Innocent photographer or terrorist?
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm
Sad.
Time to get an "Official Photographer" badge with my Fizzog on it?
What's bonkers is that this seems to be discrimination against people with nice cameras. Go ahead and snap away on your moby and it's OK.
It's not the cops who need educating (although some clearly do) it's the general public. You know - the lot that want to persecute paediatricians...
I posted that perhaps the BBC could include a plotline in Eastenders...
BBC said:
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."
...rest of story on web-site
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."
...rest of story on web-site
Sad.
Time to get an "Official Photographer" badge with my Fizzog on it?
What's bonkers is that this seems to be discrimination against people with nice cameras. Go ahead and snap away on your moby and it's OK.
It's not the cops who need educating (although some clearly do) it's the general public. You know - the lot that want to persecute paediatricians...
I posted that perhaps the BBC could include a plotline in Eastenders...
The rest of the story is on the web but I think the conclusion to this part should be highlighted here too:-
'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.'
'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.'
Edited by pauljc on Thursday 17th April 15:53
pauljc said:
The rest of the story is on the web but I think the conclusion to this part should be highlighted here too:-
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.
Quite right. Should have done that myself. The cops got this right in the end. It was a "Special" that got this wrong. Hence my thoughts that perhaps the general public need an education. 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.
And, for obvious reasons, a plotline in Eastenders might be appropriate!
I don't mind people taking pictures of me when I work, even if it's doing something tricky like restraining someone on the ground. Lots of officers would go the 'I'm seizing that as evidence of the offence' route to prevent people taking pics of public order incidents. I wasn't aware that this was actually not permitted.
Don said:
The cops got this right in the end. It was a "Special" that got this wrong. Hence my thoughts that perhaps the general public need an education.
No, I'd suggest that the Special Constables need a bit more training before being put on the streets.JulianHJ said:
I don't mind people taking pictures of me when I work, even if it's doing something tricky like restraining someone on the ground. Lots of officers would go the 'I'm seizing that as evidence of the offence' route to prevent people taking pics of public order incidents. I wasn't aware that this was actually not permitted.
I can understand a policeman saying 'Can I have a copy of that because it's got useful evidence on it?' - fine. But confiscating the camera or making them delete photos suggest they're destroying evidence, not collecting it. And why would they want to do that?Simpo Two said:
Don said:
The cops got this right in the end. It was a "Special" that got this wrong. Hence my thoughts that perhaps the general public need an education.
No, I'd suggest that the Special Constables need a bit more training before being put on the streets.JulianHJ said:
I don't mind people taking pictures of me when I work, even if it's doing something tricky like restraining someone on the ground. Lots of officers would go the 'I'm seizing that as evidence of the offence' route to prevent people taking pics of public order incidents. I wasn't aware that this was actually not permitted.
I can understand a policeman saying 'Can I have a copy of that because it's got useful evidence on it?' - fine. But confiscating the camera or making them delete photos suggest they're destroying evidence, not collecting it. And why would they want to do that?Some people have this printed on a card that they carry with them:
You are reminded that under UK law, there are no restrictions on taking photographs in a public place or on photography of individuals, whether they are adults or minors. There is no right to privacy in a public place, although photographers are of course subject to the usual libel laws in the same way as any other citizen and should observe them. Equipment or film may not be confiscated, or images deleted by any person or officer unless a warrant for such action is issued. Any attempt without a warrant is considered assault under UK law.
Simpo Two said:
Don said:
The cops got this right in the end. It was a "Special" that got this wrong. Hence my thoughts that perhaps the general public need an education.
No, I'd suggest that the Special Constables need a bit more training before being put on the streets.Simpo Two said:
Strangely Brown said:
Some people have this printed on a card that they carry with them:
Is that a special card you get from somewhere, or just printed out at home? I might keep a few in the bag.That really is a disgusting story. The whole country is going down the 'pan'.
This is one of the reasons I'm struggling with my final portfolio for college which is buildings. I'm very cautious about venturing into the city centre to photograph some of the buildings. I've stuck to out of town ones so far.
This is one of the reasons I'm struggling with my final portfolio for college which is buildings. I'm very cautious about venturing into the city centre to photograph some of the buildings. I've stuck to out of town ones so far.
4hero hawkeye said:
one of my contacts on flickr was hustled yesterday by security guards (and joe public) for shooting in the street.
I must have been lucky when I set up with a tripod in Regent Street then!Still, here's the policeman's pocket guide to 'Is this man a terrorist?'
Terrorist: Brown, armed with AK47 or Semtex
Photographer: Usually white, armed with Canon or Nikon.
If still in doubt, think 'gun long, camera short' or radio for help.
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 18th April 09:26
4hero hawkeye said:
one of my contacts on flickr was hustled yesterday by security guards (and joe public) for shooting in the street.
The guys mate got the hustle on video, here's a short clip. Cocky barsteward.
Edited by 4hero (>hawkeye) on Sunday 20th April 13:31
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff