The law is an ass.
So download our stop and search bust card, print it out and stick it in your wallet:
Right Click, Save As, Print.
About the card
The card concentrates mainly on your rights under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which is widely used across the country against photographers. It allows the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize “articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism” without first having grounds for suspecting the person is a terrorist or is carrying any articles that might be useful to a terrorist.
It also covers other laws under which photography may be restricted in the UK.
The Law
The card is not intended to be a substitute for full legal advice, it is simply an states your rights when stopped and searched. When dealing with the police there is always a balance between your rights – not telling them anything – and what might be advisable – telling them your name and explaining what your doing.
The card has been compiled by photographers with many years experience dealing with the police and stops and searches as well as legal advice from lawyer Anna Mazzola who specialises in public law, human rights, actions against the police and other detaining authorities.
For more in depth, but not quite wallet sized, discussion about photography and UK law check out the Photo-Forum Know Your Rights video
Used the card?
Have you used our card when being stopped and searched? Is there something you think we should add? let us know in the comments below
A definition of “obstructing a police constable” would be useful as this seems to be a catch-all they use to arrest people.
Indeed, this is something that is used against photographers.
Obstructing a Police Officer – section 89(2) Police Act 1996
The card mentions your right to withold your name, address and other personal info. This may not be wise, as it could give the officer grounds to formally escalate your stop/search and arrest you.
Please be aware of the following:
Even when the stop/search seems egregious, being polite and straightforward with your questioners can pay dividends (avoid arrest!).
You are quite right and there is a balance to be struck between your rights – Not telling them anything – and what might be advisable – being helpful, giving your name etc.
We decided that the card should just state your rights, mainly so the card could be kept to a reasonable (wallet) size.
It is a horrible catch-22 where it is your right not to disclose your name but in doing so you raise suspicion further so that the officer may have grounds for arrest.
What is normally the attitude of the police officer if you make detailed notes of the encounter?
I have wondered if someone could produce a form that could be filled in, with prompts for questions to ask to police officer and place to record the replies (or lack of reply). It could include a checklist as above.
This was covered by ex-MP Bill Pitt in the advice he gave to readers of Amateur Photographer magazine about 4 years ago. He stated that you should use a mobile phone to contact someone to tell them where you were and what had happened to you-e.g. having been stopped by police for using a camera in a public place. Some idiot of a police officer wrote up afterwards to state that this was not a helpful suggestion as it would be seen as hindering the officer who stopped you. However, Bill Pitt replied that you were well within your rights to do this as, at that time, you were not under arrest and therefore still a free person. As I see it, this deals with your point. I feel that you have made a very good point and are proposing taking matters further than I had planned to do, e.g. make notes at the time. I shall certainly look into what I can put on my own stop and search form.
As an aside, I have previously written that I make certain that I carry nothing at all on me with my identity on. I shall refuse to give my name etc but will indicate my readiness to comply with a search. It is important to note that if you supply your details, it is recorded on the PNC that you were stopped on suspicion of ‘taking photos of children,’ ‘taking photos for terrorists,’ etc and this can be very damaging in the event that you are required to apply for an enhanced criminal records bureau check – needed even to work in a charity shop.
Best wishes David Murray mediapixdave@hotmail.com
I also believe that male officers aren’t supposed to pat down females as this could be dubbed “Sexual harassment” and so a female officer has to be present or actually do the pat down search herself. The pat down search is quite… rough as it were. They really like to feel for the weapons **rolls eyes**
This is indeed the case:
s43.3 – Terrorism Act 2000
And PACE guidelines also state:
Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Practice – Code A (PDF)
intersting point. What I wonder is the position if ur gay, or transgender & a male officer wants to do apt down
Since you are unlikely to have access to your mobile phone or PDA electronic contact book, if you are arrested (as the Police will be trying to snoop through this for “Intelligence gathering” purposes), you should also write down, or print out (or memorise) the 24 / 7 contact phone numbers, for a couple of firms of solicitors, who are experienced in criminal arrest procedures and human rights appeals.
Re the police right to view your images in limited circumstances, what does that mean for people using film cameras? Does that suggest we are off that particular hook or have police tended to ‘borrow’ film to assure themselves theres nothing untoward going on?
