Video: From snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect

PhotoTalk

PhotoTalk

I am not a real Koala
Messages
2,436
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies if this is a repost. From today's front page:

From snapshot to Special Branch: how my camera made me a terror suspect
Casual shots of London's Gherkin attract stop and search just days after police were reminded street photography is no offence
Paul Lewis, Guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 December 2009 17.54 GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect

EDIT@ 15/12 - Here's a more obvious example of the abuse of Section 44. Not a journalist this time, and worth watching until the end: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming
 
Another case of injustice for us photographers .
 
Yet the journalist was being a pillock and deliberately obstructive. The Police were acting on a report from the security cards and all the guy had to do was tell them who he was and why he was filming in the way he was and everyone else could have got on with their lives. It was a deliberate attempt to provoke and get himself a nice little story.
 
If he was purposely acting suspicious, as to 'test' the Police following them receiving new guidelines, can he not be done for wasting their time??

Genuine cases of harassment are one thing.. but this is just stupid. The media are very well aware of the problem, this chap isn't helping the situation.
 
It's an interesting vid to watch. The whole thing was set up by Paul Lewis to get the story on how the police would react. Nobody came out of it looking particularly bad though, and in fact, I thought the first undercover police officer was both measured and coherent in his response. In some ways, it's a good vid to help see both sides of the argument...
 
fabs said:
It was a deliberate attempt to provoke and get himself a nice little story.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was deliberate, but 'test' might be a better word than 'provoke.' Both sides were basically doing their job.

The forth estate serves a useful function by challenging / speaking truth onto power...
 
I dissagree, I feel the police clearly miss used anti-terrorism law to stop and search this guy. They had no 'REASONABLE' grounds under which to believe a terrorist act was being committed or planned.

Whilst the journalist was being obstructive so what. It's his legal right to take pictures on a public street and to refuse to give his details. I know this might seem like a little thing but we need to protect our freedoms as a society and the police demanding information they have no right too simply because they are police officers is wrong.

Why should it always come down to what's easiest? Okay showing them the images and giving his details straight away would have had it all over and done with but at what cost. Those officers then feel like they had a right to stop and search him - which they did not. So yes it's easier to go along, but in the end doing so only hurts oure freedoms and rights which have been painfully fought for.




..
 
purpleclouds said:
If he was purposely acting suspicious, as to 'test' the Police following them receiving new guidelines, can he not be done for wasting their time??

Genuine cases of harassment are one thing.. but this is just stupid. The media are very well aware of the problem, this chap isn't helping the situation.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree more. The issue raised by the video is a simple one. The police response will be different if they do not like the answer you give regardless of whether or not your broke a law.

Yes, this was a fishing expedition, a fishing expedition to demonstrate that police powers are abused. The only reason police time was wasted was because they acted when they should not have. They detained a man in the street for questioning without grounds for doing so, it was their choice whether or not to waste their own time.

This isn't quite as good as the two guys walking around with megaphones that was posted the other day, but it serves the same purpose.
 
Nice to know the police work for security guards.....

Lets all go and have a photograph the Gerkin day wearing Guy Fawkes outfits.
 
gingerweasel said:
I dissagree, I feel the police clearly miss used anti-terrorism law to stop and search this guy. They had no 'REASONABLE' grounds under which to believe a terrorist act was being committed or planned.

Whilst the journalist was being obstructive so what. It's his legal right to take pictures on a public street and to refuse to give his details. I know this might seem like a little thing but we need to protect our freedoms as a society and the police demanding information they have no right too simply because they are police officers is wrong.

Why should it always come down to what's easiest? Okay showing them the images and giving his details straight away would have had it all over and done with but at what cost. Those officers then feel like they had a right to stop and search him - which they did not. So yes it's easier to go along, but in the end doing so only hurts oure freedoms and rights which have been painfully fought for.
Click to expand...

Well said. A very good post. And when you have lived in places where freedoms are not so well protected, the importance of protecting them becomes even more acute. (y)

My mention of the police being fair earlier was also a relative comment. That they were (a) recently reminded of the contentious nature of this issue, (b) dealing with someone who was white, well-spoken and pretty obviously a journalist (they suspected as much and said so), and (c) hyper-aware of their own recent bad press, probably means that we saw a pretty soft version of power being exercised on this occasion.
 
The guy is a child provoking a response, maybe he is too young to remember the IRA bombs in the city. Filming door ways is obviously suspicious. I think the police show remarkable patience with an utter prat.
 
oldnick said:
The guy is a child provoking a response, maybe he is too young to remember the IRA bombs in the city. Filming door ways is obviously suspicious. I think the police show remarkable patience with an utter prat.
Click to expand...

