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

Squawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point is that I have a job to do and a bit of professional courtesy goes a long way. If I spent all day arguing the toss instead of being up front i would soon loose my clients because I wouldn't deliver the goods. On the other hand, when members of the public have questioned what I am doing the police have often been the first to say that I am quite within my rights to photograph whatever I like in a public place.

I don't like the police, I don't dislike them, but being a tit does not help anybody. I see a 'so called' photographer winding security/police up like that and all I see is someone who is going to make my job harder in the long run. Rights have nothing to do with it.
 
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...


Correct me if I'm wrong but under section 44 of the terrorsim act an officer has to have reasonable grounds to detain and search a suspect ie a reasonable suspision that the person is about to commit a terrorist act or is planning to commit a terrorist act.

Therefore by detaining this journalist the officers where suggesting that there were reasonable grounds for suspsion under section 44 and therefore by implication that this person had or was about to commit a criminal offence. If they didnt believe that to be true then they unlawfully detained that person.
 
As it happens I agree with the way you would have handled it. They come and stop me, I'll show them what I have, no drama. That's not the point. The point is that should I so choose, I have the right not to do so. Correct application of the law should then result in my being left alone unless the policeman has other grounds for suspicion.

It's clear to all that this would have ended quickly if he had given his name and shown the pictures. That is irrelevant. He has the right not to do so, and when he exercised that right things excalated.

It is the protection of that right, the right to deny the policeman that information, that is being fought for here.
 
I grew up in a village, I now live in a small market town, as kids it was good sport to wind up our local Policeman - the sound of his Diesel Meastro van approaching always got the adrenaline flowing because, your really didn't want to go home in that van !

Sport changes, Section 44 is there for a reason, as I get older I meet more people from all walks of life, I now know Policemen, I know Policemen that deal with terrorism on a daily basis, obviously they tell me nothing but what I do know is they could well do without idiots trying to test them.
You need to look at the bigger picture, lets face it theses guys know that the Journo is not a threat, he is just being a cock and wasting time.

Photography is not a crime, of course it isn't, funnily enough most of us take pictures to show other people, these nice Policemen are asking to see his work, they won't delete it as that is destroying evidence, show the bloody coppers and let them get on their way.

You will all be quick enough to moan when somewhere gets blown up, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

This guy has really proved nothing, other than he is being ignorant, please do not think that every Policeman knows every Law, impossible, hence the back up calls.
 
Squawk said:
As it happens I agree with the way you would have handled it. They come and stop me, I'll show them what I have, no drama. That's not the point. The point is that should I so choose, I have the right not to do so. Correct application of the law should then result in my being left alone unless the policeman has other grounds for suspicion.

It's clear to all that this would have ended quickly if he had given his name and shown the pictures. That is irrelevant. He has the right not to do so, and when he exercised that right things excalated.

It is the protection of that right, the right to deny the policeman that information, that is being fought for here.
Click to expand...

Still, why refrain information for the sake of it? Ok, maybe tell them you don't wish to hand over your name and address as you don't want any records going down, if you so wish.. but there is absolutely no reason not to show them film/photos?

There is a fine line between being reasonable and being an arse.

The 30 seconds it'd have taken him to rewind the tape and and fast forward through would have saved him his time and the officers. The officers would have been happy and on their way then.
 
What are we trying to protect if not the freedoms that we hold dear, freedoms fought for over generations costing millions of lives. The freedom to not reveal ones identity is surely at the very heart of this.
 
purpleclouds said:
Still, why refrain information for the sake of it? Ok, maybe tell them you don't wish to hand over your name and address as you don't want any records going down, if you so wish.. but there is absolutely no reason not to show them film/photos?

There is a fine line between being reasonable and being an arse.

The 30 seconds it'd have taken him to rewind the tape and and fast forward through would have saved him his time and the officers. The officers would have been happy and on their way then.
Click to expand...

That is precisely why he did it. To expose the fact that things escalate if you don't provide the information even though you have the legal right to with hold it and they have no right to detain you because you witheld it.

