Typical Government Resoponse

I didn't think that was a bad reply considering it's from the government. How often to they make a definate statement like...... There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places...... I think that is pretty damn good, clear and concise.
It does go on to say that there may be other reasons for not being so but these could and do apply to anything else you could think of.

I think this is a big win for photography and copy of the original reply would be good for your kit bag.

David.
 
imho it reads there are no restrictions but an officer can make his mind up on the spot, no that is where the whole system falls down as they dont have the right information in the first place, clarification was wanted but none was given

Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.
Click to expand...
 
Personally I think it's a fair response, there's only so much the muppets and Number 10 can advise on, as most of the incidents involve a copper not knowing, not the tog not knowing. It's not a particularly well written response IMO, but the message is fair enough.
 
I think that's fair. It clarified what the laws are as far as photography is concerned which is what the petition asked for. It's also what we already knew, which is one of the reasons the petition was a waste of time IMO. The exceptions in the statement were also fair and reasonable and, if a photographer feels that a police officer has misinterpreted these laws then, as the statement says, it is a matter for the Chief Constable of the relevant service. Unfortunately these things will never get resolved as long as people run to the media instead or gripe about it on forums.
 
If people didn't "run to the media", didn't complain or document their experiences, there would be no epetition, there would be no forum discussion, your postcount would be halved, and everything would be rosey on planet plod, cos nobody would flippin know about it...would they.
 
joxby said:
If people didn't "run to the media", didn't complain or document their experiences, there would be no epetition, there would be no forum discussion, your postcount would be halved, and everything would be rosey on planet plod, cos nobody would flippin know about it...would they.
Click to expand...

Nobody except maybe the people who can actually do something about it.
 
I got a very similar one today saying something like "yes, we know the fuel prices were high last summer when this petition was first started but now we've actually got round to answering it the fuel prices are below 90p/litre so you didn't need to sign a petition" - well that's how I read it anyway :lol::lol:
 
Thats been the standard responce for a while now ...nearly!! ...however they haven't got the wording right according to my letter from The Rt Hon Tony McNulty MP (Home office, minister of state)

According to the misleading pile on that link ....

'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the Chief Constable of the relevant force.'

But my letter, stating that I'm allowed to take pictures anywhere public states...

It is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and PCSOs are acting appropraitly with regards to Photography in public places, all queries regarding this should be adressed to the Chief Constable concerned.


Small difference. but enough to start a missunderstanding I feel ...
 
Sounds fair enough to me - you can't legislate for each and every set of circumstances. Unfortunately the person who ultimately makes the decision as to whether you can take photos in a certain place, tends to be a beat police officer, or even worse one of those community support eejits, you know, the ones that failed the charm test for a job as a traffic warden...
 
Yeah, but that’s my point ... In a public place an officer can't just decide what the law is at any particular moment for his own needs ...it must comply with regulations, which may be new at that moment due to circumstances, but nonetheless they must be made by the Chief Constable for that force a that moment, (or be a terrorist thing, or child protecting thing) and not because some stressed out copper who ...apparently doesn’t need to know the law .. (previous thread) .. .. .suddenly decides to take our free rights whenever thy feel like it.

Not knowing the law is no defence in court. so why then? .. is it a deffence for a police officer not having to know all the laws....yeah right. :gag:

Just having a rant, not aimed anywhere ... I feel a tad better even if no ones listening any more... :D





.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Yeah, but that’s my point ... In a public place an officer can't just decide what the law is at any particular moment for his own needs ...it must comply with regulations, which may be new at that moment due to circumstances, but nonetheless they must be made by the Chief Constable for that force a that moment, (or be a terrorist thing, or child protecting thing) and not because some stressed out copper who ...apparently doesn’t need to know the law .. (previous thread) .. .. .suddenly decides to take our free rights whenever thy feel like it.

Not knowing the law is no defence in court. so why then? .. is it a deffence for a police officer not having to know all the laws....yeah right. :gag:

Just having a rant, not aimed anywhere ... I feel a tad better even if no ones listening any more... :D
.
Click to expand...

