Guidance for asylum seekers (and street photographers!)

PS - can we please leave this thread open?

'myotis ' may have finished with the subject but in realistic terms this is the greatest threat to public photography since the police (Met in particular)

started to use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to harass photographers directly in about 2010.

If you don't remember that, it was a two year fight until it was eventually repealed in 2012
 
DemiLion said:
PS - can we please leave this thread open?

'myotis ' may have finished with the subject but in realistic terms this is the greatest threat to public photography since the police (Met in particular)

started to use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to harass photographers directly in about 2010.

If you don't remember that, it was a two year fight until it was eventually repealed in 2012
Click to expand...
My main concern was trying to avoid it being hidden away in Hot Topics, with limited viewing and losing its way by opening it up to discussing asylum seekers and the politics of the document.

I'm not finished with the subject in terms of the implications for photography, and my first choice is to keep it open, but constrained by being in a "photography" thread where it's more likely to stay on topic.
 
There are parallels with the nonsense about wearing cycling helmets. It isn’t compulsory, but some officials, members of the public, publishers etc. think so, and over the last 20 years or so there has been a creeping change in society towards helmet use and compulsion, which would be very negative for cycling, the nationks health, pollution and the environment.

It would be ironic if in the UK we demonised street photography more and more, whilst Germany has gone the other way.
 
It occurs to me that, if someone with a functional brain had reviewed the page carefully, placing the following before the offending statement, would have served the purpose better...

"Please remember that, although photography in public places is permitted in the UK, you should be wary of taking pictures of strangers and, in particular, children, without first receiving specific permission".
Click to expand...

I'm sure others could improve on my attempt.
 
myotis said:
losing its way by opening it up to discussing asylum seekers and the politics of the document.
Click to expand...


Surely only a crass, racist, bigot would take the thread in that direction. And we don't have any of them on TP do we?

However, if one does rear their ghastly heads, just report the post and the Mods can zap it.

If they've got time between their breaks for tea and biscuits that is!
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It occurs to me that, if someone with a functional brain had reviewed the page carefully, placing the following before the offending statement, would have served the purpose better...



I'm sure others could improve on my attempt.
Click to expand...
I’d not use “wary” as it is open to interpretation. And the permission thing is too strong. As has been pointed out, taking a shot of a crowd would become nigh on impossible.
 
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...
This. Spot on. We now have these mixed messages about street photography and the law, all because they haven't the gonads to say what they mean.
Stop video perving our kids and young women.
The fact these documents are required at all is a national disgrace. Diluting the law whilst doing it is even worse.
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
This. Spot on. We now have these mixed messages about street photography and the law, all because they haven't the gonads to say what they mean.
Stop video perving our kids and young women.
The fact these documents are required at all is a national disgrace. Diluting the law whilst doing it is even worse.
Click to expand...
That may well be the case, but it's off topic for this discussion, which is about the potential implications for legal street photography, and not about the broader political implications/inferences of the documents.
 
myotis said:
That may well be the case, but it's off topic for this discussion, which is about the potential implications for legal street photography, and not about the broader political implications/inferences of the documents.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I think the context is very relevant, as it's firmly linked. The police already use the terrorism act to stop filming or photographs at asylum hotels and other locations. This is just another element to stop photographic freedom. In my view anyway.
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Sorry, but I think the context is very relevant, as it's firmly linked. The police already use the terrorism act to stop filming or photographs at asylum hotels and other locations. This is just another element to stop photographic freedom. In my view anyway.
Click to expand...
But it has nothing to do with "perving" photography... What, you think that doesn't happen anyway/already/by citizens?
This is a very slippery slope where they get you to agree with a policy by blaming/targeting "them" while also subverting your rights...
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Sorry, but I think the context is very relevant, as it's firmly linked. The police already use the terrorism act to stop filming or photographs at asylum hotels and other locations. This is just another element to stop photographic freedom. In my view anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't think the context (ie the reasons behind the document) is firmly linked to the topic under discussion.

The thread has already been threatened with a move to Hot Topics because some posts have been discussing points related to asylum seekers, and the politics behind the document.

I am trying to keep this thread t in a photography topic.
 
DemiLion said:
Well, any photography taking place in public.

Nature. Cars, Mach Loop. Press. Architecture. etc etc

All vulnerable - no matter what the subject. You just have to have a camera in public..
Click to expand...
I was being pretty broad with my definition of street photography, but not as broad as your list.

How do you interpret the guidance as preventing you from "just have[ing] a camera in public"

But I've learned something new, as I did not know what a Mach Loop was. I've googled it.
 
I'm not sure this is taking us anywhere useful.

As I saw it, someone at the Home Office was trying to warn want-to-be immigrants about behaviours that would get them into trouble and (possibly) thrown out.

Graham picked out the following sentence...
"In the UK, we respect people’s privacy. This means you should not take photographs or videos of someone without their consent."
Click to expand...
...as being problematic, because it misrepresents British law as it currently stands. This is, in my opinion, something that the people in charge of the project should have picked out and fixed before the document was published.

What has now happened is that the thread has veered into what I'll call, for want of a better name, "street photographers rights". It seems to me that the thread is really about the very low standard of document quality control at the Home Office.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm not sure this is taking us anywhere useful.

As I saw it, someone at the Home Office was trying to warn want-to-be immigrants about behaviours that would get them into trouble and (possibly) thrown out.

Graham picked out the following sentence...

...as being problematic, because it misrepresents British law as it currently stands. This is, in my opinion, something that the people in charge of the project should have picked out and fixed before the document was published.

What has now happened is that the thread has veered into what I'll call, for want of a better name, "street photographers rights". It seems to me that the thread is really about the very low standard of document quality control at the Home Office.
Click to expand...
I think the thread is about trying to keep track of what happens now. And a place for people to pass on news.

A good reason to keep it out of Hot Topics.
 
I honestly don't see the point of this thread as the document in question has absolutely nothing to do with street photography.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
What has now happened is that the thread has veered into what I'll call, for want of a better name, "street photographers rights". It seems to me that the thread is really about the very low standard of document quality control at the Home Office.
Click to expand...


This thread has never been about the pamphlet or poster but the information contained there-in.

Hence my comment in post #43.

If you can't see the open threat to public photography (albeit unintended) then you are totally missing the point.
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Sorry, but I think the context is very relevant, as it's firmly linked. The police already use the terrorism act to stop filming or photographs at asylum hotels and other locations. This is just another element to stop photographic freedom. In my view anyway.
Click to expand...


Please just stop before you make a total arse out of yourself.

The police stopped using terrorism to question photographers when Sect 44 was repealed in 2012.

They have other legal tools at their disposal now.

And half of the 'photographers' that you are talking about are political activists

If you want to talk about immigration/asylum, then start your own thread in another forum.
 
sk66 said:
But it has nothing to do with "perving" photography... What, you think that doesn't happen anyway/already/by citizens?
This is a very slippery slope where they get you to agree with a policy by blaming/targeting "them" while also subverting your rights...
Click to expand...
Not what I said , or meant. Whatever their intention, it certainly muddys the water regarding street photography.
But it's wider than that. What if I say I'm offended by having my photo taken? What if I believe it steals my soul?
As you rightly point out, it could be manipulation of the masses to reduce our rights, or it could just be unforseen consequences. Either way the rights are diminished and makes it even more difficult for street snappers creating social records.
 
DemiLion said:
Please just stop before you make a total arse out of yourself.
Pleased to meet you too.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
The police stopped using terrorism to question photographers when Sect 44 was repealed in 2012.
They still imply it.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
They have other legal tools at their disposal now.
Agree.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
And half of the 'photographers' that you are talking about are political activists
I dont know why you think that.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
If you want to talk about immigration/asylum, then start your own thread in another forum.
Where did you get that from?
Click to expand...

OK. I'm done.
 
Last edited:
Eucris said:
I honestly don't see the point of this thread as the document in question has absolutely nothing to do with street photography.
Click to expand...
As I've said several times the document itself isn't relevant to street photography, but what it says about the law and photographing people in public places certainly is.

I assume you have read my original post where I quote the document saying that the rules explained in the document apply to "everyone" living in the UK.
 
myotis said:
As I've said several times the document itself isn't relevant to street photography, but what it says about the law and photographing people in public places certainly is.
Click to expand...
I agree.

It's all about the wrongful impression the document will create, as you have said above.
 
myotis said:
As I've said several times the document itself isn't relevant to street photography, but what it says about the law and photographing people in public places certainly is.

I assume you have read my original post where I quote the document saying that the rules explained in the document apply to "everyone" living in the UK.
Click to expand...

Has the government changed the law regarding photography in public places - NO.
Is the government going to change the law regarding photography in public places - NO.
Yet you seem to be arguing the toss about one sentence in a 9 page document about harassment by asylum seekers.

What the document is saying is that you cannot walk up to a complete stranger, thrust your phone in front of their face, and take a photograph. That is harassment.
 
Eucris said:
Has the government changed the law regarding photography in public places - NO.
Is the government going to change the law regarding photography in public places - NO.
Yet you seem to be arguing the toss about one sentence in a 9 page document about harassment by asylum seekers.
Click to expand...
It isn't one sentence; it's several sentences and a poster that clearly misrepresent the law, because as you say the law hasn't changed, but no one,excpet maybe the Home Office, is suggesting it has changed.

None the less, there is now a Government Publication that people can wave under your nose which tells everyone living in the UK not to photograph or film people in public places without their permission, And if you do, you could be arrested, and if someone photographs you without your permission in a public place, you can phone the police.

As I've said before, we can argue the nuances of using should and not must in the document, but if you don't already understand the law, the message that comes across is that it's illegal to photograph people in a public place without their permission.


Eucris said:
What the document is saying is that you cannot walk up to a complete stranger, thrust your phone in front of their face, and take a photograph. That is harassment.
Click to expand...
That isn't at all clear to me from the sections that refer to photography.
 
Eucris said:
What the document is saying is that you cannot walk up to a complete stranger, thrust your phone in front of their face, and take a photograph. That is harassment.
Click to expand...
*** Struggles to keep silent about "street photographers who do just that *** :exit:
 
Pound Coin said:
But you prefer to take photos from a distance away, with a longer lens.
Click to expand...
Indeed I do, so none of this affects me personally. ;)

Doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion and, subject to the moderators, the right to express it.
 
Eucris said:
I honestly don't see the point of this thread as the document in question has absolutely nothing to do with street photography.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

It's a poorly presented *government* publication that effectively asserts a position that does have specific potential to impact street photography.
 
I see the story has made the AP (I don't think the content adds anything to this discussion, but it's the National photographic press)

amateurphotographer.com

Is the UK Government trying to stop photography in public spaces?

UK government accused of sending out wrong information about street photography – we ARE allowed to take photos of people in public"
amateurphotographer.com amateurphotographer.com


Not everyone interviewed has actually read the guidance:

‘I must assume they believe the same guidance applies to all photographers,’ Nicholas notes, ..."

given the guidance tells you that it applies to everyone living in the UK.
 
Eucris said:
What the document is saying is that you cannot walk up to a complete stranger, thrust your phone in front of their face, and take a photograph. That is harassment.
Click to expand...

AndrewFlannigan said:
*** Struggles to keep silent about "street photographers who do just that *** :exit:
Click to expand...

There is nothing in UK Law that says photographs made of someone close is harassment while photographs made of someone further away is not harassment. Indeed, if you make one photo of someone, then move on, don't follow/block/threaten or otherwise confront them, then the act of making a photograph is unlikely by itself meet the statutary pattern of harassment
 
benc98 said:
There is nothing in UK Law that says photographs made of someone close is harassment while photographs made of someone further away is not harassment.
Click to expand...
This is correct.

However, the law and personal morality are not always in step.
benc98 said:
Indeed, if you make one photo of someone, then move on, don't follow/block/threaten or otherwise confront them, then the act of making a photograph is unlikely by itself meet the statutary pattern of harassment
Click to expand...
Again, this is correct but you can hardly complain if someone loses their temper and lashes out at you, on account of what they perceive as a threat.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Again, this is correct but you can hardly complain if someone loses their temper and lashes out at you, on account of what they perceive as a threat.
Click to expand...

Yes you can complain.

There are some difficult boundaries. But in principle you don't have the general right to overeact and lash out and then be excused.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This is correct.

However, the law and personal morality are not always in step.

Again, this is correct but you can hardly complain if someone loses their temper and lashes out at you, on account of what they perceive as a threat.
Click to expand...
The point of this thread is to get the legal position straight. Harassment has a specific legal meaning, and it shouldn't be used as a catch-all for photography that someone just finds rude or ethically dodgy.


The ethical questions around street photography are worth discussing in their own right, but they're a separate question from what the law actually permits. One for a another thread perhaps.
 
Dryce said:
But in principle you don't have the general right to overeact and lash out and then be excused.
Click to expand...
You are quite right.

However, if everyone obeyed the rules, we could close the courts. The reality is that if you offend a stranger, you do so at your own risk and the consequences are a separate matter from the offence, whether given or taken. I choose to avoid the risk of conflict, on the basis that, whatever the law may permit, discretion is and always has been the better part of valour.
 
benc98 said:
The point of this thread is to get the legal position straight.
Click to expand...
It started out as a discussion on misinformation, published in a Home Office document and then wondered off, as all good discussions do, into related matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top