He was an arse about it precisely to demonstrate that point.
 
Squawk said:
What are we trying to protect if not the freedoms that we hold dear, freedoms fought for over generations costing millions of lives. The freedom to not reveal ones identity is surely at the very heart of this.
Click to expand...

The officer didn't even ask for his name until he refused to show him the contents of the tape. If he had been polite and shown it then he wouldn't have even been asked for his name?
 
Squawk said:
That is precisely why he did it. To expose the fact that things escalate if you don't provide the information even though you have the legal right to with hold it and they have no right to detain you because you witheld it.

He was an arse about it precisely to demonstrate that point.
Click to expand...

Exactly, don't be an arse and things won't escalate.

Be polite, professional and cooperative and the situation will be a hell of a lot better.

I know if I had some moron winding me up at work, I'd refuse to deal with them. If I was a police officer and some one was winding me up, I'd make life as a difficult as possible for them.
 
Why, whats to hide for christs sake, they ain't going to apply for a card in your name, I would rather give them my business card, have the craic and get hired for his daughters Wedding than end up on the National Computer as " ********, make his life hard, 'cause we can" a bit of humanity goes a long way, if they see you are shooting abstacts of the shape of the building then they will leave you alone !
 
purpleclouds said:
The officer didn't even ask for his name until he refused to show him the contents of the tape. If he had been polite and shown it then he wouldn't have even been asked for his name?
Click to expand...

Same point stands. He has the right to refuse to show it, unless the officer has further grounds for suspicion he should deal with being refused.
 
Squawk said:
Same point stands. He has the right to refuse to show it, unless the officer has further grounds for suspicion he should deal with being refused.
Click to expand...

I know he has the right to refuse to show it. But what's he got to hide? He hadn't been formally arrested or even detained (as we know, the officer just said he would follow him).

The situation was calm, he had nothing to hide. If anything, the photographer was in the upper position. The officer clearly didn't want to be hassled with it.

The photographer could have shown him the video, had a nice chat and a laugh about ill-educated security guards and been on his way....

Does this not make sense to you? :shrug:
 
purpleclouds said:
I know he has the right to refuse to show it. But what's he got to hide? He hadn't been formally arrested or even detained (as we know, the officer just said he would follow him).

The situation was calm, he had nothing to hide. If anything, the photographer was in the upper position. The officer clearly didn't want to be hassled with it.

The photographer could have shown him the video, had a nice chat and a laugh about ill-educated security guards and been on his way....
Click to expand...

Bah... that's not the point. He could have done all those things. He has the right not to, and when he exercised that right, things escalated. It's the escalation that I have the problem with, not the questions in the first place. He has the right to decline to co-operate, and they must abuse their power to force things further. They did so, which is the whole point.

You have the right to be an arse.
 
Squawk said:
Bah... that's not the point. He could have done all those things. He has the right not to, and when he exercised that right, things escalated. It's the escalation that I have the problem with, not the questions in the first place. He has the right to decline to co-operate, and they must abuse their power to force things further. They did so, which is the whole point.

You have the right to be an arse.
Click to expand...

If you were wrongly arrested for say, robbery, would you exercise your right to silence, just because you have it?

No, I'd be proclaiming my innocence. As I would be (well, I'd be discussing the law rather than my innocence) if the policeman stopped me for taking photos.

The officer has to gather all the information about the potential crime he can before making a decision as to whether a crime was in the making. By saying nothing then you are only making his job harder..

It's common sense!

I'm not a religious man, but the Bible has a great line in 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.'

I feel, as a professional photographer, that the journo has brought only embarrassment on the community. At this time, under this atmosphere, we are meant to be supporting cohesion, from both sides.
 
Simple way to resolve this, if this went to court this would be deemed an unlawful search - the officer had no suspicision under which to search him. The law under which he was stopped was not intended for this and therefore misused.

