Good article in todays Independent

Thanks!..I knew the story, but the comments are totally amazing.....Just glad I don't live in the UK anymore!
 
Personally I find the comments shocking, someone even made it known that there is a thing called "Google Street View" where innocent members of the public terrorists could potentially do their reconnaisance without even needing to buy a camera - and here we are in the middle of a recession with photographic retaillers closing down right,left and centre!

I'm going to write to my MP, not that he'll read my letter, he's far too busy cosying up to the PM and going on junkets....
 
Just to clarify for my own peace of mind...

Photographers are not being stopped from taking photos, just asked why they are doing so in some places. After the stop & search it seems that they all could have or did carry on - so while it is annoying, I hardly think it's an end of photography in public places - and when issued with your stop & search notice surely you can simply waive it at the next over zealous officer later that day to avoid it all again

If it was me being questioned - I'd start off by thanking them for trying to protect me, my family & others, happily give my details & ask them for the notice and get on with my photography

Not really such a big deal is it :shrug:

DD
 
DiddyDave said:
Just to clarify for my own peace of mind...

Photographers are not being stopped from taking photos, just asked why they are doing so in some places. After the stop & search it seems that they all could have or did carry on - so while it is annoying, I hardly think it's an end of photography in public places - and when issued with your stop & search notice surely you can simply waive it at the next over zealous officer later that day to avoid it all again

If it was me being questioned - I'd start off by thanking them for trying to protect me, my family & others, happily give my details & ask them for the notice and get on with my photography

Not really such a big deal is it :shrug:

DD
Click to expand...

The Met were at one point telling photographers that they couldn't take pictures of any of their officers or vehicles as it was a breach of copyright :shrug:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The Met were at one point telling photographers that they couldn't take pictures of any of their officers or vehicles as it was a breach of copyright :shrug:
Click to expand...

But that's clearly not their view now - someone on here kindly put a link to their views and the Acts themselves, I've cut the main bit and created a pdf of it too for the camera bag. If I was told I 'couldn't' take photos then I'd produce it to discuss, if still obstructing me I'd ask to speak to a superior

As I said - annoying - but not the big deal so many are crying about

As for you Frac - do you even have cops up there??? :D

DD
 
Finally the mainstream press are picking up on this abominable use of anti terror powers that are threatening to turn Britain into a police state,thankfully Amateur Photographer have been carrying the standard for abused photographers for months now with dozens of stories similar to this.It needs a test case in court to prove to to the Police and their political masters that we are not in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany,Al Quaeda must wee wetting themselves laughing that their planned destruction of democracy is being carried out for them without them having to lift a finger
 
I remember my parents saying you know you are old when the police look like your kids.... definately feeling old these days :nuts:

As for stop and search - if a police officer politely asks me what I am doing, I will politely tell him, more then happy to tell him/her who I am too if needs be. If they get arsy and start telling me I can't take pictures, blah blah blah... I will remain polite and calm and explain the finer points of the law to them. :D

oh and fwiw, only been stopped once in London, and that was by a full blown constable whilst out with this rabble from TP. However I have witnessed quite a few other people being questioned on london streets, and its nearly always by plastic plod communtiy police officers, real ones seem to rarely pay you any attention at all from what I have seen :shrug:
 
As someone who has actually been stopped and search by the Met (unlike I would suspect many on here who just moan about it) I do not see what all the fuss is about. I was asked relevant questions, what, where, why etc, the boys in blue filled out a form, I signed it and carried on taking photographs. As DiddyDave stated, its annoying but certainly isn’t the big infringement of civil liberties some “barrack room lawyers” want to make out.

Far too many people here (and on other forums) have never, and will never be stopped under the anti terrorist legislation but yet they still protest it may happen to them and need to get there ten-pence worth in.
 
Doesn't seem to stop the police taking pictures of me in my car. I dunno one rule for them.... :D
 
Byker28i said:
Doesn't seem to stop the police taking pictures of me in my car. I dunno one rule for them.... :D
Click to expand...

Completely different concept Byker, The boys in blue taking snap shots of your car = increased taxation for use poor motorists.

