Police Incident with my camera
Discussion
I'm not a photographer by any description and don't even own a proper camera, just the one the phone has and only because it's pretty much impossible to have a smartphone without one.
Anyhow, taking photographs and filming in public have no legal prohibition. There are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK and the average person in UK is caught on over 50 a day, various estimates put it between 70 at the most conservative figure from several years ago, and up to 300 for the more exaggerated claims. Whether it's 70, 170 or 300, if you don't want your pictures taken when in public, you'd better stay in your own home, never leave your own house and do everything including shopping online. Good luck with getting a job and having enough money to live if that's what you decide. If a privacy law were to make it illegal to take photographs in public places, it would be impossible to enforce. It's never going to happen so trying to suggest that the OP's behaviour in some way will make it more likely is disingenuous at best, a frankly pathetic attempt to use a straw man argument to make an invalid point at worst.
Further, nobody has the right to an answer to a question they do not have the right to ask, and that includes the police. Policing in this country is based on consent (look up policing by consent) which means that the power of the police comes from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. Unless there's a suspicion or evidence that you have broken the law, you cannot be asked to justify what you're doing and even then, the police has to tell you what law they think you have broken.
I don't like being asked questions by nosey busybodies either so if I had been asked what I was doing while performing something perfectly legal and legitimate, the person asking the question would also get the short shrift, especially if asked in a confrontational way. I suspect that the concerned member of the public didn't go up to the OP jovially and asked him what he was doing in a very pleasant manner, which, if done, probably would've elicited a clear and helpful explanation. But if someone comes up to one and says "oi, what are you doing, stop it!" while in the pursuit of a legal activity, that would generally would elicit a response of a less than polite request to go forth and multiply, and with good cause.
Therefore:
OP did nothing illegal;
The member of the public confronting him is likely to have aggrieved him with their approach and thereby inviting a snide response;
The police are also at fault and have compounded the error of the above moron.
OP, if I were you, I would make a complaint about this and also see if you can still complain about the WPC from the past. If you do nothing, these types of idiots will only be encouraged. We are going to hell in handcart towards an Orwellian state, we have to fight for and preserve what little freedom we have left, not squander it.
Anyhow, taking photographs and filming in public have no legal prohibition. There are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK and the average person in UK is caught on over 50 a day, various estimates put it between 70 at the most conservative figure from several years ago, and up to 300 for the more exaggerated claims. Whether it's 70, 170 or 300, if you don't want your pictures taken when in public, you'd better stay in your own home, never leave your own house and do everything including shopping online. Good luck with getting a job and having enough money to live if that's what you decide. If a privacy law were to make it illegal to take photographs in public places, it would be impossible to enforce. It's never going to happen so trying to suggest that the OP's behaviour in some way will make it more likely is disingenuous at best, a frankly pathetic attempt to use a straw man argument to make an invalid point at worst.
Further, nobody has the right to an answer to a question they do not have the right to ask, and that includes the police. Policing in this country is based on consent (look up policing by consent) which means that the power of the police comes from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. Unless there's a suspicion or evidence that you have broken the law, you cannot be asked to justify what you're doing and even then, the police has to tell you what law they think you have broken.
I don't like being asked questions by nosey busybodies either so if I had been asked what I was doing while performing something perfectly legal and legitimate, the person asking the question would also get the short shrift, especially if asked in a confrontational way. I suspect that the concerned member of the public didn't go up to the OP jovially and asked him what he was doing in a very pleasant manner, which, if done, probably would've elicited a clear and helpful explanation. But if someone comes up to one and says "oi, what are you doing, stop it!" while in the pursuit of a legal activity, that would generally would elicit a response of a less than polite request to go forth and multiply, and with good cause.
Therefore:
OP did nothing illegal;
The member of the public confronting him is likely to have aggrieved him with their approach and thereby inviting a snide response;
The police are also at fault and have compounded the error of the above moron.
OP, if I were you, I would make a complaint about this and also see if you can still complain about the WPC from the past. If you do nothing, these types of idiots will only be encouraged. We are going to hell in handcart towards an Orwellian state, we have to fight for and preserve what little freedom we have left, not squander it.
Variomatic said:
While that's generally true, it isn't in all cases. All of the examples I gave in my last post would raise valid reasons for the police to be interested in whether or not you had, indeed, taken a photo.
...
There are many other possible reasons, and when you point your camera you have absolutely no idea which, if any, of them might apply. But, if any of them do apply, then it's absolutely right and proper that the police investigate.
Then the police have to provide that justification to the person they are investigating. They are expressly not allowed to withold or not divulge that information. No reason for the question = no answer. If people are approached in a pleasant manner, they often respond in kind. If the "interrogator" starts off with trying to throw their weight around with no justification, they can foxtrot oscar....
There are many other possible reasons, and when you point your camera you have absolutely no idea which, if any, of them might apply. But, if any of them do apply, then it's absolutely right and proper that the police investigate.
threespires said:
>> Taking photos in public is 100% legal, so what is causing the caginess?
Whether I took a photo or not doesn't alter anything.
