If you were a professional photographer you would know that everyone that attends a crime scene in anyway has to be identified!
WOW goldenlight! What an answer!!! Anyway, pretty much spot-on.
Apart from this.. Maybe it was a different police office who approached me, stern faced and very officious. "You're taking photographs in a sensitive area, I need to see some ID and examine your camera." My reply would be along the lines of, "Do I have to give that information?" "Under which law?" "You need reasonable grounds for suspicion, why do you suspect me?" "Make sure your name and warrant number are clearly recorded on the form as I will be making a complaint."
On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?
Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to. But if you have nothing to hide why not? Don't give them reason to get heavy handed. Show them some ID. If you feel compelled to show them your images, YOU show them, don't hand over your camera. Sometimes showing them the pictures you have taken will defuse the situation. If you are in a public place tell them unless they can explain otherwise, you have not broken any law.
If you watch any of these late night fly-on-the-wall police programmes, you will notice that most af the people that get taken to the station are the argumentative and abusive types... Don't go there! Stay calm. You know you have done nothing wrong..
BTW, I was only ever talking about 'crime scenes'. Nearly every incident police are called to is treated as a 'crime scene' until a senior officer has all the details.
WOW goldenlight! What an answer!!! Anyway, pretty much spot-on.
Apart from this.. Maybe it was a different police office who approached me, stern faced and very officious. "You're taking photographs in a sensitive area, I need to see some ID and examine your camera." My reply would be along the lines of, "Do I have to give that information?" "Under which law?" "You need reasonable grounds for suspicion, why do you suspect me?" "Make sure your name and warrant number are clearly recorded on the form as I will be making a complaint."
On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?
Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to. But if you have nothing to hide why not? Don't give them reason to get heavy handed. Show them some ID. If you feel compelled to show them your images, YOU show them, don't hand over your camera. Sometimes showing them the pictures you have taken will defuse the situation. If you are in a public place tell them unless they can explain otherwise, you have not broken any law.
If you watch any of these late night fly-on-the-wall police programmes, you will notice that most af the people that get taken to the station are the argumentative and abusive types... Don't go there! Stay calm. You know you have done nothing wrong..
BTW, I was only ever talking about 'crime scenes'. Nearly every incident police are called to is treated as a 'crime scene' until a senior officer has all the details.
Hi Peter,
Note in my scenarios that the "friendly" poice officer didn't ask for ID, merely struck up a conversation which discretely allowed him to find out all he needed to know about what I was doing. What reasonable person would not respond in an equally friendly manner?
Faced with the heavy handed and blatent misuse of the Counter Terrorism Act portrayed in the other scenario then I'm afraid (to me at least) it's no longer a matter of photography but rather a matter of principle. I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of behaviour (and there are plenty of documented cases when it has occurred) from a police officer and I would strongly resist even if it resulted in arrest. My arguments would continue long after I had arrived at the police station and into the court room if needed. If the police officer could provide me with a good reason why my actions should warrant suspicion (and it would have to be good, not just that I was taking photographs) then it might be a different matter, but even then I would expect respect. I refuse to live in a society where I have to fear the police and allow them unlimited powers. Respect them, yes, reasonably co-operate with them, yes, value them, yes - but fear them as in, say, China, North Korea or Zimabwe, NO!.
On all other scenario's you agreed to show your ID. Why will your response change?
Now they have scrapped section 44 NO you don't have to.
You were never required by law to show ID (i.e. your name and address) under s44.
There are only limited circumstances when a police officer has that power:
- if you have been arrested
- if you're driving a vehicle
- to serve a summons under s25 PACE 1984
- to issue a Fixed Penalty Notice for an offence
- if he suspects you have engaged in "anti-social behaviour" under s50 of the Police Reform Act 2002
http://www.freebeagles.org/articles/Legal_Booklet_4/lb4-2.html
You are never required to give your name/address or any other details when being stopped & searched under any section or power. Do bear in mind, however, that refusing may make any reasonable officer think that you have something to hide.
You are never required to give your name/address or any other details when being stopped & searched under any section or power. Do bear in mind, however, that refusing may make any reasonable officer think that you have something to hide.
Metropolitan Police Service said:The police officer will ask for your name and address and date of birth. You do not have to give this information if you don’t want to, unless the police officer says they are reporting you for an offence.
Metropolitan Police Stop and Search Frequently Asked Questions
So is this a case of 'you're entitled to your rights until you choose to assert them' and that the MPS are misleading us by putting that in their advice to the public?
Now, any offence is arrestable under s24 PACE, subject to the "necessity test". Two things that would pass the "necessity test" would include a failure to state a) Your name or b) Your address. That is for the simple administrative reason that it would be impossible to serve a penalty notice or a court summons on you if you refused those details.
Hardly! .... If you are being reported for an offence then surely it would be reasonable for them to have your details .... Otherwise how could you be reported ...?
MPS said:Being stopped does not mean you are under arrest or have done something wrong. In some cases, people are stopped as part of a wide-ranging effort to catch criminals in a targeted public place.
So is this a case of 'you're entitled to your rights until you choose to assert them' and that the MPS are misleading us by putting that in their advice to the public?
It's the MPS FAQ for Stop and Search. You are not being reported for an offence.
