We photographers are all guilty

I read at the weekend about a Dutchman, Frank Doorhof, who was taking a photo of his wife in a Coventry shopping centre when a security guard approached him and demanded that the delete the images he had taken. Mr Doorhof is a fashion photographer and so probably had a nice camera and in my experience the police and security people do tend to pick on those of us with good cameras rather than snappers. Why I do not know as my second camera is a compact with a 12x zoom and decent quality imaging. But I digress, the centre management explained the incident thus:

"It's on government advice under the Terrorism Act that people could be taking photographs within public buildings and then using them for unscrupulous means which puts everybody at risk."

I think the key word here is 'could', yes they could but equally they could be doing the same taking photos on their iPhone or similar, or people might just be taking photos of their wife, husband or children OR even in a supposedly free country of an interesting building or anything at all.

It is odd how much energy goes into stopping the law-abiding from leading a normal life whilst the potential terrorists are left alone.

I'm a photographer not a terrorist

I have blogged before about some of the British police's habit of treating photographers as suspected terrorists and I see on Mrs Rigby's blog that there has been another instance, or rather a series of instances. It would seem that Jules Mattson has been stopped three times under anti-terrorist legislation. Have a read of Mrs Gigby's piece and take a trip to Jules Mattson's blog to show solidarity and for some good photographs as well as the above image...

I feel I must correct Mrs Gigby in one regard, she says: 'There's a saying, isn't there, it's something like "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times ..."'. Actually the quote as visitors to this blog will have seen before is from Ian Fleming's Goldfinger and is "Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence but the third time is enemy action"

The police and photographers (further update)

Further to my postings on the police's habit of stopping photography in public places and their seeming equating of photographers with terrorists, I have two pieces that may be of interest.

The first is a handy "Bust card" from "I'm a photographer not a terrorist". This might be best carried along with this Met Police guidance that I blogged about last month.

The second is a heads-up on a photo walk set for tomorrow - Saturday 15 August - assembly point is the Riverside Gardens in Chatham.

Photographing the Police

I have blogged many times about the way that this most vile Labour Government and its Police Force have tried (and often succeeded) in clamping down on photographers.

This article from June 2008 asks why all photographers are assumed to be terrorists or paedophiles, this article from August 2008 reported the case of a photographer arrested for taking photos of a police car ignoring a no entry sign and this piece also from August 2008 showed some video of a PCSO exceeding his powers. This piece from October 2008 asked if you needed a licence to take photos in Middlesborough, this piece from November 2008 reported the case of a 15 year old boy stooped for suspicion of being a terrorist because he was taking photos of trains and this article from January 2009 reported on several cases of photographers being badly dealt with by the police.

From January onwards I covered here, here, here and here the Government's introduction of legislation in the form of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which became law on February 16, and which

"allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’." The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine."

I was reminded of all of this as the Police have come under criticism for their possible part in death of Ian Tomlinson. I wonder if the man who took the video of the incident could find himself arrested for filming policemen... Maybe at the next demonstration the Police will first arrest all the photographers before dealing with protesters and passers-by.


As I quoted Daniel1979 in February:

"When I was at school, not too many years ago we were taught that cameras were forbidden in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. This, our liberal teacher told us was because cameras can be used to document offences of the state against civilians; as such, they were considered a tool that can bring about civil unrest and encourage protest against the Communist Governments. This particular teacher, sneered at this particular law and the system in which it helped preserve."

Welcome to the DRUK (Democratic Republic of the UK) a part of the EUSSR; a land where democracy and freedom are soon to be just words...

Photographers fight back

I have blogged many, many times about the way that this Labour government and its tame Police have been restricting the rights of photographers. The last two items showed how we photographers are seen as perverts and as terrorists, do read both articles and the articles they link to.

Today I see at SpyBlog that there is a fightback. Apparently the NUJ and comedian Mark Thomas are organising "a mass picture taking session outside London's police HQ on Monday 16 February - the day the act becomes law.". The NUJ article continues:

"Mark - who uses his comedy act to expose state and corporate wrongdoing - will be joined outside New Scotland Yard by renowned documentary-maker Chris Atkins, NUJ vice-president Pete Murray and a bevy of photographers.

Photojournalist and NUJ member Marc Vallée said: "The plan is simple, turn up with your camera and exercise your democratic right to take a photograph in a public place."

There have already been cases of photographers stopped from working by police quoting anti-terror laws.

John Toner, the NUJ's organiser who looks after freelance photographers, said: "Police officers are in news pictures at all sorts of events - football matches, carnivals, state processions - so the union wants to make it clear that taking their pictures is not the act of a criminal.

"Our members are photographers - not terrorists."

Roy Mincoff, NUJ Legal Officer, said: "Photographers do not want to endanger the health and safety of the police or the public - but it is important in a democracy that they can do their jobs properly without facing unnecessary legal restrictions."