I think maybe you've missed the point of the exercise. If you read his accompanying article, you'll see what he was trying to achieve.

And calling him a 'child' and an 'utter prat' weakens your argument. Paul Lewis is a well-respected journalist, even if you disagree with his politics. ;) In 2007 he was nominated Young Journalist of the Year and worked for the Washington Post as the Stern Fellow (taken from his blurb!)
 
The trouble I always have is that there an untold list of "things a terrorist will do that normal people also do".... where on earth does it stop?

Thats not being over sensationalist foaming at the mouth about it either.

Terrorists might also:

* Hire cars/buy cheap transit vans for cash
* Stay in hotels or rent property
* Get on buses or trains
* Go into shops and buy clothes to blend in
* Wear sunglasses
* Hang around in groups or on their own
* Read newspapers
* Listen to radios on headphones/talk on mobile phones
* Carry bags

All of those things are actually far more proven things as things genuine terrorists have done, why not start hassling people for those things too then?

Clearly thats ridiculous, but so is stopping tourists taking photos of our most popular city tourist destination. I could understand it if they were taking pictures of military installations or similar, but tourist attractions??
 
desantnik said:
The trouble I always have is that there an untold list of "things a terrorist will do that normal people also do".... where on earth does it stop?

Thats not being over sensationalist foaming at the mouth about it either.

Terrorists might also:

* Hire cars/buy cheap transit vans for cash
* Stay in hotels or rent property
* Get on buses or trains
* Go into shops and buy clothes to blend in
* Wear sunglasses
* Hang around in groups or on their own
* Read newspapers
* Listen to radios on headphones/talk on mobile phones
* Carry bags

All of those things are actually far more proven things as things genuine terrorists have done, why not start hassling people for those things too then?

Clearly thats ridiculous, but so is stopping tourists taking photos of our most popular city tourist destination. I could understand it if they were taking pictures of military installations or similar, but tourist attractions??
Click to expand...

Quite right. And inspired by yours, here's another list to show how things can go too far when we imagine the worst and let fear overtake common sense. (It needs to be read as a narrative):

* Live in the wrong place at the wrong time
* Look like a foreigner
* Wear a rucksack
* Catch a tube to work

** RIP Jean Charles de Menezes.
 
...
 
PhotoTalk said:
I think maybe you've missed the point of the exercise. If you read his accompanying article, you'll see what he was trying to achieve.

And calling him a 'child' and an 'utter prat' weakens your argument. Paul Lewis is a well-respected journalist, even if you disagree with his politics. ;) In 2007 he was nominated Young Journalist of the Year and worked for the Washington Post as the Stern Fellow (taken from his blurb!)
Click to expand...

He may well be a "well respected journalist" (is there such a thing?) but this report was a sensationalist piece of drivel delivered in a deliberately confrontational manner.
 
Hacker said:
He may well be a "well respected journalist" (is there such a thing?) but this report was a sensationalist piece of drivel delivered in a deliberately confrontational manner.
Click to expand...

I don't think most people would dissagree with that, but the point remains the same. He was conducting himself in a perfectly legal manner and acting within his legal rights to refuse to hand over personal information. Based on those two perfectly legal actions he was then detained and searched in the name of a law created to protect this country from terrorists.

Regardless of how well the police conducted themselves in this incident they didn't follow the law they twisted it.
 
If someone can point to anything this guy did that was illegal or even bordering on illegal I will concede that the police acted fairly.

The point is that they didn't, they harrassed a guy because he didn't co-operate. You should not be subjected to this treatment because you don't co-operate. That is abuse of police powers, and if the only way to reveal it is to act like an arse then someone has to act like an arse to reveal it.

You should not be questioned or detained on the grounds of "not co-operating", which is precisely what this ammounts to.

If I have a legal right to photograph a building, a legal right not to give my name, and a legal right not show them my photos then the police have no right to do what they did.

I for one am willing to sacrifice a little security for the right to live in a free society, what exactly did we fight the wars of the past for if not to preserve liberty? Too many people have died for our freedom to let our liberties be taken away due to legislation.
 
Squawk said:
If someone can point to anything this guy did that was illegal or even bordering on illegal I will concede that the police acted fairly.

The point is that they didn't, they harrassed a guy because he didn't co-operate. You should not be subjected to this treatment because you don't co-operate. That is abuse of police powers, and if the only way to reveal it is to act like an arse then someone has to act like an arse to reveal it.

You should not be questioned or detained on the grounds of "not co-operating", which is precisely what this ammounts to.

If I have a legal right to photograph a building, a legal right not to give my name, and a legal right not show them my photos then the police have no right to do what they did.

I for one am willing to sacrifice a little security for the right to live in a free society, what exactly did we fight the wars of the past for if not to preserve liberty? Too many people have died for our freedom to let our liberties be taken away due to legislation.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that someone has to be proved to be doing something illegal before the police are allowed to question them?
 
fabs said:
So what you're saying is that someone has to be proved to be doing something illegal before the police are allowed to question them?
Click to expand...

Sure, they have a right to speak with him. Just as he has a right not to provide his personal details but based on the fact that he refused to provide them he was then subjected to a search without 'probably cause' (to use an american term).

and to the best of my knowledge that is an illegal search as recently upheld by the courts. Which means that these officers actually broke the law.

Now they may say we thought we had the right under our interpritation but the police would be the first to say that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.
 
gingerweasel said:
Sure, they have a right to speak with him. Just as he has a right not to provide his personal details but based on the fact that he refused to provide them he was then subjected to a search without 'probably cause' (to use an american term).

and to the best of my knowledge that is an illegal search as recently upheld by the courts. Which means that these officers actually broke the law.

Now they may say we thought we had the right under our interpritation but the police would be the first to say that ignorance of the law is not a valid defence.
Click to expand...

Where was he searched?
 
fabs said:
So what you're saying is that someone has to be proved to be doing something illegal before the police are allowed to question them?
Click to expand...

No, never said that, and never implied it.

He was stopped here for doing something that was entirely legal. The police had precisely zero grounds for presuming he was doing anything illegal. Being un-cooperative is not grounds for belief of illegal action.

fabs said:
Where was he searched?
Click to expand...

They looked at the contents of his camera which constitutes a search as I understand the legislation, though I am happy to be corrected on that point as I am unclear on it.
 
Squawk said:
No, never said that, and never implied it.

He was stopped here for doing something that was entirely legal. The police had precisely zero grounds for presuming he was doing anything illegal. Being un-cooperative is not grounds for belief of illegal action.



They looked at the contents of his camera which constitutes a search as I understand the legislation, though I am happy to be corrected on that point as I am unclear on it.
Click to expand...

No, the security guards called the police because he was videoing the building whilst on private property. And the police at no point presumed he was doing anything illegal.
 
why would someone not doing anything wrong not be cooperative. seems fair to me that the police wanted to search him etc for being un-cooperative (****). if the police asked to see my pics I'd happly show them


Squawk said:
Being un-cooperative is not grounds for belief of illegal action.



They looked at the contents of his camera which constitutes a search as I understand the legislation, though I am happy to be corrected on that point as I am unclear on it.
Click to expand...
 
fabs said:
No, the security guards called the police because he was videoing the building whilst on private property. And the police at no point presumed he was doing anything illegal.
Click to expand...

Not true. The police were not called when he was filming on private property. They asked him to refrain from doing so, and he complied. The police were called when he continued to film from a public location, an entirely legal activity.

The first police officer established the facts right away. At that point the discussion should have ended. Instead he was detained under section 44 and had his camera checked. The only way that can happen legally is if the police have reasonable grounds for suspicion. At no point did they have this.

The facts are that the man was filming on private property, he left when advised of this without police notification.

From then on the only reason for the interaction to continue was his lack of co-operation. The police had no grounds for suspicion of criminality yet acted as if they did. The only grounds they had were his lack of co-operation. Lack of co-operation is a legal right.
 
I found the video interesting. It clearly showed just how much the knowledge of these laws differs from police officer to police officer. There was lots of checking backwards and forwards and someone who didn't stand their ground so firmly could easily have felt pressured to reveal or show information they weren't actually required to.

Also, is a police officer going to know which of the buttons flickr through the video and photo on a dlsr? Hmm
 
Squawk said:
Not true. The police were not called when he was filming on private property. They asked him to refrain from doing so, and he complied. The police were called when he continued to film from a public location, an entirely legal activity.

The first police officer established the facts right away. At that point the discussion should have ended. Instead he was detained under section 44 and had his camera checked. The only way that can happen legally is if the police have reasonable grounds for suspicion. At no point did they have this.

The facts are that the man was filming on private property, he left when advised of this without police notification.