The police are acting on their assumption that I did, and whether I did take a photo or didn't is no reason for them to create this incident as I did nothing wrong whatever the actions of the camera were.
The complainant should have been told this.
Spires, you're a fWhether I took a photo or not doesn't alter anything.
The police are acting on their assumption that I did, and whether I did take a photo or didn't is no reason for them to create this incident as I did nothing wrong whatever the actions of the camera were.
The complainant should have been told this.
king weirdo. Try being normal - the police never speak to normal people.QuickQuack said:
I'm not a photographer by any description and don't even own a proper camera, just the one the phone has and only because it's pretty much impossible to have a smartphone without one.
Anyhow, taking photographs and filming in public have no legal prohibition. There are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK and the average person in UK is caught on over 50 a day, various estimates put it between 70 at the most conservative figure from several years ago, and up to 300 for the more exaggerated claims. Whether it's 70, 170 or 300, if you don't want your pictures taken when in public, you'd better stay in your own home, never leave your own house and do everything including shopping online. Good luck with getting a job and having enough money to live if that's what you decide. If a privacy law were to make it illegal to take photographs in public places, it would be impossible to enforce. It's never going to happen so trying to suggest that the OP's behaviour in some way will make it more likely is disingenuous at best, a frankly pathetic attempt to use a straw man argument to make an invalid point at worst.
There's a vast difference between someone with a camera and CCTV, which is controlled, accountable (for the most part), and subject to objective tests of reasonableness. I run a CCTV system in my shop. It costs me each year to register with the ICO and I can't for example, just set a camera up watching the road outside because I feel like it. I even have to be careful with internal camera positions to avoid filming passers by more than can be avoided. I also have to delete the footage regularly once it's no longer relevant for the purposes it's set up for - in my case on a 14 day rolling record so that there's time to notice (or be informed of) an incident such as someone trying to pass stolen goods and retrieve the images. After 14 days it's gone forever unlike, one would assume, the OP's photo project.Anyhow, taking photographs and filming in public have no legal prohibition. There are millions of CCTV cameras in the UK and the average person in UK is caught on over 50 a day, various estimates put it between 70 at the most conservative figure from several years ago, and up to 300 for the more exaggerated claims. Whether it's 70, 170 or 300, if you don't want your pictures taken when in public, you'd better stay in your own home, never leave your own house and do everything including shopping online. Good luck with getting a job and having enough money to live if that's what you decide. If a privacy law were to make it illegal to take photographs in public places, it would be impossible to enforce. It's never going to happen so trying to suggest that the OP's behaviour in some way will make it more likely is disingenuous at best, a frankly pathetic attempt to use a straw man argument to make an invalid point at worst.
Also, using a Subject Access Request to the operator, you have a legal right to view CCTV footage that includes you. Had the OP simply shown the photo he took to the shoppers concerned (or the police when they asked) all this would have gone away for him. But he's hell bent on "protecting his rights" rather than acting as a reasonable member of society.
The Leveson enquiry contained suggestions to introduce privacy laws and the possibility is raised quite regularly elsewhere. So, no, it's not a strawman argument in any shape or form.
In fact, even if the suggestion hadn't already been made, it wouldn't have been a strawman because it's a real, possible, and logically following consequence. A strawman argument involves a logical disconnect by arguing a different point to the one being made - such as saying that you're always being filmed by CCTV so you have no grounds to object if someone sticks a camera in your face. Now THAT'S a strawman!
QuickQuack said:
Then the police have to provide that justification to the person they are investigating. They are expressly not allowed to withold or not divulge that information. No reason for the question = no answer. If people are approached in a pleasant manner, they often respond in kind. If the "interrogator" starts off with trying to throw their weight around with no justification, they can foxtrot oscar.
Not necessarily, and certainly not at the initial enquiry stage: "Excuse me Sir, but would you mind telling me why you took that photo, only those are the parents of the child rape victim who's identity we've been trying to keep out of the papers and that's the victim in the child seat."
Kinda counter productive, don't you think?
Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 31st January 01:21
Variomatic said:
Not necessarily, and certainly not at the initial enquiry stage:
"Excuse me Sir, but would you mind telling me why you took that photo, only those are the parents of the child rape victim who's identity we've been trying to keep out of the papers and that's the victim in the child seat."
Kinda counter productive, don't you think?
That's not the only way to phrase it nicely though, is it?"Excuse me Sir, but would you mind telling me why you took that photo, only those are the parents of the child rape victim who's identity we've been trying to keep out of the papers and that's the victim in the child seat."
Kinda counter productive, don't you think?
Edited by Variomatic on Sunday 31st January 01:21
Plod: "Excuse me Sir, but it is possible that you may have inadvertently taken a photograph of a particularly sensitive nature and as a result it could be outside the usual freedom to take photographs in public. Would you awfully mind telling me what you were actually trying to take a picture of?
Passerby could say a variation of it and keep it similarly polite, congenial and non-confrontational. Can people really not think of a polite way of asking something without giving away sensitive information?
Good manners don't cost anything but bad manners cost the result.
QuickQuack said:
Good manners don't cost anything but bad manners cost the result.
Which is kinda the point several of us have been trying to make to the OP. A simple, good mannered, reassurance that he wasn't rying to snap the wife's knickers for his w
k bank would've gone a long way to clearing things up.If they'd then continued to object or complain then I' have a world of sympathy for him.
Problem is, chances are that he wasn't approached like that but was instead faced with a confrontational and aggressive passerby. I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right, they certainly don't, but if there are no manners in the initial approach, then one cannot expect to receive a helpful response in return. If he was asked politely, I'm sure that he would've responded in kind and we wouldn't be debating this right now! 
QuickQuack said:
Problem is, chances are that he wasn't approached like that but was instead faced with a confrontational and aggressive passerby. I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right, they certainly don't, but if there are no manners in the initial approach, then one cannot expect to receive a helpful response in return. If he was asked politely, I'm sure that he would've responded in kind and we wouldn't be debating this right now!
That's exactly what happened. But I also agree with the many posters who say that I could have handled the 'wronged' person better. My only excuse is that with four front teeth missing at the moment, I'm not up for conversation at the moment. [No it wasn't a fight ☺]
Cat said:
I've not suggested otherwise. My issue is with your claim that the police should have known the OP had done nothing wrong and shouldn't be wasting their time.
If there has been an allegation made that a crime was committed how can he police "know" if it is true without making enquiry and wasting their time asking about it.
Cat
I suspect what the allegation was is being held back by the OP. If there has been an allegation made that a crime was committed how can he police "know" if it is true without making enquiry and wasting their time asking about it.
Cat
Plus 'taking pictures of a woman' in a Tesco carpark sounds rather unsavory and I'm sure thats why the police wanted to speak to him. Innocent hobby or something a touch more rapey?
The police only have the callers version so if it was a bit creepy sounding they have to bottom it out. Maybe the way the OP was with them has just added fuel to the fire.
NinjaPower said:
Dr Jekyll said:
NinjaPower said:
Nigel Worc's said:
It would appear you can, but why be an arse when asked by the Police ?
Because photographer.They tend to dig their heels in massively and quote law when confronted, instead of trying to diffuse a situation by being friendly, open, and explaining their hobby.
I've hung around a few photography forums over the years and this seems to be the way.
Whole situation would probably have been dealt with if the OP had given the car park subject a friendly explanation. As it stands now he's had to waste his own time and petrol driving to a police station, and this might not even be the end of it.
If the law says you can photograph in a public place, then there should be no police involvement at all. It doesn't matter if he took a photo at all.
The police seem fairly happy with filming members of the public and showing it on national TV just for entertainment. When people object they are told fairly bluntly that its a public place and they can be filmed without their permission.
Rovinghawk said:
Under circumstances similar to the OP's version of events, what crime might that plausibly be?
See Variomatic's posts for possible examples. The bloke in the car park may well have just wanted to "make life difficult" for the OP, apparently some people think that is acceptable to embellish the facts or perhaps would just make stuff up to do that.Unfortunately if an allegation is made the police have a duty to make enquiry. Without knowing what the allegation was it is impossible to say whether or not they were justified in speaking to the OP.
Cat
Let's say it like it is.
OP was taking pictures of the woman's ass, husband spotted him, OP ran, gave some BS excuse when cornered, husband reported it to the police.
That's what they've reported him for, they think he's a massive pervert taking pictures of women in car parks and he's done nothing to prove otherwise. When the husband spoke to you, you could hav just been normal and said 'I was taking a picture of the cathedral, I can show you if you like?' (I'll assume it's a digital camera as its 2016) and that would have been the end of it if yourcover story is factual:
OP was taking pictures of the woman's ass, husband spotted him, OP ran, gave some BS excuse when cornered, husband reported it to the police.
That's what they've reported him for, they think he's a massive pervert taking pictures of women in car parks and he's done nothing to prove otherwise. When the husband spoke to you, you could hav just been normal and said 'I was taking a picture of the cathedral, I can show you if you like?' (I'll assume it's a digital camera as its 2016) and that would have been the end of it if your
The problem with giving people information they have no right to is that it encourages them to believe they are entitled to it.
If the OP had gone up to the Tesco shoppers and demanded to check the contents of their shopping bag I doubt they would have agreed. If he had then contacted the police and said 'someone is being cagey about their shopping' the police would have said 'so what'? Not 'thanks for the tip off, they might be planning to blow something up so we'll track them down immediately'.
I'm a but bemused by the argument that because photography laws are relatively liberal and the police have no general right to interfere, we should all voluntarily let them interfere, avoid exercising our rights and basically act as though we should be grateful for them not stopping us doing what they have no right to stop.
If the OP had gone up to the Tesco shoppers and demanded to check the contents of their shopping bag I doubt they would have agreed. If he had then contacted the police and said 'someone is being cagey about their shopping' the police would have said 'so what'? Not 'thanks for the tip off, they might be planning to blow something up so we'll track them down immediately'.
I'm a but bemused by the argument that because photography laws are relatively liberal and the police have no general right to interfere, we should all voluntarily let them interfere, avoid exercising our rights and basically act as though we should be grateful for them not stopping us doing what they have no right to stop.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff