Fight for your right

[Tokkelossi]

if it came to it, would you go out and protest your right to take photos in public?

how far would you go?

would you stand your ground if the police tried to move you away or break your protest up?

bottom line, if you dont fight you will loose the right to take pics in public.

i think i would fight ..... but not hurt

 

[mastertrinity]

if i had people protesting i woud get everyone to take pictures of everyone and everything just to annoy the governent and with **** photographer doing it they cant lock us all up.

 

[gingerjon]

they cant lock us all up.

I'd call that naive.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If the police want to they can usually arrest you for something... and lock you up overnight if they have a mind to... however you need to have done more than take photographs for it so stick.

 

[bigbigblue]

I would certainly exercise my democratic right to peaceful protest, lobby my MP etc etc.

 

[mastertrinity]

why is it naive? i find it true

 

[Badger UK]

Is it sensible that we wait until the time is reached when it is illegal to take photos in public? Should we not tray to establish our rights now, rather than have to struggle to claw them back after they have been taken away from us.

 

[walsh]

lobbying your MP wont get you anywhere. tried this and failed.

 

[bigbigblue]

lobbying your MP wont get you anywhere. tried this and failed.

Individually I agree - but if enough people write to them they will start to get concerned about their voter base. At the moment though they are completely distracted by the expenses issue - so I doubt they are interested in anything else.......

 

[hyakuhei]

I agree with maintaining photographers rights but antagonising the police in the heat of the moment isn't going to do you any favors. The bottom line is that if your stopped by an officer you should try to calmly explain why you believe what you are doing is legal. If the officer remains unconvinced and you are unable to get them to radio for confirmation then you should abide by the officers orders, make a note of their number and write to their bosses, highlighting the areas of the law their patrol officers didn't understand. The only way forward is through education. I think its time the NUJ ran a publicity campaign along the lines of the "There's probably no god" london bus campaign. This would help to educate everyone, Joe public needs to understand the situation too.

Even if your technically in the right getting hot and flustered about it and outright arguing with a police officer is unlikely to improve the situation in either the short or long term.

 

[Steve Smith]

Is it sensible that we wait until the time is reached when it is illegal to take photos in public?

It's not going to happen so don't worry about it too much.

What is annoying and needs protesting about (lobbying MPs, etc.) is better training for police officers so they do not abuse the existing laws.


Steve.

 

[swanseamale47]

lobbying your MP wont get you anywhere. tried this and failed.

Yeah they are too busy "cooking" their expensise.
Lets face it the lunatics are running the asylum, what hopes of common sense have we got.

 

[Steve Smith]

The bottom line is that if your stopped by an officer you should try to calmly explain why you believe what you are doing is legal. If the officer remains unconvinced and you are unable to get them to radio for confirmation then you should abide by the officers orders, make a note of their number and write to their bosses, highlighting the areas of the law their patrol officers didn't understand. The only way forward is through education.

Very good advice.



Steve.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

It's not going to happen so don't worry about it too much.

I'd really like to share your opinion Steve, but I have very little faith.

It may take another two years, maybe more, but I suspect photography/videography in public will be increasingly restricted/controlled in accordance with new and inventive legislation toward The Terrorism Act, most likely going unnoticed, subtly passed on the back of such coat tails as 'The Equality Bill' or similar.

Personally, I expect that we will see licenses being compulsory for accredited/approved journalism of any kind, without this license the materials recorded will not be 'legally viable' allowing the immediate dismissal of any footage/image as 'unreliable' or 'unsupported'.

 

[bigbigblue]

What is annoying and needs protesting about (lobbying MPs, etc.) is better training for police officers so they do not abuse the existing laws.


Steve.

+1

 

[Steve Smith]

It may take another two years, maybe more, but I suspect photography/videography in public will be increasingly restricted/controlled in accordance with new and inventive legislation toward The Terrorism Act, most likely going unnoticed, subtly passed on the back of such coat tails as 'The Equality Bill' or similar.

Look at the actual wording of that section of the Terrorism Act. It isn't very restrictive.

What is restrictive is the mis-quoting of it by ill-informed officers or those who like to act like they have more powers than they actually have.

