The plight of UK photographers

[mark_beaumont]

<p>I'm not sure if linking is allowed on here, but if you're interested in what's happening to photographers in the UK you really need to read this http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/<br>

It's frightening and happening more and more!</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p><a href="../street-documentary-photography-forum/00Tt74">Here's your answer</a></p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>Ton, sadly it's only "advice" and only applies to the Met force. We've seen police officers at the GTO summit protests in London deliberately obscuring their id numbers.<br>

No one is policing the police any more.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Well if the account is true the officers concerned should be dismissed and prosecuted. </p>

<p>But they won't be. Their management structure will as ever defend these actions , right or wrong. Quite why we bother to sustain a law-making body in the UK is beyond me. We don't need it. We can just leave it to individual policemen- they can make up far more laws more quickly than the House of Commons ever could. And just think- we probably don't have to pay the interest on their loans for second homes either. </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's probably time for whatever photographer's association you have over there to organize a "take photos of the police" day. Maybe even a photo contest. Since there's safety in numbers, maybe this should be done in small groups of two or three photographers (so at least they can photograph each other being arrested...), each carrying a copy of the relevant legal statutes and a copy of this document: <a href="http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm">http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm</a> which contains the statements:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.<br>

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism.<br>

It should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use Section 58a to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, as without more, there is no link to terrorism.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not illegal to take photographs of the police, and simply taking photographs is not evidence of terrorism. Perhaps they need a reminder of that, or at least more experience with dealing with it.</p><div></div>

[mike_stemberg]

<p>Here's something from the magazine Amateur Photographer:

<a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Mets_photography_advice_not_Home_Office_approved_news_285926.html>Met's photography advice not Home Office approved.</a><br><br>

 

..and the article from The Guardian:

<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/photography-anti-terrorism-regulations">The Met's attack on photographers.</a></p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Okay, well, I'd like to say that I think I'd like to hear from some UK photographers about all this in about a few days or a few weeks. The last time there was one of these flare-ups, I read over the news articles; I watched some of the videos, some of which turned out to be old, at least one looked like it was staged (the man had a bullhorn secreted with him that he used to motivate some people to taunt the police after they inquired about his photos).</p>

<p>So, around January, I think, there was one of these flare-ups. I waited around awhile, and I heard nothing. I was getting concerned about this at the time, because in my opinion, the laws sounded like they were restrictive to the point of being tyrannical. So, then around April, I posted this question: http://www.photo.net/street-documentary-photography-forum/00T2R0</p>

<p>I basically asked, UK photographers, how's it going with these new laws that look like they're overly restrictive? While I only received a few answers, the people who replied mentioned that really they had experienced no problems, and that the whole thing had been a bunch of unnecessary hubbub.</p>

<p>So, how's it going now? And how will it be going in about two weeks? Are y'all being rounded up in a Paddy Wagon and hauled off to jail for no reason? What exactly is the problem? Do you observe <em>desaparecidos, </em>people disappearing off the streets in illegal arrests?</p>

<p>I'm not talking about what people say might happen. I mean, what are you seeing happen today?</p>

<p>I know that's a challenging question, but every so often we hear about this; and, I'm not really seeing a jackboot crackdown. Who's been put in handcuffs that shouldn't have been? Who's been tased, sprayed with mace, thrown in chains or locked up under these rules who should not have been? What's the problem? Rude language? Is that it? Discourteous conduct?</p>

<p>If you've got a substantive, observed infringement, what is it?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>John, read some of the UK based blogs relevant to this topic. Because photo.net is U.S.-centric, we tend to receive a somewhat filtered and perhaps distorted point of view. The UK-based blogs show a significant concern about the disparity between policy and statements by officials, and actual practice. Since I don't live in the UK I'm not inclined to dismiss those concerns. Likewise, I'm doubtful about the value of dismissive remarks occasionally seen on photo.net from street photographers who live in NYC, San Francisco and other major metropolitan areas in the U.S., rather than in the UK. Theirs appears to be a fairly unique situation and only they may be qualified to speak with any credibility on the issue.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Good points, Lex. I have looked around quite a bit, but I'm not seeing what looks like active repression. I see a lot of fears of repression, and the hypothesis of repression, but where's the strong arm tactics?</p>