Originally Posted by Metropolitan Police Service
The police officer will ask for your name and address and date of birth. You do not have to give this information if you dont want to, unless the police officer says they are reporting you for an offence.
Hi Peter,
Note in my scenarios that the "friendly" poice officer didn't ask for ID, merely struck up a conversation which discretely allowed him to find out all he needed to know about what I was doing. What reasonable person would not respond in an equally friendly manner?
Faced with the heavy handed and blatent misuse of the Counter Terrorism Act portrayed in the other scenario then I'm afraid (to me at least) it's no longer a matter of photography but rather a matter of principle. I'm not prepared to tolerate that sort of behaviour (and there are plenty of documented cases when it has occurred) from a police officer and I would strongly resist even if it resulted in arrest. My arguements would continue long after I had arrived at the police station and into the court room if needed. If the police officer could provide me with a good reason why my actions should warrant suspicion (and it would have to be good, not just that I was taking photographs) then it might be a different matter, but even then I would expect respect. I refuse to live in a society where I have to fear the police and allow them unlimited powers. Respect them, yes, reasonably co-operate with them, yes, value them, yes - but fear them as in, say, China, North Korea or Zimabwe, NO!
An extreme comparison? Maybe, but I could see which way this was going. We were at the top of a long and slippery slope where a significant minority of police officers were routinely abusing their powers and the police in general were being unwittingly politicized by a government that was misguided at best and some might say cynicaly exploiting the security situation to impose contolls over freedom of information, fair reporting and freedom of movement that had the potential for far greater political abuse in the future.
Thankfully, with a change of government common sense now seems to be, at last, prevailing. It will be interesting to see how the change in policy is translated onto the streets and whether the vilification of photography in public can be redressed.
It's nothing of the sort, and is perfectly correct.
If I'm reporting you for an offence, and you refuse to give your details, then you will be arrested. If you continue to refuse any details once in custody, you will ultimately end up being charged, remanded in custody overnight and taken to court the following day. You have the right to refuse all the way through the procedure, but there is a system in place to deal with that.
so the tog had a press card and identified themselves as a journalist and images still deleted and threatened with arrest http://tinyurl.com/32sem5w
All the guidance in the world is completely useless unless people on the ground know about it, and apply it correctly.
And that has been at the heart of the problem all the way through. Appalling as the legislation for Sections 43 and 44 may be, the problem has been exacerbated by a repetitive failure in communication of guidelines as to how these laws should be applied and the ubiquitous use of these powers in situations where they are clearly inapproriate and unreasonable.
Entirely agree. There has been a wealth of information and resources for our side of it...the most recent of which appears...
HERE (Courtesy of EPUK)
However, it would be interesting to know if such conversations and guidance are available to police officers as well as photographers. I will admit that, although I spend a lot of time here...I don't regularly frequent Police forums on the net, so I'm not too sure.
The photography debate doesn't feature large in the grand scheme of policing. Obviously, in a specialist forum such as this, photography is high on the agenda. To most police officers, it simply isn't. I haven't come across any forum discussions on the subject, and I don't recall hearing anyone really talking about it in the canteen / office (except as a hobby!)
Guidance in the Met is on the intranet, and officers have been repeatedly instructed through local briefings about the correct use of stop & search powers. I have no idea about other forces, and cannot speak for them.
Still going on...
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1698
[Edit: Sorry, didn't realise that 'clowds' had already linked this.]
the situation would have been unlikely to occur had he displayed more alacrity in moving away from the Police
Dreadful, but my anger died away quite quickly when I saw this shortly after...
http://newsarse.com/2010/08/06/terrorists-sick-of-being-treated-like-photographers/
Having experienced 'similar' situations, & watched the video of 'the assault' on Ian Tomlinson. is it just me, or did anyone else see Police trying to control a difficult crowd under stress. Tomlinson's ambling along, hampering officers trying to clear the area was always going to provoke some Police interaction. You can argue about the legitamacy of the treatment he received, the point being, not if he had a right to be there, but the situation would have been unlikely to occur had he displayed more alacrity in moving away from the Police or better judgement about being there at all. My real point, the photographer captureing the event also had a right to do so, but also was at risk of receiving a heavy handed treatment at the end of the long arm of the law. I imagine that at least sometimes these 'injured parties' (photographers)who fall out with 'authority' may well be ambling when sense would dictate not to be there at all. When tackled they know best & further obstruct proceedings. An official who's bad day just became worse would not be in the right to start threatening or worse, but their behavior may be understandable.
Some years ago whilst photographing a newly built estate a man followed me & demanded to know who I was / what I was doing. I explained out of courtesy, he demanded my camera, & was rather threatening. I again explained & told him he wasn't getting it, if he had any issues we could always get the Police. I like to think I was openhanded & non adversarial. I could have told him where to get off, but chose the former route.
If you believe Tomlisons death was brought forward by Police it probably still could have been avoided by not being there. I imagine some of these conflicts between 'authority' & photographers could be avoided by a different attitude. Of course you can't dictate someone else's attitude only your own, but perhaps that may avoid any 'conflict' in the first place.
I'm not sure if this post is sarcastic, ironic or just expressing a truely astonishing point of view. :shrug: