I took a photograph of one of the buildings in Canary Warf and a security guard asked me to stop. I put my camera away and stopped. The next minute a PCSO stopped me and wanted to know why I was taking photographs. She then had to take down my name and address.
I luckily had my passport on me but I had nothing else at all, if I didn't have that I would have been arrested and the police would have had to proof who I was.
I found the thing quite amusing really but it has put me off taking photographs in cities. The joke is I am sure the entire complex is on google.
It seems that photography is allowed there but as I was taking close ups it was deamed as being an act of terrorism.
I just don't get, you see millions of tourists taking photographs of Downing Streets or Big Ben without any question.
|
Lets have a look at her then, put up her mugshot :-)
|
|
If you were on the public highway you have every right to take a picture. However being asked by a PCSO why you were taking pictures is not unreasonable and I think you are being over dramatic in stating that it was deemed as being an an act of terrorism. I doubt very much that you would have been arrested for having no ID
|
1) Tell the security guard to hop it, it's none of his business (unless you are on private premises). If he objects, take *his* photograph.
2) The PCSO needs to be educated. She has no reason to record your name and address. You should issue a formal complaint.
|
I asked her what would have happened if I refused to give her my details or had no ID and she said she would have had to get a police officer down to arrest me, hence the nearly got arrested bit as I very nearly went to London with no ID (something less to loose).
I took a picture from the ground up to the top to get a sort of sky scraper in the sky effect, she deemed that as I was taking a photograph of the windows! I think the security guard must have tipped her off.
She was polite about it all, if she was rude in anyway I would have complaint. I have the complaint procedures on the paper she gave me.
I just don't like the fact the met police now have all my details.
Also it turns out Canary Warf is private land and not public land so the laws a bit a different. If it was public land I may have kicked off a bit more.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Thu 16 Sep 10 at 13:22
|
just keep away from the effluent south
is the answer
im passing through this saturday but i wont be stopping as its a third world country down there and my gouts getting so much better now sister......................;-)
|
>> She then had to take down my name and address. <<
Pity she didn't offer to take anything else down me ole Son.
:)
|
Paul Lewis, a reporter for the Guardian, wrote last year about a similar experience he had while taking photos of the 'Gherkin'. He cites several other cases of the same thing happening to other people, mostly journalists.
Take a moment to thank George Bush for starting this, and Tony Blair for spinelessly following. "We will not allow terrorists to deny our people their fundamental freedoms. That's our job."
|
>> I took a photograph of one of the buildings in Canary Warf and a security
>> guard asked me to stop. I put my camera away and stopped. The next minute
>> a PCSO stopped me and wanted to know why I was taking photographs. She then
>> had to take down my name and address.
>>
www.newspapersoc.org.uk/Docs/Taking-of-Photographs-All-Forces-Guidance-26-08-2010.doc
26 August 2010
Dear Colleagues
Guidance for Photographers
I am writing to you in my capacity as Chair of the ACPO Communications Advisory Group which sits in the Presidential Business Area.
There have been a number of recent instances highlighted in the press where officers have detained photographers and deleted images from their cameras. I seek your support in reminding your officers and staff that they should not prevent anyone from taking photographs in public. This applies equally to members of the media and public seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places. ACPO guidance is as follows:
• There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.
• We need to cooperate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.
• We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.
• Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether for the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and it undermines public confidence in the police service.
• Once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order.
If you require further guidance please refer to the ACPO website or contact my Staff Officer Robin Edwards at robin.edwards@btp.pnn.police.uk.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Trotter
Chief Constable
Chair of ACPO Communication Advisory Group
|
Not to mention:
www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
and others.
Just stand up for yourself, without getting over-excited.
|
|
Good letter that John - Plain English - may be worth copying it into the notes section on a Smartphone for reference.
|
>> Good letter that John - Plain English - may be worth copying it into the
>> notes section on a Smartphone for reference.
>>
Yes, but ... there have been developments since that letter was wrtitten.
www.marcvallee.co.uk/blog/2010/09/police-seize-protesters-film/
see the comments there by Sussex Police's head of media relations, Nick Cloke.
TheRegister commented:
"alarm bells started ringing at ACPO HQ, and late yesterday afternoon we received a further communication from ACPO. A spokeswoman told us: "We have clarified our guidance note to forces, however, as this does not affect the legal right of officers to seize photographic equipment in certain circumstances, such as during the course of a criminal investigation.
"While it is the job of police officers to be vigilant, to keep an eye out for any suspicious behavior and to act accordingly, we have been very clear in expressing our view that the taking of photographs is not normally a cause for concern. Whether s.19 PACE was used appropriately in the case in question would ultimately be a matter for Sussex."
More to the point, Trotter’s freshly updated advice has been re-issued and now reads: "Once an image has been recorded the police have no power to delete it without a court order; this does not however restrict an officer’s power to seize items where they believe they contain evidence of criminal activity."
For those readers too busy to play compare and contrast, the original guidance stated that the police have no power to confiscate recorded images, whereas the clarified guidance explains that they have. Clear? "
Nigel Callaghan, a reader, commented thus on that story:
"Catch 22 #
Posted Friday 10th September 2010 10:33 GMT
So, if I understand it rightly...if I'm videoing something (which isn't criminal activity) and a plod who doesn't understand the law comes up to me and demands my camera, and then attempts to seize it, then said plod is committing a criminal activity which means that if the video is still running it now contains evidence of criminal activity which means the plod CAN now seize the camera, but that in itself means that the plod is now acting legally which means that there is no evidence in the camera of anything illegal which means that the plod is now acting illegally again...
...this could go on all day. "
Last edited by: John H on Thu 16 Sep 10 at 14:00
|
>> Not to mention: >> >> www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm
>> >> and others. >> >> Just stand up for yourself, without getting over-excited.
>>
Yes, agreed, stand up like like this boy did:
julesmattsson.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-romford-incident/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE
Also, IMO, if you make a habit of photographing in London, I think it is a good idea to carry a copy of the above Police official guidance.
|
I managed to recover the photograph I deleted (but lets not tell the cops how easy it is, they will be demanding the memory card next!) and its just a photograph of a tall building. There is no detail at all in, my £230 in 2006 Lumix FZ7 bridge is not for to that!
On another day I may have stood up for myself, if I was with somebody else I may have kicked off a bit but I knowing I had an £11 train to get back at 9:00pm I didn't want any trouble, if I missed that train it would be £100 for a new ticket for a 4 and a half hour coach ride home!.
|
Sense is finally starting to prevail it would seem.
All that's needed now is for me to feel able to take photos of Southend Pier on a summer's day which just happen to have a dozen or so swimmers in the sea, some of whom are children, without being accused of being a voyeur and a paedophile by a passer by, as happened last year.
I just happen to be one of those sad people who takes photos of the town, its architecture and its events and people as a record and it has become harder and harder over the last few years to do so without being regarded with suspicion. Many of the people I know who have had a similar interest have now given up purely because of this.
It seems people love to look at all the old sepia and black and white photos and reminisce about the bygone days but pay no attention to how those images exist and to who the people were behind the camera and why they were doing it.
In a hundred years people will be asking, 'why are there so few images of street scenes from the early 2000's on?'
People like me need the law to be clear and unequivocal, and if our former freedoms are being eroded then that needs to be clear also, and why.
|
|
I would tell them to get stuffed. If they want to take it further they can arrest me and sieze the camera and we will see what goes from there.
|
>> I would tell them to get stuffed. If they want to take it further they
>> can arrest me and sieze the camera and we will see what goes from there.
>>
+1
And remind them that if you are arrested you are going to sue them and contact the press.
|
...And remind them that if you are arrested you are going to sue them and contact the press...
You may well be impelled by a crushing and justifiable sense of injustice, but I would be wary of taking a gung-ho approach.
The police will find it easy to provoke you into committing a public order or other minor offence, enabling them to lock you up/mess you around for several hours.
|
|
And an arrest for a matter like that may make getting into the US difficult.
|
Then I really would have something to sue them about.
I am really quite tempted to try it
(when I get back from the US )
|
>> The police will find it easy to provoke you into committing a public order or
>> other minor offence, enabling them to lock you up/mess you around for several hours.
That's why many people regard the police with mistrust and contempt. First, not knowing the law, or trying to invent laws, in this case on taking photography. Next, for bullying behaviour.
|
How on earth did Google Street View get away with it without having their vehicle seized and the images deleted?