<p>Okay, as a counterpoint, have a look at some of our problems here in the US. We've had some free speech concerns, but we can also identify the people involved, and see their situations. For example, there was one lengthy three part episode of Frontline on PBS devoted to this issue. In it, we see identifiable people, who went to jail, who were threatened with subpoenas, who have had their problems clearly outlined. </p>

<p>An example of substantive, observable infringements would be like the jailed people like Judith Miller, Josh Wolfe and the problems had by some sports reporters outlined in this episode of Frontline, entitled, "News War."</p>

<p>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newswar/view/</p>

<p>Who are the people who have been arrested or persecuted under those UK terrorism laws, specifically for their photography? I pose the question because I would like to see a little more substance and a little less hype.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>At the risk of repeating myself, and possibly others, I'll link to this article in the British Journal of Photography:-<br>

<a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=863840">http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=863840</a><br>

So contentious is this that the issue has been raised in Parliament by Austin Mitchell MP and Lord Carlile has ruled on the matter.</p>

<p> </p>

[steve m smith]

<p>Once you get past all of the sensational media reporting, you will find that in almost every case, the police authority involved issued an apology.</p>

<p>Obviously that is of little comfort to someone inappropriately detained like this bit after a while, I think the message will sink in and those officers misunderstanding the law will begin to realise what they can and can't do.</p>

 

[Brian]

<p>The blogpost linked by the OP is very upsetting, and I congratulate the blogger on such a lucid and well constructed complaint. Unfortunately I think there will have to be many more such complaints before the message gets through to the police force in general.<br>

I think also that maybe the situation is worse in London than elsewhere in the UK. For various reasons the Metropolitan police seem to be 'harder' and less tolerant than the provincial forces. </p>

[david_henderson]

<p>John. I've read your contributions to this thread without, frankly, understanding why you wrote them. The thread is about a single incident that is fully reported. You can't lessen its significance for the individual by intimating that it might not happen very often. You can't reduce to nothing the effect incidents like this have on the mind sets of those wanting to photograph in the street. You should not IMO anyway, try to turn the thread into something that satisfies your curiosity. It's an issue here. There's a lot in our press, there's a lot in the photo mags, there's a lot on the blogs, and if you really are curious then you should search more rather than in effect challenge people to demonstrate to you the extent of the problem. Whether you think it's active repression or not does not matter.</p>

<p>And whilst I'd like to have as much faith in our police as Steve Smith, I'm afraid I don't. What I see is a policeforce that much enjoys the confusion between law and instructions, and in laws that are drafted indistinctly. Because then a policeman who feels irritated by the words or actions of an individual can act to punish that person on the basis that he reasonably thought there was or could be a link to terrorism. He can do that knowing that the law is woolly enough to mean that he won't get into trouble, and he can act like a playground bully knowing that his superiors will be supportive. In short the confusion results in the police enjoying a position as arbiters of law rather than enforcers and protectors of it, and it should not go on.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>And whilst I'd like to have as much faith in our police as Steve Smith, I'm afraid I don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps I have a different view as I don't live in a large city (I'm on the Isle of Wight). But most people (tourists/amateuers/professionals) don't have these problems with the police.</p>

<p>The media do not publish stories about things which don't happen so for every report of a confrontation of this type, there are several thousands (or even millions) of photo taking opportunities which pass by unhindered by misplaced officialdom.</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<blockquote>

<p>so for every report of a confrontation of this type, there are several thousands (or even millions) of photo taking opportunities which pass by unhindered by misplaced officialdom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Steve, I don't see you point here. You could easily argue that because most people going about their daily business don't get murdered, raped,mugged etc that it's perfectly these acts are perfectly acceptable?<br>

There is no shadow of doubt 10 years ago no one would have stopped you taking a photograph in a city centre. Sadly that is not the case today. I challenge you to come to the city of London start taking pictures of buildings, and see how long you last!<br>

<br /> The issue is very real, hence The Met issuing "advice" to its officers, albeit lip service.<br /> I don't know what the answer is, but as a start, we must make people aware of what's going on, and not make uninformed judgements, that it's merely media hype.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>I challenge you to come to the city of London start taking pictures of buildings, and see how long you last!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did that in February and didn't get challenged. I expect many others were doing so too.</p>