Yes he could have been more cooperative, yes he could have been more helpful, but the simple fact of the matter is he was not obligated under the law to do either, he exercised his lawful rights and because he chose to do that the officer then used an unrelated law in order to hold and search this guy. As good an example as you'll ever get as to why such laws should never have been passed in the first place giving such sweeping rights to the police.


..
 
gingerweasel said:
Simple way to resolve this, if this went to court this would be demeed an unlawful search the officer had no suspicision under which to search him. The law under which he was stopped was not intended for this and therefore misused.
Click to expand...

Indeed you are right! However it shouldn't have even gotten to that stage. The whole thing could have been over in a matter of seconds, but it dragged on for over 6 minutes...
 
Squawk said:
Same point stands. He has the right to refuse to show it, unless the officer has further grounds for suspicion he should deal with being refused.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll take a different tack here. There are a lot of people who defend the right to take images wherever they like, whenever they like. I couldn't agree more (within reason. i.e naked kids etc.). However some idiot who wants to stir things up to prove a point by walking into a building and filming just to get a reaction does not help me or anyone else.

If someone (anyone) asks who I am or what I am doing while I am working as a photographer I will tell them because life is easier that way. Ho yes I have my rights, personal freedoms and all the things our grandfathers fought for in two war and I can say sod off if I want to. But I don't. Its not because my bother-in-law was killed in the Omagh bombing in '98. Its not because another good family friend was killed in the same bomb blast. Its not because I was recently in Gaza photographing phosphorus burns on children from Isreali 84's. It's because life is just easier to tell people what you are doing, engender a bit of understanding so that they let the next photographer 'just get on with it'. And because I would rather bring about positive social change by working with people than being a tit.
 
nomorem6 said:
Ok, I'll take a different tack here. There are a lot of people who defend the right to take images wherever they like, whenever they like. I couldn't agree more (within reason. i.e naked kids etc.). However some idiot who wants to stir things up to prove a point by walking into a building and filming just to get a reaction does not help me or anyone else.

If someone (anyone) asks who I am or what I am doing while I am working as a photographer I will tell them because life is easier that way. Ho yes I have my rights, personal freedoms and all the things our grandfathers fought for in two war and I can say sod off if I want to. But I don't. Its not because my bother-in-law was killed in the Omagh bombing in '98. Its not because another good family friend was killed in the same bomb blast. Its not because I was recently in Gaza photographing phosphorus burns on children from Isreali 84's. It's because life is just easier to tell people what you are doing, engender a bit of understanding so that they let the next photographer 'just get on with it'. And because I would rather bring about positive social change by working with people than being a tit.
Click to expand...

(y)(y) Well said!

Like I also said, we should be all working together for cohesion, not making life difficult for each other.
 
I think those police bods were extremely calm and professional to be fair, and ignoring the fact that they twigged quite early he was a journo I'm not surprised they wanted to check his camera...
 
Agreed, be polite have a friendly chat then laugh at the security guard who thinks he's important.
 
gingerweasel said:
Simple way to resolve this, if this went to court this would be demeed an unlawful search the officer had no suspicision under which to search him. The law under which he was stopped was not intended for this and therefore misused.

Yes he could have been more cooperative, yes he could have been more helpful, but the simple fact of the matter is he was not obligated under the law to do either, he exercised his lawful rights and because he chose to do that the officer then used an unrelated law inorder to hold and search this guy. As good an example as you'll ever get as to why such laws should never have been passed in the first place giving such sweeping right to the police.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

As it happens I have been arrested once, though not for anything photography related. I had a fake bank note in France (didn't know about it obviously), and got arrested when it scanned as fake in the supermarket. Actually that is not entirely true, I actually asked the store manager to phone the police because I wanted something official to show to the insurance company to say I had lost 50 euros, the buggers turned up and arrested me. I sang as loud as I could, I told them everything I could think of, I was innocent and it was in my interest to give them as much information as I could so that they believed me, which they did after about 5 minutes of questioning.

This is not the same. This guy hadn't been arrested. If he had been arrested he would have told them everything he could in exactly the way I did. This was before arrest, when the police were trying to establish if there was a reason to arrest him or take further action.

