Here we go again

Interesting Techno. It would explain why my 74 year old cousin was stopped by the police when making sketches in the city. He showed them his sketch book, and was able to prove he is quite a well known artist.

He remained calm, and actually was mildly amused at the thought someone would see a 74 year old with a gammy leg as a terrorist threat.
The police apologised and let him to continue his sketching.

Whilst I don't agree with project Griffin I do believe one's attitude affects the outcome of such encounters.

I have experienced the other side of this sorry saga. In February when I was in Scotland I photographed the massive petro-chemical plant at Grangemouth, from the public road and a nearby field. The winter light on the stacks and cooling towers with their emissions was very dramatic. I was approached by two security guards from the plant who were extremely polite; they even shook my hand when they introduced themselves. They explained persons photographing the plant had to be checked out and certain procedures had to be followed, like informing the police. Sure enough two young officers from the Central Scotland Force arrived arrived and they were also very polite when they took my details. My wife complained they asked for her date of birth.
There was no unpleasntness, no confiscation of my cameras and no threat to delete my pictures although they asked me to show them a couple of samples of what I had taken. They said they had to inform Special Branch but that I would be unlikely to hear anything more of the matter, and I haven't. I can't help feeling that by keeping cool and co-operating with their reasonable questions I made it easier on myself. If I had got bolshie I'm sure they might have too.
david

I don't want to live in a country where the police have the right to stop and question me when I'm going about my legal everyday activities. My right to use a camera and pass an re-pass the highway as much as I damn well please (and stop for lunch).

I don't want my country to have a network of unpaid (jobsworth) informers feeding spurious information to the police, who then "have a duty" to act on information from the "public".

The continuous use of section 44 areas may as well be written in as full time laws as they have been used for such a long time they are effectively permanent laws.

I don't like hidden laws, hidden areas and unaccountable quasi-police.

My freedoms are being eroded and I don't want to end up with State Security telling me what I can and can't photograph. And shaking my hand will not make it any more palatable.

Any informed terrorist will assume that this will happen and act accordingly. The only people this inconveniences are the innocent.

I have to say that I, personally , am unhappy about this Project Griffin , which seems to have been running for a while .

So far I've had no problem , but I can see that in large cities - like London and Westminster where there are some 'sensitive' sites problems can arise .

Now I know about Griffin I am not so likely to tell a private Security man who emerges from a building to inform me ,when pointing my camera at his building, I "can't do that here", that he's wrong and I can . I'm bit happier to give him my name and be polite and hope he goes away.

HOWEVER I think this is going too far - I really do .

Security is one thing , paranoia about security is another . As you know I like photography bits of buildings that appeal to me. Now depending on how these private guards have / have not been trained , I may have problems wandering round London with my cameras when I'm down visiting there .

My point about delineating where private security operate within their laws and public spaces is needed. You might be on one side of the plaza in public space and a couple of steps over some inconspicuous studs in the pavement into private space. The guard can ask you to leave and stop taking photos as you are now trespassing. I'd like both areas to be treated as public. If land owners want to patrol their land they should enclose it to make it obvious to the public.

The police should be telling security guards that emerging from their buildings and harassing the public on public highways is criminal and protecting the public from them. You have a right to be on the pavement and a guard stopping you is breaking the criminal law.

Well, you're about 181 years too late and what do you think the alternative would be. :

Ray

Ray, I refer to photography of course. When did photography become a signifier that you are intending to commit a crime/have committed a crime? They can stop and search where they have reasonable cause. Carrying a camera is not reasonable cause. I'm a bit unsure what you mean when you say I'm 181 years too late.

Effectively by asking security guards to tell them about photographers, they create the "reason" to search people.

There is the world of difference btween bolshie and standing up for your rights. In point of fact, you merely made it easier for them.

My point is they didn't infringe my rights. They didn't stop me taking photos. They didn't seize my cameras. They didn't try or threaten to delete my files. They did their job politely. All they did was ask some reasonable questions, no doubt check me out with Special Branch, and then move on. At no point was I intimidated. As for making it easier for them actually I made it easier for myself. Police have the right to stop and question people - thankfully.
david

That's true on both sides and not just the photographer.
From what I hear here on the forum it seems the UK police is more intimidating then in the Netherlands at least and it seems that's where most problems start.

Like David said if they politely ask, than no one with good intentions would give a negative reply back.
If they say that they "must see your photos" I think many would have the feeling that they didn't do anything wrong to be threaded that way.

Our new coalition government has among the policies agreed between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats the intention to roll back some of the inroads on civil liberty perpetrated by the outgoing government. I hope they get round to it but suspect that there may be more urgent priorities - like staving off national bankruptcy.

Archie

1829:
A constable was empowered to apprehend "all loose, idle and disorderly Persons whom he shall find disturbing the public Peace, or whom he shall have just Cause to suspect of any evil Designs, and all Persons whom he shall find between sunset and the Hour of Eight in the Forenoon lying in any Highway, Yard, or other Place, or loitering therein, and not giving a satisfactory Account of themselves...

Yeah Ray, spot on regarding photography in public places. Well remembered.

All this talk of the police state makes me wonder whether it is the policing which has changed, or our attitude to those in authority, and our perception of our rights. (Someone on here recently invoked the European Convention of Human Rights in response to a moderator censoring a post). Maybe a bit of both. But I don't think the 70s 80s and 90s were exactly a golden age of liberal policing compared to now.

D'Oh! They are on to me.

Presumably they were on the lookout for masked figures in capes!

I remember being moved on for 'loitering' by the police when I was a teenager... I was rather outraged and felt it was very unfair... but in those days, an authority figure was an authority figure, we didn't back-chat or plead our human rights, we just went and loitered somewhere else