Photographers Rights in the UK

[the beard]

No-one, and I really do mean no-one can state categorically that a cheese and pickle sandwich has never been used, or ever will be, in the preparation of a terrorist act. In the current political climate it is an act of sheer folly to discount the possiblility.

See how stupid that sounds?

So a police officer would think an image was dodgy enough to ask someone to delete it, but not dodgy enough to investigate further? Really? Especially in "the current climate"?

I've had some dodgy cheese and pickle sandwiches and survived. If I hadn't then one death from food poisoning wouldn't really be classified as a terrorist attack, unless of course it was a politically significant figure such as a head of state and I'm not reall sure how often one appears on the menu at the White House. As for an officer thinking an image was dodgy then he would ask certain questions and PNC check the person in question if the individual was not known then if there was no reason to detain him further then asking him to delete an image would not be an unreasonable request. If the "photographer" objected a senior officer could be brought in to make a decision one way or the other.

Damn it - you're too quick Ben, I was just typing something similar involving something slightly more obscenely biological

Thebeard - I'm not sure what your agenda is - but you seem to want to argue just for the sake of it!

(just to remind people your initial post on this thread was to be abusive towards this websites owner over his potential misuse of an apostrophe)

I think you need to accept that your slightly 'offbeat' view of the world is somewhat different to people that actually understand the topic.

Actually my first post on this subject was self-deprecating, if you can be bothered to read it properly and wasn't abusive in the least. I think I was actually 5th in line to make a comment on a common, and frankly, on a forum, irrelevant grammatical error. Unless of course it was an English Language Forum. I even managed to slip in a spelling mistake. A difference of opinion does not mean someone is a troll and a lively debate on almost any forum is surely a good thing. The last time I was accused of being a troll was on a military website I joined in order to gain information on something. A member on there posted some photos of an Israeli air attack on a UN compound in Palestine using white phosphorous bombs. All I said was that I thought it was a PR own goal and received a load of abuse. From their comments it was plain I wasn't allowed to have beliefs of my own. I didn't even get round to saying that I thought it was either an appalling error of navigation or a deliberate and murderous attack on in international aid post. Is that the case here? Is it a matter of people being told they might not, possiblly, on odd occasions be allowed to do something they want to do and are in the process of throwing their collective dummies out of the pram?

I am merely engaging in a debate. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Treadstone]

No-one, and I really do mean no-one can state categorically that a cheese and pickle sandwich has never been used, or ever will be, in the preparation of a terrorist act. In the current political climate it is an act of sheer folly to discount the possiblility.

See how stupid that sounds?

Perfectly put.
As they say "Past performance is no indication of the future", but no terrorist attack has been found to have been planned with the aid of a DSLR. No one who has been stopped while taking pictures in public has ever been tried, much less convicted, of preparing for an act of terrorism.
Governments promise to protect us and will create a bogeyman to protect us from if there isn't a real threat. That is the current climate.
Chipping away at freedoms in the name of protecting us does the terrorist's work for them . That is the current climate.
Post 7/7 I read somewhere something addressed to the Terrorists which went something like "You think you'll dent London with a few bombs? London Burnt down. We rebuilt. Hitler threw the might of the Luftwaffe against us, we beat him. We saw the IRA off too. We are not afraid, and you won't make us afraid. Send us whatever you've got, we'll be here." Gordon Brown's government didn't have that resolve. Nor does David Camerons. That too is the current climate.

 

[Brian]

The last time I was accused of being a troll was on a military website I joined in order to gain information on something.

Information gathering - hmmm you must be a terrorist

Or were you just an 'Arse on Arsse'?

 

[BenCooper]

As for an officer thinking an image was dodgy then he would ask certain questions and PNC check the person in question if the individual was not known then if there was no reason to detain him further then asking him to delete an image would not be an unreasonable request. If the "photographer" objected a senior officer could be brought in to make a decision one way or the other.

Would not be an unreasonable request? It's not unreasonable for a police officer to ask you to do something even when there's no evidence of a crime being committed? Should one say "please don't hurt me, mister policeman" as well? A senior officer would have no more authority in this than my postman - only a court could order deletion of an image, and I don't know of any situation where that has happened.

Your mindless subservience to the authority of anyone with a uniform is sweet, but not really in the British tradition.

 

[the beard]

I must admit to being disappointed in some of the responses. I haven't been abusive and yet have been accused of that. When I denied it there was no reposte. Also of being a Troll and yet as I understand it a Troll posts insulting and distressing messages. Haven't done that. I haven't said that people shouldn't be allowed to take photographs because with the thousands of images I've taken over the years I'd certainly be serving a fairly long prison sentance which I'm not. I've also been accused of being paranoid whereas it would appear that paranoia is only evident in the posts of those replying to me otherwise why should there be such a reaction to a point of view. I simply expressed an opinion that there are some cases whereby taking photographs would not be appropriate.

