Photographer harrassment still continues..

[eos]

An interesting encounter, entirely contrary to the edicts of Andy Trotter , as Chairman of the media advisory group of ACPO, and his memo below:-
--------------------------------
The video:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect
--------------------------------
The memo from Andy Trotter- compare this with Officers assertions.

4 December 2009


To: all Chief Constables and Commissioners

Dear Colleague

Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of 'Stop and Account' and the actual police powers of 'Stop and Search'. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.

Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.

On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.

These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.

The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.

Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.

Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that 'stop and account' need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.


Yours sincerely


Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group
---------------------------------------
Then check these out on the same subject:-
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...n_London_suburb_update_620pm_news_292842.html

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...mal_complaint_against_police_news_292730.html

-----------------------------------------
and then there is this farce over a coat hood.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_cambridge/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=470181

 

[Dai.]

... well done that man for sticking up to the police!

I think the terrorist threat is being taken wayyy to seriously and the police and security services are taking it way out of hand.

 

[37401]

cant do anything these days can you?

 

[2030720310]

What a plonker! When the police said they wanted to look at his footage and then just let him go, he should've just let them, would have been so much easier!!!

 

[Old Timer]

Welcome to the most spied upon and repressive Police State in the world.

Even the various state security agencies in the former Soviet Union Countries had/have less power than the UK Police now do, and many would give their eye teeth to have the level of surveillance that we now endure on a daily basis.

What a plonker! When the police said they wanted to look at his footage and then just let him go, he should've just let them, would have been so much easier!!!

First prize for totally missing the point :roll:

 

[2030720310]

Welcome to the most spied upon and repressive Police State in the world.

Even the various state security agencies in the former Soviet Union Countries had/have less power than the UK Police now do, and many would give their eye teeth to have the level of surveillance that we now endure on a daily basis.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First prize for totally missing the point :roll:

What do you mean by that?

I know that the police go way OTT but surely it would've been easier and less of a waste of police time if the guy had just should them the footage and let them get on with more important things?

 

[Mojo]

"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" - the ultimate defence of a police state and totally the wrong approach to take.

If you keep going down this road they will take more and more until there is nothing left to take.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

My opinion after viewing the footage is that the plain clothes PC was put in a situation where he was also a victim of the security guards - as the journo said. The next coppers to arrive clearly had no clue what was going on at all.

 

[Old Timer]

What I mean is this.

We have, by sleepwalking, reached a situation whereby you can now be stopped and in some cases searched, and even detained, under a number of pretexts where this power never existed previously.

The Police now have the right to take a sample of your DNA and keep it on permanent record even though you may be entirely innocent of any crime.

The Police also have some very draconian powers, which include the power to make ANY group of two or more disperse without question.

They regularly film and make up surveillance files on people who are peacefully demonstrating, and indeed even people who are simply passing through.

I have worked and travelled in the former Soviet Union, and indeed I know people who were, shall we say, involved in "security".

What I can tell you, is that the powes our Police now have far exceed what ANY former Communist State Police (as opposed to security services) previously had on their Statute. Indeed as the FSU starts to return to Communism, many of their people are eyeing the powers conferred to our Police in the UK hungrily.

The point in all this is that our previous freedoms have been slowly eroded away bit by bit in the last 12 years, indeed Legislation was passed to make illegal a peaceful demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament against the invasion of Iraq, simply because Bliar found it embarrassing.

No previous administration (except Cromwell) has taken so much power and exorcised so many freedoms in the whole history of the UK, indeed the powers now are greater than when the Magna Carta was signed, and in those days it was thought they were too much then !

Police are now routinely abusing their power to stop, detain, search and indeed arrest people who are committing no crime whatsoever. They are quite happy to operate in this fashion against those who they see as of no threat. However against those who do pose a threat to our comfort, safety and well being, i. e. the drugged up and drunken feral scum who now roam our streets especially at night they seem to be not only unwilling but unable to find any category of Law to deal with them, preferring instead to either ignore the problem or send them on their way.

Turn up and try to photograph a historic building and suddenly they seem to have all sorts of powers that can be used to take you out of circulation, and they are quite willing to menace and harrass the law abiding when they have no legal power to do so.

Freedom is lost bit by bit, and each time some moron in a uniform stops and detains someone for going about their law abiding business you further develop a culture where this becomes unquestioned, and then you will ultimately end up in a Police cell simply for being out there.

A variety of people are now willing to stand their ground and refuse to be stopped, detained, searched, or made to show their photographs and equiopment to the Police when no crime has been committed, and when there is no legal basis upon which to stop and conduct a search anyway. THAT was the point being made.

