Photographer harrassment still continues..

[90019]

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.

Except for one thing; the government can easily ignore you, go ahead and do what they want, whether the people want them to or not. It seems that the only thing stopping them is if there is an election approaching.

There's also the issue of ruling by fear.
Get the population scared and they will let you do much more so long as you make them think that it's making them safer, almost completely regardless of the amount of freedom it removes. Unfortunately this seems to be the way this country is heading, and the "threat" of terrorism is the perfect excuse for the government to force through things that the people would refuse if the "threat" wasn't there.

From where I'm sitting; especially since the Lisbon "Treaty", some other countries outside the EU are looking much more appealing.

This is just what I'm seeing from where I am

 

[Old Timer]

It is interesting you post that, because I have learnt that the Germans have just passed a Law that in effect could well scupper the impact of the Lisbon "Treaty".

The Germans have enacted a Law that states a person can only be extradicted on the basis of an offence that exists in German Law.

 

[marku51]

Except for one thing; the government can easily ignore you, go ahead and do what they want, whether the people want them to or not. It seems that the only thing stopping them is if there is an election approaching.

There's also the issue of ruling by fear.
Get the population scared and they will let you do much more so long as you make them think that it's making them safer, almost completely regardless of the amount of freedom it removes. Unfortunately this seems to be the way this country is heading, and the "threat" of terrorism is the perfect excuse for the government to force through things that the people would refuse if the "threat" wasn't there.

From where I'm sitting; especially since the Lisbon "Treaty", some other countries outside the EU are looking much more appealing.

This is just what I'm seeing from where I am

Even if the government ignores you, you have to make sure that you do your part. But if you just assume that you will be ignored and don't do anything, then you have started down the path to loosing your rights. The only way to maintain your rights is to participate actively.

The fear issue isn't limited to the government. Our society is got a lot of issues with fear, driven by the media and the government, and anyone else with an agenda. Be it fear about terrorism or fear about climate change or fear about the Lisbon Treaty, there are a lot of people out there with axes to grind, and they use fear. The only way to defeat this is to be educated. Read different perspectives about issues. Read the laws that are involved. If you're worried about the Lisbon Treaty, than make sure that you've read it and aren't just going off of what others have told you. If you want to protect your rights as a photographer, read section 44 and understand it. And then take an active position. If you get hassled, write to your MP, or to someone in government. Letters to MPs don't get ignored--trust me, I've worked there.

And on the subject of the Lisbon Treaty, don't worry so much. There is a lot of misinformation out there about it, which is unfortunate. I'm not sure what exactly worries you so much about it, but it's the EU--lots of noise and little action. And I think that a change in government here in the UK will balance it out--but there can only be change if we all go out an get involved.

mark u

 

[GB]

The Photographers Vs Police issue has been raging on for months now. Its constantly been in the head lines beit it papers or TV, people have complained, started petitions and by the sounds of it, organised demonstrations, yet the situation remains.

Other than standing up for ones self if stopped, what more can people actually do??

I dont think the government can be blamed for the photography issue, this is wholly a police enforcement issue and I suspect letters will only go so far. Its the police that are taking this hard stand and its upto senior officers to do something about it.

If the Chief of Police has sent a memo to its forces and there is still trouble then there is obviously a failure somewhere down the line and needs to be sorted.

 

[jon0844]

And yet a lot of people just think it's easier to comply with the police and stop moaning!

I guess that even if you're not actually out taking photos, you should still be as interested as everyone else in making sure the police can't just make up laws as they go along.

The people standing up for their rights, and possibly looking rather arrogant in the process, are actually doing us all a favour. The fight must continue, as it might be taking photos today - but tomorrow it will be talking on a mobile phone (as you might be conversing about a pending terrorist attack or relaying information) or simply walking around slowly and aimlessly because you're killing time.

 

[GB]

The people standing up for their rights, and possibly looking rather arrogant in the process, are actually doing us all a favour

To an extent I agree, but those that go out purposely looking for trouble and quoting all and sundry (ie this photographer) I dont think are doing us any favours. What did this photographer hope to achieve or what did he actually achieve other than getting a story on the internet?? At the very mention of being arrested at the very end he was pretty quick to concede his point.

 

[Ferret]

GB, read back through the thread. He's a journalist who undertook a deliberate sting in order to write a story for his newspaper. His aim was to prove that the Police were failing to follow the instructions on how to use S44 from senior officers and in doing so, make the Police look stupid. Mission accomplished.

He bailed out at the right time (ie when threatened with arrest) cos it's bloody hard to submit your article to the newspaper editor from the local nick, even if the arrest would have been unlawful.

 

[jon0844]

The NUJ has hundreds of reports like this, so it's not surprising that the media are out 'testing' the police. And, obviously, as they ARE the media - then it's going to get reported.

I am not suggesting journalists should only only take interest in things that directly affect them, but it is quite understandable.

I don't think anyone goes out with a camera to try and attract the attention of a police officer. In most cases, you take photos and never even see an officer - and you aren't going to wait around until you find one!