The point is that the police have to have suspicion of a crime before they can take action. No suspicion, no reason to arrest. Taking photographs of filming is entirely legal. They had precisely zero grounds for arresting him, or for continuing to question him.

The point is that if they had arrested him it would have been wrongful arrest. They did violate his rights by detaining him for not providing information which by law they are not entitled to demand.

The fact that this guy is a journo and that the "crime" in question was photography is an irrelevance. The point is that a man was stopped for doing nothing illegal and detained because he refused to provide his details. This is illegal, it is an abuse of police powers. We are discussing it here because he was a tog, but this can apply to anyone in society on any issue.


There is no difference between what went on here and being randomly stopped in the street by the police and declining to give your name. You are not suspected of any crime, you have the right to refuse to co-operate.

Most people will co-operate. The point is that you have the right not to, and you should not be punished for exercising your right. The actions of this tog, while no doubt annoying, reveal that the rights we have are being eroded.
 
What really scares me about some of the responses here is that because someone might choose not to follow the easy path, because they might choose to excerise their legal rights they are 'tits'.

I'm a pretty easy going guy but I believe passionately in our legal system and the rights we have as an individual. Forget the camera, this has nothing to do with taking pictures and everything to do with being free to excerise my rights and go about my business. We don't live in a police state, our police force is not entitled to make up laws and stop us for no reason. They like us have to follow the law and the bottom line is that in this case and others they are not. They are abusing their powers and twisting legislation to justify the search and detention of people.

I am genuinely concerned at just how willing people are to give up their rights for an easy life. If this goes unchallenged then it won't be long before it's common place.

and the rant is over, lol

Seriously guys, I don't want to argue with anyone just wanted to express a point of view which I believe in - I've done that so I'll shut up now.


..
 
gingerweasel said:
What really scares me about some of the responses here is that because someone might choose not to follow the easy path, because they might choose to excerise their legal rights they are 'tits'.

I'm a pretty easy going guy but I believe passionately in our legal system and the rights we have as an individual. Forget the camera, this has nothing to do with taking pictures and everything to do with being free to excerise my rights and go about my business. We don't live in a police state, our police force is not entitled to make up laws and stop us for no reason. They like us have to follow the law and the bottom line is that in this case and others they are not. They are abusing their powers and twisting legislation to justify the search and detention of people.

I am genuinely concerned at just how willing people are to give up their rights for an easy life. If this goes unchallenged then it won't be long before it's common place.
Click to expand...

You just don't get it do you. :shake:

Enough said I think.
 
nomorem6 said:
You just don't get it do you. :shake:

Enough said I think.
Click to expand...

You think it's reasonable to be detained without any suspicion of illegal activity? You think being un-cooperative is reasonable grounds?
 
I'm not giving up any rights. I'll just use them as I see fit. If I can use a right to make my life easier, then I will. I'm not on this planet to make enemies. I'm here to make friends, and from the more walks of life the better.

If I see a police officer approaching me whilst snapping (or at any time) I'll make sure I'm the one to instigate the conversation, keep it peaceful and sort any issues out in a professional and adult manner.

I fail to see how you could even begin to relate this to a growth in persecution of photographers. Please, do entertain me..

Humans developed the skill to talk, we should use it more often!
 
He was acting suspiciously...

If someone was walking down the road with a holdall stuffed with cash that was poking out the zip, he would get questioned about it. If he had a good excuse/reason, fine, if not, you would expect it to go further.

Yes this isn't -as- suspicious as that, but filming on private property and being so secretive about his reasons makes him suspicous enough in my eyes at least, to make it worth them checking his camera.
 
nomorem6 said:
You just don't get it do you. :shake:

Enough said I think.
Click to expand...