An interesting question, we’ve not heard of this happening to anyone yet but presumably in order to the view images the police would have to seize the film and have it developed. There is no mention of film in the act in relation to seizing and viewing images so the only thing contrary to this would be guidance issued by individual forces on the use of s44 Stop & Search powers.
Do these rights etc. apply all over the UK, or are there regional differences? I am thinking, specifically about Scottish Law. Ta.
The Terrorism Act 2000 applies to the whole of the UK as well as some parts whose jurisdiction extends globally, as such your rights when stopped and searched are the same.
There may be other laws that restrict photography or the publication of images such as privacy law that differ in Scotland.
See: Terrorism Act 2000
How can you reconcile “you do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph you” with “obstructing a police constable acting under s44 is a criminal offence”? At what point does non-compliance with an unreasonable request become obstruction?
Some elaboration on the “very limited circumstances” under which a policeman is allowed to view your images would be nice as well.
Also, it seems that if you were to refuse to let a policeman see images on your camera (and perhaps if you didn’t delete them when asked) he can use his power to “seize any article he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism” to confiscate it anyway. How would you avoid that?
You would be required to remove anything concealing your identity e.g. a mask or hood. There is no law that requires you to be photographed by the police whilst you are being stopped and searched, the police’s right to take photographs is equal to anybody else’s right to take photographs in a public place. But you do not have to actively comply by looking at the camera or you could cover your face with your hand, attempting to block the police’s camera however would probably be considered obstruction.
I think the Met Police advice on photography and s44 answers your last two questions, albeit not very satisfactorily:
Metropolitan Police Photography Advice
See also: Guardian Liberty Clinic – Search and Seizure – Photography in public places
As a solicitor-to-be (training contract please?) i can safely say that a lot of the information on the card forms *bad* advice. I would be much happier if it was rewritten by an active criminal advocate or barrister.
The card is not intended to be a substitute for full legal advice, simply a statement of your rights that you can print off and carry with you.
As mentioned above when it comes to a confrontation with the law there is a balance to be struck between your right not to tell the police who you are and what your doing and being helpful, polite and telling them who you are and what you’re doing.
The card has been compiled by photographers with many years of experience dealing with the powers police often use against photographers along with a practising lawyer advising on the various legal issues.
But there is an interesting discussion to be had about your rights vs. sensible advice when dealing with the police.
I think the thing to remember herre is that we have nothing to hide, and therefore nothing to gain by not co-operating with the police. I am more than happy to let the police look through my pics, why would I not be? I’d even help him understand how the camera works so he could brows through to his hearts content. Shure he can have my name and address, I have nothing to hide, I am just a photographer wondering arround taking pics. Surely being friendly and complient is the best way to avoid trouble……. No?
There may be circumstances in which you may not want an officer looking through your images, in public order situations or perhaps if you had some personal photographs on the camera. Journalists especially should not share their unpublished material with authorities and as such journalistic material is offered specific protection under PACE.
In most cases it may be perfectly reasonable to show an officer your images to explain what you are doing, however, unless authorisation under s44 of the Terrorism Act has been given for the area they have no legal right to view images and there is absolutely no law which allows the police to delete images.
“there is absolutely no law which allows the police to delete images” – the gag here is that the cop tells _you_ to delete the images or you’ll get a load of hassle (arrest, whatever). So the cop hasn’t deleted the images, you agreed to delete them yourself. It is situations like this where you have to decide whether you are going to become a human rights activist or not.
If the Police tell you to delete images and you refuse, that isn’t grounds for arrest. There are either grounds for arrest or their aren’t. Your having the images on your camera hasn’t changed in either circumstance. You either get arrested up front for having them, or you don’t. You can’t be arrested for refusing to delete them.
@MattMan
> think the thing to remember herre is that we have nothing to hide
No, the important thing to remember here is that under English Common Law you have the Right to Go About Your Lawful Business Without Let or Hindrence.
You also have the Right to be Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty.
I do not have to *prove* I am not a Terrorist. I do not have to comply with any jumped up little Hitler or Plastic Plod who decides (wrongly) that they have the right to hassle me simply because I am exercising my lawful right to take photographs in a public place.
This Government has already whittled away many of our basic rights and civil liberties and simply knuckling under (let alone trotting out the tired and false “nothing to hide” rhetoric) just means that they and the Police will *continue* to take away our liberties.
PS If you have nothing to hide, why do you have curtains…?
How do I organize this same movement in the U.S.A. as there have been similar instances here. Not near as many but they are increasing. I was questioned just getting some footage of a historic steam engine on tour of the western U.S.
Note I’ve never organized anything like this before so I can use as much coaching and incite as can be provided.
Donald I am an amateur photographer. I am going to carry the UK card until I find an American version.
Let me know how I can help.
Glenn James
Pertaining to many of the comments above, I’d like to see a v.2 of this card ASAP.
Just wanted to second mawt’s comments…really would make sense to have this looked over by a lawyer specialising in this…safer all round no?
The card has been compiled with legal advice from Anna Mazolla who specialises in public law, human rights, actions against the police and other detaining authorities.
I think it would be useful on this page to describe what is “s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000″ and when does it apply. In other words, when do the rights on the card apply?
S44 of the Terrorism Act allows the police and the Home Secretary to define any area in the country as well as a time period wherein they could stop and search any vehicle or person, and seize “articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism” without first having grounds for suspecting the person is a terrorist or is carrying any articles that might be useful to a terrorist.
So your rights under s44 would apply whenever you are stopped and searched under s44.
On the police’s rights to photograph us, this is something I’ve tried to get clarification on. If no offence has occured, ie a stop and search with NFA, then the police don’t appear to have any rights to take our images.
Or store them, process them, transfer them to a commercial database operator, so same image rights as any stock library would seem to apply.
So I’d been thinking of making a compact model release form for any prospective police/security photographer to complete. Seems reasonable, if the police are supposed to have the same rights as us for working in public.
Regarding the right of the police to photograph the public…
The police photographer has the same right as any other ‘tog’ – he/she can take whatever pictures they like providing photography isn’t prohibited by act of Parliament (Govt. buildings, Telephone Exchanges, Military installations etc).
Unfortunately OUR right to take pictures of them has recently been curtailed by law.
Sorry to ask a daft question, but am I allowed to photograph a police officer?
I am sure someone said I can’t.
Not a daft question at all. s76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the 2000 act as follows:
Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
A constable is the legal definition of a police officer (not a PCSO however) so technically it is an offence to photograph a police officer or even an ex-police officer.
However, we are unaware of anyone who has been arrested or charged for this offence, although it has been threatened against press photographers on two occasions.
“A constable is the legal definition of a police officer (not a PCSO however) so technically it is an offence to photograph a police officer or even an ex-police officer.”
Well this is not correct according to the information you posted it is NOT an offence to photograph a police officer or even an ex-police officer unless it is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
Whilst this is open to interpretation it is unlikely a court would deem a simple picture of a Police officer useful to a terrorist, the Police might like us to think this but it is simply nonsense. In conjunction with the new guidelines it would likely be considered an offence if you followed a Police Officer home and photographed him entering his house or took extensive footage of Police patrol routes etc.
@stu
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9
Section 76 of Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
>(3) In this section \record\ includes a photographic or electronic record.
So if I ask a police officer for their warrant card number and shoulder number, and their name – then store it as a note in my iphone, I’m committing an offence under s76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008???
and so are all the local papers who publish photos of plods in the community along with their names?
*sigh*
Technically – Yes.
If the officer believes that the information ‘is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.‘ (S76 Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) Then there could be grounds for arrest. This is however a very unlikely scenario and no-one has been arrested under s76 that we are aware of, although it’s use has been threatened against photographers on two occasions.
Interestingly if the CPS ever decided to proceed with such a case, when it came to court the normal of burden of proof is reversed so that you would have to prove that you are not a terrorist and that collecting such information is not likely ‘to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.’
Isn’t the relevant statement here “is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”. The badge number and name of a police officer is not likely to be covered by this. It is after all information we are expected to take when dealing with the police. Taking a phone picture of their shoulder number is more accurate than writing it down…
It need not be recorded electronically for you to have committed an offence. Simply writing it down is enough.