From then on the only reason for the interaction to continue was his lack of co-operation. The police had no grounds for suspicion of criminality yet acted as if they did. The only grounds they had were his lack of co-operation. Lack of co-operation is a legal right.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are quite correct, he did leave the private property before the police got there but my point was that the police were informed that he had been filming on private property and that was enough to give them cause to question him. And let's make no mistake here, that's all they were trying to do, question him.
 
fabs said:
Yes, you are quite correct, he did leave the private property before the police got there but my point was that the police were informed that he had been filming on private property and that was enough to give them cause to question him. And let's make no mistake here, that's all they were trying to do, question him.
Click to expand...

And when he refused to answer the questions his camera was searched and he was threatened with arrest. I don't argue with them going up and asking the initial question, but his refusal to provide an answer should not have impacted on the rest of the interaction. It did.
 
Another idiot trying to get a rise out of the police to prove a point. Pointless in itself. It does photographers no favours whatsoever.

I have been stopped on a number of occasions by security/police/PCSO's. A polite question from them about what I am doing id greeted with a polite answer and we all carry on with our jobs quite happily. Its not so difficult. :shake:
 
nomorem6 said:
Another idiot trying to get a rise out of the police to prove a point. Pointless in itself. It does photographers no favours whatsoever.

I have been stopped on a number of occasions by security/police/PCSO's. A polite question from them about what I am doing id greeted with a polite answer and we all carry on with our jobs quite happily. Its not so difficult. :shake:
Click to expand...

The point is that you are perfectly entitled not to reply with a polite answer, and unless they have further grounds for suspicion nothing else should be done.
 
Squawk said:
And when he refused to answer the questions his camera was searched and he was threatened with arrest. I don't argue with them going up and asking the initial question, but his refusal to provide an answer should not have impacted on the rest of the interaction. It did.
Click to expand...

On BBC Breakfast recently there was a policeman, who said that officers should be more approachable and should be more 'friendly,' now, if a policeman approaches me and opens a conversation with me, then I will chat to him quite happily. As was the case here. There was no reason not to show the policeman what was on his tape.

If the policeman had been an arse about it, then perhaps the journo's response could have been justified. However he approached him, spoke to him then the journo started sprouting his rights. Yes they're his rights, but he could have done photographers a whole lot more by quickly whizzing through the tape and discussing the law with the officer.

If I were ever stopped, I wouldn't have a problem quickly flicking through the shots (hell, might even flick him a business card ;)).. it'd open up a much more friendly atmosphere and loosen any tension that currently exists. There is no point in making the police to be enemies, they're powerful allies to have.

Just look at the policeman in the recent Manchester Learn Meet thread!
 
Squawk said:
And when he refused to answer the questions his camera was searched and he was threatened with arrest. I don't argue with them going up and asking the initial question, but his refusal to provide an answer should not have impacted on the rest of the interaction. It did.
Click to expand...

And there is where your wording is misleading. You say his camera was searched AND he was threatened with arrest. In fact, they asked to have a look at the footage and when he asked "what if I refuse" they then said that they could do it at the station.

What is the problem with showing the police the footage anyway?
 
purpleclouds said:
On BBC Breakfast recently there was a policeman, who said that officers should be more approachable and should be more 'friendly,' now, if a policeman approaches me and opens a conversation with me, then I will chat to him quite happily. As was the case here. There was no reason not to show the policeman what was on his tape.

If the policeman had been an arse about it, then perhaps the journo's response could have been justified. However he approached him, spoke to him then the journo started sprouting his rights. Yes they're his rights, but he could have done photographers a whole lot more by quickly whizzing through the tape and discussing the law with the officer.

If I were ever stopped, I wouldn't have a problem quickly flicking through the shots (hell, might even flick him a business card ;)).. it'd open up a much more friendly atmosphere and loosen any tension that currently exists. There is no point in making the police to be enemies, they're powerful allies to have.

Just look at the policeman in the recent Manchester Learn Meet thread!
Click to expand...

I did. :D
 
nomorem6 said:
I have been stopped on a number of occasions by security/police/PCSO's. A polite question from them about what I am doing id greeted with a polite answer and we all carry on with our jobs quite happily. Its not so difficult. :shake:
Click to expand...

Gosh I can see how this is useful now... the terrorists would answer "I'm a terrorist scouting out a target", PC Plod of Scotland Yard makes a daring arrest, saves the day and gets a medal?

Of course, the terrorists won't say that, they will say "I'm a photographer taking pictures of that building", the police of course will think "ahhh but thats exactly what I expect those nasty terrorists to say".... and so it goes on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top