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

desantnik said:
The trouble I always have is that there an untold list of "things a terrorist will do that normal people also do".... where on earth does it stop?

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

Terrorists might also:

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

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

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


Work as security guards at national landmarks...
 
coldpenguin said:
For 10 minutes each person, we will set up our tripod and 'frame up' our shot.

If (/when), we are questioned by police about what we are doing, the answer should be that we are thinking about performing some photography in a public place. There should be no other question from the policeman surely? We have explained what we are doing, it is perfectly legal and could in no way be considered to be a terrorist act. Surely we are allowed to think still??

:)
Click to expand...

Think yes, but not setup tripods, they are a dangerous trip hazard you know! And of course more people trip and kill themselves than are killed by terrorists, so they will probably lock you up for 25 years :D
 
Interesting to watch but he was idiotic and stupid, way over the top and was massively un-cooperative.
 
desantnik said:
Think yes, but not setup tripods, they are a dangerous trip hazard you know! And of course more people trip and kill themselves than are killed by terrorists, so they will probably lock you up for 25 years :D
Click to expand...

If we put cones everywhere, will that help?
And day-glo vests - I have one of those...mmm...
 
Arkady said:
If we put cones everywhere, will that help?
And day-glo vests - I have one of those...mmm...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you will need council permission (please remember to send cheque with application form) and consultation paperwork sent to every premises in the street and to every person who might be there on the day and zero objections must be received.

You will also need council employees to marshall your assembly for health and safety reasons, these need to be one per 2m of perimeter and the cost per marshall is £225+VAT per hour if Mon-Fri 9am-5pm, £989+VAT per hour at all other times. Additionally proof of available medical facilities, toilet facilities, fire prevention, minority inclusion policy and food hygine certificates must be provided.

Forms must be received no later than 5 years before you wish to do this.
 
POAH said:
do people actually care about this any more.
Click to expand...

YES
Go in to book shops and you can see the history of your town all in photos, you have books on the post war years right up today. What will our children and there children have to look at if no one can take photos of our towns.
Anyone who wants to have photos for "hostile reconnaissance" will not stand in a street with a dSLR. It would be done covertly and no one would know I know I have use this kind of gear you can not know it’s in use
.
 
Aren't they completely missing the point? If I was a terrorist scoping out a building I certainly wouldn't stand in front of it in a really obvious way with a great big really obvious camera attracting all sorts of unwanted attention.
No, I'd suss it out online first via google or somesuch, then, if I needed to recce the place d go armed with a mbile phone with a half decent camera. Noone would even notice. They'd be far too busy hassling that togger with the slr.
 
not read the whole of thing
the copper seems quite reasonable up to 4 mins in

just watched it all
I think he's giving photographers a bad name.

insisted on filming the police which is going to get their guard up.
completely ignored any request to stop filming private goings on which could be linked to security matters.
the security bloke was quite happy for him to film the building from a general point of view.
the police seemed quite reasonable when faced with an awkward and cantankerous chap out to cause trouble
it's quite nice that the police responded so quickly in London.

the whole thing is over the top and really it would be nice to do what you want. but this bloke only got 2 officers involved because he was being awkward and trying to raise their hackles.
 
desantnik said:
Think yes, but not setup tripods, they are a dangerous trip hazard you know! And of course more people trip and kill themselves than are killed by terrorists, so they will probably lock you up for 25 years :D
Click to expand...

Darn,
Any problem with Monopods? Apart from the fact that they look like a club with a sharp point?
 
I've read most of the thread, but it all got a bit bogged down in the middle. I'd still like to add my 2-pence worth though.

Several of the posters have said that they didn't see why there was any justification for the police asking to view the video, as the journo was clearly not a terrorist.

Under S44 there doesn't need to be any justification.

Here's an excerpt from this home office circular.

Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enable uniformed police officers to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles will be found.
Click to expand...
The actual "S44 authorised" areas are not published, but previous posters have already indicated that this is believed to cover most of London, all railway stations, all airfields and their surrounding areas. I'd be willing to guess that many provincial cities and the major tourist attractions are in the list too.

