Disable-Adblock.png

We have detected that your browser is using AdBlock

Police Community is a not for profit organisation and advertising revenue is key to our continued viability.

Please disable your AdBlocker on our site in order to continue using it.
This message will disappear once AdBlock has been disabled.

Thank you for your support - we appreciate it !

If you feel you are getting this message in error please email support@policecommunity.co.uk

Sign in to follow this  
mikeb21

''Taking photographs of police and police staff is a criminal offence'' (video)

Recommended Posts

Audio recording of police confronting a photographer.

To be honest the photographer didn't handle it in a very mature way and should've just left at 2 minutes in when they said he could go, and from the looks of it he was being intrusive with where he was standing for his photographs. However to my knowledge he wasn't legally doing anything wrong, and it makes me cringe when I hear police officers misquoting laws relating to public photography. If they wanted him to move from the sterile area why couldn't they have told him to do so in the first place rather than reel off rubbish like ''you have no power to photograph military personnel'' ''public privacy law'' ''you need parents permission'' and ''I consider you a threat under the terrorism act'' ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike21, I agree with you here. To the best of my knowledge he wasn't doing anything wrong with his camera. the officer could of looked at his picture under the terrorism act but he'd need grounds to do so.

Secondly, he refuse to give his name/d.o.b. to the officer, that is an offence. but the officer defo quotes the law wrong and then talks of a 'grey area'. If that was me I'd call for a supervisor before talking about a 'grey area'. Embarrassing!

Quack!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disgraceful, they're idiots... any genuine concerns they had with regard to this individual and the management of the parade are blown away by a series of increasingly desperate and horrendously ill informed attempts to exercise some control over the behaviour of this person. Clearly, there is no restriction on photography in a public place, children, police officers etc... Worse still these morons have clearly never read the MPS's own guidance.

Very, very, very poorly handled... at various points they refer to Anti-Social Behaviour, S58a of the Terrorism Act, describe him as a 'terror threat', BoP.. farcical... if he was causing anxiety amongst the parents of the cadets then I would suggest someone needs to to tell them to get a grip... you cant take part in a public parade and not expect to be photographed!

The author describes himself as a photojournalist and whilst he clearly has a left wing political angle to his work, this in no way should impact his ability to work unhindered. I hope he sues the MPS.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To be honest the photographer didn't handle it in a very mature way and should've just left at 2 minutes in when they said he could go, and from the looks of it he was being intrusive with where he was standing for his photographs."

The onus wasn't on the photographer, it was on the police officer who in this case failed miserably. From the pictures he appears to be an Insp and ought to know better.

Mike21, I agree with you here. To the best of my knowledge he wasn't doing anything wrong with his camera. the officer could of looked at his picture under the terrorism act but he'd need grounds to do so.

Secondly, he refuse to give his name/d.o.b. to the officer, that is an offence. but the officer defo quotes the law wrong and then talks of a 'grey area'. If that was me I'd call for a supervisor before talking about a 'grey area'. Embarrassing!

Quack!

Really...? So if an officer stops me in the street for no good reason and demands my name/dob I'm required to give those details? News to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the pictures he appears to be an Insp and ought to know better.

You'd hope and to think they worry about SC's making a mess of stuff.

Really...? So if an officer stops me in the street for no good reason and demands my name/dob I'm required to give those details? News to me...

I guess he did chuck in 'ASB' at one point in which case he could have been going the S50 route, but if he wanted to take that approach he should have referenced it....

Secondly, he refuse to give his name/d.o.b. to the officer, that is an offence.

I think you're going to need to qualify this comment? Why do you think it's an offence for a MOP to refuse details?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike21, I agree with you here. To the best of my knowledge he wasn't doing anything wrong with his camera. the officer could of looked at his picture under the terrorism act but he'd need grounds to do so.

Secondly, he refuse to give his name/d.o.b. to the officer, that is an offence. but the officer defo quotes the law wrong and then talks of a 'grey area'. If that was me I'd call for a supervisor before talking about a 'grey area'. Embarrassing!

Quack!

Those officers are pretty much hopeless in the face of a reasonable MOP. Confused and unsure they should've just apologised and left well alone. Refusing to give your name/DOB isn't in itself a crime, though it can stand up an arrest for an offence. He's not cautioned that the area is under a S.44, she's not S1 S&S, not ASB or POA...so what grounds do they have?

And in grabbing his arm, while he's walking off without intent to arrest him or not under arrest, they up for a common assault (Wood v DPP) - not to mention the push down the stairs.

All-in-all something of a shambles.

Edited by DBRG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If memory serves me correctly, if you stop search or stop encounter under s43 or s44, you do not have a legal right to demand their name, D.O.B., and address? If I were to be stopped under s43 or 44, I wouldn't be giving my details out unless I felt they had a reasonable excuse to ask for them.

If they go down the ASB route, they must have reasonable belief that you have used, or are like to cause HAD to one or more persons. If this behaviour was instigated/provoked by the officer, then that's a very poor show indeed.

I haven't seen the photos or the audio, but sounds bizarre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys were talking rubbish but with the ammont of people taking photos at parades he must have been doing somethig stupid like stepping out in front of the parade and getting in the way just to be awkward. I can't imagine someone standing out of the way taking pictures would get this. The officers shouldn't have tried to be clever and just used something basic like breach of the peace, don't know if there's a law regarding parades but there may be. I know you can stop and search with less suspicion at a public event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guys were talking rubbish but with the ammont of people taking photos at parades he must have been doing somethig stupid like stepping out in front of the parade and getting in the way just to be awkward. I can't imagine someone standing out of the way taking pictures would get this. The officers shouldn't have tried to be clever and just used something basic like breach of the peace, don't know if there's a law regarding parades but there may be. I know you can stop and search with less suspicion at a public event.

If that was the case, the officers should have said politely that he needs to move for his own safety and for the running of the parade but by all means carry on snapping!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been so widely publicised. I'm dismayed that some officers seem to feel that photographing in public is an offence.

That said, the man appears to be a bit of a wind-up merchant clearly he's in an closed-off area. Why couldn't they just have lft it at that: "this area is closed off to the public at the moment".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if it's just me, but I can't get the video to load (I've tried on firefox and IE). I normally have no problems watching youtube. Is anyone else having this problem? And can anyone post a link to the youtube page?

Thanks. :aok:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From digging around on facebook I'd say this lad isn't even past the 20 mark, bit of an overreaction if I may say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been so widely publicised. I'm dismayed that some officers seem to feel that photographing in public is an offence.

That said, the man appears to be a bit of a wind-up merchant clearly he's in an closed-off area. Why couldn't they just have lft it at that: "this area is closed off to the public at the moment".

I thought he was pretty polite really.. the officers did try and bluff their way through it and as he knew full well they were talking BS you can hardly blame him for challenging them. I didn't get the impression that the route of the march was closed off or barriered. All looks to very public to me... they were on the highway at all times...

His story has been picked up by the BJP http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1719526/photojournalist-detained-army-cadet-pics it looks like he intends to make use of NUJ legal advice, which would tend to suggest that these officers potentially assulted a card carrying member of the press...

How ironic that the ink was barely dry in the last MPS apology... http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1719464/photographers-win-damages-met-police-legal

"The Metropolitan Police Service has accepted liability for breach of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The MPS apologise for this and have paid compensation. The MPS confirms its recognition that freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy and that journalists have a right to report freely. The MPS recognise that on 08 December 2008 they failed to respect press freedom in respect of Mr. Vallée and Mr. Parkinson."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this