Stopped by the Police ...

[mjs1973]

Bump.

More fuel to add to the fire.

A story out of Great Briton: A father of three is branded a "pervert" for taking photos of HIS OWN kids in a public park!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...blic-park.html

[Didache]

mjs1973 - to be fair here, it was some other mother who did the branding, not the police. Personally if I were going about my legal business and someone started screeching "pervert" in public, they would find themselves very quickly on the wrong end of a slander suit.

Mike

[mjs1973]

Yes, you are correct. It was not the police. In this case, the police confirmed that what the man was doing was perfectly legal.

The reason I posted the link was simply to add to the discussion about knowing your rights. Like you, I would have not taken this situation lying down. I don't know that I would go as far as to sue someone, but I would be sure to let them know that I had every right to be there, and to take photos. Of course a situation like this could very quickly get out of hand with the whole "mob mentality" so perhaps the man in the story did the right thing by leaving, and diffusing the situation before it got out of hand.

I think this story points to a bigger picture (pun intended) about people being paranoid when they see someone with a camera. It's not just rent-a-cops on a power trip we have to watch out for when we are out there in public taking photos.

[Don Schaeffer]

My understanding from having read US legal opinion (as of 2004) is that if anyone tries to stop you from taking photos in a public place it can be regarded as harrassment and is subject to legal remedy (in most states). "...all states have have laws that make coercion and harrassment criminal offenses."

[WesternGuy]

Mike, that is exactly why I stick to landscapes and wildlife. Although I recently found out that if I want to shoot landscapes and wildlife in Canada's National Parks with the idea of maybe selling them for stock or as a calendar illustration, I need a permit .

This permit requires $2 million in liability insurance, an application fee (one time) of $148.50 Cdn and a location fee of $495.30 Cdn per day - not that I would ever bother with this, but theoretically Mr. Ranger can ask me to leave the park if I don't have a permit and am a known free lancer maybe even if I am not a known freelancer. I believe these rules were originally put in place for film companies making movies and for pros shooting models, but they can still go after known (unknown) freelancers.

So much for my tax dollars at work...

Cheers,

WesternGuy

[ciddog91]

I too have been asked by security to not photograph anymore. BUT I was on a military installation taking pictures of the F-16s taking off. I was training out there and just got off track a little. I had to delete some, but they were nice enough. But I will add that I was on Police training (high speed driving training).

As a police officer, I know that almost no one understands what we see and how we interpret it. I do stop people that look "harmless" but something in their demeanor gives me reason to be suspicious. I do search people that fit a certain description because it fits a CRIMINAL profile.

I could explain in depth why cops do certain things, but it would take to much time and most would still not truly understand. I don't want you to. That is why we do what we do, so that people do not have to see what we do.

Understanding your frustrations, I can only suggest that respect and politeness goes a long way. Many criminals try to "intimidate" us by threatening law suites and such. It is a sure way to get more attention than you want because it is what many criminals do. Respect is a two way street, give it and most likely you will get it. BUT THERE ARE STILL BAD APPLES EVERYWHERE.....

Phil

[Skyman]

I have been told to move on as I was taking "professional pictures" around sydney harbour. I happen to have been getting paid for the shots so I moved on and kept shooting, but given that i was paid about $50 for several hours work for a friends band you could hardly call it commercial. apparently anyone taking professional shots in most of the interesting places around syndey city needs approval and insurance etc to satisfy the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. This is a little silly as what is deemed professional is at the discretion of the ranger you are talking to. An Australian satirist show the chaser did a segment where they filmed buildings of "national security or importance" when they were dressed as a tourist no-one cared, but when they dressed as an arab they were almost always immediately told to stop and move along. imagine if someone took offence to you using one of the old Zenith Photosnipers!

[SmartWombat]

BUT THERE ARE STILL BAD APPLES EVERYWHERE...

And wide ranging law-given powers for them to (ab)use.
"A disabled 12-year-old boy and his parents were detained by police under the Terrorism Act after his mother was accused of 'people trafficking' her mixed-race son."