True, a p.o. can't just decide what the law is, but it is open to their interpretation and recent events would suggest that whilst they may be ignorant of the law you'd have a hard time persuading them of this and waving a copy of the "Photographer's Rights" in their face and quoting it at them tends not to help the situation :whistling: :lol:
 
This might not go down to well with some of you, but whilst photography is a passion of ours, the government has far more important things like a recession to devote its time to, than a discussion on photography, so with that in mind, I think their response is quite a decent one, regardless of how ambiguous it is.
 
Yeah, but we did ask them two years ago .... ;)

Flash In The Pan said:
True, a p.o. can't just decide what the law is, but it is open to their interpretation and recent events would suggest that whilst they may be ignorant of the law you'd have a hard time persuading them of this and waving a copy of the "Photographer's Rights" in their face and quoting it at them tends not to help the situation :whistling: :lol:
Click to expand...

:D But but... d'oh. :p


Lets all just bend over and get shafted.... we'll see whos laughing then!... :D
 
It's a fair...and correct response IMO.

They have stated categorically that there are no laws restricting photography in a public place.

No ifs, buts, or whatevers.

However. What if you're a middle aged man taking photos of kids in a park? Sure, you're doing nothing illegal, but what if there are 20 angry fathers who won't listen to reason and are about to smash your face in. Yet you want to carry on taking photos of their kids.

This is where the operational matter for the police officer comes into play. He can't arrest 20 angry fathers, so to protect you and keep the peace, he removes you.

Forbiddenbikers letter says it's up to the CC to ensure that his officers are knowledgable that photography in itself isn't illegal in a public place.
 
I agree it's a reasonable response. It's now in writing from HM Government that photography in public areas is perfectly legal.

Yes and public order has to be taken into account. But that applies to any situation not just photography
 
Decent response but in many situations I fear most of the issues just boil down to lack of knowledge of some Police and/or security guards!!

Fingers crossed!
 
The problem isn't the response but the question that was asked in the first place.
 
pxl8 said:
The problem isn't the response but the question that was asked in the first place.
Click to expand...


yes, it doesn't address the issue's we're concerned about, therefore its a pointless affirmation of what we already knew.
 
So in short everything hinges on a police officers competence (oh dear) and nothing is going to be done to improve that competence. You can take it up with a ChiefConstable if you want to......not very practical in most situations when being challenged by an officer ignorant of the law.
Cheers No 10, just when I thought you couldn't possibly get any worse.

Why are our politicians so damned thick??
 
Marcel said:
However. What if you're a middle aged man taking photos of kids in a park? Sure, you're doing nothing illegal, but what if there are 20 angry fathers who won't listen to reason and are about to smash your face in. Yet you want to carry on taking photos of their kids..
Click to expand...

Well according to the mojority of TP members.. what you do in this situation is whip out your laminated sheet of rules saying its not against the law and you can take pics of there kids ....and all will be well.


Oh I laughed at the time... still laughing now in fact :)


Back in the real world.. the petition was usless is usless and got a response thats useless... it says nothing we didnt already know.. so what exact use is it?
 
J Gordon said:
So in short everything hinges on a police officers competence (oh dear) and nothing is going to be done to improve that competence. You can take it up with a ChiefConstable if you want to......not very practical in most situations when being challenged by an officer ignorant of the law.
Cheers No 10, just when I thought you couldn't possibly get any worse.
Click to expand...

So why is it impractical to take it up with the Chief Constable? :thinking:
 
pxl8 said:
The problem isn't the response but the question that was asked in the first place.
Click to expand...


Exactly! Should have had a petition to do somehting or make changes to soemhting... Not a petition to ask a question we already knew the answer to... and the reason why i didnt sign it.
 
It may as well said..." There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places but this statement is subject to change without any prior notice..!!"

It is such an open response that we are still none the wiser... Leaving the decision to a copper is like giving me a scalpel to attempt brain surgery.

Utter tosh
 
VinnyB said:
It may as well said..." There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places but this statement is subject to change without any prior notice..!!"