Great website.
The neo-totalitarian tendencies in our socity is becoming more and more scary for every year.
My proposal is to step up the protests and that we all take to the streets on the same day and spend the entire day taking as many pictures of police officers as possible.
Gandhi managed to use civil disobedience, why shouldn’t we.
Ted says: “we all take to the streets on the same day and spend the entire day taking as many pictures of police officers as possible.”
great idea.
Yeah, great idea. I would so be up for that.
What’s the obligation to tell you what their “reasonable suspicion” is? Anyone know?
Strikes me thay can simply say they have reasonable suspicion and do what they want. Can you challenge/argue the point?
Re A Photographer and s76 amendment 2008
If I can’t photograph a constable, then also the constable cannot photograph me for the same reason, as I was a member of the armed forces until 37 years ago!
I have been taking photographs of buses in the street for nearly half a century across Europe and Africa, but mainly in the UK.
It is only in the past 10 years that I have had problems from the odd bus driver (the occasional salute with twin digits) and the Boys in Blue (or should that be Person in Blue?) I insist on the police looking at the photos. When they eventually decide they have seen enough of my 4GB memory card I’ll pursue them, to make sure they don’t miss the Volvo B12M with Plaxton bodywork, or the Neoplan Skyliner, or the Scania N112 doubledecker, or ….
It even works with the French riot police…
I reside in China and am shocked at the extent of Police powers in the UK. Everytime I return to the UK I actually find it much much more restrictive than communist China. It really is quite shocking. Is it any wonder why people like me are emigrating from these islands in search of freedom.
I too have traveled to and noticed the freedom of the Chinese people . Unlike America, In China you can go through a whole day with out breaking a law. And look China now owns America!
If deleting images will get you out of a hole, just do it!
Don’t write anything else to the memory card [ie replace it with a spare if you want to take more photos]. Then when you get home you can just run some recovery software and hey presto! the images are back.
William
Whilst this is a technically feasible solution, we would strongly condemn this action.
It may ‘get you out of a hole’ but it allows the police to think that it’s Ok to go around deleting photographers images. We need to challenge their behaviour and stand up for our rights.
I have to second ‘Photographer’ here. The problem is that bowing to the pressure of th police only gives them grounds to do it again, and again, and again… until you look up and realise that you don’t have any rights left whatsoever.
So no, refuse to delete the images, and if you are working in an accredited capacity, invoke PACE. Of course that does mean that you have to show your press card etc… but nonetheless they will back off (well generally they do). As amateur photographers, let them see the images, but again, refuse to delete them because you are not required to.
The police can not ask you to delete images.If they are deemed legal they have no grounds to make such a request. If images are illegal their deletion would amount to destroying evidence which is an offence I believe!
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 3 subsection 3 clearly states that a constable must ask for a persons name but cannot detain a person if he is unwilling to provide it. On a record of stop and search, a constable inserts a description of that person if the person will not provide his name. This is confirmed in the code of practice at code A section 4.2. As regards the Terrorism Act, a constable has to have good grounds for suspecting that a person is a terrorist, is undertaking some activity likely to be a substantial assistance to a terrorist or carrying articles for use in an act of terrorism. As Lord Carlile has said, this is a high bar.
A point that is often overlooked is this: Time and again we hear of people stopped, searched and, on occasions, actually arrested. We never hear of anyone being prosecuted. The people who are arrested are later released without charge and police comment that ‘no further action is being taken.’ It would seem that the person arrested is too traumatised by the arrest to take any action themselves against the police for what appears to be an unlawful arrest.
As for me, I shall rely on the provisions of PACE s3 (3) to decline to provide my name etc and always make sure that I have nothing on me to enable same to be discovered. If arrested, I shall have grounds to sue for unlawful arrest and will have a good holiday in Corfu from the resultant damages.
An aside here, discretion is the better part of valor. I now look round before taking my Leica out of my pocket and taking a quick snap before returning it. I then move away from the area. I know Humberside Police have stated that they will act against ‘covert photography’ but I prefer my discretion.
