Help & FAQs    Search BCF    Members    Groups    Events Calendar
Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Photography and the Police...

 Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

smegbrains
Scooby Slapper



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Karma :
PostPosted: 00:11 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Photography and the Police... Reply with quote
I've been reading with great concern some recent articles about coppers and photographers... however the following actually made me go "What the fuck?!"

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8153908.stm

Potter Actor nicked for growing cannabis. Didn't think much of it apart from him being a stupid clown... until I noticed the third paragraph of the article.

Quote:
The court heard police found shots of the plants on Mr Waylett's camera after he was arrested for taking a picture of officers as he and a friend drove past.


Since when is it an arrestable offence to take pictures in a public place?!
____________________
Current Bike: Honda CBR 600F
Ex Bikes: Suzuki GX 125
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

colin1
Captain Safety



Joined: 17 Feb 2005
Karma :
PostPosted: 00:21 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
they've been doing it for a while now, they tend to quote terrorism bollocks, but more likely to be so if you take pics of them doing a crime, they can confiscate your evidence

life isnt fair

its a balance, give police more power, they do bad things, less power, and they cant get the bad people

who knows where the right balance is

personally i dont think it should be an offence to take pics of police, but apparently it is and has been for a while
____________________
colin1 is officially faster than god
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Didge
Traffic Copper



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 06:05 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is not an offense to take pictures of the police.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Didge
Traffic Copper



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 06:05 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Deleted.........(Double post).

Last edited by Didge on 09:01 - 17 Jul 2009; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 06:15 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just shonky journalism on behalf of the BBC - no surprise there!

He was arrested for possession of cannabis, after police suspicions were aroused - apparently by him taking pics of them.

Taking a picture of police isn't an offence; see the following from the horse's mouth:

Quote:

Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether they have in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism.

Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000

Section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police.

Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58a must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

It should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use Section 58a to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, as without more, there is no link to terrorism.

There is however nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable.


https://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

As people have quite rightly pointed out on here before, there is no power to make you delete photographs from your camera device - either there is no offence and you can carry on as you please, or there is an offence and they need to nick you and seize it as evidence.

The occasional publicised idiotic incident is obviously done to thick/poorly trained coppers who didn't pay attention at copper school.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:20 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
So...

Would it be right to say while it isn't an offence, it is probable cause for a stop?

In this instance there were drugs and a knife in the car... But if there wasn't...

Neutral
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:41 - 17 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just about anything can be the basis of a stop and account - that's just the police asking questions, there's no obligation to stay and talk to them. The only reason it even has a name now is because the government is obsessed with having records of everything, so it can work out how many lesbian Somali single-mums with Welsh nationality the police are 'harassing'.

Obviously if your actions arouse suspicions they can then stop/search you, where you ARE obliged to stay with them until they are finished.

We are at the mercy of the media in regards to the exact circumstances of this particular incident. They've chosen to alight on the controversial idea of the police 'arresting' for photographs. I suspect it's far more likely that the officers noticed the tubby crim taking pics of them, then became suspicious due to that and other factors - location of the car, time of day, suspect's behaviour on realising police had noticed, etc.

The problem with the BBC and the other gutter media's hyperbole on these matters is that it obscures the fact that most of these kind of arrests and investigations start with good old fashioned police work - coppers asking questions and trusting their instincts. People always say we need to return to Dixon of Dock Green; until that involves THEM being asked a few questions-upon which they announce we live in an Orwellian police state!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

smegbrains
Scooby Slapper



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Karma :
PostPosted: 17:35 - 21 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
So basically the police can be suspicious of me taking photos of/around them, and stop me to question me. If I do not wish to answer their questions, this can be seen as suspicious and a reason to detain me?

Too much power.

EDIT: Under S44 (if that's what they were stopped under) They have to be in an area designated as such by a senior officer. Were they?
____________________
Current Bike: Honda CBR 600F
Ex Bikes: Suzuki GX 125
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
PostPosted: 18:39 - 21 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mister James wrote:
Just about anything can be the basis of a stop and account - that's just the police asking questions, there's no obligation to stay and talk to them. The only reason it even has a name now is because the government is obsessed with having records of everything, so it can work out how many lesbian Somali single-mums with Welsh nationality the police are 'harassing'.

Obviously if your actions arouse suspicions they can then stop/search you, where you ARE obliged to stay with them until they are finished.

