Beware of Greeks ...
Discussion
taking photographs [or of 'plane-spotters in Greece]!
A warning for readers of a "dusky" (or darker) skin complexion . Taking photographs of iconic buildings in London can lead to you being "detained" under the Terrorism Act 2000 (and so adding to the 25,000+ "detained" each year). Having read a number of reports of this, I saw it for myself some days ago. A gentleman whom I would have classed as an "IC2" stopped to take a photograph of a building from the pen of Richard Rogers. He was setting up his camera on a tripod when two of the City's finest approached him. I was close enough and interested enough to linger to hear the conversation (despite there being a bitter wind a-blowing). One officer enquired what the man was doing. "Photographing XXXX" he replied, with a hint of stating the bl33ding obvious.
I was astonished to hear the second officer enquire of the man: "Don't you know that's an offence under the Terrorism Act?" In and of itself, this is an untrue statement (the area was at the time neither a "designated site", nor an "exclusion zone", nor a "specified area"
. The man protested that all he was doing was taking a photograph. The second officer then informed the man that he intended to search him pursuant to S43 of the Act. As an "average Joe", but also one engaged in the past and again today in the prevention and detection of "terrorism" and other criminal acts against the "Critical National Infrastructure", I did not feel that the officer could "reasonably suspect" that the man was a terrorist. Perhaps it was the colour of the man's skin ... but remember that Jean Charles de Menezes was described as an "IC1" by the watcher. BTW, I based (at least some of) my reasoning upon the fact that the man's camera was an expensive Medium Format type fitted with a perspective control lens ... not the sort of camera or lens used for covert surveillance!
Anyway, some sense prevailed, and the first officer - possibly chilled to the bone himself ... or a photography buff - persuaded his colleague that there was little to be gained by searching the man, but nevertheless instructed him to take his photograph quickly and be off [that's "be off", not "B***** off, BTW].
It is not long ago that we were astonished by the Greeks' pursuit of photograph-taking plane-spotters; it is not that long ago that taking photograhs of Italy from an aircraft was such a heinous offence that even non-Italian airlines warned passengers against it. Now, paranoia has taken hold here too.
If you are not an IC1 (or perhaps even if you are) and a keen photographer of architecture ... be careful out there!
Streaky
A warning for readers of a "dusky" (or darker) skin complexion . Taking photographs of iconic buildings in London can lead to you being "detained" under the Terrorism Act 2000 (and so adding to the 25,000+ "detained" each year). Having read a number of reports of this, I saw it for myself some days ago. A gentleman whom I would have classed as an "IC2" stopped to take a photograph of a building from the pen of Richard Rogers. He was setting up his camera on a tripod when two of the City's finest approached him. I was close enough and interested enough to linger to hear the conversation (despite there being a bitter wind a-blowing). One officer enquired what the man was doing. "Photographing XXXX" he replied, with a hint of stating the bl33ding obvious.
I was astonished to hear the second officer enquire of the man: "Don't you know that's an offence under the Terrorism Act?" In and of itself, this is an untrue statement (the area was at the time neither a "designated site", nor an "exclusion zone", nor a "specified area"
. The man protested that all he was doing was taking a photograph. The second officer then informed the man that he intended to search him pursuant to S43 of the Act. As an "average Joe", but also one engaged in the past and again today in the prevention and detection of "terrorism" and other criminal acts against the "Critical National Infrastructure", I did not feel that the officer could "reasonably suspect" that the man was a terrorist. Perhaps it was the colour of the man's skin ... but remember that Jean Charles de Menezes was described as an "IC1" by the watcher. BTW, I based (at least some of) my reasoning upon the fact that the man's camera was an expensive Medium Format type fitted with a perspective control lens ... not the sort of camera or lens used for covert surveillance! Anyway, some sense prevailed, and the first officer - possibly chilled to the bone himself ... or a photography buff - persuaded his colleague that there was little to be gained by searching the man, but nevertheless instructed him to take his photograph quickly and be off [that's "be off", not "B***** off, BTW].
It is not long ago that we were astonished by the Greeks' pursuit of photograph-taking plane-spotters; it is not that long ago that taking photograhs of Italy from an aircraft was such a heinous offence that even non-Italian airlines warned passengers against it. Now, paranoia has taken hold here too.
If you are not an IC1 (or perhaps even if you are) and a keen photographer of architecture ... be careful out there!
Streaky
Ah but Streaky what if he had been a raghead of the highest order on an intelligence gaining mission and had been stopped in his tracks. Well done post from Streaky?
Not only do these checks sometimes come up trumps but are they not a deterent as well.
On the other foot you will be pleased to note the passing of this bit of legislation
repealing the issue of Fixed penalty Tickets:
http://tinyurl.com/dlr9v
What a wunnerful cantry we live in?
dvd
Not only do these checks sometimes come up trumps but are they not a deterent as well.
On the other foot you will be pleased to note the passing of this bit of legislation
repealing the issue of Fixed penalty Tickets:
http://tinyurl.com/dlr9v
What a wunnerful cantry we live in?
dvd
Dwight VanDriver said:dvd - it's always possible, but improbable (and please don't go all Sherlock on me
Ah but Streaky what if he had been a raghead of the highest order on an intelligence gaining mission and had been stopped in his tracks.
Not only do these checks sometimes come up trumps but are they not a deterent as well.
) ... and, BTW, isn't "raghead" a pejorative term? I doubt such stops are any real deterrent, except to architectural students and visitors to London wishing to record the city's landmarks. Through conversations with (e.g.) CO13 and the Met's and COLP's ATAs, I am aware of (at least some of) the reconnaissance being conducted in the capital ... all of it much more covertly than setting up a substantial MF camera with PC lens in a busy street - StreakyUnd you are not allowed to take photos in Hyde Park lest a cild stray into background und you also accused by goodness know what. 
Was on Vine prog a bit back - even Vine was incredulous over it - sounded in voice. ist all down to ever so pee-cee Kenny
Next - breathing in London will be a crime.... I intend to stay in lovely Lakes where we are all civilised - apart from sub marinated individuals Und not saying who have in mind either If you think it ist you - you have guilty conscience 
You lurker you!
>> Edited by WildCat on Sunday 27th November 00:06
Was on Vine prog a bit back - even Vine was incredulous over it - sounded in voice. ist all down to ever so pee-cee Kenny
Next - breathing in London will be a crime....
I intend to stay in lovely Lakes where we are all civilised - apart from sub marinated individuals Und not saying who have in mind either If you think it ist you - you have guilty conscience You lurker you! >> Edited by WildCat on Sunday 27th November 00:06
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff