Photographer gets settlement from police for mistreatment

[London Headshots]

You need to open your eyes and ears a bit more then.

Figures for 2003-2008 show:

NO FURTHER ACTION: 140,989
ADVISED: 6,834
VERBALLY WARNED: 1,730
ARRESTED: 2,108
OTHER: 39,817
Total: 191,478


Photography only really became an issue in 2008. What were the rest of the stops for?

I don't know, and neither do you, making the figures useless to both of us.

 

[HMansfield]

Welcome back, I wondered when you would post again, see my earlier post in this thread.

I think you're mistaking me with someone else. I last posted yesterday in a thread about use of high ISO.

 

[SnapperMatt]

So, a young lady is going about her lawful business (imho, and in that of the court, the CPS and the Police Complaints Commission apparently) and she is interrogated on the street, given misinformation about the law from an individual with some responsibility for maintaining said law, arrested illegally (and quite violently if the witnesses are to be believed) and then fined £80. And its her fault. For being a photographer. I can only assume those who are arguing this never take any photos outside of thier own houses or they must see that they are being just as provacative as she was.

I do believe some photographers have probably gone out of thier way to see if they can get a response from individuals in authority but I can't see how this can be applied here. Given the evidence she was doing nothing more than taking pictures (ironically of CCTV that takes all of our pictures, without our permission, every single day). No more illegal than walking down the street. It is, in my opinion, sad that some of us have become so ready to blame ourselves even when its clearly not the case. I have to ask what people would do in the same situation - meekly delete your pictures even though there is no lawful requirement to do so? I can't say what I would do, maybe under pressure I would delete them too - but I would be ashamed to have done it afterwards and would feel that power had been abused.

I also have to say that I find it very hard to understand how doing anything lawful can be seen to be provoking the police. That just doesn't make sense.

there are some morons around i hope they realise they are so.

she was doing nothing wrong, she wasnt breaking the law,she was quietly spoken and not speaking in her native tongue while answering questions.

he had the stance and manner of a classic bully while chewing gum and holding his arms in a aggresive manner.

how dare a member of the public and a mere woman at that not cower and obey him in his massive self oppinionated position of power.at the same time as he lied and/or did not know the law himself.

6 men to arrest a woman for taking photos and then bullied into taking a fine.

thats not my England and never will be.

really if people cant see how wrong this is then there must be something wrong with them. :thumbsdown:

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Bernie174]

I think there are a few issues that people have got very very wrong in this.

So, let’s start at the beginning, there's nothing stopping a Police officer, or a PCSO, or anyone else asking you, or anyone else what they are doing. It falls under the same 'right' as the photographers 'rights', there's nothing in law to say that you don't have the right to do it, and there's nothing in law to say you have the right to do it. Becuase there's nothing either way, you are entitled to think you have 'photographers rights', just the same as everyone else has the same 'right' to ask you what you're doing.

So, having stopped her, his held his arms in an 'aggressive way'. Really? Good luck with trying to prove that. As his hands were for the most part inside his vest, it's hardly aggressive is it? I mean you can clearly do a considerable amount of damage to someone, while you arms are behind 1/4 of Kevlar. Silly comment, and either you didn't watch the video, or you are just trying to infulence thoise who haven't watched it.

Next, listen carefully, she declines to give her name and address. PCSO points out that she was riding her bike the wrong way down a one way street. She admits this. S25 PACE comes into play, and she either gives her name, and an address at which a summons can be served, or its Police Station time.

Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

Attitude. Neither side looked good. PCSO chewing gum. That would have not been allowed in my day, but then we only had real Police in my day. His approach wasn't good, but then neither was her response. Had she told all, then I doubt it'd have got to where it did. She decided not to, and let’s be honest here, filming CCTV? Not exactly everyday is it. It would have aroused my interest too, but I wouldn't have bothered for the terrorism act. Oooh shock horror, it's not the only power Police could use to stop photographers. Well, shock to some, not to others.

The Met settling out of court? They usually do, even when they are very right. Simply because it’s cheaper than going through a protracted court case, that even if they win, they wont be able to recover the costs from the other side.
But in summary, neither side was particularly great in this. I’ve been on both sides, and like most of these incidents, if you are photographer, it’s always the Police’s fault. If you are Police it’s always the Photographer. In reality it’s usually both sides that to one extent or another have not acted very sensibly.

It's strange, I am not dark skinned and I am don't always carry my camera, and yet I've been stopped under the Terrorism act, the Road Traffic Acts and PACE. I've not managed the Misuse of drugs act, but then I am 50 bald and don't fit anything like the profile of a druggie.

But my approach to being stopped isn't the same as this woman’s, and I have never had any issues with attitude or with being stopped in its self. When asked I give a full account, I don't prevaricate, and I don't try to wind up the old bill. It always ends painlessly, and it always does for everyone I know that acts the same way.