As you don't know when you're in an "S44 authorised" area, it's a bit catch-22 really, but it's probably better to show the police the pictures if they ask, and certainly as soon as they mention S44. (Private security guards are another matter of course ;))

(Personally, I don't like this one little bit, but that is the law as it stands, and it's not likely to be changed any time soon :()
 
pentaprison said:
I've read most of the thread, but it all got a bit bogged down in the middle. I'd still like to add my 2-pence worth though.

Several of the posters have said that they didn't see why there was any justification for the police asking to view the video, as the journo was clearly not a terrorist.

Under S44 there doesn't need to be any justification.

Here's an excerpt from this home office circular.

Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Powers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 enable uniformed police officers to stop and search anyone within an authorised area for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism. The powers do not require a reasonable suspicion that such articles will be found.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

... and here is what the next paragraph says:

Police officers can stop and search someone taking photographs within an authorised area just as they can stop and search any other member of the public in the proper exercise of their discretion, but the powers should be used proportionally and not specifically target photographers.​
The current debate seems (to me) to indicate that they are not abiding by the latter quote from the circular but rather relying too much on the former.
 
PickleB said:
... and here is what the next paragraph says:

Police officers can stop and search someone taking photographs within an authorised area just as they can stop and search any other member of the public in the proper exercise of their discretion, but the powers should be used proportionally and not specifically target photographers.​
The current debate seems (to me) to indicate that they are not abiding by the latter quote from the circular but rather relying too much on the former.
Click to expand...

I agree. I posted up the link because I didn't want anybody here to be in any doubt about the legality. It's one thing to stand up for your rights when dealing with the police. But if you're actually in the "wrong" then you really are in trouble.

I was horrified when the law was passed. At the time I thought it would be used to unfairly target people of middle eastern appearance. It never occured to me that I'd be part of the group that are in the firing line.

Of course, I have no idea how many other groups are being targetted. Maybe it's not just photographers?
 
chameleon said:
Aren't they completely missing the point? If I was a terrorist scoping out a building I certainly wouldn't stand in front of it in a really obvious way with a great big really obvious camera attracting all sorts of unwanted attention.
No, I'd suss it out online first via google or somesuch, then, if I needed to recce the place d go armed with a mbile phone with a half decent camera. Noone would even notice. They'd be far too busy hassling that togger with the slr.
Click to expand...

More to the point, why does everyone think 'terrorists' would be using ANY form of media that could be seized by the police and land them in the **** straight away.

With time(months/years?)) to recce out a potential target, surely their highly intelligent noggins will be able to remember where the bloody 'entrance' is!!

And off topic slightly, anyone returned from the continent via ferry lately?
It wouldn't take much to drive a heavily ladened transit straight down the M20 to the Gherkin for a few fireworks , would it?
 
Frantic, you don't pay much attention to the kit you drive through when you get to the UK do you... have a careful look next time :D
 
PhotoTalk said:
Yes, it was deliberate, but 'test' might be a better word than 'provoke.' Both sides were basically doing their job.

The forth estate serves a useful function by challenging / speaking truth onto power...
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
Well, I see the police are justifying their stop n search by touting the guy they arrested that had been doing covert surveillance on the underground etc. Surprise surprise! He used a mobile phone with video capability! NOT a honking great obvious SLR!
 
Frantic_Inc said:
Sorry, I meant a lead-lined Transit van.:LOL:
Click to expand...

That would guarantee you get pulled over to have a chat with the lads wearing the latex gloves...lol :LOL:

I once was stopped at Dover as I had an H-83 container (for 7.62mm link ammunition) in the boot of the car buried deep under all my other kit as I was being posted to Germany - I keep tools and cyalume sticks in there for breakdowns...

The duty-bod instantly realised what it was and did a physical search of the car - visibly 'lightening-up' when he saw the haircut - though his colleague still performed a swatch test of the car's interior for trace explosives...

Also I always go to sidelights when driving through at night as it's common courstesy not to blind people that are on duty (even though the cameras compensate for that)...I generally get an appreciative 'nod' from the yellow-jackets standing there...
Plus as a regular passenger, I'm sure my VRN is flagged as a Military user...
 
