/">http://www.acpo.police.uk/</a></p>

<p>They are probably in a better position to affect the daily implementation of policy across the force (rather than defining policy).</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>My observation on whether stopping people from taking photographs prevents terrorism: from the early 1990s through the spring of 2001, I worked at 7 World Trade Center. After the 1993 terrorist bombing of the garage below the complex, photographs of the building were prohibited. I personally witnessed security staff stopping people from taking pictures of the building. People generally complied with the request. I have to admit that it did make me feel better about working there.<br>

<br />As we all know, though, it certainly didn't stop the terrorists anymore than all of the security cameras in London stopped the events of July 7 2005.</p>

<p>Jennifer - I would completely agree, - I firmly believe that a lot of the legislation is to be <em>seen</em> to be doing something to counteract terrorism, rather than being specifically useful.</p>

<p>This one is even <em><strong>more</strong> </em> ludicrous:</p>

<p>http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Photographer_beach_ban_infringes_civil_liberties_news_290065.html</p>

<p>A photographer was told he couldn't take photos on a public beach due to 'local bye-laws' that prohibited it. Upon investigation, it was found that there were no such bye-laws (suprise suprise) - but now the Local Council have advised that photographers should seek permission prior to shooting on the beach and provide evidence of their Public Liability Insurance because of the risk they pose to other beach users (?)</p>

<p>How about kids flying kites ? in my experience they carry far greater risk to other beach users, or playing football ? and I'm sure someone could trip over a sandcastle, better ban that too unless the parents are carrying liability insurance on behalf of their kids.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>And have you seen all of that water the council insists on keeping right next to the beach? They should put up some barriers.</p>