We are rapidly turning into a Police State, and having seen how this ends up first hand I can assure you that there is no way we should allow ourselves to lose any more of our freedoms.

The so called ID cards are of absolutely NO use against any form of Terrorist crime, thye DO however form part of a bigger project by which individuals can be finally tracked and their movements recorded.

Once you lose a "right" it is all but impossible to get it back, and we have not only lost our Civil rights in many ways but we have also lost our abilities to take legal redress, and now find that our Parliamentary system has been emasculated such that Labour can ignore the wishes of the majority and force through legislation against the wishes of the people.

A case in point is University Fees. Another example of how bad things have become is the provision in the so called "Lisbon Treaty" which make sit illegal for ANYONE (even in Parliament) to oppose or criticise the provisions of that "Treaty". The ultimate being that for objecting under the instructions of a non-elected mandarin in Brussels, you can be arrested here and sent to Brussels and put in prison for an extended period simply by protesting about it.

The historic right to demonstrate peacefully outside Parliament or indeed anywhere in Whitehall has now been long consigned to the bin, as you need AUTHORITY from the POLICE to hold a demonstration.

These are just some examples of a very depressing and long list of freedom issues that have occurred in the last 12 years.

 

[2030720310]

Yeah, the police do dramatically over-react in situations eg. trainspotters, and yes i know this is platform staff but you get the generic idea...

 

[Ferret]

This is another classic which leads me to wonder about the intelligence of the Police or rather the lack of it. So, having established the journalist was engaged in what was effectively a sting, he then threatens to make an arrest for obstruction when all the journalist was doing was refusing to give his details or show the footage as is his right in law. Umm, that should be an interesting conversation with his superiors when they ask him to explain himself!:roll:

 

[eos]

Umm, that should be an interesting conversation with his superiors when they ask him to explain himself

In similar circumstances , when I complained to his 'superiors' the following day, the Inspector simply said ' I demand it of my Officers' . When I pointed out that I was under no obligation to supply any info, he repeated , ' I demand it of my Officers.'
So it may not be those on the frontline that are taking this approach , but the guys who should know a lot better who instruct those officers.. Just how far up the chain of command it goes , I don't know, but those at the top and bottom of the chain , certainly don't sing from the same hymnsheet..
A copy of the above has been sent tonight to Chief Constable Andrew Trotter, lets see what happens.

 

[Ferret]

Amazing isn't it?! As a law abiding tax payer, I find it somewhat disturbing that there are Police officers who lack the discipline to follow a very basic instruction from a senior officer.

 

[eos]

Seems like 'raw nerves' have been found with this on:-
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/

Mass Gathering in defence of street photography
I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist! invite all Photographers to a mass photo gathering in defence of street photography.

Following a series of high profile detentions under s44 of the terrorism act including 7 armed police detaining an award winning architectural photographer in the City of London, the arrest of a press photographer covering campaigning santas at City Airport and the stop and search of a BBC photographer at St Pauls Cathedral and many others. PHNAT feels now is the time for a mass turnout of Photographers, professional and amateur to defend our rights and stop the abuse of the terror laws.
12 Noon
Saturday 23rd January 2010
Trafalgar Square

--------------------

and the Daily Mail joins in the debate:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...reat-like-terrorist-taking-holiday-snaps.html

 

[GB]

It is clear that the Police go way OTT and try and exceed their authority on most occassions...including this one. However having seen the footage it does appear the photographer went looking for a bit of trouble...though perhaps that was the whole point.

Now I am probably wrong, but I always thought if you were asked for your details from a uniformed police officer you are obliged to do so. If not you leave yourself open to the possibilty or risk of arrest for obstruction??

Even if if not legally required, I do still think it is a wise idea to be cooperative as these sorts of confrontations could possibly be avoided.

For the record, I do not at all condone the heavy handed tatics of alot of Police officers, however some photographers do not help their cause.

Rather than go straight to the big guns and arguing what you can or cant do under XX Act (which will inevitably get backs up) why not try and reason with them. If that then fails then by all means stand your ground.

I do think had the photographer complied with simple requests he would have been on his way a hell of alot quicker.

Now Im bound to get some heat for this post so give me a few minutes while I don my flack jacket.

 

[Ferret]

Tbh GB, you hit the nail on the head when you said that he was looking for a confrontation! It was a blatant sting and basically, the Police officers got sucked in, but more fool them for carrying on the charade!

 

[eos]

You couldn't make it up:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6954610.ece

Makes a complete mockery of the 'gherkin' and other incidents..

 

[2030720310]

Tbh GB, you hit the nail on the head when you said that he was looking for a confrontation! It was a blatant sting and basically, the Police officers got sucked in, but more fool them for carrying on the charade!