I think he 'gets it' a lot better than you understand. In fact, I'd say gingerweasle and Squawk are probably the two people on this thread who get it most (and I don't mean sex. :bat:)
 
steve.82 said:
He was acting suspiciously...
Click to expand...
Which part of his actions was suspicious?
Filming on private property, when asked he left: Not suspicious (and note the police were not called at that point), and not illegal. If he had refused to leave he would have been guilty of trespass IIRC.
Taking photographs or filming the building: Entirely legal not grounds for suspicion.
Refusing to provide his name: Entirely legal, not grounds for suspicion
Refusing to show his images: Entirely legal, not grounds for suspicion.

If you can show me anything he did that was either illegal or grounds for suspicion sufficient to warrant detention then I will concede the point. You can't, because there wern't. His "crime" was lack of co-operation, again entirely legal.

If someone was walking down the road with a holdall stuffed with cash that was poking out the zip, he would get questioned about it.
Click to expand...
He would be approached. He would be perfectly within his rights to decline to answer questions or provide his name. There is nothing illegal about walking around with a sack full of cash. A question about reasonable suspicion of robbery would be based on the circumstances.

If he had a good excuse/reason, fine, if not, you would expect it to go further.
Click to expand...
I would expect that the man was within his rights to decline to answer any questions, and the officer would have to have reasonable grounds for suspicion that the man had commited a crime. In the case of a man carrying a huge holdall full of cash down the street it is a rare enough occurance, out of the ordinary, and as such arguably is grounds for suspicion.

In the case of a man taking photographs it is completely the opposite, it is entirely ordinary. Taking photos is not grounds for suspicion of terrorism, and the police's own guidance makes that clear.


Yes this isn't -as- suspicious as that, but filming on private property
Click to expand...
Which he stopped doing when asked to, and at which time the police were not called. It is not illegal to film on private property, but you commit trespass if you do not stop when asked, and you probably commit trespass if you know it is not permitted and do so anyway. He was detained under section 44 which makes that irrelevant, and as noted the police were not called for that incident.

and being so secretive about his reasons
Click to expand...
He is legally entitled to silence, a position that does not affect his rights in the slightest and does not provide grounds for suspicion.

makes him suspicous enough in my eyes at least, to make it worth them checking his camera.
Click to expand...

I disagree entirely.
 
Squawk said:
You think it's reasonable to be detained without any suspicion of illegal activity? You think being un-cooperative is reasonable grounds?
Click to expand...

No, is the simple answer. The slightly longer answer, is that turning a 30 second explanation into a nine minute+ argument is pointless.

Referring back to my previous post, the good family friend I mentioned. I remember taking her husband down to identify her. All there was was the palm of her hand, her wrist and two fingers. We identified her (Libby) by her wedding ring. Everyone thought the bomb (if there was one) was up at the top of the hill by the court house. So everyone came down to the other end of the main street. Everyone was standing around the bomb. How ironic is that.

There was never a more true statement than 'life is too short'. If you want to argue about civil liberties and make a point about S44 with a camera, go ahead. The guy in the video chose to detain himself by being difficult and setting out to make a video about being detained . It can be argued that the police never needed to question him. Probably not in fact. I don't really care. What I do care about is that people would rather bang heads together rather than just using a bit of common sense, talking to each other and, ultimately, just getting on with life. I get annoyed for being stopped by the police for photographing public places or other people, especially when I have to go out and repeat the shoot because some PCSO stopped me getting on with my job. However, human nature, the wider media and general sociological make-up ensures that we treat strangers with suspicion (all over the world).

So, to answer your question, is being un-cooperative reasonable grounds to be detained? - no. But life is too short to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Answering a question does not take my civil liberties away but when a section of society (photographers) are seen as being generally untrustworthy and evasive by wider society and government because of their attitude, that poses a fare greater risk to my civil liberties in the long run because sooner or later legislation will be introduced to make sure photographer don't have the option. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer if you prefer.
 
As an example of how to deal with the police I agree his method was terrible.

As an example of how the police abuse powers, this was perfect. If it takes one guy being an arse to reveal it then all power to him.

Turning 30 seconds to 9 minutes has inconvenienced three police officers and one photographer.
In the long run, it may be that this small incident helps to preserve the rule of law and liberty for all in the land.

