Photocops: Home Office concedes concern

The Police and Security are not the only ones

It's not just your local bobby or security jobsworth out to spoil photograpers fun either. I am new to photography (Well only the last few years). But in the last year or so I have encountered aggressive and beligerent doo gooder members of the public accusing me of being a pervert (In so many words) on at least 3 occasions.

"Oi! Did you just take a photo of my kids?"

"No? Why would I? Even if I did it's not against the law in a public space"

"Well don't! Or else!" etc.

Just last Saturday whilst out in a wooded area on a public foothpath I was accosted by a nutter with a big dog because I took a snapshot of a tyre swing behind a fence overgrown with foilage. Angrily he came marching up to me

"What do you wanna take a photo of that for?"

"That's my business" I replied.

There then ensued an argument with threats and cries of 'protecting the children' (Remember this was Saturday and not a child was to be seen anywhere and in fact we were the only two people there).

I ended up retreating mainly because we were alone (No witnesses), he had a big dog and I wanted my equipment to remain intact.

Effing numpties and Mirror/Sun waiving twats!

I have now printed up some cards to take with me to be handed out whenever these idiots approach me.

It reads thus.

"I am NOT a sexual predator or pervert.

I am NOT a terrorist.

I am an ‘Amateur Photographer’ enjoying my hobby in a PUBLIC SPACE and as such under current law I am free to peacefully take photos of anything and anyone (Including minors). There is no entitlement, nor expectation of privacy within a public area by anyone. Any attempt to molest me or my equipment will be seen as assault and as such I WILL contact the police and press charges. If you do not wish to be photographed, then please ask me politely. I will stop doing so and delete any images already taken (If any). If you wish to view some samples of my work please visit

http://blah.com

I Thank you for your understanding in this matter."

The website is just a temporary site as I don't trust anyone enough to send them to my Flickr site.

Such is the shit that photographers are having to put up with these days.

"over-zealous policing"? Is that what they call it when police terrorise the public?

"over-zealous policing"? Is that what they call it when police terrorise the public?

Also in OZ, but not just the cops

I work in a sate government building which was built on the site of an old "red-light" district (some might think that appropriate). Before it was built, a University did an archaeological dig and some of the artefacts (the non-perishable ones) are on permanent display in the foyer. In addition, there are often other displays in the foyer. As the department provides services directly to the community it is quite common to see visiting groups and individuals in the foyer, including school excursions.

Are you allowed to take photos? Absolutely not.

Security, or just bloody-minded officiousness?

Uh huh

"Thus, Mr Mason appears to have been stopped not under terror legislation, but simply using PACE. 'Reasonable suspicion' in this and similar cases boils down to the fact that bad people have been known to take photos of public buildings – so talking to Mr Mason was justified."

Bad people have been known to eat hotdogs. So police are justified harassing people because they're eating hot dogs.

Sorry, I don't buy into this "if it can be used for bad it must therefore be forbidden" way of thinking. Millions of people have been taking photographs for decades for perfectly innocent reasons, and people have making sketches and paintings for centuries. The fact that a few people might be doing so for nefarious purposes does not excuse the paranoiac viewpoint that people taking pictures must therefore be suspected of terrorism.

S.1 PACE

S.1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies to searches for stolen or prohibited articles, and requires "reasonable suspicion".

It would be a very long stretch to argue that a photograph comes under s.1.

Even if photos were capable of being "stolen or prohibited articles" the officer exercising a power must:

- hold a genuine belief/suspicion etc

- hold a belief suspicion that is *reasonable* (ie a genuine but bizarre or unreasonable belief is not enough)

- exercise any power reasonably (and where any European Convention prohibition is interfered with, proportionately)

So whatever power officers purport to be exercising, s.1 PACE is probably not a runner.

Typical UNDER-zealous policing

If the police have all these new laws to help them do their very difficult job how come they allowed someone to video them asulting a man and causing his death?

This is the kind of sloppy policing we expect.

The police set a lot of store in video evidence, so much so that if you don't have any then you don't have a case. If you do have evidence then they have to hope that it was illegally obtained. Maybe they will still be able to get away with murder even when filmed comitting it.

If we want a strong police force then we are going to have to make an exception when the police kill someone. After all they are only doing what is a very difficult job.

I for one would feel rightly punished if the police killed me since it would mean I must have been doing something really unacceptable.

Black 'copter because I feel safer when armed police are in the sky watching me.

The root of the problem

The root of the problem is you're expecting someone who couldn't get a real job that required any form of free thought to understand a complex instrument like the law.

With an incomplete grasp, they interpolate and extrapolate until the enforcement bears no relation to the original law.

Photographing the Police...

I was at a protest in London in October. The police seemed bemused by our protest but were very accommodating. When it was all over I asked a particularly cute one if I could have a photograph taken of him and me. He obliged willingly.

Personally I think like any organisation or group of people there are gooduns and there are baddies. It wouldn't surprise me if some volunteered for duty for events such as the G20 just to see some action.

city police

City Police are nothing like Met Police. City Police have feck all to do all day except dream of wearing swastikas and wishing they had guns so they could shoot subversives on sight. All of the ones i have dealt with were utter pricks.

Met police have a real day job. I still think all UK police are way better than most other national forces in the rest or Europe or the 1st world.