Very good stuff, thanks. There are two things that I think would not just be useful, but essential for you to clarify, to make it a more effective bust card:
1. You say the police are entitled to ’seize any article he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism’. In effect this means they can seize anything and everything from your camera equipment through to your pencil! If this is actually the case, then the wording is fine. But if their powers are actually narrower, it would be great if you could tighten the wording.
2. in terms of taking photographs of/at airports and other private property. Are you allowed to take photographs of private property if you are taking the photos while you are standing on public property? Whether the answer is yes or no, it would be useful to clarify this.
Many thanks
Harmit
1. They can indeed seize anything, s45.2 of the Terrorism Act 2000 states:
2. There are two parts to this which are covered by separate laws. Private Property as stated on the second side of the bust card:
Airports are a slightly trickier area, many have their own bylaws which may restrict photography, Heathrow for example has one. However you can usually ask the airport operator for permission to take photographs and it will be allowed, if you are taking pictures for commercial purposes you may have to pay a fee. Some airports have designated viewing galleries where photography of airplanes and airfields is allowed.
See: Filming and Photography at Heathrow
We are currently trying to track down all the Bylaws in force at airports around the country.
Why delete pictures?
I agree with Bob Farrer #26.
If you delete images you will also be deleting evidence, something that might be worth pointing out to anybody who tells you to do so.
Also, images are property under copyright law, so if they want them, surely they have to give a proper receipt and keep them safe.
@ Harmit Kambo #28
You can take photographs of private property provided you are standing on public property, such as a footpath but it might not be sensible to take too many pictures close to an busy international airport.
It would be very interesting, after being stopped, to then search that forces website/ local newspaper for a picture of/information about the officer in question, as most if not all seem to have either info pages for the community bobby or if they have been heroes in the past – picture and name of the officer in question
@Harmit “1. You say the police are entitled to ’seize any article he reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism’. In effect this means they can seize anything and everything from your camera equipment through to your pencil! If this is actually the case, then the wording is fine. But if their powers are actually narrower, it would be great if you could tighten the wording.”
It means what it says. They can seize anything but they MUST have a reasonable suspicion, they can’t just seize anything on a fishing exercise. I would imagine the courts would require the evidence to give suspicion about a pencil case to be much higher than suspicion for a detonator.
“Private property owners may impose restrictions on photography, this only applies to photographs taken from somewhere on their property. Restrictions may not always be obvious but will still apply. They cannot be imposed after the photography has occurred.”
If they do impose a restriction, the only power they have is to make you leave using no more than reasonable force, and/or bring a civil action for tresspass. They still cannot seize or delete any pictures.
The card states “if the police decide there are reasonable grounds to arrest you for an offence, you do have to give your name and address”.
Which clause of which statute creates an offence of withholding your name and address when arrested?
I have had no hassle with the police but a jumped up Edinburgh Parking Attendant recently accosted me in the street claiming that I could not take photographs of him doing his job ( I was in fact photographing other street life at the time ) I then did take a few photographs of the deranged man and after saying I could not take his picture the total dimwit produced his own camera and started to photograph me with it!! I have the pic’s available to anyone wishing them, very humorous they are too.
I must say however after my last comment the police in Edinburgh are very good, I don’t know if it’s because we have tourists all year round photographing our historical and very beautiful city but I’ve not heard of or witnessed anyone being hassled for taking pic’s and that includes hotspots such as the castle, the palace, the parliament, city chambers etc. I myself take quite a few photo’s of the police going about their duty and very openly so as well.
Although I regard myself as pretty au fait with the ways of our increasingly Orwellian country, I have been horrified to read some of these comments. This is what I wrote in response to the following two comments on a LinkedIn BBC thread recently :
Picking up on the previous writer’s comments – “So basically the terrorism law is being used to stop law abiding cameramen and women from going about there lawful ways, that’s not the law in this country but hey we are English and we do what we are told. Don’t we?”
“The issue is this: No law enforcement officer or agency has the lawful right to stop a member of the public or professional to stop someone in the street from filming or taking photographs. Full stop”.
