"I am not a terrorist!", "Photography is not a crime!" - The fightback starts here...

clowds said:
if i ever see a police officer in trouble i will turn my back and walk the other way.
Click to expand...

Call yourself a photographer?

If you see something happening you take pictures of it.

It's, like, a rule or something.


Photo Plod said:
Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of doing the same for you.
Click to expand...

I often wonder at what point the people who choose to join 'service' professions decide that the people they're serving are basically ***holes. Tube drivers seem to get told on day one ... the rest it takes a bit longer ...
 
gingerjon said:
I often wonder at what point the people who choose to join 'service' professions decide that the people they're serving are basically ***holes. Tube drivers seem to get told on day one ... the rest it takes a bit longer ...
Click to expand...

James makes a pertinent and constructive comment and you undermine it with a trite and sweeping generalization that is far from accurate.

Oh well, I'm a great believer in free speech so I suppose we just have to tolerate this inane type of rhetoric. :thumbsdown:
 
moaten said:
Another poor guy gets his camera confiscated and pics deleted

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-10712745
Click to expand...

Inexcusable behaviour which must be stamped out and, if this report is substantiated, this incident should be followed up with criminal procedings against the officer concerned. No-one is above the law.

But let's not overlook that the police in general probably did a very difficult job expertly and professionally when dealing with the accident itself.
 
goldenlight said:
James makes a pertinent and constructive comment and you undermine it with a trite and sweeping generalization that is far from accurate.

Oh well, I'm a great believer in free speech so I suppose we just have to tolerate this inane type of rhetoric. :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...


It is not pertinent or constructive to say that when he next sees a police officer in trouble he will walk away.

As I said, he should take a photo.
 
gingerjon said:
It is not pertinent or constructive to say that when he next sees a police officer in trouble he will walk away.

As I said, he should take a photo.
Click to expand...

James, whose post immediatley preceded yours, made entirely different and valid points.

I know you were commenting on remarks made by Clowds about walking away while an officer was in trouble but suggesting you just take a picture is hardly helpful. By all means do so after you've dialled 999.

What I saw as an inaccurate and unhelpful sweeping generalization was this:-

I often wonder at what point the people who choose to join 'service' professions decide that the people they're serving are basically ***holes. Tube drivers seem to get told on day one ... the rest it takes a bit longer ...
 
goldenlight said:
I know you were commenting on remarks made by Clowds about walking away while an officer was in trouble but suggesting you just take a picture is hardly helpful. By all means do so after you've dialled 999.


What I saw as an inaccurate and unhelpful sweeping generalization was this:-

I often wonder at what point the people who choose to join 'service' professions decide that the people they're serving are basically ***holes. Tube drivers seem to get told on day one ... the rest it takes a bit longer ...
Click to expand...

Why must he dial 999? He's a photographer and he doesn't want to help the police. Walk away if he wants to but make sure he gets the shot, surely.

But it is something I wonder. It must be very hard for the good police who I know exist to come on somewhere like here and not get demoralised by the vehemence with which people express their opinions about the police and authority in general. I think the same about teachers, doctors etc. Maintaining your vocation in the face of widespread apathy and antipathy must be very, very hard.

And, like I say, tube drivers don't even seem to try. Hence why I couldn't get into work yesterday thanks to a not particularly reported 24 hour strike called in defence of a driver sacked for being a *******.

And me saying the above will presumably make the good tube drivers who avoid slamming doors on people and then dragging them along platforms wonder why they bother.
 
Hi,

Not all police are the same, I was in Toronto recently, when the G20 was on. There were police everywhere in the city centre.
Only issue I had was from a young 'security' guard who told me I was not allowed to take photo's in the financial area due to the added security. I was dubious but didn't want to spoil our day by arguing with him. Anyway, round the next corner there were a group of police officers near all the fencing (for the G20) so I asked if it was ok to use my camera, his reply was 'sure take any photo's you like' then offered to take one of me and the misses.
Later the same day, another officer clearly saw us as 'tourists' and asked where we wanted to see etc, gave us a load of info and on discovering we are hoping to emigrate gave us info on house prices in areas he knew about!

I know this thread is all about the problems photographers face but just wanted to share some good points too.
 