 

[London Headshots]

I think there are a few issues that people have got very very wrong in this.

So, let’s start at the beginning, there's nothing stopping a Police officer, or a PCSO, or anyone else asking you, or anyone else what they are doing. It falls under the same 'right' as the photographers 'rights', there's nothing in law to say that you don't have the right to do it, and there's nothing in law to say you have the right to do it. Becuase there's nothing either way, you are entitled to think you have 'photographers rights', just the same as everyone else has the same 'right' to ask you what you're doing.

So, having stopped her, his held his arms in an 'aggressive way'. Really? Good luck with trying to prove that. As his hands were for the most part inside his vest, it's hardly aggressive is it? I mean you can clearly do a considerable amount of damage to someone, while you arms are behind 1/4 of Kevlar. Silly comment, and either you didn't watch the video, or you are just trying to infulence thoise who haven't watched it.

Next, listen carefully, she declines to give her name and address. PCSO points out that she was riding her bike the wrong way down a one way street. She admits this. S25 PACE comes into play, and she either gives her name, and an address at which a summons can be served, or its Police Station time.

Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

Attitude. Neither side looked good. PCSO chewing gum. That would have not been allowed in my day, but then we only had real Police in my day. His approach wasn't good, but then neither was her response. Had she told all, then I doubt it'd have got to where it did. She decided not to, and let’s be honest here, filming CCTV? Not exactly everyday is it. It would have aroused my interest too, but I wouldn't have bothered for the terrorism act. Oooh shock horror, it's not the only power Police could use to stop photographers. Well, shock to some, not to others.

The Met settling out of court? They usually do, even when they are very right. Simply because it’s cheaper than going through a protracted court case, that even if they win, they wont be able to recover the costs from the other side.
But in summary, neither side was particularly great in this. I’ve been on both sides, and like most of these incidents, if you are photographer, it’s always the Police’s fault. If you are Police it’s always the Photographer. In reality it’s usually both sides that to one extent or another have not acted very sensibly.

It's strange, I am not dark skinned and I am don't always carry my camera, and yet I've been stopped under the Terrorism act, the Road Traffic Acts and PACE. I've not managed the Misuse of drugs act, but then I am 50 bald and don't fit anything like the profile of a druggie.

But my approach to being stopped isn't the same as this woman’s, and I have never had any issues with attitude or with being stopped in its self. When asked I give a full account, I don't prevaricate, and I don't try to wind up the old bill. It always ends painlessly, and it always does for everyone I know that acts the same way.

When I was about 19, I was walking home from the pub after a few drinks; I wasn't particularly drunk, but I would imagine by the way I was shuffling along that I looked like I'd been drinking.

Anyway, a police car roars up and screeches to a stop next to me, and two officers jump out acting aggressively. They rush me, throw me up against the wall and "arrest" me for making "bomb threats" to a Chinese Takeaway. I truthfully deny involvement in anything of the sort, so they throw me head-first into the back of the car and while one rams my arm up behind my back, the other proceeds to beat me around the head with a metal clipboard. Then they drag me out of the car, sling me against the wall head-first where I bounce off, land in the gutter, to the sound of them screeching away in their car. I had bruises on my back, my head, my legs, and a rip in my jeans. I had also been carrying a Pot Noodle that got smashed-possibly the greatest crime of all.

I filed a complaint the very next morning, but nothing ever came of it, because I was young, impressionable, and the sergeant eventually persuaded me not continue based on how much time it would take to get justice.

The story has a point. Sometimes you don't even get time to act properly, because the injustice has already occurred. Similarly, it was quite clear from watching the video and from the police officers manner and mode of speech that he had absolutely no decent interest in the questions he was asking her, or even in his justification for approaching her.

It was typical of all the times I've ever been approached in my time as a photographer. By a weak, floppy, weasle-like individual with a lower than average IQ flexing muscles that only he can see. Never once has a conversation started with "Hello Sir, I'm really sorry, and I know you're very likely just doing a job, but since I'm standing here, I just feel obligated to ask you what the reason for the large camera is. I know it seems nosey, and I mean no offense, but I wonder if you'd satisfy my curiosity?"

 

[tiler65]

When I was about 19, I was walking home from the pub after a few drinks; I wasn't particularly drunk, but I would imagine by the way I was shuffling along that I looked like I'd been drinking.

How do you know? What is drunk?..........no, wait, that is a different thread.........

p.s. Can you dramatise the supposed events on you a bit more? ITV need decent script writers.

 

[Bernie174]

Headshots

You've clearly never been stopped by me!
Yet, I have still had the immidiate pee poor attitude. And to be fair, a lot of it was from Photographers.
Now, I worked somewhere where while you could argue a right to take photos till you were blue in the face, you would be in the wrong, as you actually didn't have a right to be there anyway. It was well known amongst photographers that was the case, and if they played the game, then a blindish eye would be turned. The sensible ones great no sadly a lot were not sensible.
Its unfortunatly true that for every story about Police in a bad light you come up with, thats story in your own experience, I can come up with a lot more of the publics poor attitude the other direction.
Now, I'm not saying in this case the PCSO was 100% right, clearly, he didn't do it very well. Nor did she though.
An interesting comparison would be how would she have acted to Police in her own country, and how would they have acted faced with her attitude. Very differently I suspect.