There are some things worth dying for. The preservation of liberty is one of those things. Millions of soldiers in countless wars have died to protect our freedom. What is it that terrorists seek to destroy by the planting of bombs if not the end of the freedom and liberty that we enjoy?

Police acting in this way is doing their job for them.
 
Here is a wee spanner in the works !! what if in fact this was a terrorist in the act of gathering inteligence to commit another attack on London ! Dont tut cause it could easily have been !! The officers in this film have a job to do and it is to save peoples lives not to **** you off !! 52 people died on 7/7 and these 3 officers might have been there and witnessed what the acts of terrorism do ! Does this person believe he is so special that he cannot have a courtious conversation with the people that are solely there to protect his life and intrests , I DONT THINK SO !! we are all part off a big team to avoid such things happening again in this country with the potential off hurting you or your loved ones !! Think about it for 2 mins all they want to do is protect , and if you have to take a few mins to explain yourself then so be it ! As i said if this was in fact a terrorist and he was detered by the police response i dont think this person would have complained !! especially if he were standing there pulling the same LOOk AT ME STUNT when the terrorist walks up to the Gerkin with his rucksack full off 50lbs of cemtex !!! THINK ABOUT THAT SCENARIO !! rant over sorry (y)
 
Squawk said:
In the case of a man carrying a huge holdall full of cash down the street it is a rare enough occurance, out of the ordinary, and as such arguably is grounds for suspicion.
Click to expand...

The journo's behaviour was out of the ordinary and rare, that's my point. He didn't even say he was filming for work to start with, they had to squeeze it out of him.

Technically to the letter of the law perhaps you are right, perhaps not, I certainly don't know or pretend to know where the line of suspicion is drawn. However my common sense is telling me that situations that may happen to your average tog on the street (which after all is what this thread is defending the rights of, or chatting about at least :)) wouldn't bear much resemblance to this chain of events.

Common sense tells me lots of things that would mean life in general would be better, fairer, easier, quicker and more productive but often gets held back by the letter of the law/red tape etc :bonk:
 
Squawk said:
As an example of how to deal with the police I agree his method was terrible.

As an example of how the police abuse powers, this was perfect. If it takes one guy being an arse to reveal it then all power to him.

Turning 30 seconds to 9 minutes has inconvenienced three police officers and one photographer.
In the long run, it may be that this small incident helps to preserve the rule of law and liberty for all in the land.

There are some things worth dying for. The preservation of liberty is one of those things. Millions of soldiers in countless wars have died to protect our freedom. What is it that terrorists seek to destroy by the planting of bombs if not the end of the freedom and liberty that we enjoy?

Police acting in this way is doing their job for them.
Click to expand...

You are still missing the point here. Sleep on it. Seriously.
 
Also what would the alternative be to their way of dealing with it?

police - why were you filming
man - none of your business I'm within my rights
police - ok good day to you

Wouldn't happen and I really wouldn't want it to happen...
 
steve.82 said:
Also what would the alternative be to their way of dealing with it?

police - why were you filming
man - none of your business I'm within my rights
police - ok good day to you

Wouldn't happen and I really wouldn't want it to happen...
Click to expand...

To the letter of the law that is precisely what should happen. It's not courteous and it's not pleasant, but we are not talking about being nice to people, we are talking about upholding the law of the land.

That, in a nutshell, is what this film is demonstrating.
 
I'm not quite sure how your experiences of the Omagh bombing come into this, but surely that experience has taught you how important it is to protect people's rights? The modern troubles stemmed from the blatant disregard of such civil rights, in case you've forgotten. It's all very well to talk about exercising 'common sense', but you seem to have forgotten that so-called common sense belongs in the hands of the powerful...
 
Squawk said:
That, in a nutshell, is what this film is demonstrating.
Click to expand...

The film demostrates how one unecessarily annoying chap over 9mins of constant annoyance can cause a policeman (who are human too and not inherently more evil than the rest of us) to have a look on his camera and then let him be on his way.

Not that bad really is it :)

What would your ideal outcome have been, given the annoyingness of the journo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top