PaulF said:
I know this thread is all about the problems photographers face but just wanted to share some good points too.
Click to expand...

I agree...I've had it both sides (as my posts in this thread hopefully illustrate) and I've been grateful for the assistance of the police when it's been forthcoming (usually when it's VERY necessary). However, I've also had to deal with the not-so-good side of it...which is nothing other than poor education to rank-and-file officers.

In some ways photographers on the streets are better informed and educated about photography rights (and responsibilities) than some police officers. Believe me, it only needs a bit of education to make it work better.

Incidentally, I'd probably take a picture and then call for assistance. My JOB (and thats the difference) requires me to report the news. If you're just a tourist who's taking a snap for the album or to share on here...then dont. Help a person out! As a journalist, it's always going to be different.
 
clowds said:
if i ever see a police officer in trouble i will turn my back and walk the other way.
Click to expand...

Photo Plod said:
Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of doing the same for you.
Click to expand...

and there in lies I think one of the biggest dangers in all this. The police only do so by consent. They (I think the Met in particular) are now running the risk of losing that consent or atleast much of the support they rely on to do so.
 
boyfalldown said:
and there in lies I think one of the biggest dangers in all this. The police only do so by consent. They (I think the Met in particular) are now running the risk of losing that consent or atleast much of the support they rely on to do so.
Click to expand...

I'm quite used to vehement police bashing, whether here, in the media or the wider world. Not all of it is unjustified. Quite a lot of it is. It does upset me, eventually, because I work very hard to do my job properly. I find it very disappointing when other officers let the side down, but I can't do much about it.

Around two years ago, I was chasing a suspect who had just made a call claiming that he had planted a bomb in a pub just off Tottenham Court Road. It was his third hoax call of the night. As I ran after him, I failed to spot a low railing outside this building and went straight into it, clipping me right in the middle of my left shin and in the middle of both thighs. I don't remember much about the impact, but I flipped over in a 360 degree spin - the weight of my vest and equipment carried me right over - and I landed flat on my back looking up at the stars. I was completely winded, and couldn't make a sound. Moments later, both of my legs went completely dead and I couldn't move either - just wriggle a bit. I was bleeding quite profusely from my leg. A handful of people just walked right past me as I lay in the street - not one person came to help. I hit my emergency button on the radio, but it was a good minute before I could speak to get help, when some colleagues came to help me up. I have a permanent scar on my shin from that.

As for the issue of consent, I find a lot of people - especially on the internet - can be vehemently anti-police, until such time as they are raped / burgled / robbed or suchlike. When I come to deal with most victims (I like to think because I deal with them properly) I seem to have their consent to police all I want.

Anyway, I'm here for the photography - I don't want to take this thread away from its proper purpose of highlighting issues around photographers' rights.
 
Photo Plod said:
...It does upset me, eventually, because I work very hard to do my job properly. I find it very disappointing when other officers let the side down, but I can't do much about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do need to keep this in perspective. As many of us know, police officers' own internet forums continually have posts from officers critical of their colleagues who misuse the law - either from ignorance or knowingly - to prevent photographers' lawful activities.

What some officers do has become very damaging for the relationship between police officers and their community. One just hopes that senior management in the police service is as aware of this as we are, and is actively working to inform and educate within the service.

But I'd also hope that any of us would help another person hurt or in danger; otherwise we ourselves may be acting out of prejudice in the way we rightly complain of when we're on the receiving end.
 
Last edited:
My first post but here goes. Reported in local paper "Bury Times". A new shopping centre has opened in my hometown of Bury and it is not undercover merely apart of the shooping area. A 67 yr old photographer was stopped from taking pictures and told if he carried on he would be baaned from the shopping area for life. The "Rock" shopping area manager has said that it was suspicous that someone should be taking photographs early on a sunday morning and that photography was not allowed.

Now then is this legal or not bearing mind that this is a public place. Of course it was the usual "security" guards that stopped the gentleman. Totally over the top as usual from these people.

Nigel Valentine
 
its private property not a public place so they can so what they like



SNG60007 said:
My first post but here goes. Reported in local paper "Bury Times". A new shopping centre has opened in my hometown of Bury and it is not undercover merely apart of the shooping area. A 67 yr old photographer was stopped from taking pictures and told if he carried on he would be baaned from the shopping area for life. The "Rock" shopping area manager has said that it was suspicous that someone should be taking photographs early on a sunday morning and that photography was not allowed.

Now then is this legal or not bearing mind that this is a public place. Of course it was the usual "security" guards that stopped the gentleman. Totally over the top as usual from these people.

Nigel Valentine
Click to expand...
 
On what basis do you judge it to be a "public place" - being a lace where the public go without admission / entry conditions does not make it legal for photography. What matters is whether there is a public right of way through that shopping area. A cheque on pillars etc at start of shopping area might identify whether there are any local conditions / rights of way or whether public are just permitted through without acquiring rights. As an example in my home city I was involved in a protracted debate with the council re: a block put on largely DSLR photographers in our public square - funded by local taxpayers and with events funded by the same. In challenging them I discovered that the council had effectively legislated that there is no public right of way across that square and thus they were within their rights to stop photography other than from the main roads / footpaths surrounding the square. The odd thing was that anyone with cameraphones / compacts was more or less unchallenged but anyone with a decent lens / tripod on a dslr was occasionally stopped. Do I comply? Well I can apply for a permit and get it granted "90% of the time" - trouble is I have to sign a sheet saying I will get consent / parental consent for any recognisable face / young person`s face in shot so what`s the point. Instead I carry on at suc events like Christmas market etc. I don`t take them if people prefer me not to - as I have always done in face of any objection - and if secuirty do decide to stop me I stop. All they can do is ask me to leave. Since the meetings with events offiers etc I have not been stopped as it happens - not even when the principal events officer came up and chatted to me at one of the events ;)
 
SNG60007 said:
My first post but here goes. Reported in local paper "Bury Times". A new shopping centre has opened in my hometown of Bury and it is not undercover merely apart of the shooping area. A 67 yr old photographer was stopped from taking pictures and told if he carried on he would be baaned from the shopping area for life. The "Rock" shopping area manager has said that it was suspicous that someone should be taking photographs early on a sunday morning and that photography was not allowed.

Now then is this legal or not bearing mind that this is a public place. Of course it was the usual "security" guards that stopped the gentleman. Totally over the top as usual from these people.

Nigel Valentine
Click to expand...

I came into this thread to post the very same thing.
It's my local town too. I read about it via twitter (@therockbury).
Unfortunately they are well within their rights because it's private property and they can impose any conditions they like, regardless of whether they're borne from common sense or plain stupidity.

Last night I penned an email to the Advertiser, lets see if it gets printed.
I've also told them on twitter that what they did was shameful.
 
Why should photography early on a Sunday morning be particularly suspicious? Some of these people have the brains of a goldfish; how do they ever become managers? Sorry, I've just realized I've answered my own question in the same sentence! :D

On a seperate note, I've just returned from an outdoor concert at which I hoped to get away with using my Panasonic G1 with 14-45mm kit lens. Unfortunately, security stopped me because the lens was "too big." Others around me were able to carry on with compacts and camera phones. My wife was more annoyed about it than I was. I told her it wasn't worth arguing because we were at a private event where the ticket price didn't include a right of photography. Any dissent would only have got us evicted. OK the guy was a dipstick, but that's synonymous with being a security guard and he was probably only following orders. The real culprit was the manager who made the crazy ruling distinguishing between cameras but we can't really blame him either - brains of a goldfish and all that! :D
 
gingerjon said:
This book is worth a read on the subject.
Click to expand...
icon14.gif
Thanks for that, looks interesting.
 
hi fabs lol i couldnt remember where i had seen it i realized after i had posted :)
 
boyfalldown said:
I think its a case of the pot calling the kettle black there Mark ;) I especially love the habit of quoting half sentances.
Click to expand...

"OK the guy was a dipstick, but that's synonymous with being a security guard and he was probably only following orders".

Still doesn't smack as a fair comment to me. Should we tar all photographers with the same brush? I don't think so.
 
clowds said:
now they are picking on the disabled and what a surprise they are quoting the law wrong http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...rfront_terror_threat_news_300536.html?aff=rss
Click to expand...