But then you should feel lucky, we are the first town in the country to have our fixed speed cameras removed (only to be replaced by the sneaky buggers sitting in hedges with a portable box-brownie)
 
Thanx for the linky Ali... :thumbs:


Did everyone else read the (albeit limited) Know Your Rights link in the article... :suspect:




:p
 
KIPAX said:
we have loads dont we fracster.. there all about 17 yo and around four foot three
Click to expand...

They don`t inspire confidence I must confess.
 
DiddyDave said:
And your point is :shrug:
DD
Click to expand...

Do I need a point... :suspect:


If I did, indeed have one, and I don't, it would be... :thinking: ... a little bit of information may be extremely dangerous in the wrong hands, or used inappropriately... :shrug: ... and that was, in the scheme of things, a very limited quantity of information... ;) ... to say the least... :naughty:


And your point was... :suspect:



08.gif


 
I'd really recommend anyone who's interested in this discussion to check out the PhotoLegal podcast - we've had Olivier and Marc contribute on a number of occasions and have explored the valid and non-valid reasons you could be asked to stop taking pictures, both on commercial/private property and using Section 44.
We've got a resident lawyer, a professional photographer and a newspaper editor as regular hosts as well as a number of guests on specific topics.

One thing to remember is that whatever is said at the time by either police, PCSO, or private security guard, they cannot force you to delete any images from your camera. If it's illegal then they're required as evidence and if it's not illegal then you're entitled to keep them for yourself.


In the interest of full disclosure, I act as the podcast's sometimes-producer but only got involved after hearing what a great job they were already doing.
 
Kemble3 said:
Completely different concept Byker, The boys in blue taking snap shots of your car = increased taxation for use poor motorists.

But then you should feel lucky, we are the first town in the country to have our fixed speed cameras removed (only to be replaced by the sneaky buggers sitting in hedges with a portable box-brownie)
Click to expand...

It was a little tongue in cheek, plus you should realise where I live ;)

A small clue:
118219646.jpg
 
All they have do is look Google Earth and you will see some great photos that you would get locked for do I need to say more and this in a closed zone to us all
 
I think most peoples gripe are with the PCSOs and other officers who don't actually know their own job and the laws that apply to them. I appreciate the law is huge and complicated but if they are going to stop/question/harrass people in the street, they should be damn sure of their own rules and facts first! I must be embarrasing to stop a member of the public who know more than they do!
 
Kemble3 said:
As someone who has actually been stopped and search by the Met (unlike I would suspect many on here who just moan about it) I do not see what all the fuss is about. I was asked relevant questions, what, where, why etc, the boys in blue filled out a form, I signed it and carried on taking photographs.
Click to expand...

And what might "relevant" questions be where innocently taking photographs are concerned? Why did you have to fill out a form when you were doing nothing that warranted the completion of a form? Did they really search you, as you say they did and why did they search you and on what grounds, when you were doing something quite innocent?
 
BBC news this morning has just had a tog on who was stopped under S44 photographing the Houses of Parliament under a 'Stop and Account' (no search), and they also had a Chief Constable on to explain it

The tog said he didn't mind them asking and they were polite and friendly, they also didn't stop him for more than a few minutes and he carried on afterwards, his concerns were twofold:

1 - that why should taking a pic warrant such actions, and
2 - that the Police now had his basic details to hold on file

The Chief's response was that the officers (all in his opinion) are being a little over zealous in asking an obvious photographer what he's doing at such obviously photogenic and hugely photographed places. But he clearly stated they have a duty to protect us so he was suggesting that officers may well engage in a quick conversation but the taking of details is frowned upon unless there's a suspicion which grows from the polite chat

Seems fair enough :shrug:

DD
 
I am agreeing with DD on this subject, can't at all see what the fuss is about.
 
aberal said:
And what might "relevant" questions be where innocently taking photographs are concerned?
Click to expand...

There are not any relevant questions in this case. Just as there are no relevant questions if you are out for a walk, sitting on a park bench, flying a kite or any other legal public activity.

Something needs to arouse suspicion before any questions need to be asked.


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top