Photographers win British war on photography?

[Donmck]

"Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."


http://www.boingboing.net/2009/12/06...rs-win-br.html

[Joe Grodis]

Do they plan on taking over public libraries to cut out all "targets of value" pictures from books as well?

[Greg Davis]

It's good that there is such a strong statement in support of photographers by someone in authority, but it needs to be followed up by better training of officers and enforcement within police ranks to be worth anything.

[tim rudman]

Do they plan on taking over public libraries to cut out all "targets of value" pictures from books as well?

and what about Google street mapping & Google Earth?!

[perkeleellinen]

I saw the front cover of the Independent Newspaper which pushed this issue forward. It was a strong front page, unfortunately I don't have it here otherwise I'd snap it post it here.

Anyway here's the story from the Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1834626.html

The comments at the bottom are interesting. Especially this:

I often despair when I read newspaper articles that list your legal rights in these encounters - that there is no compulsion to give your name and address, that an officer cannot delete your work from your camera and so on . . . this is often spoken with the pristine confidence of someone who has not spent hours in a police van or a night in a police cell for attempting to point out that an officer has no right to delete footage or demand my name and address - attempting to point this out will usually render you as "having an attitude" and - depending on the temperament of the officer - lead to detainment, lengthy checks, or even arrest for obstruction of an officer in the line of duty.

[Aurum]

Hardly, ACPO despite what it likes to portray, has no legal standing. They are a professional association or trade union.

I grew up in the 80's, and police harassment in places like Toxteth, Handsworth and Brixton was notorious (Look on YouTube for the not the nine O'clock news sketch called constable savage)
The police were forced of course to re-evaluate when riots started, and it was pointed out in the aftermath that they were at least partially responsible for engendering the situation.

As usual the main troublemakers appear to be the Met. They've always been viewed by the rest of the countries forces as a bunch of the proverbials. The associated forces such as Kent and the like, have obviously picked up the dross that even the Met can't use.

The really stupid thing is that it really doesn't have to be like this. I've shot street in places like Whitby during Halloween, and the police were just there to ensure public safety and direct traffic (and try not to giggle at some of the really wierd costumes). Same with Edinburgh during the fringe.

As there will be an election coming up soon, prehaps its worth asking politicians what they are going to do about this. Wrong answer? You've lost my vote.

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE=Aurum;906615]
The really stupid thing is that it really doesn't have to be like this. I've shot street in places like Whitby during Halloween, and the police were just there to ensure public safety and direct traffic (and try not to giggle at some of the really wierd costumes). Same with Edinburgh during the fringe.

QUOTE]


You mean that George Dixon has emigrated to the provinces Seriously there was a way of approaching the public that got the PC what he needed to know without antagonising the member of the public. Both parties assumed that the other had rights and was probably an innocent party legitimately pursuing their business. Take that away and assume the opposite and the result is what we see now in a lot of police and public interactions.

Increase the mutual hostility and the tipping point into no-go, unsafe areas except for the "muscled" on either side is easily reached and probably has been in more areas of the U.K. than many of us think and certainly than most Chief Constables and politicians will admit.


pentaxuser

[perkeleellinen]

From today's Guardian:

One of the country's leading architectural photographers was apprehended by City of London police under terrorism laws today while photographing the 300-year old spire of Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church for a personal project. Grant Smith, who has 25 years experience documenting buildings by Richard Rogers and Norman Foster, was stopped by a squad of seven officers who pulled up in three cars and a riot van

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/de...rrorism-powers

[Aurum]

Obviously ACPO are being listened to then.:rolleyes:

Maybe Boris Johnson needs to be approached to reinforce the message that photography isn't a crime, and the reputation that London is getting is of a laughing stock.

If him and the Met don't give a stuff about that, thats fine, but they may be more concerned about the loss in tourism by discouraging coach groups of snap hungry Japanese and Americans

[Rudeofus]

Maybe Boris Johnson needs to be approached to reinforce the message that photography isn't a crime, and the reputation that London is getting is of a laughing stock.

The most scary part is in the Guardian article, when the police is quoted as "we acted proportionate". Such "proportionate" behaviour and attitude sure doesn't entice me to visit the UK or the US anytime soon. Please tell me what's in the mind of security guards and police men if applying anti terror laws to someone who peacefully takes images of an old building is called "proportionate".