# War on Photography - UK Front



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

In the name of security, safety, and anti-terrorism, police wage a war against the evils of the camera. Everyone knows that an enemy spy, who must remain inconspicuous, avoid confrontation, and move undetected, is going to travel carrying a full bag of expensive professional gear while scouting out future targets for his madness.  These brave police and other agents of government fight a never ending battle to keep anyone other than Google, the local chamber of commerce and tourism, and a buildings own website from capturing a professional looking image.

This is the story of the British front.
Damn those cameras, remember, mega pixels equal megadeth!
=======



> *Photographer wins £5K damages from police*
> 
> by holdthefrontpage staff
> 
> ...





> *UK continues royal crackdown against photographers*
> 
> The crackdown against photographers in the United Kingdom reached royal levels last week when police confiscated dozen of cameras from people trying to photograph the queen and her family as they walked down a public street.
> 
> ...





UK photographers kiss their freedoms good-bye
U.K.s Anti-Terrorism Act is nothing but an anti-photographer act
United Kingdom enacted a new law that turned all photographers into suspected terrorists, prompting photographers to organize a protest.

*The insanity in the UK just gets worse*

*December 18th, 2009 · *

 				 					By Carlos Miller
On the bright side, the mainstream media in the United Kingdom seems to be making a determined effort to expose the insanity and paranoia behind Section 44 of the Terrorism Act, which is the UKs version of the Patriot Act, meaning it gives police blanket powers to harass and intimidate photographers.
But on the [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*Italian student arrested in UK for filming buildings*

*December 16th, 2009 ·  *

 				 					By Carlos Miller
The problem is, there doesnt seem to be any IQ requirements to become a police officer.
Everyday we read stories at how police officers believe photographers are out to commit terrorist acts because they happen to be taking pictures of something or another. These officers are under the impression that the bigger the lens, [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*Some UK police did not get last weeks memo*

*December 9th, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/09/some-uk-police-did-not-get-last-weeks-memo/#comments *

 				 					By Carlos Miller
It took police in the United Kingdom just three days to go back on their word.
Last Friday, the Association of Chief Police Officers sent out a memo warning officers to stop harassing photographers under the guise of anti-terrorism laws.
On Monday, London police detained a photographer whom they say was taking pictures in a hostile [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*UK cops still having problems with suspected terrorists carrying cameras*

*December 2nd, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/02/...spected-terrorists-carrying-cameras/#comments *

 				 						The face of a suspected terrorist (Daily Mail)
 By Carlos Miller
Its beginning to look a lot like Christmas, which can only mean one thing. Terrorists are out to kill us.
No, Im not talking about the usual suspects who wage War on Christmas by wishing everybody Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.
Im talking about those brazen terrorists [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*BBC photographer shocked that he was harassed for taking photos*

*December 1st, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/01/...t-he-was-harassed-for-taking-photos/#comments *

 				 						This is the picture that BBC photographer Jeff Overs was taking when he was suspected of being a terrorist.
 By Carlos Miller
Its been almost a year since the United Kingdom enacted a law that turned photographers into terrorists but it is only now that the British mainstream media is making an issue about it.
And that is [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*British cops caught on camera punching and torturing innocent soldier*

*October 30th, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/10/30/...hing-and-torturing-innocent-soldier/#comments *

 				 					Update: After further research, this incident actually took place in July 2008. It is now resurfacing in the news because the cops just pleaded not guilty. They will go on trial next year. 
 By Carlos Miller
Three British police officers in Manchester wrongly detained a man they thought was harassing paramedics, tackling him where one of [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*UK police threaten to arrest photography for breach of peace*

*October 29th, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/10/29/...est-photography-for-breach-of-peace/#comments *

 				 						Garry Chinchen was threatened with arrest for taking the above photograph
 By Carlos Miller
As bad as it gets in the United States, it always seems worse in the United Kingdom when it comes to getting harassed for taking photos in public.
The latest incident comes to us from Wales where a photographer named Garry Chinchen was taking photos of [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*UK cops continue crackdown on photographers*

*August 27th, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/08/27/uk-cops-continue-crackdown-on-photographers/#comments *

