video:Stopped yesterday for photographing in a public place!

You gave much calmer, nicer answers than I would've done! I would have been unable to stop myself from telling them that they were both blatently incompetent and obviously intellectually challenged given that they didn't have any common sense or logic in their arguments. Harsh I know, but that's unfortunately the kind of person that I am when someone really oversteps the mark and tries to humiliate me,which is what the numpties - I mean plastic coppers, were doing to the OP.
 
Me personally would not have argued with ehr i wopuld have stated the fact i was doing nothing wrong and asked her to call in to confirm what i had said, that way she does not look stupid and would have learned something in the process and I can carry on doing what i wanted too.
If she would not have done that and still pressed on I would have just like said got my phone out and called the local nick and got it cleared by them.
All the while being polite about it, as personally do i really want to get nicked just to prove I am right????

spike
 
DemiLion said:
Not anymore it isn't:

http://london.usembassy.gov/vwp3.html

further expanded here:

http://london.usembassy.gov/add_req.html
Click to expand...

Thanks mate (y)

I knew the visa waiver scheme changed some years ago (which is why I mentioned it), you saved me having to go googling to prove the point.

desantnik said:
That's visa free, not prohibited access at all... Visa free travel is just something we in the EU have got used to. Go anywhere else and it's a different matter. Try Russia ;-)
Click to expand...

There are a lot more UK travellers who travel to the US, compared to Russia (Disneyland Moscow anyone? ;) ). The visa waiver makes a big difference, if you don't qualify due to being arrested/criminal record you have to phone an expensive phone line (£1/£1.50 a minute) to make an appointment and then have to travel to Grosvenor Square where the Guantanamo experience is situated, be prepared to be searched, very thoroughly, and all "weapons" confiscated (this includes WMDs like car keys), last person I spoke to said the embassy staff also refuse to look after items (so what you would do with your keys is a good question).

Once deemed not a threat it's into an interview room for the interrogation interview.

Much easier and infinitely better to be able to skip the whole experience.


.
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
I hope she will just be educated on the matter and no more, I would hate for her to have leave her job, whether voluntarily or forced, over something so trivial as this.

She is doing her job, we know she has it wrong but she didn't. She will know tomorrow but it is hardly cause for her to be called all sorts of names as has happened. (not necessarily on here)

Education is the key to this problem, not witch hunting.

I hope when and if the radio interview goes ahead that the OP will explain that he/she is giving the interview for education purposes and not to give law enforcement agencies a kicking.
Click to expand...

exactly this, i explained to the sergeant that i just want his officers etc to know whats right and wrong, and that attitudes should suit the situation rather than talking over a member of the public when he is trying to explain himself
 
Bernie174 said:
Donnie
Which is only of use if the US authorities are permitted to compare yours against those held by the UK Police. I'm not sure that they would be able to. Given the numbers of people who apply it would be impractical to check every application.
Click to expand...

but that implies that either the question quoted earlier in the thread about the visa

i.e.

"... Travelers who have been arrested, even if the arrest did not result in a criminal conviction, those with criminal records, (the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act does not apply to U.S. visa law), certain serious communicable illnesses, those who have been refused admission into, or have been deported from, the United States, or have previously overstayed on the VWP are not eligible to travel visa free under the Visa Waiver Program."

that either it cannot be enforced at all, or that anyone that's ever been arrested even if released without charge can simply lie??
 
desantnik said:
I'm not suggesting taking one from Judge Dredd here, the trick is to pick your battles.

Worth a shouting match resulting in being arrested for taking a photo? Errr not in my book (there are things worth "fighting the power" but this aint one of them!)

Worth calmly take note of what the officer tells you, going away and phoning the nick? Certainly.

Follow it up with a politely worded letter to their boss, cc'ed to the local paper and MP... for sure.

Having a row about how you know more than a PCSO in the street isn't going to do anyone any favours.

I don't know what has got into people these days, there's just rage and outrage everywhere. Nobody wants to handle things calmly.

:bang:
Click to expand...

Ummm i watched the whole video and didn't hear any shouting or aggression, well, not from the photographer anyway :shrug:
 
Well, I think I've offered enough of my opinion and advice for one thread.

I'll leave you all to it and hope I don't see any of you on Police Camera Action any time soon.

Stay safe out there (y)
 
Instead of carrying around recording evidence, I think primarily, a photographer should just carry around a sheet of paper with the laws on it. Whichever section it may be etc etc etc. If I ever get stopped in public by a pcso, my camera will instantly go onto video mode. But I think prevention is better than cure when it comes to dealing with photographers poison.

I might try and find that for us all actually, ill save it as a .pdf then link it to a thread. It makes sense to carry around the kind of information that can protect you.
 
Donnie said:
that either it cannot be enforced at all, or that anyone that's ever been arrested even if released without charge can simply lie??
Click to expand...

theoretically yes, and the chances of being caught are pretty small BUT they do have methods of questioning (ever watched "nothing to declare" and see how many people who tick No on the card are subsequently caught out).