Mind you, she did push her luck "Ms Maynard, a legal advocate, said she challenged the Channel Tunnel police officer, asking whether she would have been asked the same question if her son had been white"

Red rag to a bull that, PC plod(ette) not being known for a sense of humour.


http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/a...afficking.html
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ing/article.do
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=425
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7520598.stm
http://ukliberty.wordpress.com/2008/...terrorism-act/
http://www.xable.com/news/127344

[Didache]

Paul .. I read the articles and it's made me steaming mad! Quite apart from what the mother or the police constable said, what on earth has child trafficking got to do with terrorism or its prevention? It really and truly seems to me as though this ill-conceived and paranoid act is just carte blanch for the boys in blue to stop people for any reason they damn well please, whether terrorism related or not.

I have written to my MP detailing my experience, and asking sepcifically why a terrorism act is being used to harrass people suspected of other crimes.

Mike

[ciddog91]

Skyman,

I wanted one of those when I was doing "recon" missions. It would have made life so much easier. BUT being of Arab decent, I may have had some questions to answer if the wrong person spotted me.

SW,
Challenging an officer may bring about some wrath, but it does not mean the wrath is right. The terrorism acts have given an incredible amount of power to authorities. Mostly federal authorities though. I do not know how it works in UK, but here the feds have almost unlimited power in certain situations. I would like to think that as a law bidding citizen and officer, I am somewhat safe, but I have been scrutinized at times because of my looks. I do not condone that behavior. Wrong is wrong not matter what.

Phil

[susaan]

That's arrived here in the UK too.
And internationally of course there is FWI (flying while Islamic).

TELL ME ABOUT IT !!!!

I'm Caucasian ,-the headscarf makes me look a little bit Arab,
-but when I open my mouth and a nice middle class British accent comes out.....LOL..

- silica packs can be fun,removed mine from the camera case,after my Bro's acoustic guitar was opened...(Checked baggage,hard case)-I mean the body was actually opened up,and the silica pack removed and confiscated..::cryin:

..Camera gear is not usually a problem,its my acupuncture kit that gets raised eyebrows....

[SmartWombat]

Mike, have a go at this one too.

Police in Portsmouth have admitted using powers to combat terrorists to question a man who took a photograph of a police car.

Basically the police are using the Prevention of Terrorism Act to intimidate people who upset them.

Who says we don't live in a police state !

Read what the superintendent said:
"this power can only be used for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind"

"It is therefore reasonable for the officer in this case to have made reference to the act and been suspicious about why the photograph of the vehicle had been taken."


http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Qui...all.4332791.jp
http://www.crawleyobserver.co.uk/lat...Act.4334972.jp

[Didache]

Thanks for that Paul. It doesn't surpise me. Below is the text of the letter I sent to my MP (who I know very well personally). As it is summer recess, it might be some time before I get a reply, but I will certainly post it when it comes.

Cheers
Mike




Re: ‘Stop and Search’ under the Prevention of Terrorism Act


Dear Paul

On Monday, July 14th I was taking some photographs in Trafalgar Square (where thousands of photographs must be taken every single day) and then walked down Northumberland Avenue towards the Thames. About half a mile away from the alleged offence, I was stopped by two police officers (which meant they must have followed me) who displayed their warrant cards and told me I was being stopped under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

They were very correct and polite at all times, so no complaints there. As they were really rather pleasant about it, I offered to show them the material on my memory card, which they looked at and agreed there was nothing suspicious there. They then let me go after asking me to show some ID and making me wait for them to fill in a form recording the 'stop and search'.

However, even that is somewhat annoying as my name is now recorded somewhere as having been stopped and searched as a potential terrorist. Not only that, but they radioed my name and D.O.B. through so their computer presumably has recorded a police enquiry against my name.

The essence of my disquiet is this: the police officers very freely told me that they often stopped photographers on hot days in Trafalgar Square in case they were taking inappropriate pictures of children - fair enough I suppose, though what that has to do with the prevention of terrorism I don't know! I really have no choice but to conclude that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is being used by the police as a tool to allow them to stop and search anyone they like, whether the suspected offence is terrorism or not. Surely this is a misuse of the intent of the Act and a form of harassment?

In my shock I neglected to record the names of the officers concerned but it is widely reported in the photographic press and also by word of mouth in camera club circles that my experience is far from unique. (On this I am glad to note that you have signed Austin Mitchell’s Early Day Motion on this subject).

Best wishes

[bayville126]

Hows this for a stupid rule?
Next thing you know point& shoot super zooms will get you thrown in jail over there.

China bans SLR cameras at Olympic venues.
http://2008gamesbeijing.com