We MUST fight back, speak and write to our MPs, the Home Office, the PM, ACPO etc to get them to understand that this is not what Britain is all about and only does the potential terrorists job for them. We have fought long and hard over many centuries for our freedoms and if the people we elect to represent us(!), or those who act on their behalf, such as the police, do not understand this then they are not worthy of their positions and should step aside.
Let us see the BBC, other broadcasters and the great British ‘free Press’ fight back and espouse the cause of our freedom to go about our law abiding activities unmolested, otherwise it will soon be too late to stop the country turning into the authoritarian state it is already becoming; in the name of maintaining our freedoms and democracy…… – ironic or what?!
As a photographer for over 50 years, a practising TV professional and, more recently, a paid up member of NO2ID I have been trying to get this message across for a very long time – especially that, sooner or later, these restrictions would impinge on the ability of Press & TV to do their job.
Maybe now, with your campaign, that of Amateur Photographer ( AP Rights Watch ), BECTU & NUJ and growing media and public awareness we can finally start to roll back the database state and put this evil genie back in its bottle – because woe betide this country and our lives, if we don’t!
Submitted to the newspaper on 22 August – will they publish? Don’t know, but hopefully it will discomfort someone!
Keep up the pressure – it’s our living they are messing with.
I am a photographer, not a terrorist!
Roger Harrison
Arab News
Photocaption:
Vital terrorist information or a photo of one’s car? A Bristol Fighter
about two kilometres from Windsor Castle. If you need good images of the
castle, any souvenir shop will provide them for SR50 or get them free on
line.
(http://www.visitbritain.com/en/destinations/%5C/England/south-east/Windsor.aspx)
AN Photo: Roger Harrison (Website by Visit Britain)
Detained and cautioned in a busy suburban street for taking photographs.
Arrested, cameras confiscated, hours in a police station and images
deleted. Armed police swoop and demand identity, check vehicle (a
$700,000 Bristol at that!) and detain for questioning on the street for
half an hour. Communist Russia? Restrictive and security obsessed Saudi
Arabia? No.
Modern Britain.
With the development of digital photography and the rapid electronic
communication of images has come an increasing neurosis among
governments of the risks attached to the dissemination of information.
The UK is up there with the “best” of them.
Under section 58a (more commonly known as s76) of the UK Terrorism Act
2000 it is an offence carrying a sentence of up to 10 years
imprisonment:
a) To collect or possesses information of a kind likely to be useful to
a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
b) Possess a document or record containing information of that kind.
If ever there were a blunderbuss piece of un-thought-through
legislation, this has to be it. What it has spawned in effect is the
regular harassment of photographers from visiting tourists to hardened
professional photojournalists, and not one of them a terrorist.
And it gets worse. The advice issued to Metropolitan police officers for
example does not even align with the law they are paid to uphold.
In particular Section 43 of that advice states that “Officers have the
power to view digital images on a camera or mobile phone when they are
searching a person under S43.” Not quite true; they can only view them
under very specific circumstances that usually require a court order and
they cannot delete them.
This would be done to establish if they have in their possession images
that may constitute evidence of their involvement in terrorism.
Yet any officer arresting someone for photographing a police officer,
under S58(a), must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that
the image is likely to be useful to a terrorist. It adds: “It should not
ordinarily be considered appropriate for this law to be used in the
course of normal policing, including protests as, without more, there is
no link to terrorism.”
Yet the monolithic Home Office bureaucracy has moved slightly after
sustained protests and a wonderfully titled pressure group “I’m a
photographer not a terrorist” mounted a web campaign.
In their latest utterance the Home Office says: “An officer making an
arrest [under section 76] must reasonably suspect that the information
is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an
act of terrorism. An example might be gathering information about the
person’s house, car, routes to work and other movements. [...]
It is a statutory defence for a person to prove that they had a
reasonable excuse for eliciting, publishing or communicating the
relevant information [Under s76]
Important: Legitimate journalistic activity (such as covering a
demonstration for a newspaper) is likely to constitute such an excuse.
Similarly an innocent tourist or other sight-seer taking a photograph of
a police officer is likely to have a reasonable excuse.” (Emphasis from
the Home Office, not mine.)
