Photography - Your Rights under Section 44

[Old Timer]

I guess it comes down to individual people.

If a PCSO is wrong, then he is acting outside the Law and his authority, and therefore the Policeman can and indeed should take the PCSO to task, albeit not necessarily in front of the public.

It is for the Policeman to take charge of the PCSO at the time, because at the end of the day the role of the PCSO is to support, and to work under the direction of the Police Officer.

Simply backing away from rectifying the situation is not an excuse for a Policeman to allow a S44 search to go ahead if it is not warranted, simply to appease the feelings of a PCSO.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

My point exactly OT - it is for the PC to take charge of the PCSO, yet not in front of the public - which is hard when the photographer is in a public place. That said, if the PCSO is acting outside the law then the PC should certianly step in. It just creates a hard situation, increased by the fact that journalists are doing it deliberately for a story. An honest photter who then films what is happening I do not mind, but trying to make it happen does not help either party.

 

[Old Timer]

I don't think they had to work too hard to make it happen. Look at Macclesfield, slightly different I accept but still pertinent.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Maybe they didn't have to work hard, but there is a difference between trying to make it happen, or going out to take photos for your interest and then it happening.

 

[Old Timer]

Maybe they didn't have to work hard, but there is a difference between trying to make it happen, or going out to take photos for your interest and then it happening.

But ultimately they are doing everyone a service in this particular case by highighting the facts. Sometimes it is necessary to do this.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Yes, in the first instance, showing that it happens. However, it doesn't have to be done time and time again.

 

[Ferret]

I disagree - it needs to be done repeatedly until the Police get the message that it's unacceptable!

 

[royaloak]

This is another case of incorrect use of the laws, but she was videoing the CCTV cameras.
having dealt with several PCSOs in my local area NONE of them are like this idiot, he is just on a power trip.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed, the police should be shamed as much as possible in the hope that either they will change the way they work or the public will say "enough is enough" and force change on them.

First step would be abolishing s44; it serves no purpose.

 

[u10207420]

After reading this topic, I have done some research on the BTP website on they clearly state:

"Photography

You are allowed to take photographs on stations if it is for personal use. For any commercial photography, you must seek prior permission from the appropriate train operator or from Network Rail at their 17 major stations. On busy stations using a tripod may cause a dangerous obstruction to passengers so you may be asked to remove it. You must also keep tripod legs away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. You are not allowed to use flash photography on platforms as it may distract the attention of train drivers and train dispatch staff and is therefore a potential safety hazard. You are also not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment such as CCTV cameras. "

I am confident that every single of us (Photters), would abide by this, providing that platform staff would not interfere.

I have attached the direct link, should you wish to link at the webpage, possibily for printing for proof, that it is well within our rights and the LAW !!

http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/advice_and_information/rail_enthusiasts.aspx

 

[Jeff Worsnop]

If you are stopped and searched under the auspices of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, the I set out below your rights, courtesy of Liberty who have produced them



- The police can only give you a pat down, remove outer clothes (eg jacket, hat), search your bags and have you empty your pockets [/COLOR][/LEFT]



Ø You do not have to give your name and address


Ø You do not have to explain why you are there


Ø You are not allowed to flee the search, but you are not required to be actively compliant. You are allowed to 'go limp' as passive resistance during the search if you wish not to comply


Ø There is no permission to collect DNA data during the search


Ø You do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph or record you


Ø Women cannot be touched by male police during these searches


Ø Make notes about the officers searching you - name, number and police force


Ø Note the time and the events preceding the search


Ø Note the specific wording used by the police to explain their authority to search you


Ø Ask the police for the reason that they are searching you. Specifically, are they searching for terrorists or are they simply trying to deter, delay or inconvenience you?



Afterwards


Ø Hold on to the Search Record or any other documentation the police give you (or note if you don't receive one)


Ø Make brief notes about the search while you still remember all the details


Ø Do not write anything down on the day that you don't want disclosed to the police. Police may search you again and be able to read anything that you have written down


Ø Please complete and submit Liberty's search monitoring form


Ø Consider making a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission


Ø Write to Lord Carlile, the independent monitor of the implementation of anti-terrorism legislation (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, The House of Lords London SW1A 0AA)


Ø Consider pressing charges if the officers used unnecessary force during the search [/LEFT]




The Police CANNOT require you to destroy or show them any photograph. To do so they have to obtain a Court Order. They are allowed to seize the camera but they would have to have some VERY good reasons to do so and when challenged in Court would almost certainly be unable to satisfy the Court that the power existed in the case of a photographer.

They are not allowed to interfere with the camera. or even switch it off. This must only be done by specially trained officers as stipulated by, and in accordance with, Home Office guidelines.

Why not cooperate with good grace unless, of course, your intention is to make a political gesture and be difficult as a matter of principle?

 

[Mojo]

Why not cooperate with good grace unless, of course, your intention is to make a political gesture and be difficult as a matter of principle?

Because that's not what the law says? Because the police cannot be trusted? Because I have taken a photograph for a purpose and do not want to delete it? Because I do not want to suffer the embarassment of xyz at the hands of complete strangers in public?

Hundreds of reasons.

 

[yorkie]

Why not cooperate with good grace unless, of course, your intention is to make a political gesture and be difficult as a matter of principle?

Good grace?! How is stopping and searching someone for photography under the excuse of terrorism, "good grace"?

 

[Lampshade]

Why not cooperate with good grace unless, of course, your intention is to make a political gesture and be difficult as a matter of principle?

I'm sorry, it's almost as if you're suggesting it's fair hock:

 

[90019]

Why not cooperate with good grace unless, of course, your intention is to make a political gesture and be difficult as a matter of principle?