Taking one image of an award-winning piece of architecture is one thing. But if I systematically went along a street taking photographs of everybody's gates, windows, burglar alarms, security lights etc would I be arrested?
|
...How on earth did Google Street View get away with it without having their vehicle seized and the images deleted?...
Google is a big company with the resources to assert its rights.
The police would rather target a private individual who is easy to intimidate.
|
I think I may actually email somebody from the met police and get some better clarification on the issue. It seems the law is too complicated and basicaly says this
"You can take photos providing you aint working for bin laden or the IRA"
I wonder if I would have been treated so fairly if I spoke with a Northern Irish accent?
|
|
Says it all, really. No need to write to anyone.
|
>> How on earth did Google Street View get away with it without having their vehicle
>> seized and the images deleted?
Because they were not faced with an ignorant PC Plod or PCSO
"The Metropolitan Police Force cannot be guaranteed to abide by the law when it comes to allowing the public their right to take photographs.
That was the startling admission made last week by Met Police Commissioner John Stephenson under sharp questioning from Liberal Democrat London Assembly Member Dee Doocey during a Police Authority Meeting on 22 July 2010 in City Hall. Video footage of the exchange is available on the Metropolitan Police Authority site, with relevant footage from around the 68 minute mark.
Doocey asked the commissioner: "Are you confident that your officers are aware of the law when it comes to members of the public taking photographs in public places?"
In response, Stephenson talks initially as though this issue is in the past. He said: "It is a stated fact and public record that we did go through a period when there was a spate of these types of incidents. And I admit, I could not be confident at that time, because they were happening, and it was a matter occasionally of morning despair of what we were doing on occasions around it.
"The problem is, of course, getting 33,000+ police officers and 4000+ PCSOs to exercise the judgement that you have at 9am in the morning. At the result of that, we did issue very precise guidelines to officers, did an awful lot there.
"John Yates said at the time to everyone – and we did a huge amount to get out this message because it was costing such a disproportionate loss of reputation for us – that there is no restriction on people taking photos in public places or any other building other than in very exceptional circumstances."
He admitted that he was aware of a recent disturbing incident that took place in Romford, which according to Doocey represented "eight minutes of two of your officers intimidating somebody".
She continued: "At one stage they say that they don't need a law to stop them photographing, but much more worrying, they don't need a law to take them away. It’s not a question in my view of… It’s so serious that it don’t think it should be somebody giving them words of advice and I don't also agree with you that it is a question of officers using their discretion.
"This was very black and white: Two of your officers who, despite the fact that I know you have given them guidelines because I have a copy of it, who totally disregarded them and were either so completely ignorant of the law, or decided to ignore the law – they were just going to say they knew the law better than the person they were talking to – they were very seriously intimidating. I find it quite worrying that I don't think you are taking this quite as seriously as I think you should be." "
|
>> a PCSO stopped me and wanted to know why I was taking photographs. She then
>> had to take down my name and address.
>>
What document did she give you to record your stop?
|
|
'I'VE MET THE MET' sticker? Maybe a few still kicking about from the Miners strike.
|
In the context of freely taking photographs - what exactly does constitute a public place ? I guess it's not as free ranging as the traffic offences definition - somewhere the public has access to.
So, I can photograph what I want if I'm in the High Street, but what if I'm in Tesco's car park or Waterloo station?
|
I think a public place is a place that you have a legal right to access e.g. the street, public footpath,beach, a park.
Tesco could indeed stop you taking pictures in their car park and could simply ask you to leave their property. They cannot however stop you standing outside and taking pictures of the car park form the street. The same applies to Waterloo station where you will most likely be questioned by the security staff if you start taking pictures
|
...They cannot however stop you standing outside and taking pictures of the car park from the street..
That's about the strength of it.
You need to be doubly careful on railway stations - trespass on the railways is a more serious matter than on 'ordinary' private land.
I think it's some arcane criminal offence, whereas trespass in Tesco's car park would be a civil matter.
Unless you are taking photos to aid and abet terrorism, in which case you get locked up forever and the PCSO gets the collar of a lifetime.
|
|
Something tells me that certain railway stations have by-laws or are specified in some act or other...
|
>> Something tells me that certain railway stations have by-laws or are specified in some act
>> or other...
>>
That is true. Note that the letter in my first post was by a certain Andy Trotter who is Chief Constable of British Transport Police whose job is
"We police the tracks and provide a service to rail operators, their staff and passengers across the country. We also police the London Underground system, Docklands Light Railway, the Midland Metro tram system, Croydon Tramlink and the Glasgow Subway. Together, we move and safeguard around six million people every day. Policing the railways means policing the community."
On photography, they say
"You are allowed to take photographs on stations if it is for personal use. For any commercial photography, you must seek prior permission from the appropriate train operator or from Network Rail at their 17 major stations. On busy stations using a tripod may cause a dangerous obstruction to passengers so you may be asked to remove it. You must also keep tripod legs away from platform edges and behind the yellow lines. You are not allowed to use flash photography on platforms as it may distract the attention of train drivers and train dispatch staff and is therefore a potential safety hazard. You are also not allowed to take photographs of security related equipment such as CCTV cameras."
|
It was a small slip, called account and search (was never searched). To be fair I offered to delete the photograph (knowing full well I could recover it :p ).
|
If you read the photography mags it's all too common I'm afraid. It's either police/PCSOs under the guise of "terrorism" or it's some puffed up security guard if it's private property. They have NO right to ask you to delete photos nor to take your camera from you but they appear to be either ignorant of the law (!) or just ignore it. They clearly rely on intimidation on some occasions.
It does raise some interesting stories though. I read one of a guy in Scotland taking a photo in a shopping centre, private property. He was approached by a security guard who, in short tried it on. Apparently there is no law of trespass in Scotland and you can go where you want and take photos where you want. (Perhaps our Scottish correpsondents could comment?). The photographer knew his rights, stood his ground and politely told the guard where to go. When told about trespass, as above, the guard responded that the shopping centre was owned by an English company so English law applied! He then tried to take the camera from the photographer who pointed out that he was committng an assault. He eventually gave up and wandered off. You can imagine though, that if the photographer were less well informed, the guard were a bit thicker in the head and the arm and the situation a little quieter, lacking witnesses, where that might go.
I've also read that Top Gear stills photographers have stopped taking photos in London because of the hassle they get.
Petty bureaucracy again. And an easy target.
John
|
I am no expert but I believe that trespass does not exist in Scotland. There are a few exeptions, Defence establishments, railways, etc. which will be covered by specific bylaws.
Don't try it on with a grumpy farmer with a shotgun though!
|
Surely there must be some laws otherwise I could setup a rock festival in Old Navy's back garden and legally he couldn't do anything about it! That dosn't make sense.
In future I think I will just stick to taking pictures of the Pennines, Cornwall, Devon, the lakes and snowdonia :). Maybe even in Scotland if I ever go up there.
It has put me of taking pictures in Manchester though as I am worried the same thing might happen here. I doubt its just London although the situation is probably a lot worse there.
The sad thing is I am looking at the pictures I took in Cornwall and they are far more stunning than anything I could take in London and didn't have any hassle there. I was very careful not to take pictures of the beach though.
Last edited by: RattleandSmoke on Thu 16 Sep 10 at 19:47
|
>> Surely there must be some laws otherwise I could setup a rock festival in Old
>> Navy's back garden and legally he couldn't do anything about it! That dosn't make sense.
You could, but damage a blade of grass and you are on a looser in court.
In reality there is "freedom to roam" which has its limitations.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 16 Sep 10 at 20:04
|
Us Lunnuners don't like grockles with mysterious recording instruments, get my drift squire? You might be from the Council and that.
'Mind out what ye say, Jed. He's got that machine turned awn agin.'
(Lapsey Brass Band, c. 1920-30, speaker unknown).
|
|
I thought that PCSOs (plastic pigs) have no more power than members of the public?
|
|
Depends most Forces have given them specified powers of detention usually for 20 minutes whilst a warranted Officer is summoned to sort out the mess.
|
|
Just about correct, but wait 'till all these "Specials" come along.
|
|
We have some experienced police officers on the forum, it would be interesting to hear their views on this.
|
|
I think its still doughnut time at Norton Caines, they wont be along for a while.
|
Nearly got arrested for taking photos - Skoda