<p>I agree that a fuss must be made about all hinderence and detention of photographers by ill-informed officers and even one case of an abuse of the existing law is wrong but it needs to be put into perspective.</p>

<p>To give the impression that anyone coming to the UK is going to get into trouble by photographing buildings/police officers/bridges/buses is clearly wrong.</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>

<p><em>To give the impression that anyone coming to the UK is going to get into trouble by photographing buildings/police officers/bridges/buses is clearly wrong.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Steve. Its not "clearly wrong" its maybe wrong. The guy from Chatham says he's been stopped nearly a dozen times under section 44. Why couldn't or wouldn't this apply to a visitor? Worse, a visitor probably won't have a clue about what their rights are and will feel obliged to comply to the letter with the unnecessary demands of anyone in a uniform. He'll tell all his friends; what an advert for tourism; what a great vacation. But the real problem is with the people who read all this "police state" stuff and decide not to come at all. This type of stuff is additive. Failing to give hand-checks at UK airports scares the daylights out of some people, albeit that I personally believe it to be totally unnecessary. Put that together with a perception that a run-in with the police or security guards is possible and it affects people's attitudes disproportionate to the odds. </p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Sorry Steve. Its not "clearly wrong" its maybe wrong. The guy from Chatham says he's been stopped nearly a dozen times under section 44. Why couldn't or wouldn't this apply to a visitor?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It does apply to visitors and it will happen. It needs to be sorted out so it doesn't happen.</p>

<p>However, it is not normal and should not be expected just because you are taking a picture.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But the real problem is with the people who read all this "police state" stuff and decide not to come at all.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Which was exactly my point.</p>

[mark_beaumont]

<p>Steve, Ok chances are you may not get arrested when photographing in London, but the fact is, it is happening, twice to me and I know 3 other colleagues who have had similar experiences. Who knows, maybe if tourists are put off coming here and the tourist trade in the UK starts to get hit, something will be done. Money talks!</p>

[colin carron]

<p>

<p >I think UK photographers are beginning to win this particular batle though there is clearly some way to go. The problem is that some police officers are using the Terrorism Act of 2000 and the Counter-Terrorism Act of 2008 as an excuse to confiscate cameras and images. In this case this was said to be under clause 44 of the 2000 Terrorism Act. This outlines Powers to Stop and Search as follows :</p>

<p > </p>

<p >(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— </p>

<p >(a) the pedestrian; </p>

<p >(b) anything carried by him. </p>

<p >(3) An authorisation under subsection (1) or (2)<strong> <em>may be given only if the person giving it considers it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. </em></strong></p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>Note the bit in italics. </strong>The officer must have reasonable grounds for suspicion that he is something to do with an act of terrorism. If not then authroisation is not given under the act. The best reaction to this is to say to the officer involved, 'OK, let's all go down to see your seargant at the police station and see whether they agree that your acton is lawful.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have been told that the London Met police have restated the legal position to all their officers in an internal briefing in an effort to stop these ludicrous situations. The substance of the briefing is that officers should only use the Terrorism Act and Counter-Terrorism Act where they have reason to believe that such an act is in progress. The should certainly not delete images or destroy film as that is evidence of the offence. Let’s hope that officers will read the internal brefing so we don’t need to go and argue the toss at the local nick.</p>

</p>

<p > </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>How about that Austrian guy who got confronted by the police when taking a picture of a bus terminal? I've never been to the UK, but I never felt that taking pictures in the street is a problem in countries like China and Russia. Obviously all these reports give a weird image of the UK police.</p>

[bluphoto]

<p>Of course it's not illegal to take photo's of the police - as long as the person being photographed doesn't mind, or doesn't know. What IS illegal (in Scotland) is any behaviour LIKELY to cause a breach of the peace - which surely could be almost anything. Taking a photograph of a police officer when you KNOW it will enrage her IS likely to cause a breach of the peace. In England, I think the law is more ACTUALLY causing a breach of the peace. I'm not sure if taking a picture of the officer actually caused any breach or not - guessing not - though I understand that's not the charge brought.<br /><br />We are talking about what IS legal or not here, right, not what SHOULD be?</p>