Guidance for asylum seekers (and street photographers!)

myotis

myotis

Messages
4,876
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
This new leaflet has some interesting guidance that street photographers might find useful to be aware of; I cherry pick the parts relevant to this forum:


"In the UK, there are laws that protect everyone’s safety, dignity and rights. It is important that you understand them, because not following UK law can have serious consequences. You could get in trouble with the police, lose your asylum support,or it could affect your asylum claim.This booklet will help you understand what is expected of you when living in the UK. These rules and expectations are not just for people seeking asylum, they apply to everyone living here."

"In the UK, we respect people’s privacy. This means you should not take photographs or videos of someone without their consent."


It needs to be read in context (link below) and it's probably relevant that they have used "should" rather than "must".

And it seems good "advice" for asylum seekers, but it also gives the impression that it's against the law to take people's photographs without their consent.

I realise a document like this needs to keep the message simple, but it's also misleading on the actual law, and may well end up being quoted as an argument against you taking photographs in the street. Especially as it's being promoted as a leaflet to ensure asylum seekers understand "UK" laws.



 
My personal opinion is that the advice is given to make it so that asylum seekers do not end up in a situation where tempers are running high and situations can arise which could lead to civil unrest. The law is one thing and political sensitivity another. I doubt it will have any bearing on street photography, just as people already take umbrage at street photography without this guidance being common.
 
Mintchocs said:
My personal opinion is that the advice is given to make it so that asylum seekers do not end up in a situation where tempers are running high and situations can arise which could lead to civil unrest. The law is one thing and political sensitivity another. I doubt it will have any bearing on street photography, just as people already take umbrage at street photography without this guidance being common.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I did say that I thought it was good advice for asylum seekers.

I don't think it will have any real bearing on street photography either, but I obviously still thought it worthwhile being aware of.
 
It is good advice to asylum seekers not to take photos without consent, in order to avoid any confrontations which could affect their situation. It has nothing to do with non-asylum seeking people, except that as with all people of other cultures, it's advisable to get their permission first as they may have cultural issues around images of themselves. Perfectly reasonable and nothing to do with politics.
 
lindsay said:
It is good advice to asylum seekers not to take photos without consent, in order to avoid any confrontations which could affect their situation. It has nothing to do with non-asylum seeking people, except that as with all people of other cultures, it's advisable to get their permission first as they may have cultural issues around images of themselves. Perfectly reasonable and nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...
I agree, except the document clearly says these "rules" apply to everyone living in the UK, which in this case, don't apply to anyone living in the UK, as regards street photography: given that the document suggests it is giving guidance on the law.

Which was the point of my post, because I thought it might be useful to be aware this guidance existed, even though it's given within a specific context.

I see elsewhere that the issue has been raised with the Home Office.
 
I notice official Home Office instructions limit sexual activity to no more than two people. Rather puritanical I should say. Not that it would affect me, sadly. I don't invited to those sort of parties!

"Consent means both people freely agree to sex or sexual contact."
 
I haven't seen this before but reading the OP my guess is that it's highly sanitised. There have been multiple reports of immigrants taking pictures and videos which (I hope to gosh) no one on this forum would be taking. IE. Groups of immigrants filming unrelated children coming out of school, in play grounds, filming scantily clad young women on nights out etc... just generally inappropriate stuff which could even lead to a confrontation.

It's just my impression, but I think the advice is putting things mildly as if the authorities were to spell it out clearly there's a risk that people might have far right thoughts such as "Maybe our government shouldn't be letting huge numbers of unvetted men from 3rd world countries where grape and sexual assault and the general bad treatment of women is pretty endemic into the UK".
 
Mostly Vintage Cameras said:
I notice official Home Office instructions limit sexual activity to no more than two people. Rather puritanical I should say. Not that it would affect me, sadly. I don't invited to those sort of parties!

"Consent means both people freely agree to sex or sexual contact."
Click to expand...
I only paid attention to the bit I felt was relevant to street photography.
 
myotis said:
I only paid attention to the bit I felt was relevant to street photography.
Click to expand...
I had to read past this bit to get to the photography section. However if an entity tried to enforce this guidance this second discrepancy would throw further doubt on the document as a whole.
 
woof woof said:
I haven't seen this before but reading the OP my guess is that it's highly sanitised. There have been multiple reports of immigrants taking pictures and videos which (I hope to gosh) no one on this forum would be taking. IE. Groups of immigrants filming unrelated children coming out of school, in play grounds, filming scantily clad young women on nights out etc... just generally inappropriate stuff which could even lead to a confrontation.

It's just my impression, but I think the advice is putting things mildly as if the authorities were to spell it out clearly there's a risk that people might have far right thoughts such as "Maybe our government shouldn't be letting huge numbers of unvetted men from 3rd world countries where grape and sexual assault and the general bad treatment of women is pretty endemic into the UK".
Click to expand...
The rationale behind the advice isn't really relevant. The asylum seeker aspect is a bit of a red herring.

The point of my post was that we have a Home Office document, saying it includes advice (based on the law) that applies to everyone in the UK, not just asylum seekers, that says you cannot take a person's photograph without their permission.

Which, in terms of street photography, is incorrect, but I can see a risk of it being quoted as evidence that street photography is illegal, and I thought it worthwhile being aware of its existence.
 
Last edited:
Mostly Vintage Cameras said:
I had to read past this bit to get to the photography section. However if an entity tried to enforce this guidance this second discrepancy would throw further doubt on the document as a whole.
Click to expand...
I don't think an entity would try to enforce it, it's just further muddying of the waters as regards the legal status of street photography..T

he fact it's in a document about asylum seekers, as I said to @woof woof, is a red herring, the important bit is that it's in a document published by the Home Office.
 
myotis said:
The rationale behind the advice isn't really relevant. The asylum seeker aspect is a bit of a red herring.
Click to expand...

On the two point, immigrants and citizens perusing "photography", I see your point about what should be acceptable photography, UK law and the possibility of over reach but IMO the arguable sanitisation of language and the need to inform immigrants not to commit acts of harassment, intimidation and sexual crimes is the more serious issue as it seems to be a admission that some cultures are not compatible with western societies and that some people are not interchangeable as per the accepted liberal belief. Shock. Horror.
 
woof woof said:
On the two point, immigrants and citizens perusing "photography", I see your point about what should be acceptable photography, UK law and the possibility of over reach but IMO the arguable sanitisation of language and the need to inform immigrants not to commit acts of harassment, intimidation and sexual crimes is the more serious issue as it seems to be a admission that some cultures are not compatible with western societies and that some people are not interchangeable as per the accepted liberal belief. Shock. Horror.
Click to expand...
That may well be, and I did suggest something along those lines in my OP, but it's still a red herring, when it comes to the point of my post.

Regardless of why it was done, and where it appeared, we still have a statement from the Home Office on needing consent before taking photographs of people.
 
Graham quote "This new leaflet has some interesting guidance that street photographers might find useful to be aware of; I cherry pick the parts relevant to this forum:"unquote
. No point many have not learnt to read, let alone English
 
People are already confused enough about the law, so contradictory advice isn't helpful.

It's not going to stop street photography though, but might cause a few arguments.

The ability to make photographs in public comes with a lot of responsibility and is a cornerstone of a free and democratic state - as long as asylum seeker or whoever abide by the laws, they can make photos in public, and whoever else can take photos or videos of them
 
realspeed said:
Graham quote "This new leaflet has some interesting guidance that street photographers might find useful to be aware of; I cherry pick the parts relevant to this forum:"unquote
. No point many have not learnt to read, let alone English
Click to expand...
That may well be, but not actually relevant to my point.
 
benc98 said:
People are already confused enough about the law, so contradictory advice isn't helpful.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it was being aware of the contradictory aspect of the advice that prompted my post
benc98 said:
It's not going to stop street photography though, but might cause a few arguments.
Click to expand...
Agreed
benc98 said:
The ability to make photographs in public comes with a lot of responsibility and is a cornerstone of a free and democratic state - as long as asylum seeker or whoever abide by the laws, they can make photos in public, and whoever else can take photos or videos of them
Click to expand...
That isn't what the guidance actually says, hence the concern.
 
myotis said:
It needs to be read in context (link below) and it's probably relevant that they have used "should" rather than "must".
Click to expand...
Definitely; because the full section is far less inhibiting.