But, the law of averages says that someone is going to get hassled sooner or later.

 

[eos]

If the Chief of Police has sent a memo to its forces and there is still trouble then there is obviously a failure somewhere down the line and needs to be sorted.

Write to Chief Inspector Andrew Trotter , quoting his message to all Chief Constables and ask a few awkward questions about why it has not been heeded, what he intends to do to change the situation such that it is in future, an estimate of how long he expects before every officer has briefed on the subject , and send a copy ( make it obvious) to your own MP, and David Cameron, to make sure its answered. Then hold them to the replies, in no uncertain terms.

 

[Old Timer]

But the point is now that in many cases the Police and CSOs, as well as security staff are taking a very close interest in photographers who are doing nothing more than going about their lawful business.

There are a whole series of reports on here and other Railway fora where photographers have been hassled by the Police either under their own volition or in response to a CSO or a security man/woman.

There is no reason for photographers to be harrassed in this way, and in many cases the actions of the Police verge on the borderline of, if not, being illegal.

There is NO compunction upon anyone to give their name and address to a Poilce Officer (unless in connection with a car) unless an offence has been committed. It is no different to being stopped on the way home, or when out shopping because you wear a particular type of jacket and made to explain yourself.

We are on the brink of being in a Police state, even to the extent of how they dress and how the younger officers strut around with shaven heads looking like they have come out of an Arnie Schwarzenegger film.

Many of them adopt this dress even when there is no need to look like Terminator.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Don't they have the freedom to look how they want to look?

How would you feel if your employer told you that you couldn't have certian hairstyles? I bet you would be back onn here and complaining about it.

 

[Old Timer]

Don't they have the freedom to look how they want to look?

How would you feel if your employer told you that you couldn't have certian hairstyles? I bet you would be back onn here and complaining about it.

Why do you think they shave their heads ?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Why do you think they shouldn't look/wear what they want? That sounds more like a police state to me.

 

[GB]

Why do you think they shave their heads ?

Perhaps to avoid some little scroat grabbing a handfull during a tussle or is it being suggested that becuase they have short/shaved/no hair they are part of some sort of group??

As for the uniform or uniform styling, im pretty sure they dont get that much of a choice.

 

[Old Timer]

Why do you think they shouldn't look/wear what they want? That sounds more like a police state to me.

The only person that would need to shave their heads is someone who maybe well on the way to going bald. This is not the case with 20/30 something Police Officers.

It is the "Grant Mitchell" hard man image, which they wish to portray. Yearsv ago it was only skinheads who shaved their heads, now it appears to be de riguer for the younger element of the Police Force. That and dressing like a walk on part in a combat film.

There is absolutely no need for them to dress in this manner, even the Police abroad do not.

The Dutch Police are armed and yet they manage to walk around dressed in normal uniforms, they don't look like they are part of a war film set, and they rarely shave their heads.

Similarly the US Police walk around quite happily in shirt sleeve order even though their Country is considerably more dangerous in many ways than ours is without looking like they have emerged from a bad day in Afghanistan.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Maybe it is. I don't have a problem with a policeman with a shaved head.

Maybe we should ban all coppers with afros...

 

[Old Timer]

You still miss the point.

It is my experience that Policemen who have shaven heads tend towards the more aggressive approach. They also seem to favour wearing the full body armour, even when it is uneccessary.

The whole impression they give off is one of aggression. There is a time and a place for this.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I hardly think they all wear body armour for no reason. Ambulance crews have now been issued with body armour because of assualts and stabbings, of which the risk increases for the police.

With the greatest respect Old Timer, I think you are missing my point about it being more like a police state when hairstyles are banned.

 

[David]

I think Old Timer has got it spot on to be honest.

Control is nothing without fear. Where none exists, you create it.

PS. Read a book called State of Fear written by Michael Chrichton. It will explain how governments and organisations go about creating a state of fear about something, even if the plot is a bit far fetched.

 

[EM2]

The only person that would need to shave their heads is someone who maybe well on the way to going bald. This is not the case with 20/30 something Police Officers.

What complete and utter tripe. Many of my colleagues in their twenties and thirties shave their heads and we're not policemen. In fact, I don't shave my head and I'm probably in the minority!
They shave their heads because they want to, not to look hard or threatening.

 

[Old Timer]

What complete and utter tripe. Many of my colleagues in their twenties and thirties shave their heads and we're not policemen. In fact, I don't shave my head and I'm probably in the minority!
They shave their heads because they want to, not to look hard or threatening.

So you are saying that no-one shaves their head for this reason then ?

So why do it ?

Is it the fashion to be a slaphead these days ? Does it confer some sort of mystical sexual attributes ?

 

[royaloak]

Is it the fashion to be a slaphead these days ?

So does that mean I am finally fashionable (and mines natural )

 

[EM2]

So you are saying that no-one shaves their head for this reason then ?

So why do it ?

Is it the fashion to be a slaphead these days ? Does it confer some sort of mystical sexual attributes ?

