Home Secretary Green Lights Restriction on Photography

PeteT · 03-07-2008, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

that would make interesting reading if you could be bothered to go through it all. It will probably be the size of war and peace

Well that would be worrying - other than the normal statutory restrictions, I would have expected there to be very few instances of the banning of photography.

***Steve*** · 03-07-2008, 09:16

I did say probably, having no real idea of how many files it would contain.

There has been quite a few reported incidents of police and authorities preventing photography but I have no idea of how many of those were official.

As I said it would b interesting to find out to remove all of this speculation and our assumptions. Maybe we really don't have anything to worry about?

***Dave*** · 03-07-2008, 10:09

I'll soon find out when I try the 100-400mm out with the lens hood on, fully extended. Christ even I reckon it looks like a rocket launcher lol

LJR69 · 03-07-2008, 11:51

It's impossible to use a 400mm lens in a street without it causing an obstruction!

Larne · 03-07-2008, 12:30

I seriously doubt there will be a realistic record of cases involving photography as the majority will be unrecorded. The only way you can be formally required to cease photography and / or destroy your photographs is if you get arrested for a specific cause. How many photographers are going to push it that far? The majority will just back down and move on, or delete the photographs, because they want to avoid a trip to the local station.

And let's be honest here - considering the broad powers that the police have under terrorism laws etc - are they really going to admit after the fact that they over-reacted or are they just going to find a suitable piece of legislation to cover their back? Coppers are human, just like the rest of us, and no-one likes being made to back down and potentially look silly.

There is also no evidence to suggest that the courts would back the photographer in that situation. The legal and social environment these days seems to be to err on the side of caution, which is taken to mean erring on the side of the Police when there is any doubt.

We can debate the principle for as long as we like. What is important to us is the practice that will be carried out by the police and supported by the courts. I for one am not overly confident about the direction that 'practice' is heading in.

the_frog · 03-07-2008, 22:19

This is relevant, from today's papers. The clowns (Town Wardens) overstepped their mark - I'll be visiting Worthing to take their pictures this weekend - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/gener...to_apology.php

**Markulous** · 03-07-2008, 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_frog

This is relevant, from today's papers. The clowns (Town Wardens) overstepped their mark - I'll be visiting Worthing to take their pictures this weekend - http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/gener...to_apology.php

A perfect example of why there should be no further legislation - they can't understand the current laws of the land never find intrepreting additional law

Charlotte · 03-07-2008, 22:53

On one hand, I agree with one commenter to that article who said she would not want to take photo's of anyone who was uncomfortable about having their photo taken. This is common courtesy which I would think all photographers should extend to others. Ok photojournalists excepted - rightly or wrongly, they have no such consideration.

On the other hand, I agree that the police + local govt. + other officials are over-protective.

However, in their defence, I would rather they be over-protective and pee a lot of photographers off, than they give in to the pressures of over-zealous photographers, if the result was going to be a bomb going off killing people or something equally horrible. i.e. They are employed to protect us, whether we like it not, they are not employed to win any popularity contests. They are doing their job + what they think is best. Ok so they are not always right, but they are human too, and even photographers do the wrong thing sometimes. So I think habitual protestor-photographers should get off their high horses about this whole issue, and give others a break, just as they are asking for a break.

LJR69 · 03-07-2008, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

On one hand, I agree with one commenter to that article who said she would not want to take photo's of anyone who was uncomfortable about having their photo taken.

I just wanted to reply and say that I agree 100% with that statement. Just because one 'can' take a photograph, doesn't mean one 'should'.

**Markulous** · 04-07-2008, 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte

However, in their defence, I would rather they be over-protective and pee a lot of photographers off, than they give in to the pressures of over-zealous photographers, if the result was going to be a bomb going off killing people or something equally horrible. i.e. They are employed to protect us, whether we like it not, they are not employed to win any popularity contests. They are doing their job + what they think is best. Ok so they are not always right, but they are human too, and even photographers do the wrong thing sometimes. So I think habitual protestor-photographers should get off their high horses about this whole issue, and give others a break, just as they are asking for a break.

And whilst we're at it, lets double the 42 day maximum detention to 84 days - all we'll "pee off" are some potential suspects! Personally, I'm really not that fussed by any restriction imposed on a few photographers but I am concerned that people will actually think that it'll prevent an atrocity!

The whole thing feeds into the paranoia machine and it's the spin off effects that are so detrimental - anyone with a camera will then be, by definition, a suspect (after all legislation has had to be brought in to control their evil intentions!). It's the kind of thinking that promotes the vandalising of a paediatrician's house, as happened fairly recently (after all they had paed at the start of their job title, so they must be evil!)

Larne · 06-07-2008, 20:48

You can't legislate against ignorance and stupidity and unfortunately that is what is at the bottom of a great deal of the 'harrassment' photographers are being faced with.

From what I have read the police themselves seem to be taking a fairly sensible view, most of the time. It is the 'pseudo-cops' - the community support officers, town centre wardens, and so on - who seem most likely to go diving into a situation declaring that we can't take photographs without any valid legal case.

Yesterday I watched a pair of security guys at the Clipper Race finish trying to stop a photographer from moving around on the waterfront. The fact that he was wearing an 'event organiser' tag around his neck was totally ignored - they had been told that anyone with a media pass was not allowed on the dock front and he had a camera so of course he must be a media guy. I even saw them arguing the point with the Clipper Events media director who one assumes was probably actually paying for those security guards to be there.

I know it is a gross generalisation but I honestly believe that most people who take on 'pseudo-cop' roles do so because it boosts their ego. I believe they enjoy bossing people around and the legal right or wrong of a situation is not always in the fore-front of their mind, they are going on gut instinct and looking for an opportunity to play the hero. Those police officers that I have had the opportunity to interact with do not seem to fall into this category and are much more professional.

the_frog · 06-07-2008, 21:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Larne

I know it is a gross generalisation but I honestly believe that most people who take on 'pseudo-cop' roles do so because it boosts their ego. I believe they enjoy bossing people around and the legal right or wrong of a situation is not always in the fore-front of their mind, they are going on gut instinct and looking for an opportunity to play the hero. Those police officers that I have had the opportunity to interact with do not seem to fall into this category and are much more professional.

Agreed. I've made a habit of photographing police officers going about their business. Most are pretty good natured, and even the one who told me to **** off didn't try to stop me. However, the security guard at our local shopping centre likes to be able to dictate which part of pavement (not within the shopping centre) I stand on when I have a camera in my hand.

It seems the less authority a person has, the more they feel the need to exercise it.