 				 					By Carlos Miller
The madness continues in the United Kingdom with police using newly enacted terrorism laws to harass, intimidate, stalk and arrest photographers.
The most recent incident comes to us via War on Photography when a British family was on vacation in Wales; A man, his sister and his two kids.
The mans name is Stephen White [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*Amateur UK photographer arrested for prevention of terrorism*

*July 13th, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/07/13/...rrested-for-prevention-of-terrorism/#comments *

 				 						Photo by Alex Turner
 By Carlos Miller
Another photographer was arrested under the United Kingdoms new anti-terrorism law that has turned the simple act of photography into a lethal form of terrorism. At least that is what theyll have you think.
This time it was Alex Turner, an amateur photographer who drew the attention of authorities after snapping [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*British police arrest women for asking for their badge numbers*

*June 23rd, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/06/23/...-for-asking-for-their-badge-numbers/#comments *

 				 					By Carlos Miller
Two British women were jailed for four days after photographing police and asking for their badge numbers.
They were charged with obstructing a police officer but those charges were later dropped. Now the arresting officers are under investigation.
The irony is that police were recording the entire incident themselves. And now it may come back [...]
[Read more &#8594;]

*Tags:* United Kingdom

*UK  judges drops public harassment case against Greek photographer*

*May 18th, 2009 · http://carlosmiller.com/2009/05/18/...ent-case-against-greek-photographer/#comments *

 				 					By Carlos Miller
Greek photographer Pericles Antoniou was visiting London with his family last month when he photographed a little girl on a subway train.
The girls mother immediately protested, so Antoniou apologized and showed the mother the images he took before deleting them.
But a man claiming to be the girls father followed him out of the [...]
[Read more &#8594;]



All comments pulled from _Carlos Miller's _ *Photography is Not a Crime* blog. Mr. Miller has been involved in a long standing dispute with the Miami-Dade police over his own photographic work, and has recently won his case against them. Most links will lead to his own blogs, which contain numerous links to other media sources to allow the reader a less biased view than if they only read the Miller blog. I strongly suggest reading all links and researching on your own.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Sounds like the law profession is doing well though.

The story from Wales should be seen as just being Welsh as they have their own government, laws etc.

For every story of police harrassment though have you noticed there's an opposite story often backed by the courts so while things may seem bad there are checks against it. If it were that bad you wouldn't hear any of these allegations would you? Police are charged and taken to court when they have behaved wrongly, there's no whitewashing. 

I think many too don't understand the siege mentality of the police in London, they have been targetted by bombers and terrosts since 1969, a long time to have to face the dangers. People are thinking only of the recent Muslim terror but London has been targeted before and there's been many been left dead in London alone. *Over forty* attacks since 1970.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London


http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/pri/hydebomb.html


I daresay police are overdoing it but it seems the courts have it in hand and it will sort itself out, the photographers I'm sure will keep it in the spotlight.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Jan 10, 2010)

I'm amazed the people who DON'T UNDERSTAND freedoms we take for granted here simply don't exist in the UK. A sad nanny state.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Hollywood1340 said:


> I'm amazed the people who DON'T UNDERSTAND freedoms we take for granted here simply don't exist in the UK. A sad nanny state.


 

Really? How strange we were just thinking how it's odd you don't have the freedoms we have. Like the freedom to have a decent education and not post up ignorant insults on forums.


----------



## Hollywood1340 (Jan 10, 2010)

Tez,
 My comment stands and my education was just fine thank you. My comments steams from the way freedom is set up at a government level on both our countries. Not looking for a debate nor an insult. And there are things on both side of the pond we simply take for granted.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 10, 2010)

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let's stay on topic and avoid the insults, OK?  What do you think about police restrictions on photographers?  What's reasonable?  What's not?  What's LEGAL?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 10, 2010)

If I catch some guy taking photos of the underside of a bridge or Airport flight activity I'm checking him out whether some blogger or (forgive me Bob) internet posters like it or not. 

If I just drive by and then the unthinkable happens, then I'm the one who has to live with the lives on my shoulders. Then will come the second guessing, and the why I didn't "do something" accusations by the exact same people who would crucify me for "trampling photographers rights".