That is a step in the right direction, but it still relies largely on
the interpretation of the office on the scene. That is something of a
moveable feast, especially with the employment of the much-reviled
“Community Support Officers” who on the list of most right minded citizens rank as social pests
somewhere between cold-calling sub-prime mortgage sales executives and
paedophilic traffic wardens.
At the heart of this legislative dog’s breakfast lies poor drafting of
legislation and the failure to understand the reach and spread of
technology that has become so much part of daily life that it is hardly
noticed. Governmental fear of the public gathering images over which
they have no control drives the legislation; lack of comprehension that
a serious criminal has free access from public sources to more
information than he can use.
So, we have arrived at a point that a tourist may (possibly) photograph
a British Bobby without fear of being banged up in jail for ten years
and possibly a journalist might be able to photograph the Peelers in
full riot gear laying with batons into innocent labourers on their way
home from work. It all depends on whether the policeman on the street
knows the law or is willing to exercise the discretion built into it.
Those are parameters I would not like to rely on.
This summer, Queen Elizabeth authorised Buckingham Palace to open its
gardens to tourists. It would be a fair bet that they would want to snap
away and share that experience with friends – indeed at last enquiry,
photos were not banned. However, “ gathering information about the
person’s house, car, routes to work and other movements” is just cause
to bring the full weight of the law down on the photographer. The
legislators have obviously overlooked the fact that there is an entire
industry – largely based on still images – based precisely on “
gathering information about the person’s (in this case the Queen) house,
car, routes to work and other movements”.
When asked in April at a press conference promoting British tourism -
and less than a month after a tourist and his grandson had been arrested
and camera and images confiscated for photographing a large bus-shelter
- about this fascinating dilemma the spokeswoman for “Visit Britain” her
reply was; “Er………….”
Cameras are so much a fact of life in the form of mobile phones – it is
very difficult to buy a phone without one – that legislators really have
to take a new look at existing technology and how it interfaces with
legislation.
All the information a terrorist could ever use, and then some, can be
legally and very easily from Google Earth and their street-level images
of every road and house in the UK, the British Library and a tourist
shop with a decent stock of postcards.
If I were a terrorist, I suspect that one of my least best options for
an illicit information gathering mission would be to stand in a busy suburban high
street with a SR100,000 of camera equipment using a lens the size of a
bazooka and expect to get away with it.
I would get better results from the Internet; and if that failed, get a
ticket to Buckingham Palace from Visit Britain.
Enjoy the holiday.
Click!
Reminds me of a funny story I read on Fight the Flights (against expansion at London City Airport). Apparently a wedding photographer was arrested and questioned under the Terrorism Act for taking photos of a wedding party outside the Ramada Hotel. This hotel happens to be accross the bridge from London City Airport.
The shopping areas you are talking about for the protest are as you describe “Private property” and therefore like any private property are subject to the owners or representatives of, asking you to leave. If this is the case you should leave without quarrel. Not to do will class you as a tresspasser, which by the law allows the owners to remove you using “minimum force”. Although tresspassing is not an arrestable offence (by a civilian like a secuirty guard) it does allow them to forcibly remove you if you do not comply, somethign all people should be aware of incase they try to resist removal after the request to leave site is given. Such actions could be classed as assualt on the guards as their actions are lawful and yours not.
The police will in most cases on private property ask the owners to remove you from site prior to taking any action themselves, something all should be aware of.
I’m all for the freedom of photographers, I just feel that will all the bluster, we can omit telling people of the rights of property owners and end up breaking the law ourselves!
i think N.W.A had the right idea !
hang on a minute, would it not be worth looking into buying shares in the company that owns canary wharf ? that way you would be technically taking photographs of something that you own and would in effect make the security guard your employee ?
just a thought
After reading the comments I am more convinced than ever that a full frontal confrontation is necessary. If 1000s of people engage in civil disobedience the government eventually will have to retreat. If you are arrested it is very important not to be intimidated and just accept with a sigh that you were released without charges.
Every arrest should result in a formal complaint backed by all photographers and their professional bodies. Can we collect donations to a war chest that can be used to pay for legal assistance? All photographers in the UK should have an emergency national help phone number to a lawyer that is briefed about this campaign and can act immediately. I also think that it is necessary to take as many pics of police officers (and shopping centres) as possible (preferably with large teles) all the time just to tire them out. There is always a legitimate reason to take pictures of police officers, to document potential abuse.
