Man separated from crowd for taking pot-shots- Oh, it was with a camera? -Nanny State

[Blind_Io]

Original Story HERE.

Innocent photographer or terrorist?






By Tom Geoghegan
BBC News Magazine


Misplaced fears about terror, privacy and child protection are preventing amateur photographers from enjoying their hobby, say campaigners.
Phil Smith thought ex-EastEnder Letitia Dean turning on the Christmas lights in Ipswich would make a good snap for his collection.
The 49-year-old started by firing off a few shots of the warm-up act on stage. But before the main attraction showed up, Mr Smith was challenged by a police officer who asked if he had a licence for the camera.
After explaining he didn't need one, he was taken down a side-street for a formal "stop and search", then asked to delete the photos and ordered not take any more. So he slunk home with his camera.

"People were still taking photos with mobile phones and pocket cameras, so maybe it was because mine looked like a professional camera with a flash on top," he says.
"I wasn't very pleased because I was taken through the crowd and through the barriers at the front and people were probably thinking 'I wonder what he was doing.'
"To be pulled out of a crowd is very daunting and I wasn't aware of my rights.
"It's a sad state of affairs today if an amateur photographer can't stand in the street taking photographs."
'Crazy' officials
But he's not the only snapper to fall foul of the authorities while innocently pursuing a hobby or working.





Austin Mitchell MP has tabled a motion in the Commons that has drawn on cross-party support from 150 other MPs, calling on the Home Office and the police to educate officers about photographers' rights.
Mr Mitchell, himself a keen photographer, was challenged twice, once by a lock-keeper while photographing a barge on the Leeds to Liverpool canal and once on the beach at Cleethorpes.
"There's a general alarm about terrorism and about paedophiles, two heady cocktails, and police and PCSOs [police community support officers] and wardens and authorities generally seem to be worried about this."
Photographers have every right to take photos in a public place, he says, and it's crazy for officials to challenge them when there are so many security cameras around and so many people now have cameras on phones. But it's usually inexperienced officers responsible.
"If a decision is made to crack down on photographers, it should be made at the top. It's a general officiousness and a desire to interfere with people going about their legitimate business."
Furtive photos
Steve Carroll was another hapless victim of this growing suspicion. Police seized the film from his camera while he was out taking snaps in a Hull shopping centre. They later returned it but a police investigation found they had acted correctly because he appeared to be taking photographs covertly.

And photography enthusiast Adam Jones has started an online petition on the Downing Street website urging the prime minister to clarify the law. It has gained hundreds of supporters.
He says it has become increasingly difficult to take photos in public places because of terrorism fears.
Holidaymakers to some overseas destinations will be familiar with this sort of attitude - travel guides frequently caution readers that innocently posing for a snapshot outside a government building could lead to some stern questions from local law enforcers.
But in Britain this sort of attitude is new. So what is the law?
"If you are a normal person going about your business and you see something you want to take a picture of, then you are fine unless you're taking picture of something inherently private," says Hanna Basha, partner at solicitors Carter-Ruck. "But if it's the London Marathon or something, you're fine."



There are also restrictions around some public buildings, like those involved in national defence.
And under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, police officers may randomly stop someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the area has been designated a likely target for an attack.
Child protection has been an issue for years, says Stewart Gibson of the Bureau of Freelance Photographers, but what's happened recently is a rather odd interpretation of privacy and heightened fears about terrorism.
"They [police, park wardens, security guards] seem to think you can't take pictures of people in public places. It's reached a point where everyone in the photographic world has become so concerned we're mounting campaigns and trying to publicise this."
It seems to be increasing, he says.
"There's a great deal of paranoia around but the police are on alert for anything that vaguely resembles terrorism. It's difficult because the more professional a photographer, paradoxically, the more likely they are to be stopped or questioned.
"If people were using photos for terrorism purposes they would be using the smallest camera possible."
Complaint
The National Union of Journalists has staged a demo to highlight how media photographers are wrongly challenged by police.
In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident.
Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.
They state that "once images are recorded, [the police] have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if [the police] think they contain damaging or useful evidence."

And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly.
And there was one consolation for Mr Smith as he trudged home while lamenting the shots of Letitia Dean that never were - she didn't turn up anyway.

[anti-net]

This isn't nanny state - This is police state

I'm thinking about studying aboard now, I hear North Korea is more free than Britain

[Cobol74]

I got stopped "Under anti terrorism legislation" in my car. OK fair enough I had a headlight out, which I did not notice in the bright street lights. But he wanted to search my car! So I assisted him so to do, but if i were to have something hidden he did not look in the most obvious hiding place. I am of the opinion that it was a scam by the police to pick up drunk drivers and drug offenders. The other two cars pulled up were full of youngsters (17 - 21 year olds).

Gordon Brown wants 42 days detention without change because. ..., well why? He can not point to a single case where the additional time would have allowed the Police to complete their investigations and charge an individual rather than the present (too long IMHO) 28 days.

My boss at work was stopped for a light out, again fair enough but the bolshy PC would not let her drive the car as it was "unroadworthy" after issuing the penalty. One of her Canadian relative was in the car and let rip at the PC - no good.