That's a separate issue from seeing terrorism behind everything. Like some guy taking pictures of Choo-choo trains being taken down at gunpoint, having his property taken and photos deleted by cops who don't know how to use common sense. But there is more to this than Mr. Miller likes to admit.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/pdf/ukpga_20060011_en.pdf

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/n...on-search/control-order-statements/index.html

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publication-search/circulars/index.html



If anyone is arrested by or has something confiscated by the police here they have the right to take it to court. If the court judgement isn't to their liking they can go to the House of Lords then on to the European Courts and then the Court of Human Rights.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

This thread's intent is to focus on the UK issues, where the laws are different and the rights are different than in the US.

Personally, I'm all for police enforcing the laws, keeping their eyes open, and checking out the suspicious stuff.  But, and there's always a but, I would expect them to -know- the laws, and not just make stuff up as they go. Regardless of nation.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

The thing is, if they are making things up as they go along they are being slapped down for it. If they are exceeding their authority they aren't exactly getting away with it. One photographer being better off by five grand proves that. It shows that we do have the freedom to protest and to take such things to court.
I think it's important too to keep a sense of proportion, millions of us here plus hundreds of thousands of tourists take photos in this country and only a handful of photographers allege they are being harrassed. In most cases it seems that these are being sorted out with complaints against the police being made _and investigated._

There's a couple of cases in the instances cited in the OP that aren't about photographers, the case of the women asking for police numbers and the police officers accused ( charged and sent to trial btw) aren't issues with cameras. The women were on a violent protest where they and others were resisting arrest for assault and the police accused of violence were caught on CCTV so surely people aren't complaining about the CCTV?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

I believe that we had a long discussion here on that one (women and badges issue) when it was initially reported.  Obviously I've got no issue with idiots harassing the cops being taken to task.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I believe that we had a long discussion here on that one (women and badges issue) when it was initially reported. Obviously I've got no issue with idiots harassing the cops being taken to task.


 
I don't know if you've had the 'pleasure' of the summit protestors yet in America? they've been over most of Europe whenever the heads of state meet leaving an expensive trail of destruction behind them.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Yep. Anyone with a camera caught near them is hauled off, beaten and tear gassed if you believe the blogs.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Yep. Anyone with a camera caught near them is hauled off, beaten and tear gassed if you believe the blogs.


 
Nothing wrong with a drop of tear gas, I have a dose every year just to keep my spirits up!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Might be if all you were trying to do was nip down to the pub for a pint and decided to take a quick shot of things to show the misses.   3 days later you show up home, red eyed and have the devil of a time trying to explain that you're not hung over and the reason you're walking funny is from a BCS not a wild night.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Might be if all you were trying to do was nip down to the pub for a pint and decided to take a quick shot of things to show the misses. 3 days later you show up home, red eyed and have the devil of a time trying to explain that you're not hung over and the reason you're walking funny is from a BCS not a wild night.


 
Or if you'd been on a demo and were trying to kill the marshals, stewards and special constables ( unpaid volunteer police officers) who were trying to keep a peaceful march peaceful.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

Question:
  British traffic cop has pulled someone over.  May I take their picture?

Question:
  The Queen is taking her daily constitutional walk.  May I take her picture?

Question:
  I see a cute kid on a swingset at the park.  May I take their picture?

Question:
  I see a nice building.  May I take it's picture?
If it turns out to be an unmarked government building, might I expect to be detained, questioned, searched, my camera taken, my images deleted and my person possibly roughed up?  
Should I expect that same treatment, even if the -exact- image is on Google Street View?


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

IN the first three good manners would dictate you ask then if anyone says no please take it as a refusal. No one has a right to take photos of other people. The last if it's unmarked you may take a photo.
Not everyone wants their photo taken and why should they have to if they don't want to? Is there some law that says a photographer can invade my privacy while I'm minding my own business? what if I say no I don't want you to take my photo, will you take it anyway? If you take my photo while I'm in uniform yes I will warn you probably not arrest you though, just warn you off, I come under the Official Secrets Act and photographing me at work is illegal. If I'm not at work and I'm in civvies no you can't take my photo because I don't like having my photo taken, pure vanity, I never look good in photos and so I don't think my privacy should be invaded just because you think you can take a photo of anyone you like.

