Interesting article on the amateur photographer hysteria

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Phil Stovell, Apr 17, 2008.

  1. Phil Stovell

    Mike Ross Guest

    None of course; Trev was making the same mistake some cops make: thinking
    'card-carrying members of the press' are any different to Joe Citizen in terms
    of what rights they have.

    (and that can cut BOTH ways; I've heard of cases where media have been prevented
    from filming, whilst random people who happened to be passing by were free to
    use camera phones much closer to the incident)

    Mike
     
    Mike Ross, Apr 20, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Phil Stovell

    MB Guest

    The only RTA that I have been seen in recent years was before digital
    cameras became as common place as now so I asked the police if they wanted
    some pictures before the brigade cut up the car to remove the trapped
    driver.

    Of course we have to be PC now, they are RTCs not RTAs.

    MB
     
    MB, Apr 21, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Phil Stovell

    MB Guest


    Have they got a case against the police for loss of earnings?

    Otherwise I just hope they charge the full going rate if the police ever
    want any copies of photographs from them.

    MB
     
    MB, Apr 21, 2008
    #23
  4. Phil Stovell

    Mike Guest

    "Breach of the Peace" or "Failing to do as she's bloody well told" (Ways
    & Means Act).
     
    Mike, Apr 21, 2008
    #24
  5. Phil Stovell

    Neil Barker Guest

    It does seem so at times, yes.

    For future information, your wife was perfectly free to photograph that
    RTA and any policeman telling you otherwise needs re-educating.

    There is no law that prevents photography in a public place - bar the
    common sense things concerning military installations and the like, but
    they're not 'public' places as such.

    If ever I get that response I stand my ground and ask them what law
    prevents me - you'll find that they can't give you an answer, because
    there is none! You just have to be prepared to stick it out, for it is
    they that are in the wrong, not you.

    In future, ask to speak to his superior at the scene and failing that,
    ask for his badge number and make an official complaint - people need
    to realise that it is not they that are in the wrong.
     
    Neil Barker, Apr 21, 2008
    #25
  6. Phil Stovell

    Rod Guest

    The nearest such plce to me has notices around it saying something like
    "No photography". However, surely that applies to what you are
    photographing rather than where you are photographing from? That is, if
    I stand nearby, point the camera away from the restricted site and snap
    a friend walking down the pavement, that would surely be legal. Whereas
    if I point the camera into the site, even if I am on private land (e.g.
    a house and garden adjoining the site), it would be illegal.

    Or is this far too simple an understanding?

    --
    Rod

    Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
    onset.
    Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
    <www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
     
    Rod, Apr 21, 2008
    #26
  7. Phil Stovell

    MB Guest


    But they won't be, at the most she will get a proforma letter of apology
    from the police.

    MB
     
    MB, Apr 21, 2008
    #27
  8. Phil Stovell

    Trev Guest

    And after the event but still no Photos.
     
    Trev, Apr 21, 2008
    #28
  9. Phil Stovell

    Mike_B Guest

    What earthly difference does that make to what the law has to say on the
    matter? Both are gawkers, its just that one of them gets a wider
    audience to gawk at their pictures than the other.
     
    Mike_B, Apr 21, 2008
    #29
  10. Alan Clifford, Apr 22, 2008
    #30
  11. Phil Stovell

    Neil Barker Guest

    Not necessarily.

    Just because there is a "no photography" sign, does not always make it
    illegal - I could put one up outside my house, but it would have no
    validity at all. It all depends on what it is and where it is and isn't
    an easy one to give a yes/no answer to.
     
    Neil Barker, Apr 22, 2008
    #31
  12. Roger Blackwell, Apr 22, 2008
    #32
  13. Phil Stovell

    Rod Guest

    Indeed - I did specifically mean MoD (or whoever) official "Official
    Secrets Act" notices.

    --
    Rod

    Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
    onset.
    Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
    <www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>
     
    Rod, Apr 22, 2008
    #33
  14. if anyone would like to see it, it is here:
    http://www.clifford.ac/~alan/HomeOfficePhotographyLetter.jpg
     
    Alan Clifford, May 18, 2008
    #34
  15. Phil Stovell

    Dave J. Guest

    Dave J., May 19, 2008
    #35
  16. Phil Stovell

    Chris H Guest

    The problem is the last paragraph:

    "However, decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for
    example to protect children. Any Questions on such local decisions
    should also be addressed to the force concerned"

    1
    This suggests that the Police many make up their own laws as they go
    along.

    2
    This specifically says " to protect children"

    This basically says the police can make local laws to stop you
    photographing anything and specifically children.

    Something along these lines came up at a local residents/council/police
    meeting. One of the problem is vandalism and petty crime by high school
    children out of school in the lunch break

    When some one suggested photographing these alleged criminals committing
    crimes in a public place out of school and passing the photos the School
    representative and the PCSO said it was illegal to take photographs of
    children. Which is false.

