UK Policeman who threatened amateur photographer with 'living hell' is being investigated

[starvy]

<p>This is from the BBC website. There is also a youtuve video<br>

<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25634173">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-25634173</a></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Carlos Miller's PINAC blog documents stuff like this happening in the US every day. Occasionally there are small victories when a department changes a policy, or actually enforces existing policy, to acknowledge the public's right to photograph or video record in public places, <a href="http://www.ketv.com/news/local-news/ex-omaha-police-officers-face-charges-in-connection-with-controversial-arrest/-/9674510/20030732/-/714dbn/-/index.html">including photographing and recording law enforcement</a> if it doesn't physically obstruct them in their duties. But it's a never ending struggle, and more important now than ever as local newspapers have reduced coverage to a bare minimum.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Lex, you are absolutely right, the struggle is never ending. The focus on this incident has been on the alleged threat to 'knock you' made by the policeman rather than the photographer's right to shoot standing on a public place. There are certain restrictions that were brought in by the last two governments with regards to taking pictures of active members of security forces doing their duty. There is also the 'section 22' that often is misinterpreted by the odd person - <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/22">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/section/22</a></p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>India has always been a place where people in uniform throw their weight around, inventing rules to suit their whims because they know that no one will question them. The "war on terror" has made things far worse than they were.</p>

[etphoto]

<p>Not the same thing, but there is a popular spot in northern Kentucky (USA) to photograph the Cincinnati skyline from. I guess it got so bad the owner of the property does not permit trespassing if you are there to photograph the skyline. The property is an outside retail mall type area. What made me think of it while reading this thread, if you violate the owner's rules, his only recourse to contact law enforcement to have you removed. If that would happen, I can see the media covering the story and reporting half the facts (I'm not a big fan of the media).<br>

I can see the headlines "Tourist arrested for taking a picture". I guess my point is, just take that into consideration when stories like that pop up (at least in the US). I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm just saying, take it into consideration.</p>

[howard_m]

<p>Make them personally financially liable for BS like that. it'll stop right-quick!</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I've been harassed by a policeman who's only aim could have been to "throw his weight around" but it probably is a

thankless job. That said, there is no justification in abusing the public just because you think you CAN. Because trying to

get evidence of this sort of thing is risky in and of itself (a cop that is out of control will probably get more so if he knows

he is being filmed), the penalty almost has to be harsh.

[akgraham]

<p>Well, that wasn't much. Some dude provokes a member of the police force by continuing to take photos of a fatal crash scene and wow - he must be so proud - he gets his reaction.<br>

Quite rightly the incident will be investigated but a "never ending struggle"? Hardly.</p>

[danmarchant]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Some dude provokes a member of the police force by....</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>doing nothing wrong.<em><br /></em><br>

You are legally allowed to photograph the police in a public street. Nothing in the video constitutes interfering with the police officers work or investigation. In contrast almost everything the police officer was saying was utter nonsense. The statement that being there was interfering was untrue, the statement that posting the images on the internet would be interfering with his investigation was untrue and he had no basis for assuming that the man would do so. His claim that no one but the press could take photographs there was untrue. His confiscation of the camera was illegal as no crime was committed and he has no reasonable cause to believe one had. His statement that he could vet the images and compel the man to delete any was untrue.</p>

[jodys]

<p>From having read the article, no.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Well, that wasn't much. Some dude provokes a member of the police force by continuing to take photos of a fatal crash scene and wow - he must be so proud - he gets his reaction.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He wasn't close enough to the crash site to see the actual crash, and he was there taking pictures before the crash and the police presence. For that matter, he wasn't taking pictures of the police, either. He was an amateur photographer, not a rubbernecker.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>It is not possible to say what happened before the clip starts and one should not judge without being in possession of all the facts. However there are people in a better position to judge : the police spokesman says the officer handled the incident 'very poorly' but also that he is still on front line duty. This suggests to me that although the officer probably exceeded his powers he may have had some understanable reason for doing so. He may well, for example, have been angered by the apparent insensitive photographing of the death of an elderly person and just temporarily lost it.<br /> As Andrew says this case does not seem to be in the 'never-ending struggle' class but a very sad fatal accident where the stresses of the moment rose to the surface.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>As Andrew says this case does not seem to be in the 'never-ending struggle' class</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex referenced police using their power and authority to prevent citizens from photographing and filming as the basis for the "never ending struggle". This video shows exactly that. A citizen is filming a newsworthy event. (although that part shouldn't matter either way) . The officer is claiming authority and exercising power to compel the citizen who is interfering with nothing to stop. Its a textbook example of Lex's struggle. Andrew's personal disapproval is irrelevant.</p>

[akgraham]

<p>I side with the bystander who urged our photo hero to be more considerate.<br>

My experiences of being stopped by police and security guards while taking photographs lead me to believe that there is a better way to get photos *and* get along with police than rights-based legal discussion and posturing about entitlement while emotions are high. They are just people, flawed like the rest of us. <br>

But then all I'd want are photos, not a never-ending struggle.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>"They are just people, flawed like the rest of us."</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are granted power over others, unlike others, and they know better. That's the part that matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /><br /><br />I side with the bystander who urged our photo hero to be more considerate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To the extent that there was unreasonable conduct, this is good.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Since in our modern world, newspapers are laying off their photographers in favor of the public snapping pictures at scenes like this, there is no justification for photographers (even non professional ones) being "considerate." In this case the actions of the policeman became the story rather than the accident. </p>

<p>It is in our best interest (not just as photographers, but as citizens of our respective countries) to allow people to take pictures freely as a check on the excesses of public officials such as policemen. That's what I think anyway. People with terrible judgement in performing their duty should perhaps not be doing that type of highly responsible job.</p>