Under English law we have the right to be left alone. If the first three objected to having their photos taken you would most likely be taken to civil court for breach of privacy under human rights and European rights laws. You may find yourself taken to court (civil) for breaching the Data Protection Act too by taking photos of people who don't want them taken ( look up Micheal Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones) so I'd suggest always ask first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Act_1998


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

I think it important to point out that "their" cameras are okay... as long as "they" are taking images of "you"...

"They" simply don't want "you" taking images of "them"...  but it's okay if "they" take images of "you"... 

Now...think about that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

celtic_crippler said:


> I think it important to point out that "their" cameras are okay... as long as "they" are taking images of "you"...
> 
> "They" simply don't want "you" taking images of "them"... but it's okay if "they" take images of "you"...
> 
> Now...think about that.


 

Actually no, you can sue _anyone_ for taking photos of you, absolutely anyone.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Jan 10, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> Actually no, you can sue _anyone_ for taking photos of you, absolutely anyone.


 
Not in this country.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

We can here. We can sue under a couple of laws.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

This thread deals with UK laws.

UK Photographer Rights Links
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/uk-photographers-rights-v2/

This looks to be an excellent guide and a quick read shows major differences between US and UK laws.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

In the US, the 4 questions I asked are all "Yes" answers.  If I see Obama out on the White House lawn I can take his picture. I can take a shot of a cop on duty, a building, a kid, and I have no legal requirement to ask permission first. What I can do with those shots is covered by usage rights issues, but I can take the shot and legally can not be required to erase, hand over or otherwise remove the shot.  There are of course some limits and restrictions (ie I can't sneak over the fence at the white house and take a shot of Obama on the toilet) but overall US photographers have a great deal of leeway in what they shoot and how.

Reading the link I tacked on above, indicates how and why those are often NO in the UK.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

There is no legal requirement to ask here, I'd strongly advise that you do though for two reasons, one because as I said it's a matter of good manners and secondly because you may be sued if you take a photo and the person doesn't want it taken. There is a third reason, in a lot of places you will get thumped. Brits like their privacy.
 It's not a criminal offence but it is against civil law unless you are harassing someone and despite what that article says taking a photo when the subject hasn't consented is liable to get you a harrassment charge for which you will be arrested.
Much is made of photographers rights here but what about normal people going about their business don't they have the right NOT to be photographed if they don't wish to be? How far are photographers will to push this in invading ordinary peoples privacy?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

If someone physically assaults me over something like taking their picture, well.....

I took your picture.  I didn't physically or mentally harm you.
You attack me, inflict physical injury on me, as well as damage or destroy my property.

Which is the bigger crime?


Now, please do not take my arguing this position to indicate I disagree with you. It is good manners to ask first. My point is, do you have to -legally-?  That's the only debating point for me in this case.

The UK Rights post I linked to is written by a UK lawyer I believe, and I differ to lawyers and judges over cops when it comes to interpreting the law.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 10, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> If someone physically assaults me over something like taking their picture, well.....
> 
> I took your picture. I didn't physically or mentally harm you.
> You attack me, inflict physical injury on me, as well as damage or destroy my property.
> ...


 


Hey I never said thumping you was right but a great many people will for taking photos of them! I don't know why people think the Brits are passive people, annoy them and they will thump you quite happily! 
You don't legally have to ask in most cases. 

The problem with UK law is that it isn't, UK law that is. That is a generalised piece of writing, we have different laws in Scotland, Wales, Isle of Man, the Channel Islands (much of their law is French) and Northern Ireland (I would never recommend taking photos there of people or buildings btw, seriously, it may cost you your life). We also have byelaws peculiar to individual places which may preclude photographing something or someone. These byelaws are made by either local councils or county councils.
It's a byelaw that stops commercial photographers taking photgraphs in Traflager Square not a statue law.
You really need to consult a solicitor specilising in this type of law.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 10, 2010)

My dear friend, you have no idea how many people want to thump me.  LOL!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 11, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> My dear friend, you have no idea how many people want to thump me. LOL!