We are at the mercy of the media in regards to the exact circumstances of this particular incident. They've chosen to alight on the controversial idea of the police 'arresting' for photographs. I suspect it's far more likely that the officers noticed the tubby crim taking pics of them, then became suspicious due to that and other factors - location of the car, time of day, suspect's behaviour on realising police had noticed, etc.

The problem with the BBC and the other gutter media's hyperbole on these matters is that it obscures the fact that most of these kind of arrests and investigations start with good old fashioned police work - coppers asking questions and trusting their instincts. People always say we need to return to Dixon of Dock Green; until that involves THEM being asked a few questions-upon which they announce we live in an Orwellian police state!


So it couldn't possibly be that the pigs felt their egos affronted by a member of the public who dared to flout their authority by refusing to stop photographing them?
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 22:33 - 21 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anything's possible. Doesn't seem to be the case here though, does it?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 22:43 - 21 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
smegbrains wrote:
So basically the police can be suspicious of me taking photos of/around them, and stop me to question me. If I do not wish to answer their questions, this can be seen as suspicious and a reason to detain me?


It can be - if they have a legitimate concern and you don't assuage it what other option do they have?

And try and answer that in as objective a fashion as possible, rather than with the prevalent BCF "all pigs are on an ego trip" yawnathon view.

With all the publicity surrounding this for the last year or so, and the fact that it's obviously legal to take pics of rozzers, I'm not sure it's a problem that should actually come up that often.

Quote:

EDIT: Under S44 (if that's what they were stopped under) They have to be in an area designated as such by a senior officer. Were they?


The whole of London is designated as such at the moment, although they are starting to phase that out and use it more selectively - i.e. specific areas around tourist spots or government buildings. Unlikely to have been sect. 44 that they searched on though.

Edit: I retract my last sentence, BBC seems to imply that it was - although I'm not sure I trust their journalism.

Last edited by Mister James on 22:49 - 21 Jul 2009; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

yuri2085
World Chat Champion



Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Karma :
PostPosted: 22:48 - 21 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Its not like (some) police dont use these pwers to detain anyone they can get away with, its not even well hidden you see it on police camera shows too!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Hetzer
Super Spammer



Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Karma :
PostPosted: 23:16 - 21 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's just another inexcuseable and illegal law being routinely abused by criminal pigs, end of.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

D O G
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 09:26 - 22 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd just like to point out that whether it was right or wrong that the police decided to stop and search them for taking photos, the pair are clearly moronic for drawing attention to themselves, from the police no less, when they had a shitload of ganja in the car.

For that only, they deserve it.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

map
Mr Calendar



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 09:39 - 22 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mister James wrote:
... see the following from the horse's mouth:
Quote:
...bits from https://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm on section 44, 43 & 58aof the Terrorism Act 2000...

Thanks for that. If I can be arsed bothered I'll print it out and laminate it for future reference.

However, you did omit one important bit...
Metropolitan Police Service wrote:
Freedom to photograph/film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel. ...


Thumbs Up
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger? Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

Mushroom
Nearly there...



Joined: 30 Apr 2009
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:39 - 22 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Seconds later, an undercover officer wearing jeans and a black jacket enters the shot, and asks Atkinson: "Do you realise it is an offence under the Terrorism Act to film police officers?" He then adds: "Can you show me what you you just filmed?"

Atkinson stopped filming and placed her phone in her pocket. According to her account of the incident, which was submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission that night, the officer tried several times to forcefully grab the phone from her pocket.

Failing to get the phone, he called over two female undercover officers from nearby. Atkinson said he told the women: "This young lady had been filming me and the other officers and it's against the law. Her phone is in her right jacket pocket and I'm trying to get it."

An argument ensued, Atkinson said, and five police officers – four of them undercover – backed her into an alcove, insisting they had the right to view her phone.

She said she was detained there for about 25 minutes, during which her wrist was handcuffed and a female officer told her: "We'll put you under arrest, take to you to the station and look at your phone there

After officers made calls to the police station, possibly for legal advice on the situation, the handcuffs were removed and Atkinson was released.


https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

map
Mr Calendar



Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 10:53 - 22 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
map wrote:
Mister James wrote:
... see the following from the horse's mouth:
Quote:
...bits from https://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm on section 44, 43 & 58aof the Terrorism Act 2000...

Thanks for that. If I can be arsed bothered I'll print it out...