    Letters like the one you have would tend to confirm that view not
    support the photographer.
     
    Chris H, May 19, 2008
    #36
  17. Phil Stovell

    Adam Funk Guest

    But it says "However, decisions may be made locally to restrict
    photography, for example to protect children."

    Since "for example" normally means "including but not only" --- isn't
    that a big loophole?
     
    Adam Funk, May 19, 2008
    #37
  18. Phil Stovell

    Tim Forcer Guest

    Which simply says that English law may not say something is criminal,
    but that doesn't stop it being criminal if there are circumstances or
    aspects of the something which a police officer thinks would amount to
    a crime (or breach of the peace, or other public order situation).
    Yup. Or their own interpretation of what they think they remember of
    the briefing they had on some legislation some time. Police are
    human, and those one encounters in the normal way of things in public
    places are unlikely to have made a special study of the specific area
    of law which interests the person they are about to arrest / harangue
    / move on.
    Yup. If there's a meaty matey who the officer thinks would take grave
    exception to his little darling being snapped, the officer might be
    right! (In a public order / breach of the peace sense.)

    "paedo" is the meeja's favourite tag for generating instant mob anger,
    and to do so they are happy to suggest that the public need protecting
    from all sorts of things and people. The next day, the same rags will
    have a violent attack on the "political correctness gone mad" which
    are merely responses to their own campaign of fanning flames of
    suspicion.

    Some politicians - eg the departed double-act of Blunkett and Boateng
    - take "Protect the Public" as a mantra, and cannot be persuaded that
    it is nonsensical when used universally and simplistically.

    Also, being right, and in the right, is not a great deal of
    consolation if one has spent several hours being grilled (sorry,
    "interviewed") at the police station, still less if suspicions led to
    a "raid" with seizure of all cameras, computers, films, negatives,
    prints, photo albums, books, magazines, etc, etc. Rare, but
    definitely not unknown.
     
    Tim Forcer, May 19, 2008
    #38
  19. On Mon, 19 May 2008, Chris H wrote:

    CH> > if anyone would like to see it, it is here:
    CH> > http://www.clifford.ac/~alan/HomeOfficePhotographyLetter.jpg
    CH>
    CH> The problem is the last paragraph:
    CH>
    CH> "However, decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example
    CH> to protect children. Any Questions on such local decisions should also be
    CH> addressed to the force concerned"
    CH>
    CH> 1
    CH> This suggests that the Police many make up their own laws as they go along.
    CH>
    CH> 2
    CH> This specifically says " to protect children"
    CH>
    CH> This basically says the police can make local laws to stop you photographing
    CH> anything and specifically children.
    CH>
    CH> Something along these lines came up at a local residents/council/police
    CH> meeting. One of the problem is vandalism and petty crime by high school
    CH> children out of school in the lunch break
    CH>
    CH> When some one suggested photographing these alleged criminals committing
    CH> crimes in a public place out of school and passing the photos the School
    CH> representative and the PCSO said it was illegal to take photographs of
    CH> children. Which is false.
    CH>
    CH> Letters like the one you have would tend to confirm that view not support
    CH> the photographer.
    CH>

    Yes, I don't disagree that the last paragraph is disappointing. But it
    doesn't detract from the confirmation that there is no right to privacy in
    public places. The problem with recent incidents seems to be that
    policemen and their helpers do not know this. And the last paragraph
    would certainly lead me to inquire of an individual policman what the
    local decisons made by the chief constable were. If he couldn't tell me,
    I'd call 999 on my 'phone to get another policeman. The police are there
    to uphold the law on your behalf and you should not hesitate to call for
    the assistance from the police even if the problem involves another
    policman.
     
    Alan Clifford, May 19, 2008
    #39
  20. On Mon, 19 May 2008, Adam Funk wrote:

    AF> On 2008-05-18, Alan Clifford wrote:
    AF>
    AF> >> Alan Clifford <> posted
    AF> >>> My MP wouldn't sign it but wrote to the minister of state at the home
    AF> >>> office. So at least I have a letter to carry around, from the Rt Hon Tony
    AF> >>> McNulty on home office stationery, that states "There is no legal
    AF> >>> restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption
    AF> >>> of privacy for individuals in a public place"
    AF> ...
    AF> > if anyone would like to see it, it is here:
    AF> > http://www.clifford.ac/~alan/HomeOfficePhotographyLetter.jpg
    AF>
    AF> But it says "However, decisions may be made locally to restrict
    AF> photography, for example to protect children."
    AF>
    AF> Since "for example" normally means "including but not only" --- isn't
    AF> that a big loophole?
    AF>

    "Locally" doesn't mean made up on the spot at the whim of an individual
    policeman or assistant. If they try that, just dial 999 on your 'phone
    and complain.

    --
    Alan

    ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
    However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right
    through. )
     
    Alan Clifford, May 19, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.