I'm not saying that no-one does.
But your point was that only anyone who is tending to baldness needs to.
While that may be strictly true, many people, especially Afro-Caribbean men, shave their head because they frankly can't be bothered to look after hair styles. Some people have hair that grows very quickly. Some have hair that naturally grows in an unusual way and is difficult to style. Some people simply suit a bald pate better.
It's called personal choice.

 

[jon0844]

I have to agree with OT that there are many police officers that do try and portray themselves as being 'hard' and I think it's quite obvious when you see them walking around - the way they walk in itself is a sign. Some wear dark sunglasses too - although I think some forces were trying to ban them as it didn't really look good when the public couldn't make eye contact.

I also agree about the body armour; many other countries where police are armed (and shot at) seem to make do without this. However, if someone wishes to wear it then I would not stop them.

Do I really have to add a disclaimer to say that these are obviously not representative of ALL police officers?

 

[eos]

On page 119 BBC1 CEEFAX tonight this page was shown. Ta Chalky for the tip-off.
Police cautious over photo curbs.
A Senior Scotland yard officer has said photographers should not be stopped and searched without 'very good reason'.
John Yates, an assistant commissioner , was responding to complaints that professional photographers and tourists taking pictures had been challenged.
Earlier this year hundreds of photographers staged a protest outside Scotland Yard.
Mr Yates said officers must use their powers under counter-terrorism laws wisely or risk losing public support.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Dark "Vice City" style sunglasses have indeed been banned by certian forces.

 

[jon0844]

And so they should. The police should not look like riot police, or FBI/CIA agents. Tony Blair did seem to be on a mission to Americanise (sorry, Americanize) everything, from SWAT-team style liveries on police vehicles to the introduction of a 'supreme court'. He always wanted to change uniforms I think, again to the US SWAT-team look.

It's funny how the real armed police you see at airports seem to look a lot less menacing than some police officers on the street that are trying to intimidate. Perhaps the people with all the power don't feel the need to show it off?

 

[eos]

The full statement , previewed on CEEFAX last night is here
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/polic...ers_and_staff_re_stop_and_search_photo_policy

Guidance issued to MPS officers and staff re stop and search photo policy
John Yates, Assistant Commissioner Specialist Operations, has today reminded all MPS officers and staff that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.

The message, which has been circulated to all Borough Commanders and published on the MPS intranet, reinforces guidance previously issued around powers relating to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000.

Guidance on the issue will continue to be included in briefings to all operational officers and staff.

Mr Yates said: "People have complained that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. These stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of TACT. The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious.

"Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that:

- there is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances

- there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff

- the act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop.

"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped.

"An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters. You will find below what I hope is clear and unequivocal guidance on what you can and cannot do in respect of these sections. This complements and reinforces previous guidance that has been issued. You are reminded that in any instance where you do have reasonable suspicion then you should use your powers under Section 43 TACT 2000 and account for it in the normal way.

"These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense. We risk losing public support when they are used in circumstances that most reasonable people would consider inappropriate."

The guidance:

Section 43 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 43 is a stop and search power which can be used if a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person may be a terrorist.

Any police officer can:

- Stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

- View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by the person searched to discover whether the images constitute evidence they are involved in terrorism.

- Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist, including any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

The power, in itself, does not permit a vehicle to be stopped and searched.

Section 44 Terrorism Act 2000

Section 44 is a stop and search power which can be used by virtue of a person being in a designated area.

Where an authority is in place, police officers in uniform, or PCSOs IF ACCOMPANIED by a police officer can:

- Stop and search any person; reasonable grounds to suspect an individual is a terrorist are not required. (PCSOs cannot search the person themselves, only their property.)

- View digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are connected with terrorism.

- Seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

General points

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images, destroy film or to prevent photography in a public place under either power. Equally, officers are also reminded that under these powers they must not access text messages, voicemails or emails.

Where it is clear that the person being searched under Sections 43 or 44 is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

If an officer's rationale for effecting a stop is that the person is taking photographs as a means of hostile reconnaissance, then it should be borne in mind that this should be under the Section 43 power. Officers should not default to the Section 44 power in such instances simply because the person is within one of the designated areas.

For more information visit http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm .

Bulletin 0000001569 14 December 2009

 

[Mojo]

And so they should. The police should not look like riot police, or FBI/CIA agents. Tony Blair did seem to be on a mission to Americanise (sorry, Americanize) everything, from SWAT-team style liveries on police vehicles to the introduction of a 'supreme court'. He always wanted to change uniforms I think, again to the US SWAT-team look.

And of course let's not forget the first armed police patrols in a generation introduced without debate or even the correct authorisation (http://www.politics.co.uk/news/policing-and-crime/alarm-as-armed-police-patrol-london-streets-$1336191.htm); AIUI now thankfully scrapped (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cers-motorbikes-scrapped-dramatic-U-turn.html).

 

[jon0844]

Where it is clear that the person being searched under Sections 43 or 44 is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

Not sure what 'caution' means as that is very open to interpretation, but the police-authorised press card in my wallet does certainly feel a bit more valuable now!