Appears I could be arsed bothered after all.

Attached a Word doc and also a copy of this as a pdf file.
Two versions of the text, one on top, one below.

Can be printed, cut in half (horizontal) then folded to A5 size (maybe laminated) and kept with camera, under seat, in top box, glove box, etc.

HTH Thumbs Up
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger? Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

smegbrains
Scooby Slapper



Joined: 03 Aug 2008
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:13 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mister James wrote:


It can be - if they have a legitimate concern and you don't assuage it what other option do they have?

And try and answer that in as objective a fashion as possible, rather than with the prevalent BCF "all pigs are on an ego trip" yawnathon view.



I'm actually pretty open-minded towards the police still. My major problem is usually with government who produce such ridiculous laws without thinking them through properly, however I still feel that officers should apply their discretion and common-sense, a much under-used thing these days among ALL members of society.

I agree with you on that point, however my bone of contention is with the initial photographing, which in itself should not be a suspicious activity warranting questioning at all, and needs to be heavily reinforced to officers that is is not.

However if I am acting suspiciously and the police find me evasive to their questioning, I don't really see any other choice for them. I don't see why they cannot simply state the law as thus, without all the rubbish about not being arrested at first, or is that simply a sop to try and lessen the blow of the law?

Quote:

With all the publicity surrounding this for the last year or so, and the fact that it's obviously legal to take pics of rozzers, I'm not sure it's a problem that should actually come up that often.


Yeah there has been a lot of publicity, and it is BECAUSE this law has been misunderstood or deliberately abused. I sincerely hope not to see anymore incidents of this type.

Quote:

The whole of London is designated as such at the moment, although they are starting to phase that out and use it more selectively - i.e. specific areas around tourist spots or government buildings. Unlikely to have been sect. 44 that they searched on though.

Edit: I retract my last sentence, BBC seems to imply that it was - although I'm not sure I trust their journalism.


BBC journalism isn't too bad usually, and in this case I'm sure they'd have gotten the section details from the court records so I'm happy to take it as written that it was S44.
____________________
Current Bike: Honda CBR 600F
Ex Bikes: Suzuki GX 125
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:36 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
BBC journalism isn't too bad usually


Laughing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 14:44 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
smegbrains wrote:

however my bone of contention is with the initial photographing, which in itself should not be a suspicious activity warranting questioning at all, and needs to be heavily reinforced to officers that is is not.


Ok - you're not a copper, but if you were walking down the street and saw someone taking pictures of you or filming you on their mobile - you'd probably take a second look at them, at the very least?

On that second glance, it could be you find something that makes you wary or suspicious - above and beyond the mere fact that they are filming you.

Why should that not be the same for the police - especially bearing in mind that it's effectively their job to look at people and spot wrong 'uns?

If I were bowling down the street minding my own business and I clocked someone following me with a camera, I'd be pretty likely to ask them what the fuck they were up to.

While I would expect police working at an event or an unusual incident to accept that they are going to get filmed, I don't think it's unreasonable for them to question incongruous examples - such as sitting in a parked car videoing police who are doing nothing apart from driving past.

We've already established that it's wrong for police to force people to delete pictures, or react in a heavy handed way to people taking pics of tourist attractions or the like - but why shouldn't they question things when it seems unusual to them. Detecting criminal behaviour is what we pay them for.

Everyone on these forums bitches about the decline in police use of discretion, yet wants to limit their use of their own instincts at the same time.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:04 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
So is the question not, is filming the police a suspicious activity?

I think filming a private person is, but filming a person who is performing a public role having a direct effect on the public, by default; should be treated as not suspicious.

Unless they're doing something over and above taking photo's they should not even be stopped and questioned.

By those rules, the folks in the OP wouldn't have been stopped at all. I'm not sure its a good idea for a questionable act to be justified only after the fact.

Did the police officers suspect the presence of drugs on the strength of someone in the car taking pictures with a mobile phone? I wouldn't have thought so... If we assume that taking pictures was all the car occupant was doing then the stop was (or should've been) judged to have been carried out with no probable cause, ergo, unlawful.

Thumbs Up
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:27 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
pa_broon74 wrote:
If we assume that taking pictures was all the car occupant was doing then the stop was (or should've been) judged to have been carried out with no probable cause, ergo, unlawful.