 

[Donnie]

Im not condoning the photographer in this at all, and this thread has taken the usual predictable turn where people on here now seem happy to have a dig at each other instead of discussing their opinions in a mature manner.

For my money I'd certainly agree that the pcso's were the instigators here, the pcso's attitude was poor toward the photographer and appeared to put her on the back foot almost immediately. His manner, both verbal and non verbal were either designed to be confrontational, or he's just a natural bully. From there, this was certain to go downhill, though the manhandling by the proper police is a bit more unexpected.

As for PACE etc, granted she refuses to give details but be fair, the pcso has no powers of arrest unless somethings changed, and he didn't bring it up until half way through the conversation. This was clearly because he was just getting annoyed and was thinking of something, anything to get her on to show her who's boss.

 

[HMansfield]

Bernie, what's your view on the bit about him bluffing/being mistaken about what powers he has?
Is it still an offence for PCSOs to claim powers that haven't been designated to them?

 

[London Headshots]

How do you know? What is drunk?..........no, wait, that is a different thread.........

p.s. Can you dramatise the supposed events on you a bit more? ITV need decent script writers.

lol @ "supposed". Not sure what I stand to gain by making a story up that occurred nearly 15 years ago.

 

[HMansfield]

I'd like to hear more about the Pot Noodle. Maybe some slow-mo shots of it falling to the pavement, bouncing a little before the plastic breaks. Then a sad shot of the spilled noodles, with the light of the blue strobes fading away as the police car drives off, to be replaced by the orange of the street lights.

Was it beef and tomato? That was the only decent flavour before sweet & sour and sticky rib came out.

 

[tiler65]

lol @ "supposed". Not sure what I stand to gain by making a story up that occurred nearly 15 years ago.

Was it Gene Hunt who did it?

Why did you edit your post after I commented on it? To add more drama perhaps?

 

[London Headshots]

Headshots

You've clearly never been stopped by me!
Yet, I have still had the immidiate pee poor attitude. And to be fair, a lot of it was from Photographers.
Now, I worked somewhere where while you could argue a right to take photos till you were blue in the face, you would be in the wrong, as you actually didn't have a right to be there anyway. It was well known amongst photographers that was the case, and if they played the game, then a blindish eye would be turned. The sensible ones great no sadly a lot were not sensible.
Its unfortunatly true that for every story about Police in a bad light you come up with, thats story in your own experience, I can come up with a lot more of the publics poor attitude the other direction.
Now, I'm not saying in this case the PCSO was 100% right, clearly, he didn't do it very well. Nor did she though.
An interesting comparison would be how would she have acted to Police in her own country, and how would they have acted faced with her attitude. Very differently I suspect.

Definitely not underestimating the amount of thoroughly decent police officers out there. I think for me, at least, my point is mostly about the PSCO's. And you actually make a decent point, because I have at times before had a blind eye turned by a police officer, once especially when I was completely and utterly bang-to-rights while trespassing in a derelict building with my camera. He went through my camera with genuine interest (I offered to show him mainly because I was proud of the shots I'd got).

I think real police have enough fun in their jobs and probably get pee'd off with feeling obligated to ask photographers what they're doing, but PSCO's seem to take particular relish in approaching and questioning you. You can see it written all over their pudgy little faces.

 

[London Headshots]

Was it Gene Hunt who did it?

That was a good show.

 

[onona]

So, let’s start at the beginning, there's nothing stopping a Police officer, or a PCSO, or anyone else asking you, or anyone else what they are doing.

That's true. But the officer also has a responsibility, as a "community support" officer, to do so in a polite manner. This man was cocky from the start and was clearly trying just trying to wave his authority around. Added to that, he was dishonest.

So, having stopped her, his held his arms in an 'aggressive way'. Really? Good luck with trying to prove that. As his hands were for the most part inside his vest, it's hardly aggressive is it? I mean you can clearly do a considerable amount of damage to someone, while you arms are behind 1/4 of Kevlar. Silly comment, and either you didn't watch the video, or you are just trying to infulence thoise who haven't watched it.

What, exactly, are you talking about? I don't recall anyone in the video suggesting this. On the contrary, the police accused the student of behaving in an "aggressive" manner.

Seems to me that you're the one who needs to watch the video.

Next, listen carefully, she declines to give her name and address.

She doesn't say no; she responds saying they don't have reason/right to demand that information from her. In all fairness, if I was in a foreign country and local police demanded that information from me, I'd decline too. I'd ask to be taken to a local police station instead (which she doesn't do but really should have).