 
Well I certainly don't!

However many people mistake the British people's politeness for weakness, they mistake our reserve for fear and they always underestimate us, big mistakes.

Giving someone a thump isn't considered a crime by those who do it, it's a straightener, a point in the right direction or a stiff talking to!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2010)

*UK photographers protest crackdown  against public photography*

*January 25th, 2010http://carlosmiller.com/tag/united-kingdom/ *

*By Carlos Miller*
More than 2,000 photographers took to the streets in London Saturday in  protest against the ongoing crackdown against public photography.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2010)

Well that proves a few things I've said before, that we have appeals procedures we can go to when we don't like the laws we have and that the police don't always agree with political laws and will say so. A protest is always healthy even if you don't agree with the protestors, you can always protest against protestors! When public protest and public campaigns against things are illegal then we are in big trouble so far we aren't doing too badly.


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> There is no legal requirement to ask here, I'd strongly advise that you do though for two reasons, one because as I said it's a matter of good manners and secondly because you may be sued if you take a photo and the person doesn't want it taken. There is a third reason, in a lot of places you will get thumped. Brits like their privacy.
> It's not a criminal offence but it is against civil law unless you are harassing someone and despite what that article says taking a photo when the subject hasn't consented is liable to get you a harrassment charge for which you will be arrested.
> Much is made of photographers rights here but what about normal people going about their business don't they have the right NOT to be photographed if they don't wish to be? How far are photographers will to push this in invading ordinary peoples privacy?


 
Hey Tez...I'm confused as to why CC TV is allowed under this system in England. It is ok for the local council to take everyone's photo without their permission, but individual subjects can't take another subject's photo? Just looking for clarification here, I have no dog in this fight.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 25, 2010)

Jenny_in_Chico said:


> Hey Tez...I'm confused as to why CC TV is allowed under this system in England. It is ok for the local council to take everyone's photo without their permission, but individual subjects can't take another subject's photo? Just looking for clarification here, I have no dog in this fight.


 

I'll probably confuse you even more now, permission isn't needed to take photos of people but if the person whose photo is taken objects they can sue the photographer if they wish under civil law. It's not illegal to take photos unless the person or place is covered by the Official Secrets Act then it becomes a criminal act. You can however be sued in court if you take photographs of someone who objects.

Cantray to what you might think CCTV is actually wanted by people in our town centres on grounds of safety.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/dec/22/cctv-surveillance-police-cost


CCTV isn't foisted on people, it's discussed a lot by local councils who after all have to pay for them! 
http://www.welcometomonmouth.co.uk/...er-of-Commerce-hosts-CCTV-camera-meeting.html


----------



## Jenny_in_Chico (Jan 25, 2010)

Tez3 said:


> I'll probably confuse you even more now, permission isn't needed to take photos of people but if the person whose photo is taken objects they can sue the photographer if they wish under civil law. It's not illegal to take photos unless the person or place is covered by the Official Secrets Act then it becomes a criminal act. You can however be sued in court if you take photographs of someone who objects.
> 
> Cantray to what you might think CCTV is actually wanted by people in our town centres on grounds of safety.
> 
> ...


 
Do you think that a British subject could sue their local council for taking their photo without permission?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Mar 4, 2010)

*Man in UK accused of pedophilia for  photographing son in mall*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2010)

*71-year-old man ordered to stop  photographing car in UK shopping mall*


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 8, 2010)

*Architectural photographer  harassed for second time in six months in UK*


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 9, 2010)

Under the section he quotes for the reason he was being detained, the police can designate an area for the period of 48hrs as one where stop and search powers are needed, the Home Secretary has to be informed and the power ceases after 48 hours. It's used where an area is know to be used by gangs either for territorial disputes ie bloody great fights or for drug dealing etc.It may be an area where a foreign embassy is located and there is activities that have security issues. It may be somewhere where a member of the Government or Opposition, Royal Family lives or is visitng.
The photographer doesn't say where he was or at what time of day he was going down this street so I really can't offer any more explanation than this, he may have been right, the police may have been. They could have been harrassing him or not, not enough information.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Jun 9, 2010)

Aha a new way to fight CCTV!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 29, 2010)

> At the age of 16, freelance photographer Jules Mattsson can teach  adult photographers a thing or two about standing up for your rights to  take photos in public. The English lad was on assignment taking pictures of police cadets  lining up for a parade in London Saturday when he was confronted by  several officers who accused him of terrorism, pedophilia and general  all-around anti-social behavior (which is the British way of saying you  should be locked up).