Oh well life goes on. ...

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Cobol74

Gordon Brown wants 42 days detention without change because. ..., well why? He can not point to a single case where the additional time would have allowed the Police to complete their investigations and charge an individual rather than the present (too long IMHO) 28 days.

You can be held for a month before they file charges?!? IIRC, you can't be held for more than 24 hours in the US without charges.

[P5138]

^ I think you are correct, but I don't know where to check that (also the Patriot Act may have changed a few things around on that front).

This attack on photographers seems so idiotic. Even in the US, I rarely pull my camera out because people give dirty looks at you. It seems the moment you admit to being a photographer of any type you become a liability to everyone around you.

[monkeymax]

Yup, I was forwarded this yesterday.
Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me. I wanted to go on the London Eye with friends back in December, and the security guards wanted to confiscate my photographic equipment. I had my DSLR, two lenses and a tripod. People with compacts... no problem. But I had to give up my DSLR...!
Yeah - right. Had a bit of an arguement about how I wasn't handing over my equipment to a stranger, and how if they weren't going to let me on they should give me my money back for the ticket.

I made enough of a fuss that the duty-manager came over and we compromised... I could take my camera on, but the tripod was still apparently a security risk because "It could harm other passengers". It was a light £8 tripod that I'd gotten off the 'net, and I'd had enough, so I gave it to them and went on. Got some good photos and managed to retrieve my tripod afterwards, but that experience completely and utterly ruined the evening for me and my friends.

This country's gone to pot. Especially if you enjoy taking photos.

[anti-net]

Originally Posted by tigger

You can be held for a month before they file charges?!? IIRC, you can't be held for more than 24 hours in the US without charges.

Only under terrorism stuff, but yeah its not on. I've heard of people been searched while waiting for trains, waiting to meet friends in the street. Its just madness, we had the IRA blowing crap up a lot and there was no hardcore new regulation but now we do, and despite this kids still are getting stabbed and shot on our streets

EDIT: Another example of Soviet Britain: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/7336740.stm

[Blind_Io]

Originally Posted by tigger

You can be held for a month before they file charges?!? IIRC, you can't be held for more than 24 hours in the US without charges.

Actually, under the PATRIOT Act you can be held indefinitely without charge. For all other crimes it's 24 hours.

[watisdis]

Isn't funny (oh wait, it isn't) how they they try to put up this facade of good will by naming these totalitarian laws/regulations with words such as, "patriot" "anti-terrorist" etc. By pure defenition, the public is being terrorized by their own governments. I guess since 9/11, terrorism has been winning afterall.

+ YouTube Video

[phuckingduck]

Popular Mechanics has an article in this months issue about Planespotters (not related to the drugged out movie with creepy ass baby on ceiling) and how they always get heckled by the cops for doing what they do even though they've helped cops solve crimes.

[Whappeh]

Originally Posted by phuckingduck

Popular Mechanics has an article in this months issue about Planespotters (not related to the drugged out movie with creepy ass baby on ceiling) and how they always get heckled by the cops for doing what they do even though they've helped cops solve crimes.

I'm an active Planespotter, and I got to say, its amazing how they totally shit all over us, when at least 50% of us work in the aviation industry (Fuck, I'll say at least 20% of all planespotters I have ever met are Airline Captains) and 100% of us totally love the industry and would bend over backwards (and still often times do) to help the Police and the Airports stay secure.

Yet I've been arrested for standing on top of the car park in Orlando for 15 minutes with a camera slung around my shoulder.

[watto]

Originally Posted by Whappeh

Yet I've been arrested for standing on top of the car park in Orlando for 15 minutes with a camera slung around my shoulder.

What exactly do they arrest you for??

[Whappeh]

Originally Posted by watto

What exactly do they arrest you for??

Sorry, I missed used some words there. I wasn't arrested or charged with anything. The security was doing some scare tactics, and called the police to come up. The police then tried to tell me what I was doing was illegal (it isn't), I produced Airline employee identification, they told me it was still illegal, they stuck me in the back of the cruiser. They talked for a bit, then let me out and told me to leave.

Orlando airport is really bad on this because the guy that runs the GOAA is a total d-bag to photographers. Other airports in the US like Tampa, FL or Phoenix, AZ will let you go on their car parks and shoot aircraft all day long no hassle. A few other airports like Nashville, TN, Dallas, TX and Raleigh-Durham, NC have viewing platforms in which you can listen to the ATC and are set up near the end of active runways. Miami, FL has holes cut in once side of the perimeter fence every so often so you can shoot through them... so there really isn't any solid rules against it, but most cops will be total assbags to you everywhere you go (except Phoenix, it seems from my personal experience).

[Peter3hg]

Originally Posted by tigger

You can be held for a month before they file charges?!? IIRC, you can't be held for more than 24 hours in the US without charges.

For most crimes it's 24 hours that can be extended to 36 by a Chief Superintendent. For very serious crimes it can go up to 72 hours with a Magistrates permission.

[Lurch0001]

Man, this whole situation sucks. You know things are going to hell in a handbasket when the government starts taking rights away from the very people that they should be there to serve. If we allow this to continue, then the terrorists have won.