Isn't this what I've been arguing earlier, if he had just complied a bit then things would've been so much easier, this isn't saying that the police are not going way too far in the 'powers they use' though!!

 

[Old Timer]

You couldn't make it up:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6954610.ece

Makes a complete mockery of the 'gherkin' and other incidents..

What makes it an even greater mockery is that if they had been refused, then there are a myriad of organisations in this Country that would have turned it into a race case.

 

[Ferret]

Isn't this what I've been arguing earlier, if he had just complied a bit then things would've been so much easier, this isn't saying that the police are not going way too far in the 'powers they use' though!!

Not quite - I think you're missing the point with all due respect.

The bloke works for a national newspaper and was trying to make the Police look stupid. By being slightly uncooperative as he's entitled to in law, he induced the Police into making total fools of themselves, thus creating a better story for his newspaper. Mission accomplished!!!

 

[Mojo]

Now I am probably wrong, but I always thought if you were asked for your details from a uniformed police officer you are obliged to do so.

No you do not, only if the police have reasonable suspicion to arrest you or report you for an offence do you have to give details, unless you are driving a car.

 

[yorkie]

What do you mean by that?

I know that the police go way OTT but surely it would've been easier and less of a waste of police time if the guy had just should them the footage and let them get on with more important things?

I demand the following:
* To see all your footage
* To see all your photos
* Proof that you are not a terrorist.

While I have no powers, and you do not have to comply, and yes this is OTT, but you should do as it would be "much easier" if you do. It will be a "waste of" my time, and your time if you do not comply as I will be compelled to report you as a terrorist. Once you comply and prove you are not a terrorist, we can all then get on with more important things. Thank you in advance for complying with this request, and ensure that no-ones time is wasted. We can then all sleep soundly knowing that you are not a terrorist. If you have nothing to hide, then you should fear nothing and comply.

 

[Old Timer]

99% of all stops and searches under Section 44 of the Terroism Act do not result in any further action.

THAT clearly demonstrates that it is being misued. It is only legal to conduct these searches within an area so designated, however, the Police will refuse to state whether or not you are in a designated area.

If you are outside then the Act has less power, but how do you demonstrate this ?

Several years ago on another site I predicted this whole scenario and got roundly laughed at by those who thought they new better, and argued the "Nothing to hide" argument.

IF Labour get re-elected by any act of the devil, then you can look forward to ID cards, and a legal requirement to carry them, That will be the final stage in a long term plan to control individuals, because once you are in the system you are powerless. That is what the Soviet Union tried to achieve and is what all Socialist Governments always aspire to ultimately.

Your emails can be intercepted and are logged anyway, you telephones calls are automatically listened to by electronic equipment activated by phrase. You specify the phrase and the software records any conversation which contains it.

Thus someone can decide to track anyone who for example holds a different Political viewpoint, and their record can be marked.

 

[Waddon]

It might just be photography today, but what next? How about this for a conversation in five years time:

"No, sir, you cannot sit on a station platform watching trains because you might be a terrorist. No, you may not stand on an overbridge watching trains go past as this is suspicious. Why have you got all those books in your house with pictures of stations and railway lines? They could be used as research for a terrorist attack. You spend a lot of time on the internet, chatting to other people, asking about trains and transport, why would you do that unless you are looking to do something criminal? Look, you've even made a miniature model of a well known train station, all the better to plan your attack..."

Ridiculous? Maybe. Impossible?

I don't believe there is a conspiracy in this country to reduce people's rights, however I believe there is a real danger that those rights will simply slip away through neglect if people do not take action to protect them from the jobsworths and the petty bureaucrats.

 

[jon0844]

I find it worrying that the police can think that it's okay for tourists to take photos (thus, if I was a terrorist - I'd be looking like a tourist NOT an official photographer taking pictures quite openly).

I am also concerned that it was considered suspicious to take a photo of an 'iconic' building - presumably because such buildings also have the most high-profile security and a good relationship with local police.

Thus, every other building is a viable target and the police wouldn't care less? Sadly, that's probably true - hence why the police can put loads of officers outside one shop all year around and not come out when you've just had kids throw bricks through your front window.

As a journalist, these stories make my heart sink every time I read them - and I am reading a story like this once or twice a week.

Now if one of us were asked to keep our eyes open to look for suspicious activity, I'd like to think that we'd all go about our business and look out for things that really ARE suspicious.

If the police are in that frame of mind then fine, but it seems that by having been given that power - they then go and look for easy targets where they can get some kick out of showing their power (including powers they don't have).