Only if we employ your laughable premise that filming/taking pictures of the police should NEVER arouse suspicion.

Which we won't - because that isn't the law, nor should it be.

Quote:
filming a person who is performing a public role having a direct effect on the public, by default; should be treated as not suspicious.


I've already said as much - one can understand the interest in filming the police during the G20 protests, or at the scene of an accident, or at a concert, or during a violent arrest/drunken confrontation at chucking out time. These all make sense.

Sitting in your car filming police as they drive past is lawful (assuming there is no intent to make use of it for terrorist purposes - ie working out patrol routes before an attack) - but there's nothing to stop the police thinking "Hmmm, we're not doing anything interesting, so why are they filming us" and popping over for a little chat.

Context - as ever - is king.

If the police aren't satisfied with your explanation and want to go further then by law they have to justify any search, and by law they have to record their grounds. This is then open to challenge if you feel hard done by.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

pa_broon74
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Karma :
PostPosted: 15:52 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mister James wrote:

Sitting in your car filming police as they drive past is lawful (assuming there is no intent to make use of it for terrorist purposes - ie working out patrol routes before an attack) - but there's nothing to stop the police thinking "Hmmm, we're not doing anything interesting, so why are they filming us" and popping over for a little chat.

Context - as ever - is king.

If the police aren't satisfied with your explanation and want to go further then by law they have to justify any search, and by law they have to record their grounds. This is then open to challenge if you feel hard done by.


Surely if the police aren't doing anything interesting then they'd have to assume the filmers aren't filming anything interesting either...

It's not clear what the police officer's motivations were for dooing the stop, only that one of the vehicle occupants was using his camera phone to film.

Context is king as you say. Two police officers shooting the breeze and not doing anything in a non-sensitive (no airports in the back ground or government biuldings) to me wouldn't be the right context for a stop.

It seems to me (and not just with this instance) that the police take exception to being filmed or photographed whatever the circumstance.

I don't think it's enough to say you can challenge a police officer's actions after the fact. Isn't it preferable to not have the activity happen in the first place?
____________________
Didn't catch anything.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Mister James
I want to believe!



Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 17:03 - 29 Jul 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
pa_broon74 wrote:

Surely if the police aren't doing anything interesting then they'd have to assume the filmers aren't filming anything interesting either...


Which begs the question - why are they doing it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you genuinely not get my point? I suspect the former......

Quote:

It's not clear what the police officer's motivations were for dooing the stop,


Which hasn't stopped you assuming the worst and demanding that noone who is filming ANYTHING should ever be stopped EVER, for ANY reason!

Quote:

Context is king as you say. Two police officers shooting the breeze and not doing anything in a non-sensitive (no airports in the back ground or government biuldings) to me wouldn't be the right context for a stop.


Again with the intentional (I hope, for your sake) obtuseness. (Is that really a word?!)!

Police officers are trained to look for unusual things that may be a sign of criminal intent or actions. Taking pictures of an unusually dull activity, in an unusual place/manner/time/way could form the basis for a perfectly legitimate suspicion, and a legitimate stop.

Quote:

It seems to me (and not just with this instance) that the police take exception to being filmed or photographed whatever the circumstance.


Of course it seems that way to you, because you've trained yourself to think like that. I quite agree that there's plenty of examples out there where police DO seem to have simply taken exception to being filmed - it doesn't apply across the board though, and your thoughts on a blanket ban on any suspicion being raised by such activity is idiotic.

Quote:

I don't think it's enough to say you can challenge a police officer's actions after the fact. Isn't it preferable to not have the activity happen in the first place?


It certainly is - if the actions are not justified and proportionate - which is the whole point of them being recorded and challenged - as a deterrent against abuse of the powers. It may not work in all cases - that much is clear - but it's the best solution we have.

Yours is illogical, and flies in the face of common sense.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

LustyLew
World Chat Champion



Joined: 19 Apr 2004
Karma :
PostPosted: 11:33 - 03 Aug 2009    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did no one else read;

Quote:
Officers had previously searched the car belonging to his friend, John Innis, 20.


And not giggle, just a little? Wonder if he used 'No2 potting compost'..? Laughing
____________________
Like a Yorkie - I'm not for the girls Wink
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 17 years, 69 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> Politics & Current Affairs All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
 You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 
Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.14 Sec - Server Load: 0.31 - MySQL Queries: 16 - Page Size: 156.82 Kb