Police interpretations of the law (UK, England)

[lex_jenkins]

<p>My point regarding any surveillance cameras was that these people and their kids are already being photographed anyway. Permission and consent are moot. The only differences are a matter of camera brand, angle and who's holding the camera.</p>

[bms]

<p>Wow, what a nightmare, my condolences. Overall I think you cations were the reasonable way to go. I don't know if I had the nerve to just walk away from a crowd in your situation.</p>

<p>This is of course anecdotal, but it seems to me more of these stories come out of the UK. I also think it depends on the kind of scenario. I am rather timid as a street photographer, but in NYC, the only people that have complained are adults being 'photographed", or thinking they are.... more often than not they are not even in the pictures. They can be quite rambunctious. I generally use common sense, i.e. lingering at a playground with a tele lens will probably arouse suspicion. Generally, people in NYC expect to see people with cameras.<br>

I line in a smaller town in Maine (US) not unlike the size of Peckham. I have not really pursued this, but I think if I did any street shooting here, people may get more suspicious.... just because it is unusual. Also, I am 6'5", 240 lbs. While I am unlikely to go unnoticed, I think people may think twice about confronting me. Then again, maybe not..... there have been some fights downtown with 2x4's and knives....</p>

<p>It is interesting to see what kind of action people think is their "right" - like preventing your from leaving the shop. I think most people would value freedom over the right to privacy</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Unlike the US, in the UK it's not a case of who has the best lawyer. Our judges are more interested in justice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You've been reading too much hyperbole, much of it here on photo.net, about what goes on in the U.S. court system. Its sort of like accepting a crowd of people blabbering about how a street photographer has done something wrong and believing it. Its more their perception than reality. Judges in the U.S. are just as interested in justice as they are in the UK.</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Tom E. not exactly correct. U.S. cops can't just arrest with impunity, even they are subject to law. Does that stop them from making bad arrests? Not at all. They do have to have probable cause to arrest and reasonable cause to detain (which is not an arrest). But yes, wrong or right if they want to arrest or detain they will, your recourse if any, will come later. </p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I line in a smaller town in Maine (US) not unlike the size of Peckham.</em><br>

Just for info - Peckham is not a small provincial town, it is a quite rough suburb of south London famed in fiction as the home of Del Boy and family in the TV show "Only Fools And Horses", famed in real life in a way not amusing at all as the place which Nigerian schoolboy Damilola Taylor was murdered in the year 2000 as the result of racial tension between Africans and Afro-Caribbeans - a place not top of the list of "Good venues for street photography". </p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>You've been reading too much hyperbole, much of it here on photo.net, about what goes on in the U.S. court system. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Quite likely! (in this case, all of it in the post to which I was replying).</p>

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>A couple of things...<br>

One must always be sensitive to who you photograph...especially children.</p>

<p>And, though I have yet to upload any of my images to PN, I have some experience. A "street" photographer in the definition that HCB gives us, should always try to take images unseen by the subject. That's what defines the genre.</p>

<p>Maybe some care about this in the future....?</p>

[jonathan_reynolds]

<p>Peter, that is distinctly nightmarish, my sympathies. <br>

I almost had a similar experience once when I snapped a group of office workers standing about in the sunshine chatting and smoking. To me, it made a modern Frank Meadow Sutcliffe composition. Actually they noticed me, which spoiled the shot. I smiled and strolled on, but after a brief discussion amongst themselves, they came rushing along the street shouting after me. Simply to minimise embarassment, I stopped to talk. They too wanted me to delete the photo, but I pointed out that I could not because I was using a film camera (by the way, you can also 'undelete' digital photos, provided they haven't been overwritten). After a little 'discussion', in which I felt distinctly ill at ease, it turned out that two of the girls should not have been where they were at the time, and that was their main concern. So I promised that for me the image was 'dead' and would never be printed, which drew the episode to a slightly uneasy close. I still squirm at the recollection,even though I too did nothing wrong. <br>

I did find that explaining to my subjects what I had seen and was trying to capture in the picture helped to calm them perceptibly. I wonder whether you tried this? I reckon that if you (one) found it uncomfortable to explain, this would indicate that you had strayed into risky territory.</p>

[peter_gaunt]

<p>Yes, Jonathan I did try to explain but the woman was soon surrounded by what can only be described as people in sub-vigilante mode (the type who 'know their rights') who were egging her on. As I've said it isn't her reaction so much as the attitude of the police which concerns me. She had a right to feel alarmed just as I had a right to take the pics. I could probably have calmed her down if it hadn't have been for the 'mob'. The police attitude to me was contemptible and that is what I shall be complaining about.</p>

[chansonbleu]

<p>Peter,</p>

<p> As a person who often photographs children in public you have my sympathies. I've never had the misfortune of being subject to that type of reaction. Since I was not there, I won't comment on what you should or should not have done in that particular situation. After all, you did emerge with your camera intact and no physical harm done.</p>

<p> If I were you I would learn from this experience and be prepared for the next time you cross paths with an over emotional subject. Do not let this incident prevent you from photographing whatever you wish in public places.</p>

<p>Steve</p>

[pbalko]

<blockquote>

<p>People are dangerous, violent, and paranoid...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apparently.</p>

[bms]

<blockquote>

<p>Just for info - Peckham is not a small provincial town, it is a quite rough suburb</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How deceptive google can be - my apologies. </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>The police attitude to me was contemptible and that is what I shall be complaining about.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I suspect they considered the mob's hyped up version of facts about the way you were conducting yourself which would have made their comments more reasonable. In any event, there was no arrest despite all that fuss. The result was that the police ended up agreeing with you on the photography issue and you voluntarily went with these people. The complaint is going to go nowhere. You will expose yourself to risk, however small the odds, that the police will change their minds and cite you with some sort of misconduct.</p>

<p>You keep pushing the issue of the police who ultimately sided with you when you should be concentrating on your own decisions and conduct for future situations. You might start by deciding not to go back to a hornet's nest again on a past issue.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> You keep pushing the issue of the police who ultimately sided with you <b>when you should be

concentrating on your own decisions and conduct for future situations.</b><P>

 

A breath of fresh air and excellent advice.