The photo taking will start at 11am outside New Scotland Yard on Broadway, London."

I will see you there.

Photographers are perverts - official

Not only are Photographers seen as terrorists, now apparently

"A police officer has destroyed a journalist's images of people sledging arguing that it represented an act of voyeurism."

Yes it seems that

"According to the St-Albans local newspaper, The Review, reporter Alex Lewis took several photos on his mobile phone in Stanborugh Park on 03 February when he was threatened by a man who apparently thought he was photographing his children for sexual purposes.

The reporter called the police, however, an officer told him that his phone would be confiscated as evidence for a charge of 'voyeurism' unless he agreed to delete the images. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced the offence of voyeurism.

'The act defines a "private act", in the context of this offence, as an act carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the victim’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public'.

The Review has asked Hertfordshire Constabulary how photographs of fully clothed people in a public park are covered by the legislation. No response has been given.
"

So photographers can be treated as terrorists if they take a photo of a public building or a policeman and as a pervert if they take a photo of a fully clothed child. 21st century Britain, what a place to live.

Photographers are terrorists official (update)

Further to my recent piece about the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 which

"allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’."

You can read more at the British Journal of Photography, here's an extract:

"The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.

The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'"

This country really is losing perspective. So if you take a photo of a police officer or a public building then you won't be accused of being a terrorist or of planning an attack; no the photograph you take only has to be considered "likely to be useful to a person...".

Photographers are terrorists - official

I have blogged many times before (see here and here) about the way that this most totalitarian Labour government and its police force are trying to stop people from using their cameras under the guise of anti-terrorism law. A few days ago I blogged about new EU legislation that could classify almost anyone as a subversive. Today I read that:

"New laws set to be passed in England and Canada would make it illegal to use bad language or take photographs of police officers, moving us further away from the idea of police as public servants and more towards the notion of cops assuming God-like status.

According to the British Journal of Photography, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which is set to become law on February 16, “allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.” The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine."

This is not the Country that I thought I was living in; I want it back.

Are all photographers terrorists now? (update)

I have blogged previously about the way that photographers are being increasingly targeted by the "powers that be", do read my old articles on this subject. Today I read in The Independent that:

"Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.

With a studio near the 1960s shopping centre at the heart of this area in south London, he is a familiar figure and is regularly seen snapping and sketching the people and buildings around his home – currently the site of Europe's largest regeneration project. But to the police officers who arrested him last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk.

"The car skidded to a halt like something out of Starsky & Hutch and this officer jumped out very dramatically and said 'what are you doing?' I told him I was photographing the building and he said he was going to search me under the Anti-Terrorism Act," he recalled.

For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five hours in a cell after police seized the lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils. His release only came after the intervention of the local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was handcuffed and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database. "

and that:

"In the summer, armed police swooped on a group of trainspotters known as the Steam Boys as they waited with high-powered photographic equipment to capture a 1950s engine called The Great Marquess as it crossed the Forth Bridge near Gordon Brown's constituency home in Fife.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also taken up the cause, highlighting the case last month of the photographer Jess Hurd, whose camera was taken from her when she was detained for 45 minutes under Section 44 while documenting a traveller wedding in London's Docklands. Last week police were filmed obstructing photographers covering a protest at the Greek embassy in London. Scotland Yard promised to investigate."

I also read in The Mail that:

"A Tory MP was stopped and searched by police on suspicion of being a terrorist after taking photos of a cycle path, he revealed yesterday.

Andrew Pelling was taking the pictures to highlight a 'long-neglected bicycle and pedestrian route' in his Central Croydon constituency to Parliamentary colleagues.

But as the cycle path was near the town's main train station, two police officers stopped him on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack.

Even when Mr Pelling, 48, showed the officers his House of Commons pass and explained what he was doing, they insisted on searching his bag.

After finding nothing of interest they sent the MP on his way. A police spokesman confirmed the December 30 incident, saying: 'The officer conducted a stop-and-search - taking into account the current terror threat - as he (Mr Pelling) was taking pictures in the vicinity of a major transport hub.' "

I have news for The Independent and the Mail, this is not about preventing terrorism, meeting crime detection figures or getting people onto the DNA database; it is about the Government through their uniformed wing showing the public who is in charge and who is in control and keeping the general populace cowed in fear and obedience.

Are all photographers "terrorists" now?

The war on photographers seems to be continuing apace. Now I read that:

" A schoolboy taking photographs of a railway station on a geography field trip was suspected of being a terrorist.

Fabian Sabbara, 15, of Cheam, was dressed in his school uniform when he was stopped by three police community support officers for taking photos of Wimbledon station on his mobile phone.

The student from Rutlish High School, Merton, explained he was taking pedestrian counts, a traffic survey and photos as part of a GCSE project.

But PCSO Barry Reeve told Fabian to sign forms under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which allows police to stop and search at random anyone they suspect of terrorism. "

Police and PCSO are there to serve not bully.