1787242777541.png

And there are quirks to the law which makes the general guidance of value to someone who doesn't know the particulars (and wants/needs to avoid any unnecessary issues/complications)
 
DemiLion said:
There is an element of society that will absolutely use this pamphlet (and the associated poster) to justify their rants against photographers.

They are the sort of people that attack paediatricians for molesting children.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and that was very much my reason for drawing attention to it.
 
sk66 said:
Definitely; because the full section is far less inhibiting.

View attachment 490948

And there are quirks to the law which makes the general guidance of value to someone who doesn't know the particulars (and wants/needs to avoid any unnecessary issues/complications)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how this makes it less inhibiting.

The document introduces itself as explaining the law as it applies to everyone living in the UK.

In that context, I read these sentences as suggesting that taking photographs of someone without their consent is against the law, and if these photographs are of sexual nature, it is a serious criminal offence.

But what it "actually" means doesn't really matter (in the context of this thread) because it's how it might be mis-used by people objecting to street photography that matters. ie Home Office says taking photographs of people without their consent is illegal

Which, in terms of most street photography, is incorrect. It just opens the door for a bit more aggravation when it comes to street photography.
 
sk66 said:
Definitely; because the full section is far less inhibiting.

View attachment 490948

And there are quirks to the law which makes the general guidance of value to someone who doesn't know the particulars (and wants/needs to avoid any unnecessary issues/complications)
Click to expand...
Now look at the associated advisory poster, which is a lot more intimidating:

1787244892862.png
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Now look at the associated advisory poster, which is a lot more intimidating:

View attachment 490953
Click to expand...

Just goes to show how thick and stupid the Home Office is. Am I expected to ask everyone in a crowd scene to ask them first if i can video them? This is what our taxes are paying for bloody morons who should never have been born. this really p***es me off to say the least.

If a road or street with children in it then a no photo is what I do. However if say at a zoo I have waited for a long time to take a video only to have some parent with a kid walking right across the clip, then they complain then that is their problem not mine
To my way of thinking parents should be educated about photography/videography and not complain if their kids get in the way. If they don't want kids to be videoed or photographed then keep them indoors
don't get me started about cameras in cars and dashcams doing exactly this. which I am in favour of and have in ours. Buses full of school kids is another example of how stupid that poster is
haven't even started about security cameras in shops -homes- office or streets
 
Last edited:
Just a thought:

It occurs to me that this document might have been produced by contractors who aren't appropriate to the job. Then in true Home Office style, the document was released without being carefully vetted by the Home Office's own legal staff.

In other words, a typical Home Office faux pas, such as we have come to expect from Britain's premier masters of confusion...

The Gaiety Engine in Swindon CAN_3980.jpg
 
Just to note: this discussion has approached the line where it might need to be moved to HT. Please let it stick to the relevant point about street photography, or request it's move anyway.
 
lindsay said:
Just to note: this discussion has approached the line where it might need to be moved to HT. Please let it stick to the relevant point about street photography, or request it's move anyway.
Click to expand...
I would rather it didn't get moved to HT, as I would rather the content was constrained by keeping it here.
 
benc98 said:
Making pictures of someone in a public place shouldn’t cause someone to be arrested - there are possibly a few an exceptions this.
Click to expand...
But that is rather the point of the thread; the Home Office guidance (incorrectly) suggesting that you can indeed get arrested for taking pictures in public spaces.
 
lindsay said:
Just to note: this discussion has approached the line where it might need to be moved to HT. Please let it stick to the relevant point about street photography, or request it's move anyway.
Click to expand...
Can I add to my last post on this? As thinking about it, I would rather you locked the thread and left it where it is than moved it to HT.

The point of the OP was to make street (and other) photographers aware of a Home Office document misrepresenting the law on taking photographs in public places. Moving it to HT would mean I had wasted my time posting it.
 
@myotis Unless you want me to do so now, I won't move it to HT, and I completely agree with you. I was just concerned that one or two posters were pushing it that way. Hopefully they will refrain. I'll take note of your point and lock it rather than move it should anything political develop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top