When I was stopped by a police officer, I also found it hard to refuse to co-operate (it's not really in my nature) but I am not going to be bullied by someone who is only doing it as a power trip. I told him he needed a court order to see my photos and he started to ask why I was being awkward. He was actually forcing me into that situation, as to comply with his illegal rquest, I'd be effectively giving him powers that he didn't have - and I wouldn't want him to have.

My worst experience was a PCSO, but it was actually a police officer that set her straight and told her to move on!

 

[GB]

Where is it written down that a police officer has to have a court order to view the photographs?

Im aware that this maybe the case to destroy such photos (and under very certian conditions can be siezed) but is it really the case to view them??

 

[Old Timer]

Yes, a Court Order signed by a Judge is required to view the pictures. This is because they are considered to be private property and the Law does not allow personal property to be taken from you as this constitutes theft. This is contained within Home Office guidelines.

Requesting or insisting images are destroyed is Criminal Damage for which the Officer can be arrested and charged under that Legislation, should the images be destroyed.

Home Office guidelines require that if a camera is seized it is not touched in any way by an untrained Officer but must be sent as seized to a specialist forensic trained officer.

"Security" staff have no rights to stop or detain or question you or insist you must stop taking photographs or destroy then PROVIDED you are on public land. A landowner CAN prevent you from taking photographs as a condition of being on their property. They can also apply for a Court Order seeking the images to be destroyed, because that is their right if the images were taken on their property.

 

[yorkie]

Here's another interesting story (not directly related to railways but trains do get a mention!) more to do with security guards than the police, although the police response is quite astounding given the lack of response sometimes for actual crimes.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...itics/police+stop+church+photographer/3456342

(If you can't click the link, basically security guards made a series of demands aggressively and the photographer refused to give in to their demands as they have no authority. So they called the police and he co-operated with the police)

Old Timer - Some good posts there. I share your concerns.

 

[Old Timer]

Old Timer - Some good posts there. I share your concerns.

Thank you.

 

[marku51]

Here's another interesting story (not directly related to railways but trains do get a mention!) more to do with security guards than the police, although the police response is quite astounding given the lack of response sometimes for actual crimes.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articl...itics/police+stop+church+photographer/3456342

(If you can't click the link, basically security guards made a series of demands aggressively and the photographer refused to give in to their demands as they have no authority. So they called the police and he co-operated with the police)

Old Timer - Some good posts there. I share your concerns.

I would be interested to know how many of these incidents involve private security guards, like this one and the one in the Guardian article. I've not had a run in with the law in any type of photography situation, but several people that I know have had difficulties, almost always involving private security guards. In many of these cases it seems like security guards are having an over-inflated sense of importance and power. And as we all know, power corrupts. Unfortunately the legislation that has been passed with the idea of protecting public safety has given an excuse for the exercise and abuse of power.

But to defend the police, they are given the laws and they are responsible for how those laws are enforced. They are really in a position of darned if you do, darned if you don't. If they do take the issue seriously, then everyone says they are going over the top. But if they don't take it seriously, everyone says they are slacking off, especially if there is another terrorist incident. Even in this discussion there is an example of this--the whole discussion is about police and security officers abusing their power and hassling photographers, yet one of the posts has a link and expresses disbelief in a case where police and the justice system are not doing enough against terror suspects. What would happen if it emerged that these suspects had taken photos of buildings?

With regards to Old Timer and others who share his concerns, I don't agree with you (I have a sinking feeling that most of my political viewpoints are not shared by my fellow train enthusiasts) but if you have a problem with the way that the country is run, then make sure that you get involved!! That is the wonderful thing about a democracy, and it is this that separates us from the Soviet Union and other totalitarian states--we can make a change by being involved in politics. If it bugs you, write a letter to your MP and your European MP. And when there is an election, inform yourself and vote for that candidate who best matches you. Vote in every election!! I wonder how many of you who object to the government voted in the European elections a few months ago? If we become apathetic towards our right to be involved in the political process, then the door is open to extremism, from whatever end of the political spectrum. And if all you do is complain on web forums about the state of the government and don't get involved in the political process, then you are becoming apathetic. Writing a letter to an MP doesn't take long. Elections aren't a common occurrence, and going and being informed and voting doesn't take long.

Sorry for the length of the post and the political nature of some of it, but I feel strongly about this. We can't complain about loosing rights unless we do our duty and take part in the system that ought to guarantee those rights. Even something as simple as train photography is a part of politics--I think we can all agree that it is our right to enjoy ourselves (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--trains make me happy) so we need to protect those rights--and arguing with police or security guards isn't protecting those rights, nor is complaining about it online.

mark u

ps please disagree with me--that is your right in a democracy