If you travel in a group it's easy for someone to slip up if questioned, and the US is one place you don't want to be arrested as an illegal immigrant, the orange overalls and chains are used for everyone they arrest (and they don't have separate facilities for holidaymakers who lied for a visa waiver)....say hello to Bubba :eek:.

But then I would suppose 99% of people would just sail straight through without a problem.
 
tiler65 said:
I hope she will just be educated on the matter and no more, I would hate for her to have leave her job, whether voluntarily or forced, over something so trivial as this.

She is doing her job, we know she has it wrong but she didn't. She will know tomorrow but it is hardly cause for her to be called all sorts of names as has happened. (not necessarily on here)

Education is the key to this problem, not witch hunting.

I hope when and if the radio interview goes ahead that the OP will explain that he/she is giving the interview for education purposes and not to give law enforcement agencies a kicking.
Click to expand...

tiler65 said:
She can't know every law, she did what she thought was correct, it is hardly critical in the everyday running of the country.

Once she has been educated on the matter she will see things totally different.

<snip>
Click to expand...

:agree:
 
farrance said:
I might try and find that for us all actually, ill save it as a .pdf then link it to a thread. It makes sense to carry around the kind of information that can protect you.
Click to expand...

Try this ....

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

I carry a copy with me - never had to use yet - not sure if it will resolve or inflame a situation, depends on the people concerned I guess! :shrug:

Also found this an interesting read ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

Andy
 
Last edited:
Yv said:
I seem to recall there was a 'letter' to all Met Police from someone high up, regarding photographers rights in public places, which was deliberately made public by the Met themselves and/or the home office, so everyone knew what officers were being told - this was in addition to a longer standing document written by a photographer that had studied the legal side and drawn up some advice and published as a pdf which a lot of people carried around in their bags. I am sure someone can find the correct references for both, I am just off out the door. ;)
Click to expand...

I have this printed on a cleaning cloth but it didn't help me a few years ago in Nottingham when visiting family. Was told I had made it up.
 
Says not available to listen to again :shrug: anyone got a useable link?
 
that link needs expanding a little :D
 
the radio presenter was a bit of a tool. Kept going on about you intimidating them by recording them.

The fact is you were stopped before that. They didn't even know you were recording them so they couldn't have felt intimidated.

I hate it when people miss the point.
 
Last edited:
I love the way that they always play off against the person they are interviewing to try to get information out. Initially when interviewing Tom he was less sympathetic, then with the police officer he seemed to be more on the side of photographers.

So, according to the office interviewed at 1.51 we can all expect to be stopped and questioned by police and PSCOs when photographing in public places so they can find out what we are doing.
 
the police are creating a rod for their own back here by asking random people to delete photos etc.

Most sensible photographers will go about their business as usual and if asked will try to have a conversation and leave it at that.

But you'll get a load of people who want to irritate the police and will deliberately take photos of them for the confrontation and stand their ground to get one up on them.
 
asking what you are doing is nothing, just be polite and tell them.

we all know if you are up to no good a mobile phone would be a better camera but if the catch just one person that is up to no good is it not worth it.

How long does it take to be polite to an officer???? unless of course they are being like the one in the video, but then there are ways of dealing with that aswell by asking for a proper police to come and attend.
What is the difference between a police officer saying hi and asking what you are doing to a member of the public who is interested in photography coming up and asking the same question " hi what are you taking pics of", i am sure you would not tell fellow tog to get lost, so why not just be polite and say what you are doing????

I know its frustrating but just be polite manners cost nothing, nothing at all. Police officers have to deal with scum everyday of the week, being spoken to like carp so they might just suprise you if you are polite to them.

spike
 
if you read the OP you'll see that he was doing all of what you said. Unfortunately these people were jobsworths and turned it into more. The confrontation in this instance what the psco's fault not the photographer
 
belive me i was polite and calm, when asked what i was taking photographs for i explained nicely even stating the image they were in will not be used as it was a poor image, they then requested i delete it and claim he could sue me, they were wrong and got slightly aggressive, i never once shouted or made a scene unlike themselves
 
mark1616 said:
So, according to the office interviewed at 1.51 we can all expect to be stopped and questioned by police and PSCOs when photographing in public places so they can find out what we are doing.
Click to expand...


Not only that but the inspector implyed it's illegal to take pictures of children in public with "there are offences that relate to people taking pictures of children and why they may be taking them"

:bang:
 
Donnie said:
Not only that but the inspector implyed it's illegal to take pictures of children in public with "there are offences that relate to people taking pictures of children and why they may be taking them"

:bang:
Click to expand...

That's very true. Man, it's a bit annoying, although with regards to children I understand why there are concerns in certain situations, but fully dressed, as part of a street scene....?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top