UK Police Paranoid About Photography.

[Big Orange]

This is ridiculous and counterproductive, and will just make people more cautious and unhelpful around police and other similar authority figures when going about their business. The same level of mean paranoia around cameras is present in shopping malls. When I was in London back in the late Spring/early Summer, I was wary about a large contingent of police officers and put my camera away:

Photographers snap over use of Section 44 by police officers
The heavy-handed use of anti-terror laws is making innocent people feel like criminals, complain civil liberties groups

By Mark Hughes, Jerome Taylor and Thomas Mendelsohn

Politicians, civil liberties groups and police bodies yesterday added their voices to fears that police officers are abusing anti-terror legislation to stop and question photographers taking pictures of famous landmarks.


Yesterday, The Independent highlighted the concern that police forces across the country are misusing the Section 44 legislation granted to them under the Terrorism Act, which allows them to stop anyone they want in a pre-designated area, without the need for suspicions of an offence having been committed.

But photographers have complained that they are regularly stopped while taking pictures and are treated like terrorists on reconnaissance missions. This is despite the act giving officers no power to seize cameras or demand the deletion of photographs.

The Metropolitan Police use Section 44 legislation far more than any other police force in England and Wales. In the first quarter of this financial year the Met, along with British Transport Police, were responsible for 96 per cent of the Section 44 stop-and-searches in the country.

Jenny Jones, a Green Party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, Scotland Yard's governing body, said police officers stopping innocent people, as Section 44 allows them to do, was "unacceptable" and "illegal".

"This is an area where the Met is going to have to change its tactics," she said. "It is unacceptable to use a law like this illegally, which is what I think they are doing. It is something that the MPA's civil liberties panel is going to look at. It is a law that seems to hamper photographers, journalists, tourists and trainspotters. Anyone who carries a camera, basically."

Earlier this year, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, said the force would cut back on its use of Section 44, except around sites which are obvious terror targets, such as the Houses of Parliament.

But Ms Jones said the force needs to train its officers more thoroughly in the application of the law. "Some officers think they have the right to seize cameras. It is unbelievable and amounts to an abuse of power," she said.

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil liberties group, Liberty, called on the Government to reassess the law. "Section 44 stops are not based on reasonable suspicion and we know less than 1 per cent result in arrest.

"Hassling photographers and preventing them from carrying out perfectly ordinary assignments helps nobody, but blame must rest squarely with Parliament. It is time for this blunt and overly broad power to be tightened," she said.

Baroness Neville-Jones, the Conservatives' shadow security minister, said: "Inappropriate and ever wider use of these powers is one of the surest ways to lose public support in the fight against terrorism. Their use is declining, but not fast enough. These statistics also show that normal criminal legislation is much more effective."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said: "Terrorism powers are clearly being abused when they are routinely applied to photographers, tourists and trainspotters. Police officers need more information and training to stop these inappropriate and excessive Section 44 searches."

Photographers continue to criticise the use of the power. In today's Independent, Stuart Franklin, a celebrated British photographer, reveals that he was stopped and searched by police officers in north London while on an assignment earlier this year.

Jeff Moore, chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association (BPPA), said: "The main problem we face is that Section 44 is an extremely poor piece of legislation that creates an enormous amount of confusion, both among the public and among the police officers that use it."

Mr Moore said police have ignored the BPPA's requests over the past four years to have photographers talk to newly qualified police constables during their media training. He said: "We're not trying to fight the police, we're trying to work with them."

Section 44: Special powers for the police

* The Terrorism Act 2000 came in to force on 19 February 2001, "in response to the changing threat from international terrorism". It replaced temporary legislation that had been brought in to address the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

* Section 44 grants police officers wide-ranging powers to stop and search and is one of the Act's more controversial provisions. Under it, police are entitled to stop and search any pedestrian or vehicle in a certain area, as well as anything carried by them or their passengers, provided prior authorisation has been given. Officers can do this without having any suspicion that an offence is being committed.

* Such an authorisation is given only if the person giving it "considers it expedient" for the prevention of terrorism – a rather open-ended clause.

* Authorisations are granted for "areas", for up to 28 days. Once one has been given for an area, any police officer can conduct their searches there for as long as it lasts.

The Independent

[The Yosemite Bear]

Ok, no need to quote Nick Machevelli, or Fred Nietzche the simple fact is that if you give people power against your basic civil rights, they are going to abuse it, and become more of a problem then a solution.

[frogcurry]

The Register website has been getting pretty riled about this sort of abuse for about a year now. The last incident like this I recall was the one where the police gave a photographer trouble for taking a picture of them (after being hassled by un-uniformed police who refused to show ID), and then arrested him for being too tall.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26 ... planation/

They need their powers heavily curtailed given this sort of nonsense. A shame they don't use them against neds and drunk troublemakers instead of the innocent majority.

[Big Orange]

And the police send fines through the post to motorists going a few miles over the limit, while dumbass chav joyriders still seem to be about in force, storming down pedestrian populated suburban sideroads free of speed cameras.

Security personnel on corporate property have the right to intimidate people taking photos of the property and to radio/phone in serious police attention, as shown in this Guardian video. While in Bristol there is no twitchiness around police and government facilities, I was still taken aback by the security men getting worried about photography on the property of Cabot Circus, which was part of a stretch of road in the city centre and still blended into the rest of Broadmead (and we're one of the most heavily watched populace in the world).

[Big Orange]

OK, photography being discouraged around the property of TPTB has provoked a more organized backlash from professional phographers and the public:

I'm a Photographer NOT a Terrorist!

About
Photography is under attack. Across the country it that seems anyone with a camera is being targeted as a potential terrorist, whether amateur or professional, whether landscape, architectural or street photographer. Not only is it corrosive of press freedom but creation of the collective visual history of our country is extinguished by anti-terrorist legislation designed to protect the heritage it prevents us recording.

This campaign is for everyone who values visual imagery, not just photographers. We must work together now to stop this before photography becomes a part of history rather than a way of recording it.

Find us on

Facebook

Twitter

[Coyote]

Ahhh, the irony. The place where the government photographs everyone the most is now afraid of being photographed itself. Everyone feeling 'safe' now?