"...The officer concluded the matter confirming to Ms Hurd that if she did want to use the footage then she would have to go through the Metropolitan Police press office, as it was ‘his copyright’, and, although the officers were not undercover at that point, they might be at some point in the future..."

I get this sometimes from guys intending to go for SF Selection...
- Fine when you're in the SAS I will blank your eyes out - til then you're the same as everyone else, so do as you're effin told and smile for the camera - muppet...
 
Arkady said:
I get this sometimes from guys intending to go for SF Selection...- Fine when you're in the SAS I will blank your eyes out - til then you're the same as everyone else, so do as you're effin told and smile for the camera - muppet...
Click to expand...

You don't have a roll of very sticky black duct tape in your bag? I'd make 'em wear it with a "thats how they do it you know, terrorists can see through photoshop".

You could have a right laugh pulling their eyebrows off afterwards :D
 
When I was at Pontrillas Training Centre - near to a place with a boat-house (see Ronin), we used to keep bits of black card with sticks attached for the Group Photos when Ministers used to come calling - we'd do a 'joke' photo at the end with the Ministers covered up and the 'Blades' uncovered...silly but it made the Politicians' day...
 
tdodd said:
Now wedding togs are getting into trouble too - http://www.bindmans.com/index.php?id=672

I found this article after browsing some tweets - http://BANNED/phnat
Click to expand...

Can I suggest that you start a new thread for that link, it is extremely disturbing and demonstrates why I have such a problem with abuse of power and have argued so passionately in this thread. The old addage "give them an inch and they will take a mile" springs to mind here.

Unless the police rigidly respect the law we arrive at a police state.
 
I think that this is only going to get worse.

The more we fight, the more the government thinks they need to fight back.
The less we fight, the more authority feels it has won and that this sort of thing is okay.
I don't agree with testing/provoking, but I genuinely have no idea what can be done to stop this sort of thing happening.

Why has it become so recently that videoing/photographing stuff is suspicious?! I swear it never used to be.
 
Squawk said:
Can I suggest that you start a new thread for that link, it is extremely disturbing and demonstrates why I have such a problem with abuse of power and have argued so passionately in this thread. The old addage "give them an inch and they will take a mile" springs to mind here.

Unless the police rigidly respect the law we arrive at a police state.
Click to expand...
With respect, I won't start a new thread because I feel we have plenty already and by posting in this thread the article already has good visibility with existing topic subscribers. If you really feel this deserves a thread of its own then by all means start one, but I think it is sufficient to have the reference here.
 
tdodd said:
With respect, I won't start a new thread because I feel we have plenty already and by posting in this thread the article already has good visibility with existing topic subscribers. If you really feel this deserves a thread of its own then by all means start one, but I think it is sufficient to have the reference here.
Click to expand...

Hmm, you make some good points there. My concern was that this thread is now so deep that it is unlikely to be read by anyone new to it, but as you rightly point out it's not as if this issue is a new one on the boards.

Will leave it for now.
 
foodpoison said:
That video of the italian student is disgraceful, and is probably the reason paul lewis went out looking for trouble.
Click to expand...

This more or less gets to the crux of the matter. When viewed in context, Paul Lewis' test becomes much more obviously reasonable.
 
It is always possible there is more to the story that we do not know, but based on the evidence as seen I agree entirely. It does not look good at all. I find the reminder from the video guy that he is filming to be especially alarming. Is he afraid that something even more unpalatable might be captured on camera?

Is it any wonder citizens are feeling the need to stand up for their rights and not to cave in to jumped up, officious, self-important asses? FFS, if I'm walking around, taking photographs, and minding my own business, does it really need anyone to enquire what I am doing? What does it bloody look like I'm doing?

I've always been a strong supporter of the police, and rather anti any kind of demonstration against authority and the state, but I am beginning to change my tune. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable and should not be allowed to continue. The police do have a tough job to do but over reacting or causing the problem in the first place is hardly the answer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/paullewis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top