New terror guidelines on photography

interesting, although i have never found the register to be the best source for these things, will have to see what happens...
 
im scared about my trip to london.

BUT i do speak my mind and dont look forward to being confronted.
 
Taken from the issued document today ..

2.8 PHOTOGRAPHY
The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital
images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not
prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is
prevented by other legislation.
If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist
reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the TerrorismAct 2000 or an arrest should be
considered. Filmandmemory cardsmay be seized as part of the search, but officers do not
have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as
part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers
should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left
in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic
examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device
on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.
 
Tbabe said:
Taken from the issued document today ..

2.8 PHOTOGRAPHY
The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital
images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place. Officers should not
prevent people taking photographs unless they are in an area where photography is
prevented by other legislation.
If officers reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist
reconnaissance, a search under section 43 of the TerrorismAct 2000 or an arrest should be
considered. Filmandmemory cardsmay be seized as part of the search, but officers do not
have a legal power to delete images or destroy film. Although images may be viewed as
part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers
should not normally attempt to examine them. Cameras and other devices should be left
in the state they were found and forwarded to appropriately trained staff for forensic
examination. The person being searched should never be asked or allowed to turn the device
on or off because of the danger of evidence being lost or damaged.
Click to expand...

Although images may be viewed as
part of a search, to preserve evidence when cameras or other devices are seized, officers
should not normally,attempt to examine them

everything produced by the government is written with a get out clause
 
We let our goverment walk allover us.This would never be allowed to happen in america and they experienced the biggest terror attack in history.... about the only thing I like about the place the american people hold thier freedom closer to them than anything else.

I love london but I hate london I hated going on the tube and having the announcments comming up every 5mins telling me that my every move is being watched it felt more like communist east germany than england...

It really shocked me how close they were watching as when I was waiting for a tube train a tourist took a picture using flash a few seconds later announcment came up saying flash photography is prohibitated.
 
ab$olut said:
We let our goverment walk allover us.This would never be allowed to happen in america
Click to expand...

Oh that's the funniest thing I've ever heard :lol:

Thanks for giving me a laugh this early into a quite frankly unfunny day!

Anyway, my advice to you all is simply to be polite, appologetic and stay calm if you are confronted over your photography.

The Terrorism Act is something that can be deployed for just about any reason (don't imagine you have to be wearing a beard and flying an airliner) and although you are unlikely to be charged you will face an embaressing trip to the cop shop, some time in the cells and probably not get your equipment back for some time. BTW that is all within the law for that to happen and don't imagine you can complain during or after....
 
We're sleep walking into tyranny.
 
An over used expression I tend to find. The same daily publications that like to wheel that one out are the ones baying for "something to be done".

Mind you, it is all getting quite "V for Vendetta"
 
desantnik said:
Anyway, my advice to you all is simply to be polite, appologetic and stay calm if you are confronted over your photography.
Click to expand...

Polite, yes
Calm, yes
Apologetic? For taking photos of things I have a right to take photos of? They can kiss my arse.
 
Trouble is, they won't be puckering up but you might well have to for the nice man you get to share a small room with...

Just try the line "Oh, I am sorry, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to take photos of this" and maybe if you are feeling a little devilish try "can you show me where it says I can't, as a law abiding citizen I'd hate to make such a mistake again because ignorance of the law is of course no defence". Just try to keep the sarcasm in your voice down a bit and you'll be fine :D
 
No I don't think we should, so I will have to disagree with you there. :)
Just like Foggy says. If I were in that position, then I would be polite and calm yes, I'll also be co-operative (to an extent, as long as they don't ask me to stop taking photos for no good reason) but most certainly not apologetic for their ignorance.

OK. It may end up with a trip to the police station, but it would most certainly end up with a complaint going in, and I would make sure they have to justify the stop and search.

Bear in mind they can only use the Terrorism Act if they "reasonably suspect that photographs are being taken as part of hostile terrorist
reconnaissance". Taking pictures on its own is certainly not enough. Taking pictures of a train station isn't enough. Even more so if the photographer has offered a valid reason.

Why should we *agree* that we aren't allowed to take photos if an officer (wrongly) tells us so.

I'm afraid it's this 'don't make a fuss' attitude that has helped it become the problem it is today. As long as we're polite, calm, and helpful, while staying firm and insistent about our legal actions :thumbs:
 
Hmmm but having been around and on the receiving end of similar circumstances in other fields I'd probably suggest the path of least resistance is maybe the quickest way for you to continue your everyday existence.

Causing a fuss isn't going to persuade them to be any better towards you... and lets face it a handful of photos of an urban scene probably aren't worth the aggro. Filling out the complaint paperwork afterwards won't make you feel any better and certainly won't make any difference to you this time or next...

I'd say don't let it stop you from trying to get the pics, but roll over if they collar you for it...
 
I agree - it is the people who kick up over it that end up getting a raw deal out of it and a cause for complaint. Sure you can make a complaint and go to the cop shop - but wouldn't you sooner have a polite conversation and either move on if you're in the wrong, or continue once you've made the point and it's been accepted.

Personally I think, in spite of some daft legal issues, the police do a brilliant and difficult job. I wouldn't want to do it. And all we do is give them grief when they try to uphold the law. If they are wrong then argusing isn't going to help. If you behaved live a civilised human being and discus it with them you might even get them to understand where they went wrong.
 
Oh I don't disagree with that at all, and I'm saying that's exactly what you should do.
Remain polite, civil, and calm. But if you're doing nothing wrong, then remain firm. Don't apologise for heavens sake! You're doing nothing wrong! It's not about arguing, it's about politely saying "What I am doing is perfectly legal, and you are incorrect in claiming it is not. Look, here are the photos, I'm simply a photographer who enjoys taking pictures. There is no law against it, I have not committed a crime. I am perfectly entitled to carry on as I was".

It's about standing your innocent ground if you are unfairly challenged.
 
I am with you on that Marcel - sorry if I missunderstood. You are right - there is no way we should apologise for doing nothing wrong. I suppose it's just down to the way we deal with the situation - good humour and cooperation or antagonistic.

If you're going to be antagonistic then you deserve what you get.
 
I think there must be something really wrong when our government makes law abiding citizens feels like criminals. I was taking pictures in Kings Cross a couple of weeks ago, I got a number of funny looks from staff and was expecting to be challenged at any moment. It was an uncomfortable feeling. As always it is the innocent who seem to suffer most from these so called anti terror laws. Would a terrorist casing the joint really walk about with an SLR , telephoto lens and large camera bag.

I agree that we should be polite and cooperative but not roll over when the authority do not know the law. A man was recently harassed by the police for taking pictures of vandals (children) outside his own home, thankfully he stood up for himself and eventually received a formal apology from the police, now hopefully the officers involved will understand the law better and not make the same mistake again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top