PCSO points out that she was riding her bike the wrong way down a one way street.

And the only reason he does this is basically to be a dick. If he wanted to cite her on this, why did he do nothing when he originally saw her do it? No, he brought this up because he's being a dick. End of story.

Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

They did NOT have a reason to arrest her. How can you reasonably argue this? Do you honestly think their citation for "causing harassment, distress and alarm" is even remotely justified? Seriously?

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

Hi Bernie, i'm curious, why do you think she was arrested?

Regarding their attitudes. No doubt police have to deal regularly with the worse elements in our society and that may colour anybody's attitude, but i hope that they have the training to deal with people in a more professional manner than was displayed by this PCSO.

And is there anything wrong with a member of the public refusing a request for information that is not required by law?

 

[BruceMo]

Pretty shocking video when watching, even if I had any doubts about her motives (which I did), the builders reaction at the end was a case closer
That charming young chap interogating her and the reaction by the police, both during the incident, through arrest process and subsequent denials, absolutely hit the modern police attitude square on the head
Why would anyone representing law and order, openly chew gum and adopt such an aggressive tone with a young lassie on her own, speaking a foriegn language, in a foriegn land????
The guy is a tool of the lowest order
In my opinion.................... and breathe

 

[Bernie174]

HMansfield
Which particular power are you talking about?

Onona
Your perception is that he was cocky. Mine is that he asked the wrong questions. I was a Policeman, he's not. He got to the point, yes, but his way of doing it wasn't the best I've seen and wouldn't have been my way of doing it. If I'd been in his shoes, she would still have been stopped. Is your point motivated by the simple fact you don't like what he did, rather than what he did?

What, exactly, are you talking about? I don't recall anyone in the video suggesting this. On the contrary, the police accused the student of behaving in an "aggressive" manner.

Such a shame you didn't read what I said, and instead read what you think you wanted me too. I refer you to reply 20 on this thread, the point is in answer to that.

Quote: Next, listen carefully, she declines to give her name and address.

She doesn't say no; she responds saying they don't have reason/right to demand that information from her. In all fairness, if I was in a foreign country and local police demanded that information from me, I'd decline too. I'd ask to be taken to a local police station instead (which she doesn't do but really should have).

I'm not sure what you consider to be the difference between no and saying she doesn't have to and then not is? She was asked for it, she didn't give it. If he was going to go somewhere with the traffic matter, and she'd refused her name & address, then she gets arrested (albeit by real police not him). 'Asking to be taken to a police station', can't happen, you either go as a prisoner, or go there yourself.She seemed to know enough about law to say she didn't have to give her name and address under the terrorism act, so claiming ignorance over a different matter's not very credible. I'd suggest you don't go down the route of declining your name and address abroad, as trust me Police there are often no where near as nice as ours are, and I'm told Turkish jails are not nice places.

Quote: PCSO points out that she was riding her bike the wrong way down a one way street.

And the only reason he does this is basically to be a dick. If he wanted to cite her on this, why did he do nothing when he originally saw her do it? No, he brought this up because he's being a dick. End of story.

In your opinion. Again, motivated by a dislike of a photographer being stopped?

Quote: Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

They did NOT have a reason to arrest her. How can you reasonably argue this? Do you honestly think their citation for "causing harassment, distress and alarm" is even remotely justified? Seriously?

Again, read what I said, not what you think I said. I said that the CPS claiming they didn't know why she'd been arrested is strange, given the process the paperwork had to go through before reaching court. I wasn't there when she was arrested nor were you. However, again, I have the advantage on you, knowledge of what happens on arrest in this case. Once arrested and taken to a police station a number of things happen. The facts are relayed to a custody officer. He has a duty under PACE to decide if that arrest is lawful. If it is not then she must be released, it's not optional, and does happen.

Try asking questions instead of attacking me because you don't like the message, a good example is Rapscallion's question, simple point without the attack. It'd also help if you read what was in front of you.

Rapscallion
In truth? I don't know. It could be any number of things. If it'd have been me, then I'd have probably not arrested her, unless (and this is unlikely as I didn't lower myself to doing traffic offences!) it was for the traffic matter. But my asking her what she was doing wouldn't have been on the basis of the terrorism act, more on the basis of the the knowledge of the locations of CCTV being of use in theft/robbery/burglary. However I didn't see her before the stop, thats just based on the video. I don't think anyone reasonable could say that an undue interest in CCTV is not odd, and while, yes she apparently has a reason (When she finally got to saying what it was) for what she's doing, I'd want to check that in a bit more depth.

Given what she was doing would, again to anyone reasonable arouse some interest, If I was her I'd have been prepared to answer questions about what I am doing, and been only too happy to give any details to confirm that.

 

[HMansfield]

HMansfield
Which particular power are you talking about?

From the article:
"PSCO Thomas Cooke – questioned the art student about why she was filming buildings "iconic to us" and demanded to see images on her camera. In doing so he claimed to have powers that he did not have."