Does seem to vindicate my earlier comments about security guards

Originally Posted by goldenlight
OK the guy was a dipstick, but that's synonymous with being a security guard

And once again they seem to be biased against DSLRs - apparently compacts are not a terrorist threat.

Maybe I shouldn't make sweeping generalizations, but I've yet to see or hear anything to prove that this particular generalization is unfair. :razz:
 
Reading all these stories make me happy I live in Kent!

Just recently the Kent Police have produced a small leaflet entitled 'Media Guidelines' which has been sent to all police officers and media outlets.

In it it states 'The Media has a duty to report many issues that we have to deal with - crime, demonstrations, collisions, major events and incidents.
We should actively help the Media carry out their responsibilities wherever possible.'

This part is the best:

'The role of the media is to report news events. Thet wil take photographs, film incidents and request information. In normal circumstances we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for news editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police.

Once images are recorded we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain evidence.'

It also goes on to say that 'The media do not need a permit to photograph or film in a public place. We have no power to prevent or restrict the media photographing or filming members of the public in a public place.'

Suffice to say I carry a couple of these leaflets with me while I am working.

I have been to two incidents recently, and I must say the officers have been very helpful, even on one occassion allowing me closer access to a crime scene tham what I have normally been allowed.

Don't forget, on the whole, the police are there to do a job. Providing you are there as a genuine member of the media so are you.

If you alienate them, you will get nowhere!
 
Last edited:
PDS said:
Reading all these stories make me happy I live in Kent!

Just recently the Kent Police have produced a small leaflet entitled 'Media Guidelines' which has been sent to all police officers and media outlets.

In it it states 'The Media has a duty to report many issues that we have to deal with - crime, demonstrations, collisions, major events and incidents.
We should actively help the Media carry out their responsibilities wherever possible.'

This part is the best:

'The role of the media is to report news events. Thet wil take photographs, film incidents and request information. In normal circumstances we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record. It is a matter for news editors to control what is published or broadcast, not the police.

Once images are recorded we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain evidence.'

It also goes on to say that 'The media do not need a permit to photograph or film in a public place. We have no power to prevent or restrict the media photographing or filming members of the public in a public place.'

Suffice to say I carry a couple of these leaflets with me while I am working.

I have been to two incidents recently, and I must say the officers have been very helpful, even on one occassion allowing me closer access to a crime scene tham what I have normally been allowed.

Don't forget, on the whole, the police are there to do a job. Providing you are there as a genuine member of the media so are you.

If you alienate them, you will get nowhere!
Click to expand...

Well, that's great news for the media, but what provision are they making for amateurs who also have a right to photograph in public?
 
goldenlight said:
Well, that's great news for the media, but what provision are they making for amateurs who also have a right to photograph in public?
Click to expand...

Yes you have the right. But anyone can be an 'amateur photographer'. They have no way of knowing who you are and where the images will end-up.

Also, as a member of the public they do have the power to move you on!

The last thing they need at an incident is to try to ID an unknown photographer. As if they have enough to do.

Unfortunately is has been the actions of a few 'bloody-minded' photographers that have created some of these problems.
 
PDS said:
Yes you have the right. But anyone can be an 'amateur photographer'. They have no way of knowing who you are and where the images will end-up.

Also, as a member of the public they do have the power to move you on!

The last thing they need at an incident is to try to ID an unknown photographer. As if they have enough to do.

Unfortunately is has been the actions of a few 'bloody-minded' photographers that have created some of these problems.
Click to expand...

Why do they need to identify a photographer?

Why should it concern them where the images will end up?

As Photo Plod has indicated, generally they only have the power to move you on if you are being obstructive - and that applies to news crews, too.

OK, specific incidents are more likely to be attended by news togs and obviously they are likely to get more co-operation from the police than an amateur but the principle remains the same. That said, all photographers at an incident need to use common sense to ensure they don't unwittingly obstruct the police and the pros are more likely to have experience in the etiquette of this than amateurs.

More relevant to amateurs is the right of general unimpeded photography in public rather than specific incidents involving the police.
 
PDS said:
So your reply to a policeman who asks who you are at an incident will be???
Click to expand...

Maybe you'd like to answer my question first, it's only polite. I'll repeat it:-

"Why do they need to identify a photographer?" :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top