If you are of Middle Eastern origin I recommend against participating in this campaign. To win it is important that the police don’t have any valid excuse.
PS. This madness will most likely have a negative impact on the sales of DSLRs and long teles to the public. It would make business sense for Nikon, Canon, Sigma (and maybe Nokia) to sponsor this campaign with money. Ask them for a donation.
It’s really a shame that England has gone so nuclear over CCTV and oppression of freedoms in the post 9/11 environment. I’m an American, but have spent a good deal of time in the UK. I used to argue to people that Britain dealt reasonably with the terrorist threat from Ireland for decades without going insane and that America should do the same. Sadly, both our nations went a bit batshit after 9/11 and really don’t seem to be recovering very gracefully.
Hopefully protests like this will continue until the police get tired of talking to normal people and accusing them of ridiculous things. Surely it’s must get tedious at some point for the Bobby’s to keep fucking with people for no good purpose.
Does anyone remember when we used to be free?
For some reason, the Met Police seem to think after their 6 weeks training at Hendon that the best way to preserve civil freedom is to take it away. This kind of harassment (which is essentially what it is) happens in China and North Korea. How does the UK claim a moral authority over these dictatorships when it does the same?!
It seems that the UK is regressing into an extremely primitive and paranoid culture. Shame.
I was photographing the exterior of a pub in Barking and later passed by a man unloading some bottled water from his van which I duly took some pics for stock. I put my camera away and was then stopped by 2 PCSOs wanting to know what I was photographing as they were concerned given that we were in the vicinity of Canary Wharf as well as the new Olympic venues. I had packed away my SLR before identifying myself and and duly explained to one of the chaps what I was doing whilst he whipped out his Form 5090x booklet and started filling in the details. I had already shown my press pass and he even asked for my date of birth, which I refused to divulge. I did a quick video recording of the chap on my phone too and he said, “I will call up a unit if you continue, because it’s NOT RIGHT”. Why aren’t they stopping real criminals on the streets peddling drugs or the drunken and disorderly??
I am annoyed that even after producing a valid ID which states my name and employer details, they still had to proceed with filling in the form describing the ’stop and search’ process and it will be entered into a database!!! Although it states ‘No further action’ but what was recorded on the form that I was ‘Advised’!
Hrrmpph..I’ll have to find out how get myself removed from the database!
To me it doesn’t seem worth revealing your name or similar if you are stopped, as they will just write it down and put it in their database (giving you a criminal record). It may aggrivate them enough to arrest you, in which case you will get the record anyway – but it’s worth a try at least. And if you do get arrested but not charged, make sure you keep a note of everything that happens and everyone you speak to – then make an official complaint and/or take legal action. I’m alway reading in the papers about people getting knifed, raped or whatever in the street, yet police waste their time annoying random hobbyists. Who is paying their wages???
If I am on public property (pavement) but my camera is pointing towards private property (sometime I am close, other times quite far away) is this legal or not? A typical example is a reception area of a business, who of course have large glass doors and windows.
Many thanks
I am puzzled by the fact that the areas in which the police consider photography to be an offence are kept secret from the public. How can you be expected not to do something if the fact that it is “illegal” has been concealed from you?
And secondly, but more in jest, does this act cover all image making? Are they going to ask me to remove my easel and oil paints?
If you ever do an update on your stop and search card, could you format it CD size 125cms square.
Then it could be printed and slipped into a PVC CD wallet to keep in the gadget bag.
I can’t see anywhere in the Act that says a constable can prevent me taking photographs unless, I guess, I have been arrested. Yes they can view my digital images but what is there to stop me carrying on taking pictures after they have finished the stop and search?
The police are turning the public against them with their bullying behaviour. Some people will stand up to them, but there is an increasing atmosphere of the police being an arm of the state and can do whatever they like.
Even worse, ’security’ goons of all kinds are assuming powers that they certainly don’t have. Or maybe they do – the government is rolling out a scheme for civilians like club bouncers to have powers to impose on the spot fines on people. I don’t recall even the old East germany being like this.