In just about all cases of arrests/restrictions where the Terrorist Act has been quoted by an officer, the police authority has issued an apology.




Steve.

 

[Tokkelossi]

Good answers guys & girls but i wanted to get your backs a little closer to the wall

So, its 1984 .... the police are stopping all photographers and removing or deleting all photos. There is no law against taking photos but the government is turning a blind eye ... err .... just like today.

so, you have just taken a snap of the queen shoplifting at harrods

your stopped by the police and told to hand your film/card over ......

your next move?

the film/card has gone, lost, never getting it back

 

[Almost_Invisible]

your stopped by the police and told to hand your film/card over ......

your next move?

If faced with an insistent demand for my memory card I would hand over one. My camera holds two cards so the one not in use gets handed over.
The thought police are happy as they have a card, I am happy as I keep my pics. Nobody gets pushed to the floor for not listening.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Look at the actual wording of that section of the Terrorism Act. It isn't very restrictive.

No, some say vague and that's the point, flexibilty of the definitions and terms for the benefit of convenience.

What is restrictive is the mis-quoting of it by ill-informed officers or those who like to act like they have more powers than they actually have.

IMO it's intentional. These perversions of law always benefit them.

In just about all cases of arrests/restrictions where the Terrorist Act has been quoted by an officer, the police authority has issued an apology.

By then the damage is already done though isn't it?, the rights that you thought you had were quite the contrary.

I agree education is the way forwards but first you have to clarify, solidify and alter the curricula before it doing any good.

 

[Badger UK]

What is annoying and needs protesting about (lobbying MPs, etc.) is better training for police officers so they do not abuse the existing laws.


Steve.

Good point. Yes.

 

[Steve Smith]

By then the damage is already done though isn't it?, the rights that you thought you had were quite the contrary.

No. Your actual rights are still intact.

The fact that they were denied to you is the thing which needs to be protested about. But you can't make an official (or un-official) complaint about a law being restrictive when it isn't restrictive.

And I'm not going to waste my life protesting about a law which doesn't exist.


Steve.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

No. Your actual rights are still intact.
The fact that they were denied to you is the thing which needs to be protested about.

Then your 'rights' are not intact then are they?
They were wavered under suspicions of terrorism. Which is the point = anyone can be accused of being a terrorist and have their rights taken instantly away, requiring no explanation or evidence, operating outside of the supposed 'law'.

Basically it's a easy hammer to reach for when integrity is under scrutiny.

But you can't make an official (or un-official) complaint about a law being restrictive when it isn't restrictive.

That depends on your perspective. I'm sure there are significant numbers who already feel restricted.

And I'm not going to waste my life protesting about a law which doesn't exist.

Sorry Steve, no offense intended but I don't understand what you mean there.

 

[Steve Smith]

Then your 'rights' are not intact then are they?

Yes they are. It's your freedom that would have been illegally restricted.

That depends on your perspective. I'm sure there are significant numbers who already feel restricted.

I'm sure there are but feeling restricted isn't the same as being legally restricted.

Look at the actual statistics. How many photographs are taken in public spaces compared with the number of people who have been stopped.

Sorry Steve, no offense intended but I don't understand what you mean there.

I know the thread started off as a 'what if?' type of thing but it progressed into protesting about restrictive laws. My view is that these laws are not particularly restrictive but it is the poor interpretation of them by a very small percentage of officers which cause the problems.

Therefore it would be pointless to demonstrate to have the law changed when the law itself is not causing the restriction.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

Camera: Etch-a-Sketch.

Anyway, you should be o.k. as long as they don't hold it upside down and shake it!


Steve.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

Anyway, you should be o.k. as long as they don't hold it upside down and shake it!

....Yes they are.

Ok, rather than dispute our different views and definitions, we could perform an experiment?

One could maybe take a trip to say, London, equipt with camera and 'noticeable' lens, and then attempt to take a photo of any of the following:

people,
children,
a trade office,
a bank,
a tube station or
a police officer.

In addition, if your feeling a bit daring, you could don the appearance of a stereotypical foreigner, to accelerate the results .

Let's see how many 'rights' remain intact and whether freedom is the only one that is taken away or denied.