[carbon_dragon]

In the US, the police try to cast themselves as the protectors of the citizens. They even sometimes put "to protect and

serve" on the side of their cruisers. Of course this is just propaganda. The police are the enforcers of the laws of the

goverments they serve (whether you're talking about a local sheriff or an FBI agent). To the extent that someone is

breaking the law by threatening a citizen (or injuring them) the police will certainly intervene (or try to). However, they

aren't really tasked with protecting anyone -- they can't they're too small and not well enough funded.

 

 

This attempt to convince the public that they are "serving" them is just a ploy designed to allow them to maintain control

during normal times. When the "you know what" hits the oscillating rotary device, there aren't near enough of them to

maintain any kind of control. They either run (err... tactically withdraw) or go down in place. To really function they need

the public's tacit consent (since otherwise they wouldn't even dare to drive their cruisers out of the station) and also

because their government might fall on the next voting day and they could have new bosses. They are a paramilitary

organization with ties mostly to their brother officers, secondarily to the government they serve and distantly to the

"civlians" who obviously don't understand what they need. They feel about as much of a tie to the "people" as U.S. Airline

employees do to their passengers (and anyone who has flown in the US in the last few years probably knows what I

mean).

 

 

I wish I could believe that right will out -- that any photographer taking pictures with no bad intent has nothing to fear from

his government but I don't. I really pity the photojournalists who have to navigate this landscape for their daily life. They

may soon find that doing so in the US will remind them very much of their experiences in war torn third world countries.

Suspicion and paranoia has been used as a political tool for quite a while in America and only a small part of the cost is

falling on photographers. I listen to the BBC and I don't hear it, but just listen to any US news source and it's plain for any

to hear. Political opponents are no longer merely political opponents -- they are the evil enemy to be destroyed at all

costs. They are "them" -- the "other" and they are to be feared and destroyed. Inject some poor photographer trying to

take his own decisive moment and the result is predictable. I don't think the UK is anywhere near that far gone.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Hindsight is 20-20 and so easy for some.</p>

<p>I can hear it now. Had Peter not gone along with what the crowd was demanding and instead walked away as some are now suggesting, and had got beat up for doing so, he'd now be accused of having escalated the situation by his behavior. When someone who wasn't there wants to make it all your fault, they will find a way. Seems to me it's a little too easy to judge Peter from this safe a distance.</p>

<p>I think John Seaman put it nicely above in this thread:</p>

<p><em>"You may have made the wrong decision in going with them, </em><strong><em>who knows?</em></strong><em> How many times do we look back at a difficult situation and think of better ways to handle it?"</em></p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Had Peter... walked away... he'd now be accused of having escalated the situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not by anyone rational.</p>

 

[doc444]

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6172683">Peter Gaunt</a> read your response and though I agree that the breach of the peace was far fetched be aware that the police in NYC arrested a pro news reporter and took his camera and equipment then shoved him around some. We are now living in and age of the new Nazi Police it is a shame but its there in some places they, the cops will arrest you if you take their photos while they arrest someone else.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><<<<em>Not by anyone rational.</em>>>></p>

<p>Most definitely not. Just by some on PN. :-)</p>

[robert_m9]

<p>Peckham is not a nice area. The inhabitants are not intelligent, well educated , middle class. But are the exact opposite. The photographer should have been wearing a stab vest. In the vicinity have been a few high profile murders. Stabbing of a young boy comes to mind. The Damiola taylor case. Best stick to the WestEnd of London for street photogaphy . More tourists but a lot less dangerous than Peckham.</p>

[pawel_baranski]

<p>I had similar story back in coventry, when i photographed some muslim girl (adult). I regret to this day that i hadn't knew the law and hadn't stood my ground back then.</p>

[ian_campbell1]

<p>Your only mistake was going with them to the hairdressers. Option one, dealing with crazies, is call the police from a cell phone, option two, often more useful with utter nutters, is to run like the wind for the nearest subway. (If they have to pay money, they won't follow past the gate.)</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>This is a worrying story. I am glad you got out unharmed, though I would try to find out what the actual wording of the police report is. The UK is in the grip of peadophile hysteria and I firmly believe that there is a chance of getting beaten up on the thinnest of evidence, if you're shooting at the wrong place/time. I remember walking past a playpark a few years ago and there were some cute little kids having a laugh on the swings etc. I stopped to watch them and immediately thought "No way!" and walked off after literally 3 seconds, feeling and looking guilty.<br>

With Jimmy Saville's horrific crimes all over the news, every strange man interacting with children in even the most cursory fashion is considered a potential monster. Suspicion is everywhere and suspicion is all "the mob" needs. On TV I once heard a 9 year old girl tell a reporter that her mummy told her that if she talked to strangers she "might get raped". What kind of moron tells a nine year old girl that? This will I believe, be seen as part of the defining characteristics of this era, like Reds Under the Bed from the Fifties.</p>

[red_robin]

<p>Sorry to hear of your leagle system. On this side of the pond interpretation is supposed to happen with judges. Not cop's not mayer, TV personality's. That said, All this really needs to be made clear. How do any of up get a sharp picture with so many trying to adjust the focus?</p>