It's a shame that Ben has tried to degrade my position by saying that a Police Officer who asked a member of the public to delete images would be destroying evidence which is not allowed under PACE. He was wrong but has not replied to that point yet. Someone else stated that pencil and paper would do as well as digital images. A drawing would take longer than a photo and is less easily disposed of and nowhere near as easy to send. Memories are flawed which is why, as far as possible, CCTV, as well as forensic evidence is preferred in court and during investigations.

Anyone on here who believes in God or the existence of beings from other planets? There may, or may not be, but I'll bet there are plenty who would acknowledge that either or both may exist and yet, on this thread at least, no-one will admit that there are circumstances whereby photography can be used in the preparation of a terrorist act and as a result we may have to make allowances.

I haven't bought either of the "recommended" books but have had a quick look at the synopses of them on Amazon, but, the little there is seems to be full of rhetoric. I'll request them at the library and see if I can get hold of one or both.

 

[the beard]

Damn it - you're too quick Ben, I was just typing something similar involving something slightly more obscenely biological

Thebeard - I'm not sure what your agenda is - but you seem to want to argue just for the sake of it!

(just to remind people your initial post on this thread was to be abusive towards this websites owner over his potential misuse of an apostrophe)

Abusive?

Information gathering - hmmm you must be a terrorist

Or were you just an 'Arse on Arsse'?

Now that's abusive! In fact I was trying to find out what kind of weapons the U.S. have bought from the UK or have made under licence as opposed to the other way round.

Would not be an unreasonable request? It's not unreasonable for a police officer to ask you to do something even when there's no evidence of a crime being committed? Should one say "please don't hurt me, mister policeman" as well? A senior officer would have no more authority in this than my postman - only a court could order deletion of an image, and I don't know of any situation where that has happened.

Your mindless subservience to the authority of anyone with a uniform is sweet, but not really in the British tradition.

I did say request whereas you seem to have read "order". As for it being "unreasonable for a polce officer to ask you to do something even when there's no evidence of a crime being committed?" Surely if you are flagged down by the police while driving a car because there is a collision ahead and the road is blocked you would comply. Despite there being no evidence of a crime being committed. The police ask for the co-operation of the public every day despite them not committing a crime. Subservience? While I wouldn't get involved in an argument with a cop, if I thought I was in the right I'd take it further.....after the event. As for a senior officer's involvement in the deletion of an image, they would make a decision as to whether to refer the taker of the photograph to another authority such as Special Branch.

 

[the beard]

Perfectly put.
As they say "Past performance is no indication of the future", but no terrorist attack has been found to have been planned with the aid of a DSLR. No one who has been stopped while taking pictures in public has ever been tried, much less convicted, of preparing for an act of terrorism.
Governments promise to protect us and will create a bogeyman to protect us from if there isn't a real threat. That is the current climate.
Chipping away at freedoms in the name of protecting us does the terrorist's work for them . That is the current climate.
Post 7/7 I read somewhere something addressed to the Terrorists which went something like "You think you'll dent London with a few bombs? London Burnt down. We rebuilt. Hitler threw the might of the Luftwaffe against us, we beat him. We saw the IRA off too. We are not afraid, and you won't make us afraid. Send us whatever you've got, we'll be here." Gordon Brown's government didn't have that resolve. Nor does David Camerons. That too is the current climate.

Does your first sentance imply that history will teach us nothing? I can't agree that "chipping away at freedoms in the name of protecting us does the terrorists' work for them." High and Low Explosives, shrapnel, and bullets does the terrorists' work for them. If our lives were irrevocably altered by government policies such as a curfew, banning of mobile phones and use of social network sites; forbidding lawful assembly and free speach would.

A nicely defiant end to your reply and I'm sure, my Grandparents among them, Londoners were defiant throughout the blitz, but the blitz took its toll. Although they got away lightly, only using their house, a Great Uncle who was a Sergeant in a bomb disposal unit paid for that defiance with his life as did many thousands of others. A 1 tonne booby-trapped aerial landmine saw to that, but I'm sure that however defiant he was he would have preferred it if that raid had not happened. Surely prevention is better than cure.

 

[BenCooper]

It's a shame that Ben has tried to degrade my position by saying that a Police Officer who asked a member of the public to delete images would be destroying evidence which is not allowed under PACE. He was wrong but has not replied to that point yet.

What would you like me to reply to? Under PACE and CPIA an officer is required to retain and prevent the destruction of evidence which could lead to a prosecution. That doesn't mean just a prosecution of the photographer, it could mean a prosecution or disciplinary proceedings against the officer. Have you read PACE or CPIA?

Yes, I would stop if an officer asked me to because of a road accident. That would be a reasonable request. Asking me to delete an image is not a reasonable request. Special Branch have no more power in this than any other police officer, they still have to go to court to ask for an image to be destroyed.