It is such an open response that we are still none the wiser... Leaving the decision to a copper is like giving me a scalpel to attempt brain surgery.

Utter tosh
Click to expand...

So who would you leave the decision too?
 
Hypothetically, let's say you are photographing a heron fishing on a canal side, along comes plod who says 'you cannot photograph here, move on or I'll arrest you/take you in for further questioning . Is the Chief Constable going to drop everything at your request and attend,to put his officer right?
It's just pathetic. Truly pathetic.
They'll ban London Underground next, in case it gets bombed again in the future. We aregovernedby spineless gimps without enough brain cells to run two together.
 
OK.. I dont mind a copper making the decision if he/she had better more precise guide lines. Too often do they over-react or use the "terrorism law" unnecessarily so giving them this power without fully understanding is wrong IMO.

If a definate response/guide line was produced then there would be less arguements
 
J Gordon said:
Hypothetically, let's say you are photographing a heron fishing on a canal side, along comes plod who says 'you cannot photograph here, move on or I'll arrest you/take you in for further questioning . Is the Chief Constable going to drop everything at your request and attend,to put his officer right?
It's just pathetic. Truly pathetic.
They'll ban London Underground next, in case it gets bombed again in the future. We aregovernedby spineless gimps without enough brain cells to run two together.
Click to expand...

1 - Not a very likely scenario

2 - There is a complaints procedure at the top of which is the Chief Constable. If you don't use that procedure, how can you hope to solve the problem?
 
Photographers are harrassed every single day going about their profession or hobby. Every time an officer hasslesa photo opportunity is lost. Is the CC going to drop what he is doing to intervene? No.
Thank heavens for procedures though. Truth is Government are far more forboding to Britain than terroriststhese days. Factor in the criminal banks and andpublic monies spenton them andnot health and education and it becomes clear just why our politicians are so darned thick!
 
J Gordon said:
Photographers are harrassed every single day going about their profession or hobby. Every time an officer hasslesa photo opportunity is lost. Is the CC going to drop what he is doing to intervene? No.
Thank heavens for procedures though. Truth is Government are far more forboding to Britain than terroriststhese days. Factor in the criminal banks and andpublic monies spenton them andnot health and education and it becomes clear just why our politicians are so darned thick!
Click to expand...

The point is that if you are "hassled" by a police officer, then make a complaint through the official channels. If you don't then how can anyone do anything about it.

This petition asked for a clarification on the law and that's what it got.
 
I must admit I am getting bored of the I've been harrassed, coppers don't know the law and are monkeys argument.

We only hear about the stories where people have been harrassed and given a hard time. Never a story about a copy who came along and showed interest or was civil and helpful, and I am sure that this happens too.

How many people on here have had a hard time from coppers, and if you have, how does that ratio with how many times you have been out shooting in public? I would imagine its quite small.

We need to accept that from time to time we'll get stopped, talked to and maybe asked to move on. Be civil and chances are you'll get treated civily. We need to use commen sense and be polite rather than let the red mist set in.

I still beleive that any photographer who has been arrested has more than likely been as difficult and as awkward as possible to wind up with that outcome.
 
I would like to ask this...

What would the perfect response have been? Please type it out as if you had full control of Government policy.
Just curious as to what everyone thinks.
 
Rob.Marsh said:
I must admit I am getting bored of the I've been harrassed, coppers don't know the law and are monkeys argument.

We only hear about the stories where people have been harrassed and given a hard time. Never a story about a copy who came along and showed interest or was civil and helpful, and I am sure that this happens too.

How many people on here have had a hard time from coppers, and if you have, how does that ratio with how many times you have been out shooting in public? I would imagine its quite small.

We need to accept that from time to time we'll get stopped, talked to and maybe asked to move on. Be civil and chances are you'll get treated civily. We need to use commen sense and be polite rather than let the red mist set in.

I still beleive that any photographer who has been arrested has more than likely been as difficult and as awkward as possible to wind up with that outcome.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top