Police-photog interactions on the increase

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Oct 19, 2007.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    In Britain at least, seems like every week there is some problem.

    Do they think that a terrorist would use a big DSLR to take pictures
    instead of a covert cellphone? Are they that stupid? Also, some of
    these minimum wage losers (not the police, but company flunkies and
    security persons) seem to be completely ignorant of the rules
    regarding photography in public and private buildings, often blanket-
    claiming "photography is forbidden" or "you can be arrested and
    fined." Most of these morons can barely read and are not up on the
    actual rules. Case in point, Toronto Transit System hack tells me
    it's a $5000 fine to take a picture, "because of the terrorists." So
    I told him he didn't know what he was talking about. There are rules,
    but that isn't one of them. Here's another incident, pretty highly
    publicized in Britain:

    http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...nces_arrest_Found_not_guilty_news_150330.html

    Photographer 'sues' police over missing camera gear

    Photographer 'sues' police over missing camera kit; Tyne Bridge
    drama ended in freelance's arrest; Found not guilty

    Thursday 18th October 2007
    Chris Cheesman

    Police are investigating a complaint by a photographer who is
    reportedly suing them over £10,000 of camera gear, which went missing
    when they arrested him while taking pictures.

    The drama - first revealed by Amateur Photographer last year -
    occurred after freelance press photographer Marc McMahon tried to take
    pictures of a person threatening to throw themselves off the Tyne
    Bridge on 18 October 2006.

    McMahon, 37, claims the camera gear went missing near the scene,
    saying he had been forced to leave it behind while officers were
    escorting him to the police station.

    He was initially charged with breach of the peace, a charge later
    changed to obstructing a police officer.

    Earlier this month Newcastle Magistrates found McMahon not guilty and
    said he had acted professionally.

    Speaking today, Northumbria Police deputy chief constable David Warcup
    confirmed to AP: 'An investigation into Mr McMahon's complaint is
    underway.'

    After the verdict McMahon told journalist publication Press Gazette:
    'I'm feeling very relieved about the verdict. The last year has been
    immensely stressful for my family and we are glad the magistrates came
    to the right decision.'

    It is understood that, when they stopped him, police felt the
    photographer could have caused an unwanted distraction to the person
    on the 59m-high bridge in Newcastle.

    Speaking last October police wanted to make it clear that no theft
    allegation had been made against any officer.
     
    RichA, Oct 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Private security guards are especially annoying. I've been stopped
    twice by security guards recently on public streets while
    photographing buildings which were of no particular importance for
    news stories. It is becoming here the way it was in the former Soviet
    Union. They have no right to even intervene. It is reaching a point
    where carrying a camera will be considered illegal, much as it is
    already in Myanmar.
     
    martinbarry55, Oct 20, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    jazu Guest

    If you are on public street you can photograph whatever you want to. Tell
    them screw you and learn your job description.
     
    jazu, Oct 21, 2007
    #3
    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.