 

[Bernie174]

HMansfield

So what is your point? Do you have a copy of his designated powers card? I somehow doubt it. Unless you have, you can't comment on if it's an abuse or not.
Certainly if he had the power to stop and search, he would have the power to look at images on a camera.
Of course just as the 'right' to stop and ask what someones doing, there's nothing preventing him from asking to see the images.
As he didn't actually press the point, it can't be an abuse of powers, simply because he didn't use any power.
Splitting hairs it may be, but you claim he did abuse them, but he didn't. Had he had no designated powers, and had insisted in seeing the images you'd have a point.
I'll repeat what I said, he may not have gone about it in the right way, but nor did she. This is a good example of neither side being right. There's been plenty of examples of Police being wrong, but hey, they are human, and if you want a perfect police force, you're out of luck. What you will never see on here though are the vast majority of cases where either it's all nice and amicable, or where the photographer leaps off the deep end as soon as police turn up. Why wont you see them, because in the first case it's not news, and in the second, it's not in the interests of the photographers in question.
In some ways, I'd like to see Police have video and sound recording kit built into their uniform, and I'm sure it will come. When it does, I think you'll find the public are far far more at fault than you realise.

 

[onona]

Try asking questions instead of attacking me

Please point out exactly where I "attacked" you in my post.

While you're about it, perhaps you could answer some of the questions I asked you? I'm at an absolute loss as to understand why you've repeatedly said this to me:

Again, read what I said, not what you think I said.

Not once did I misunderstand or take out of context anything you said, so kindly drop the condescending attitude. It seems that you're the one who isn't reading posts properly - instead you're getting upset because it seems you're having trouble separating the valid criticism that people are posting about the behaviour of this community officer, and criticism of you as a member of the same force. The former is happening here, not the latter.

Is your point motivated by the simple fact you don't like what he did, rather than what he did?

I have no issue with stop and search as long as it's done fairly. I have a huge problem with WHAT this man did - he was unprofessional, rude and dishonest. He acted like a bully. Don't hinge your entire post on a (false) assumption about me.

It'd also help if you read what was in front of you.

Pot, meet kettle.

Try to get some objectivity and have a little more respect for those you're talking to here, and maybe I can have a discussion with you.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

HMansfield


Certainly if he had the power to stop and search, he would have the power to look at images on a camera.

Hi Bernie,

are you sure about this. I've read in several places that police have no right to view on the street images taken by a photographer?

I'll have to dig up the reference

EDIT

I found this, but not exactly what i said. police "can only view them in very limited circumstances". Doesn't explain what those circumstances are, but a comment below the linked article mentions a court order being necessary.

http://photographernotaterrorist.org/bust-card/

I've still no idea why photographers going about their business receive so much attention from the police. There's another video from the site.


On Tuesday 21 June 2011 six photographers were assigned different areas of the City to photograph. Some used tripods, some went hand held, one set up a 5 x 4.

All were instructed to keep to public land and photograph the area as they would on a normal day. The event aimed to test the policing of public and private space by private security firms and their reaction to photographers.

All six photographers were stopped on at least one occasion. Three encounters led to police intervention.

This is what happened.

Directed and Produced by Hannah White for the London Street Photography Festival

[YOUTUBE]FJH9F7Hcluo[/YOUTUBE]
Edited by Stuart York

 

[DemiLion]

Hi Bernie,

are you sure about this. I've read in several places that police have no right to view on the street images taken by a photographer?

I'll have to dig up the reference

If the police have a right and just cause to stop and search, then the images on the camera can form part of that search (under PACE et al).

What they do not have the right to do is to delete, or force the photographer to delete, images or footage on that camera.

There are exceptions to the above classed as 'excluded material', predominantly defined under Sect 11 of PACE, such as journalistic material or that with legal privilege.

 

[awphot]

I think there are a few issues that people have got very very wrong in this.

Yeah I agree with that. But it is those defending the PCSOs or accusing this student of "baiting" who are very very wrong. IMO

So, let’s start at the beginning, there's nothing stopping a Police officer, or a PCSO, or anyone else asking you, or anyone else what they are doing. It falls under the same 'right' as the photographers 'rights', there's nothing in law to say that you don't have the right to do it, and there's nothing in law to say you have the right to do it. Becuase there's nothing either way, you are entitled to think you have 'photographers rights', just the same as everyone else has the same 'right' to ask you what you're doing.

Yes, they can ask and I or anyone else can refuse.
It is NOT a requirement to provide your id just because the police (plastic or otherwise) ask to see it.

So, having stopped her, his held his arms in an 'aggressive way'. Really? Good luck with trying to prove that. As his hands were for the most part inside his vest, it's hardly aggressive is it? I mean you can clearly do a considerable amount of damage to someone, while you arms are behind 1/4 of Kevlar. Silly comment, and either you didn't watch the video, or you are just trying to infulence thoise who haven't watched it.

No, I don't think he was holding his arms aggressively. I just think his whole body language and speech (when he was not mumbling or turning away or chewing) looked like a case of "I have a uniform therefore you do as I say".
Again IMO

Next, listen carefully, she declines to give her name and address. PCSO points out that she was riding her bike the wrong way down a one way street. She admits this. S25 PACE comes into play, and she either gives her name, and an address at which a summons can be served, or its Police Station time.

Seems you are the one not listening to the video.
1. the PCSO stopped her because of the filming
2. at about 3.30 in her commentary she says she showed the contents of her bag and showed she had no id on her
3. it was AFTER this (in other words quite a time since first being stopped) that the pcso mentioned the cycling offense.
4. if that was in fact the reason for the stop then why not say that at the outset?
By bringing up the cycling thing so long after the stop it leads me to believe that he knew he was wrong about stopping her and just bought that up to justify everything else.

Next then, the CPS don't know why she was nicked? Really? Clearly those that hang on this point have never had anything to do with the CPS. Before it goes anywhere near a court, it's examined by their admin officers and by lawyers. If there's so much as a full stop not there, they drop it instantly. They didn't, and yet the CPS then asks the question they apparently did. So it seems as if at least one part of the CPS knew exactly why she was nicked.

People can only go by the report in the paper (unless they are in fact privy to the actual documentation) in that report it states
After five hours in a cell, Bonomo was told to sign an £80 fixed penalty notice for causing "harassment, alarm and distress". In court, Bonomo was found not guilty of any offence and the Crown Prosecution Service said it was unclear why she had even been arrested.

To me it is the actual arrest and reason given for the FPN which trouble me more. IMO it seems like a made up story by those in uniform on the scene to try and justify their errors. It would seem that the witnesses also think that.

Attitude. Neither side looked good. PCSO chewing gum. That would have not been allowed in my day, but then we only had real Police in my day. His approach wasn't good, but then neither was her response. Had she told all, then I doubt it'd have got to where it did. She decided not to, and let’s be honest here, filming CCTV? Not exactly everyday is it. It would have aroused my interest too, but I wouldn't have bothered for the terrorism act. Oooh shock horror, it's not the only power Police could use to stop photographers. Well, shock to some, not to others.

I see no "attitude" on the part of the student. She was calm, obviously not a native English speaker, but reasonable in her speech and although sounding rather exasperated at being stopped for no reason was polite enough.
The pcso on the other hand, came over as rude and arrogant.

A p.ss to this bit - what are these other powers that the police could use to stop photographers then? I would be interested to know them.

The Met settling out of court? They usually do, even when they are very right. Simply because it’s cheaper than going through a protracted court case, that even if they win, they wont be able to recover the costs from the other side.

Oh come on, Yes it is often cheaper to settle out of court but that is more because they can get away with paying less to the "victim" than if they were found liable in court.
Settling out of court in cases such as this make them look guilty as hell, as in most cases they are.
If they (the Met) believe they are right then PROVE IT in court.
You never know, if they start actually doing that and showing they are were in fact acting correctly then maybe you will get fewer threads like this and they might get a bit more respect from the public.

But in summary, neither side was particularly great in this. I’ve been on both sides, and like most of these incidents, if you are photographer, it’s always the Police’s fault. If you are Police it’s always the Photographer. In reality it’s usually both sides that to one extent or another have not acted very sensibly.

In summary, only one side was at fault here and they were the ones wearing the uniforms. No matter what way you try and spin this the police were wrong.
The PCSO initially for having the "attitude" and then later (which admittedly we do not see but we do hear witnesses) when the police turned up en masse to forcibly arrest the student.

It's strange, I am not dark skinned and I am don't always carry my camera, and yet I've been stopped under the Terrorism act, the Road Traffic Acts and PACE. I've not managed the Misuse of drugs act, but then I am 50 bald and don't fit anything like the profile of a druggie.

But my approach to being stopped isn't the same as this woman’s, and I have never had any issues with attitude or with being stopped in its self. When asked I give a full account, I don't prevaricate, and I don't try to wind up the old bill. It always ends painlessly, and it always does for everyone I know that acts the same way.

TBH if you are getting stopped so often under all you say then you must be a pretty "dodgy looking" character.

I am out and about in London virtually every day and most days with a couple of cameras and associated gear. I have been "questioned" a number of times whilst in the City and except for a couple of times it has been polite and friendly.
I have had two incidents when it was not due to the attitude and lack of knowledge of the person doing the stop. Once where it nearly came to my being arrested, in fact I asked the constable to do so.
Each stop was under the infamous section 44.
Had I come across the PCSO in this case then I would have walked away or got them to call their supervisor to the scene.

 

[DemiLion]

EDIT

I found this, but not exactly what i said. police "can only view them in very limited circumstances". Doesn't explain what those circumstances are, but a comment below the linked article mentions a court order being necessary.

PHNAT did not get everything right:

PACE Sect 44 Subsect 2:

(2)An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a)the pedestrian;
(b)anything carried by him.

However bear in mind that the PACE exclusions still apply.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Hi Mark, where can i get to view this part of PACE?

Berni, why was she originally stopped and questioned by the PCSO. After looking at the Photography advice by the MPS, it appears at first glance that these guidelines were ignored on this occasion.

 

[DemiLion]

Hi Mark, where can i get to view this part of PACE?

Well you could try reading my previous post for a start!

Berni, why was she originally stopped and questioned by the PCSO. After looking at the Photography advice by the MPS, it appears at first glance that these guidelines were ignored on this occasion.

The ACPO guidelines on photography and searches were released in Dec 2009 (the 4th to be precise), the month after Bonomo was arrested. The original Met guidelines were released in June 2009, and subsequently updated inline with the ACPO advice in April 2010, as they were legally unsound; ie they failed to point out that officers could not delete images or request them to be deleted.

The advice that you've linked to was released after the removal of the majority of Sect 44 from statute.

 

[straycat]

what a load of waffle.

a quietley spoken young girl is harrased by a stroppy gum chewing walter mitty type who either lies or dosent know the law himself.

when his bullying dosent work he resorts to the bike as his way of getting back at her.

if the description of how she is arrested is true its a disgusting disgrace.

oh and i have had similar from the Police themselves in other circumstances.


my god i expect a man to be standing up for the weak not subjugating them.

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Well you could try reading my previous post for a start!

I've looked but can't find a link..

 

[SnapperMatt]

PHNAT did not get everything right:

PACE Sect 44 Subsect 2:

(2)An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a)the pedestrian;
(b)anything carried by him.

However bear in mind that the PACE exclusions still apply.

I am not a lawyer, but after googling and looking here, PACE Section 44 appears to be about detention.

I think you may be thinking of the Terrorism Act 2000 here:
Section 44 Subsection 2:

An authorisation under this subsection authorises any constable in uniform to stop a pedestrian in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation and to search—
(a)the pedestrian;
(b)anything carried by him.

However, this is granted 'in an area or at a place specified in the authorisation'. Subsection 4 specifies the minimum rank of an officer who may give the authorisation and then Section 46 states that the authorisation has an effect for a specified period of time (no longer than 28 days) and that the person who authorises it must inform the Secretary of State who must confirm it within 48 hours or else the authorisation 'shall cease to have effect'. This would suggest to me that these are somewhat extraordinary powers and not the everyday powers the original quote would suggest :shrug:.

Once again, I have no specialist knowledge or understanding and the above is just my understanding of the information found at the above links. I would be very interested to hear more expert opinion on this and whether my interpretation is correct or not.

Also, I thought section 44 had been repealed - or is that another section 44? Or is it just an urban myth?

 

[HMansfield]

HMansfield

So what is your point? Do you have a copy of his designated powers card? I somehow doubt it. Unless you have, you can't comment on if it's an abuse or not.
Certainly if he had the power to stop and search, he would have the power to look at images on a camera.
Of course just as the 'right' to stop and ask what someones doing, there's nothing preventing him from asking to see the images.
As he didn't actually press the point, it can't be an abuse of powers, simply because he didn't use any power.
Splitting hairs it may be, but you claim he did abuse them, but he didn't. Had he had no designated powers, and had insisted in seeing the images you'd have a point.

Wow, defensive much? Please quote any of my posts from this thread where I've used the word "abuse", in any context.

Let's look at the facts:
The student claimed that he didn't have the powers to view the images without her consent.
He claimed that he did.

This is undeniable.

The article states "In doing so he claimed to have powers that he did not have".
This appears to be supported by the Police.

All I asked was what you thought of a PCSO that claimed powers he didn't have. I've no idea why you took that to heart so much.

I also asked if it was still an offence for a PCSO to do this, as I know it once was.

Perfectly straightforward questions.

 

[DemiLion]

I am not a lawyer, but after googling and looking PACE Section 44 appears to be about detention.

I think you may be thinking of the Terrorism Act 2000

Also, I thought section 44 had been repealed - or is that another section 44? Or is it just an urban myth?

Spot on - Typo!!

And you're right, to intents and purposes Sect 44 has been taken off statute and will formally be removed once the PoFB '11 gains Royal Assent, although from memory some elements of the vehicle searches will remain.

 

[Bernie174]

Rapscallion

The below comes from the Met Police web site. It should be read in the context of the wording of the act, ie it doesn't say in the act specifically a police officer can look at images, it's just an explanation that that power allows a search and part of that search can be looking at images on a camera.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.

The codes of practice and the entire PACE act are on a number of web sites, and probably in your local library, if it's not been closed.

I'm not sure why you think that photographers are subject to any more attention than anyone else, certainly in some circumstances a photographer will make themselves suspicious.