 

[BenCooper]

Surely prevention is better than cure

Prevention of what? We are not facing a threat anything remotely like that faced during WW2 or the height of the IRA bombing campaign, we're facing a bunch of mostly inept amateurs who occasionally get lucky mainly because they don't mind dying for their cause. And in response we're supposed to accept an unprecedented increase in surveillance? Bollocks to that.

 

[Alan-one]

It's a shame that Ben has tried to degrade my position by saying that a Police Officer who asked a member of the public to delete images would be destroying evidence which is not allowed under PACE. He was wrong but has not replied to that point yet.

No he wasn't. The police - and particularly ACPO - have stated for the record several times that officers do not have the power to delete, or order the deletion of images from a camera.
From the Police's own website:
"Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction."
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

What I'm curious about, is whether there is the need for pre-emptive reconnaissance at all in a "let's cause as much carnage as possible" type attack.

Let's say that I'm fed up with the world for whatever reason, and I'm going to blow some shit up before I off myself. I've watched Terminator a bunch of times and made a home-made bomb. It's in a non-descript sports bag over my shoulder and I'm on the bus into the city centre.

Why would I need to take a trip beforehand with a camera/audio recorder/notepad/whatever, when I could just look for where there's a high concentration of people, and set it off there?
I've never been to Leeds, but I'd wager that I could quite easily get a bus into town and find a shopping centre without the need for internet research or a prior trip.

 

[The Littlest Jellyfish]

no-one will admit that there are circumstances whereby photography can be used in the preparation of a terrorist act...

Good news! I made a list. Here it is:

Things that can be used in the preparation of a terrorist attack include, but are not limited to:

Photography
Pencils
Paper
Alkaline batteries
Binoculars
Scissors
Dogs
The Royal Mail
The eastbound carriageway of the M4
Self-raising flour
Fingers
Optical nerves
£10 notes
Shoes
Flapjack
Phil Collins' Greatest Hits on cassette
The moon
Potatoes
Photons
Unicycles

and as a result we may have to make allowances.

No. Interestingly, with this attitude, you are enabling terrorism in its purest sense, in that you appear to be happy to have your civil liberties infringed, living in constant fear of 'the enemy'. All of this without them having to even do anything! One of the main reasons that terrorist attacks are not more common, and not more successful, is that terrorist attacks are actually very difficult. Not because all their reconnaissance photos are blurry as a result of being taken by people who don't know how to set aperture correctly. The Aum Shinrikyo organisation (a cult specifically set up in order to kill as many people as they could) had millions upon millions of dollars worth of assets, devoted a number of years to developing a number of different mass-killing systems (nuclear bombs, ebola, chemical weapons) and they only managed to kill 23 people. Meanwhile in the UK, in 2010 alone, 34,859 people died of lung cancer.

Here are some things that I'm not saying:
I love terrorism, and actively encourage it.
Terrorism doesn't exist, and everyone in the world is happy.
No-one would or could ever use photography in some way to plan a potential terrorist attack.

Here's what I am saying:
A disproportionate amount of time and money is spent on counter-terrorism measures, and preventing people from taking photographs of things in public locations ultimately makes no difference to the number of terrorist attacks that take place, only serving to limit the freedom of the population en masse.

I haven't bought either of the "recommended" books but have had a quick look at the synopses of them on Amazon, but, the little there is seems to be full of rhetoric.

That's pretty funny, given your earlier breathless and unreferenced post about hostile reconnaissance stats and brown people taking photos of airports.

 

[Oxygen Thief]

...Surely if you are flagged down by the police while driving a car because there is a collision ahead and the road is blocked you would comply. Despite there being no evidence of a crime being committed. The police ask for the co-operation of the public every day despite them not committing a crime. Subservience? While I wouldn't get involved in an argument with a cop, if I thought I was in the right I'd take it further.....after the event. As for a senior officer's involvement in the deletion of an image, they would make a decision as to whether to refer the taker of the photograph to another authority such as Special Branch.

If the police flag you down when you are in your car you have to stop, that's the law. As for everything else you said, I'm glad you like to be suppressed so much by the state. As you appear to be a born coward, then this is probably reassuring to you. However, please stop trying to convince any of us that the current police mentality does anything to protect any of us.

 

[Alan-one]

In that scenario, they're not flagging you down for a stop and search/account though. They're doing it to prevent you ploughing into the accident scene and putting people at further risk.

While I wouldn't get involved in an argument with a cop, if I thought I was in the right I'd take it further.....after the event

So you'd accept having your liberties trampled on, your rights abused, and your property taken or damaged, and just bitch about it after the event?

For fuck's sake.

Do you realise you're actually saying that you'd be compliant in something you knew was unlawful?

 

[magpie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCUnxeJZs4&feature=related

probably been posted before, but i thought i'd post. there's loads of these on youtube, spent quite a bit time looking through them, so i am prepared if, in the off chance i am ever stopped...which has never happened yet. i always carry a copy of the 'stop & search' rules in my camera bag.

 

[Kathy97]

I had no idea there were laws. This helps a lot, thank you