This is how Mattsson explained it on his blog:


> _The incident started when I took an image (not a very  good one it  seems ) of a Police Cadet unit forming up to take part  in an Armed  Forces Day parade. I was quickly and aggressively stopped  by one of  their adult officers asking me who I worked for. I responded  that I was a  freelance and upon being told I needed parental permission  to  photograph them, I explained this was a public event in a public  place  and that I didn&#8217;t for editorial use._
> 
> _She then demanded my details and when I declined, I was quickly   pulled aside by police officers. Then started recording, see below for   the rest _
> 
> ...


http://carlosmiller.com/2010/06/29/madness-continues-in-the-united-kingdom/



a photographer and videographer each won £3,500 ($5,275) in damages after police  prevented them from documenting a protest outside the Greek Embassy in  2008



And last week, another photographer was harassed in London under the terrorism laws  when taking photographs with a tripod in public.

Things are getting so bad in the U.K. that Amateur Photographer magazine will give out a free  lens cloth (right) in next month&#8217;s issue that state the rules for  public photography to hand out to cops when they begin harassing  photographers.



Link to image of cloth: http://carlosmiller.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LENSCLOTH.low_.jpg


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 29, 2010)

Odd then that there's videos of police cadets on You Tube. Parents especially in Loondon are very wary these days about their kids being photographed, they could well sue the leaders if photos are taken so I doubt it's the police themselves being heavy handed more that it will cost them personally not the force if they are sued. I doubt her was accused of everything he said he was, I'd like to see a statement from the Met before making any call on this but of course it's only ever going to be one sided isn't it so they won't publish anything from the Met lol!

I wouldn't say things are bad, some people love the idea of being the focus of attention. If they are harrassed as you can see there is always the courts, that's what they are for.

The people of London and the police are probably more paranoid than most, comes with having been blown up nearly sixty times in the past thirty years. London a favourite target of the IRA, the anti gays (their nail bombs were nasty) as well as the Muslim extremists. Oh and bomba and bombing equipment are still being found, intel says at any given time there are several plans ongoing to blow Londoners up. C'est la guerre.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 29, 2010)

What I find of interest is the ignored idea of Law Enforcement violating the law that is a consistent read for me.  I'm aware that there are cultural and societarial differences at play, as well as other dynamics at work.  That doesn't bother me, the whole "When in Rome..." thing.  But to continually read articles indicating that those sworn to defend the law, are violating both law and department policy, that's the concern.

It's one thing if y'all had a law that said "Taking a picture of the police is illegal".
It's another thing when such is not in fact illegal, but that said police are using their position to intimidate -lawful photographers-.

We can argue the "its not your country so you don't know" areas again, but that's not my concern. It's not the legal differences we've discussed previously that bothers me...It's -any- cop who violates the law and policy in the pretext of 'protecting me'. Those who enforce the law can not be above it, and all that, y'know?

The idea of "if they harass you there is always the courts" is nice, but lets be blunt here.  I could sue the cops for excessive force if they knock my teeth out. I might even win. But would you really want to tie up that much of your time, go through that much pain, and spend that much money, over something that you -should not have to go through in the first place-?

I shouldn't have to sue the cops for harassment. They shouldn't be harassing me, or anyone who is complying with the law. They shouldn't be violating the law, or policy while executing their duties.  

The paranoia over photographers is an overreaction on both sides of the Atlantic. You can often find better quality shots of these 'prime targets' on Google or Facebook.  


Sorry if that's coming off harder than intended, dealing with a pinched neck nerve right now, it's got me grouchy. lol.


----------