Try discussing the rights intact perspective with Pericles Antoniou. The 53 year old Greek hobbyist who said the following about his experiences after taking a few snaps on a tube, during a family holiday in London:

"They arrested me, the locked me up in a cell, they deprived me of every rights I had while being in custody, they did not allow me to communicate with anyone, they neither allow my wife to visit me nor my 14 year old son or any of my friends, they kept me isolated and barred knowing that I would not escape in any way, they took all my personal belongings such as my wristwatch, they took my shoes off and kept my camera. I was not even accused of anything formally and my relatives did not even know any of this. I, also, note that not even the Greek authorities in the UK know anything about this incident at that time, and they have been informed about it from my relatives.

Finally, after having been kept in custody on Thursday, they brought me to court on Friday handcuffed, and I was told that I am accused according to the 1986 Act 5, section 1 and 6 that I “might have caused fear and stress to the people around me”. Link

My point is Steve, it's much more than the anti terror nonsense and power happy coppers that contribute to restricting photography/videography in public.

It's inevitably going to get worse IMO. Protests or not.

 

[Steve Smith]

You are probably correct that it might get worse but you need to see it in context with the thousands of photographs taken every day without incident.


Steve.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

You are probably correct that it might get worse but you need to see it in context with the thousands of photographs taken every day without incident.

Steve.

I do see it in context and I agree Steve, seriously.

There must be thousands of images taken each day in major UK cities currently, some with incident, most without and that's great.

Time will only tell, I have my guesses, hunches and vague predictions, but I guess we find out for sure when it's too late.

 

[Steve Smith]

The facts are that every case I have heard of where a photographer has been harrassed with the Terrorist Act incorrectly used as justification has ended with an apology being made.

Remember that photographer who took a photograph of a senior police officer carrying a secret document? That did fall within the scope of the act but, as far as I know, the photographer was not charged.

I think the point I was trying to make earlier was that there is no point complaining about a law which restricts our photography as there is no such law. We must however complain in the strongest possible terms when our freedoms are supressed and not give in to authority figures if they are clearly wrong.


Steve.

 

[Tyke Tiler]

The facts are that every case I have heard of where a photographer has been harrassed with the Terrorist Act incorrectly used as justification has ended with an apology being made.

Facts are something that the media and also the government seem to be rather inept at printing or announcing these days though wouldn't you say?

Isn't the general feeling from Joe public that trust is not the most prominant these days?

I do hope you don't think I'm being argumentative Steve, just intending on continuing our discussion in a polite and civilized manner

Remember that photographer who took a photograph of a senior police officer carrying a secret document? That did fall within the scope of the act but, as far as I know, the photographer was not charged.

I won't be forgetting that in a hurry, although, in this particular chain of events, the photographers are the least of my concern.

It wasn't only a single tog but a collection of press that took pictures of Bob Quick, the country's most senior counter-terrorism officer, stepping out of a vehicle infront of 10 Downing St. April 9th 2009, holding top secret documents - 'the wrong way round'.

It's interesting to point out that before the 'Bob Quick Blunder' became front page news, the public eye was firmly glued to the questionable death of Ian Tomlinson and various other footage and imagery depicting behaviour from police during the G20 summit.

Things didn't look too good for the old Gov., all the youtube videos and hundreds of images from press, amateurs, hobbyists and passers by with camera phones, somewhat heavily illustrated that the situation hadn't been dealt with in the most peaceful or wisest of manners.

Then enter Mr Quick and his exhibition of top secret documents, causing a raid to be brought forward, 12 arrests were made, Ten of those arrested were Pakistan-born nationals on student visas and one is a UK-born British national, ages ranging between a youth in his mid-to-late teens and a 41-year-old man, coincidentally were all found innocent after the ordeal.

Journalism student Daniel Taylor, who witnessed the arrest at John Moores uni, Liverpool said: "I saw a man on the floor. Police were shouting at him and one of the officers had what looked like a machine gun pointed right into his head."

These individuals were apparently deported and forbidden to return to the UK.

I think George Carlin said it best:

"Rights?, You have no rights, you only have the illusion of rights"

We must however complain in the strongest possible terms when our freedoms are supressed and not give in to authority figures if they are clearly wrong.

We do complain but then events materialize to change peoples minds.