I presume that you go along with good grace whenever anyone in a position of authority tells you to do something that they don't actually have any legal right to make you do, then?

 

[Jeff Worsnop]

Because that's not what the law says? Because the police cannot be trusted? Because I have taken a photograph for a purpose and do not want to delete it? Because I do not want to suffer the embarassment of xyz at the hands of complete strangers in public?

Hundreds of reasons.

I don't comprehend your your first sentence.
In a large group of people there will be a few "bad apples" who can't be trusted.
No one says you have to delete a photograph or even stop photographing - unless to do so could cause a breach of the peace, eg if someone violently objects to you taking pictures of their child and you continue with photographing the child. Why be embarassed?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good grace?! How is stopping and searching someone for photography under the excuse of terrorism, "good grace"?

To say that would be nonsense.
I said accept the situation of being stopped with good grace.
My experience is that cooperating in a sensible way with "authority", defuses tension and the "authority" can get the job done and be on their way.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry, it's almost as if you're suggesting it's fair hock:

Life isn't fair and never was. Parliament passed the law so the unfairness (as you seem to see it) is down to MPs. Lobby your MP. or other elected representative to change that law if it bothers you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I presume that you go along with good grace whenever anyone in a position of authority tells you to do something that they don't actually have any legal right to make you do, then?

Have you a personal experience of this.
Of course if a person without authority to do so interfers with your right to go about your business then you should object. But do so in a rational and calm way unless you also want to be an arse.

 

[43167]

After reading this topic, I have done some research on the BTP website on they clearly state:

"Photography

You are allowed to take photographs on stations if it is for personal use. For any commercial photography, you must seek prior permission from the appropriate train operator or from Network Rail at their 17 major stations. On busy stations using a tripod may cause a dangerous obstruction to passengers so you may be asked to remove it. You must also keep tripod legs away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. You are not allowed to use flash photography on platforms as it may distract the attention of train drivers and train dispatch staff and is therefore a potential safety hazard. You are also not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment such as CCTV cameras. "

I am confident that every single of us (Photters), would abide by this, providing that platform staff would not interfere.

I have attached the direct link, should you wish to link at the webpage, possibily for printing for proof, that it is well within our rights and the LAW !!

http://www.btp.police.uk/passengers/advice_and_information/rail_enthusiasts.aspx

Thanks for that. Just printed a copy off.

 

[Bevan Price]

Law In Action, BBC Radio 4 tonight (20:00) is to include an item about photography & the police. Will also be available on i-player at BBC website if you miss the broadcast.

Bevan

 

[former basher]

If you are stopped and searched under the auspices of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, the I set out below your rights, courtesy of Liberty who have produced them

YOUR RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 44​

At the time

- The police can only give you a pat down, remove outer clothes (eg jacket, hat), search your bags and have you empty your pockets ​

Ø You do not have to give your name and address


Ø You do not have to explain why you are there


Ø You are not allowed to flee the search, but you are not required to be actively compliant. You are allowed to 'go limp' as passive resistance during the search if you wish not to comply


Ø There is no permission to collect DNA data during the search


Ø You do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph or record you


Ø Women cannot be touched by male police during these searches


Ø Make notes about the officers searching you - name, number and police force


Ø Note the time and the events preceding the search


Ø Note the specific wording used by the police to explain their authority to search you


Ø Ask the police for the reason that they are searching you. Specifically, are they searching for terrorists or are they simply trying to deter, delay or inconvenience you?



Afterwards


Ø Hold on to the Search Record or any other documentation the police give you (or note if you don't receive one)


Ø Make brief notes about the search while you still remember all the details


Ø Do not write anything down on the day that you don't want disclosed to the police. Police may search you again and be able to read anything that you have written down


Ø Please complete and submit Liberty's search monitoring form


Ø Consider making a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission


Ø Write to Lord Carlile, the independent monitor of the implementation of anti-terrorism legislation (Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, The House of Lords London SW1A 0AA)


Ø Consider pressing charges if the officers used unnecessary force during the search ​

The Police CANNOT require you to destroy or show them any photograph. To do so they have to obtain a Court Order. They are allowed to seize the camera but they would have to have some VERY good reasons to do so and when challenged in Court would almost certainly be unable to satisfy the Court that the power existed in the case of a photographer.

They are not allowed to interfere with the camera. or even switch it off. This must only be done by specially trained officers as stipulated by, and in accordance with, Home Office guidelines.

www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

this link might help you !

 

[jrhilton]

Old news, but Section 44 has been suspended for the time being for individuals though vehicles can still be searched. See here: http://www.journalism.co.uk/2/articles/539533.php

Police need to "reasonably suspect the person to be a terrorist" before they are searched under S43 now too.

All in all, good news.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I know this is an old thread, but I've been away from the forum a while so didn't get to comment at the time regarding the suspension of section 44. I do wonder if it really is such great news for rail photographers etc, as surely the police could just say that taking photographs is reasonable suspition of terrorism? Photographers were not being stopped randomly under section 44 (which is what it allows) but due to the fact that they were taking photographs. If officers did not suspect that photographers were doing anything wrong, then why were they stopping and searching them? Unless they suspected their activities were related to terrorism, why were they using anti-terror laws? I think it's still to early to celebrate, as they could just as easily use section 43 instead.

 

[lifeboat1721]

Personally I have no Problems with the Police!!

I also Photograph Ships and I have been checked by the police and I keep my copy of the search in my Kit bag, If an officer ask's me what I've taken I'll gladly show them, I feel it's better have them as friends as enimies as a couple of times I've needed there help..

Each to there own..