Another Arrest

Pm about what??? I wanna know too!!!

Don't panic! PM sent to keep politics, etc away from the main forum. We've seen too many heated exchanges that have little to do with Pentax!

PM sent.

Either you Britts need to start protesting this mistreatment or you need to start adding "Ressisting Arresst/ assaulting a Peace officer" to the charges, if you're ever gonna get past this problem.
civil disobedience, becomes a responsibility in the face of Governments that go too far with the greed, corruption, or injustices.

Italians + Authority = Berlusconi + Broken Nose

I had to laugh

I laughed too.

then found out it wasn't serious, and he'd only use it to victimise himself and keep on destroying my beautiful country.

and then, wished it wasn't just a little souvenir...

I wonder how many more people are going to come forward with stories like this. And how have police responded? Some words from high up policemen (but no action or threat of action to those harassing the public) and releasing a video which proves that photography helps terrorism - well a video recorded buy fraudsters who weren't prosecuted for terrorism as it 'was not in the public interest' (due to lack of evidence perhaps?), which was recorded on the tube using what is obviously a mobile phone, though they are careful not to mention this...

There was a topic on the Jeremy Vine show on tuesday and a chief of police was interviewed and he said that there is nothing wrong with people taking photographs in public. So What the hell is going on.

One thing I find interesting is the consensus that filming ‘security’ cameras, even in a public place, seem to be a bad thing.
Whilst some are installed by the state, most are at the whim of a nearby property owner for their own purposes, yet we accept them without any problems and even suggest that we shouldn't take pictures of them! Why not if they are looking at me, in a public place, why should I not look at them?

Don't get me wrong, I understand why they may be there and private cameras are very useful to our law enforcement agencies for catching criminals but most of them have no more or less right to capture images than you or me. My photographs may also be useful to catch a criminal one day but why should I have to mind where I point my camera?

I used this argument with a private security guard back in the summer who couldn't tell me why he could happily watch me on his camera all day but I needed to be questioned when using my camera in a public place where he could see me. I accept that he may have wanted to make sure I wasn’t up to no good by keeping an eye on me but why did he think i should account for myself?

Why did this girl have to account for herself in the first place? The PCSO did not think she was a terrorist, he said so. He did not get the reaction to his questions he thought he should so he decided to bully her instead. Clear and simple. Not the mark of a well trained keeper of the peace.
Why is the worst suspected first!

The fact that PCSO’s or private security people start most of these incidences suggests that the big problem is bad selection of people for this sort of job and insufficent training. Why when the real police come after do they get swept along in some sort of collective paranoia that keeps making a major issue out of nothing but a reasonable and legal activity?

1984

I assure you that Britain has already lost tourism because of the perception that it's becoming a police state. A Britsh citizen, (dual national,) I've lived most of my life in the US, and I have observed bad behaviour on the part of US police too, but at this time the situation in regards photography appears to be much worse in the UK.

I used to travel to Britain 2 or 3 times a year; some of each trip would be visiting with family and friends, but we'd also spend at least a week or so for travel. We have cut back our trips dramatically; I photograph everywhere I go, and there just seems too much potential hassle. We shortened our last trip so that we just had enough time to visit friends and relatives, take care of some family business, and head home.

I know much of this is said to be to prevent terrorism, and I support efforts to thwart it. Living in New York, I saw the towers burning, knew people who were lost in the 9/11 attacks, had a friend amongst the most severely injured survivors of the first Trade Center attack, had ashes and scorched papers drift down on us for days after 9/11; I think it left me as concerned as anyone; but I don't think the behaviour displayed in the video, or reported in so many other cases, has any real connection with preventing terrorism. Like some actions we've seen in the US, most of the abuses seem to stem from two causes; officialdom feeling they need to be seen as doing something, and bloody-minded police (or para-police) feeling they have been given license to throw their weight around. Unfortunately, the worst manifestations of the latter seem to occur in Britain.

I found reference to this on another Forum - again someone taking film in the street

link

Agreed on that , but this could have been a tourist , or a student who also knew ' their rights'.

These security folk do have a lot to answer for as well . I'm sure that half the time we don't notice where these security cameras are unless they are actually pointed out . They have become part of the landscape.

Security is necessary - I don't think there's anyone who would doubt that nowadays . Are we taking this too far now ?

I might point out that we had twenty plus years of IRA bombings without any of this paranoia. Media and government alike seem intent on scaring us now, rather than attempting to inspire any blitz spirit and saying "bring it on, you don't scare us".

Anyone see the news item a day or two ago about a terrorist suspect who'd been filming things with his mobile phone and commenting on them as potential targets? Did it seem like a carefully managed slap down against the photographers rights campaign to anyone else?

I fully agree that we got through the 70s and 80s without all of this paranoia.

I didn't see the article you mentioned, but if it wsa an attempt to justify stopping photography, surely they shot themselves in the foot!? He was using what every sane thinking person would expect, a concealable mobile phone. Not an SLR with a long lens on a large tripod etc, etc.

As for security cameras not being seen these days. You want to know about the discreet / covert ones. My job is CCTV / security. Some of the cameras we fit are tiny, but give amazing picture quality.

This is a copy of a letter sent by the Association of Chief Police
Officers to Chief Constables and Commissioners across England and
Wales over the weekend.

Maybe they need to send it to some of the private security firms as well, because they escalate at lot of situations by their aggressive attitudes towards photographers. Do the police take everything they say to them as gospel, and do they ever check these companies out, many of their staff seem like little more than thugs and bullies. Some PCSOs need to learn to approach photographers with something more than a 'Oy Sunshine what do you think you're up to" attitude, which puts people on the defensive right away:

4 December 2009


To: all Chief Constables and Commissioners

Dear Colleague

Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of 'Stop and Account' and the actual police powers of 'Stop and Search'. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.

Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.

On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.

These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.

The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.

Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.

Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that 'stop and account' need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group

Craig Mackey QPM
Stop and Search
Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Business Area