For Example I do aviation photography, yesterday I was at Boscombe Down, a prohibited place under the official secrets act and where photography is prohibited. I go on the basis of fully expecting to be stopped, and fully prepared to identify myself and show that I am not doing something I shouldn't. Why? Simply because I am fully aware, as anyone sensible would be that I am going to look suspect, and that I am therefore fair game to get asked about it.

The woman in this case would have been better advised to do the same, remember she wasn't just taking touristy photos, surely that would have occurred to her.

onona
I suggested you read what I said, not what you think I did, because your points clearly show you have not done so. The advice remains the same, go and read what I said.

AWPhot

To me it is the actual arrest and reason given for the FPN which trouble me more. IMO it seems like a made up story by those in uniform on the scene to try and justify their errors. It would seem that the witnesses also think that.

Not necessarily. That refers to the FPN for harassment yes, but does it mean thats what she was arrested for? I don't know, and without seeing her custody record I can't answer. Your implication that her arrest was unlawful because of a comment by the CPS doesn't necessarily follow. If she wasn't arrested for harassment he may not know why she was arrested. I think we have all assumed (including me originally) he was answering that question in relation to the harassment matter, which may not have been the case.
Again, we don't know what happened when the Police turned up, if they had for whatever reason decided to go down the harrassment route and she was still declining to give her name and address, then she would have made herself liable to get nicked.

 

[Donnie]

Rapscallion

The below comes from the Met Police web site. It should be read in the context of the wording of the act, ie it doesn't say in the act specifically a police officer can look at images, it's just an explanation that that power allows a search and part of that search can be looking at images on a camera.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.

Yes but they only have that power after someone's been arrested under S43, not just a stop and search don't they?

 

[andya700]

Yes but they only have that power after someone's been arrested under S43, not just a stop and search don't they?

Unfortunately Donnie, I think that they might, although IMO it would be a gross misuse of the Act itself.

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

One of the first, notorious instances of the misuse of these powers, was years ago, when a Labour activist at a meeting, heckled Jack Straw (I believe the activist was Walter Wolfgang an elderly man), and was arrested by police MISUSING this act.

In my opinion, it takes courageous people to stand up against authority when the authority gets it wrong, or as in this case, totally oversteps the mark.

 

[gnirtS]

Slight side issue but sort of related as its the met.

I was walking past Parliament last friday (didnt have my camera out, just walking to oxford st) and 2 mounted police went past. These were real police not pretend PCSOs.

As they walked past (on the pavement) 4 or 5 people got mobile phones out and held them up clearly to get photos of them going past with parliament in the background. Another 3 or so asia tourists got real cameras out and pointed them to do the same.

One police man then loudly and fairly aggressively yelled "Do NOT do THAT" Then "STOP. NO. DON'T"
The other police guy then joined in with "NO PHOTOGRAPHS. DO NOT POINT THOSE AT US".

The tourists in question all put their cameras down and the police carried on towards the river up the pavement at a slow leisurely pace.

Unless there's some bylaw banning photographs of the police on the pavement outside parliament this struck me as a bid odd given all the publicity of late and very surprised by the immediate aggressive shouting at what were clearly just tourists!

 

[Deleted member 49549]

Rapscallion


I'm not sure why you think that photographers are subject to any more attention than anyone else, certainly in some circumstances a photographer will make themselves suspicious.

There has been much coverage of photographers being intimidated, harassed and even assaulted by police, and luckily we have video of many such occasions as evidence. Both Amateur Photographer and the NUJ have raised the issue many times. Indeed the MPS have sought to clarify the position due to the high profile of many of these incidents.

I understand your point about photography near an MoD site, but i don't think that situation is typical or should be used as an example for police interaction in everyday photography.

 

[Paul Gooch]

This couldn't just be a 'London thing', could it?
I visited Nottingham recently and took some photos of the city centre, entirely because I like the way the city has retained a lot of the old, interesting architecture.
There was a police officer at one end of the city square and a woman police officer at the other end of it.
They could both see what I was doing but neither of them hassled me.

 

[mr_v_s]

There has been much coverage of photographers being intimidated, harassed and even assaulted by police, and luckily we have video of many such occasions as evidence. Both Amateur Photographer and the NUJ have raised the issue many times. Indeed the MPS have sought to clarify the position due to the high profile of many of these incidents.

I understand your point about photography near an MoD site, but i don't think that situation is typical or should be used as an example for police interaction in everyday photography.

I completely agree with you. I know baiting when I see it and I really have to scratch my head over apologists who think representatives of authority cannot be questioned.

 

[mr_v_s]

I have to add to an earlier post (and slightly off-topic) I took my Canon S95 into Parliament Square and nobody said anything to me (that's why I love it!). It was the day of (recent) student protests, police everywhere. The only comment I got was from two businessmen (who remarked "bloody tourists!")