Think twice before snapping pix of British bobbies By MEERA SELVA ? 1 day ago LONDON (AP) — Tourists better think twice now before snapping pictures of the iconic British bobby. A new British anti-terrorism law went into effect Monday that could effectively bar photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel — a move that prompted some 200 photographers to protest outside of Scotland Yard's headquarters. Although the measure aims to prevent terrorists from taking reconnaissance shots, photographers say it could be misused at a whim to stop any pictures from being taken — especially images involving police abuse and demonstrations. Freelance photographer Jess Hurd said she was stopped by police when photographing a December wedding of Irish travelers. Part of the story was about how the travelers — who often roam from site to site — face harassment from police. "The police stopped me and ordered me to stop filming them, saying I could be carrying out hostile reconnaissance," Hurd said. "I had no idea what they were talking about until I realized we were vaguely in the vicinity of City Airport." Britain has come under fire in recent years for several measures that civil liberties groups say erode people's freedoms. In 2005, another law prohibited demonstrations around Parliament. Marc Vallee, a photographer who specializes in photographing protests and gatherings, said police often see photographers as a nuisance to get out of the way. "The press is seen as an annoyance and under the terrorism acts they (the police) can deal with that," he said. The new act makes it a crime to "elicit, publish or communicate information" about British police or military personnel. Britain's Home Office said in a statement that the law is designed to protect police officers on counterterrorism operations. In many cases, officers could allow photographers to keep taking pictures. In other cases, they could ask them to stop or threaten them with arrest. Photographers who refuse to stop taking pictures after a warning face arrest, up to 10 years in prison or unspecified fines. It is legal to take photographs in any public space, but photographers complain they have been harassed by police while taking photographs near airports, government buildings or train tracks under the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives police the right to stop, search and question anyone taking photographs. "We've seen more and more limits being placed in this country on photographers and this new legislation will make things even more difficult for them," said Padraig Reidy of Index on Censorship, a group that monitors civil liberties. Neil Turner, of the trade body the British Press Photographers Association, said the industry has tried to cooperate with police, to come up with a code of conduct setting out rights and obligations on both sides. But he said the message is often not passed on to junior officers. "This is a hard fought document that took a long time to get together," he said. "I carry a copy in my camera bag all the time, but I've not yet met a (junior) officer who has ever seen it."

Hosted by Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

London February 18, 2009

An anti-terrorism law went into effect this week that could effectively bar photographers from taking pictures of police or military personnel — a move that prompted about 200 photographers to protest outside Scotland Yard headquarters. The law aims to stop terrorists from taking reconnaissance shots, but photographers say it could be misused to stop the taking of any pictures, especially of police abuse and demonstrations. "This law makes it much more difficult to photograph any kind of public demonstration or riot," said photographer Marc Vallee.

By Victoria Bone BBC News

From today, anyone taking a photograph of a police officer could be deemed to have committed a criminal offence.

That is because of a new law - Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act - which has come into force.

It permits the arrest of anyone found "eliciting, publishing or communicating information" relating to members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

That means anyone taking a picture of one of those people could face a fine or a prison sentence of up to 10 years, if a link to terrorism is proved.

The law has angered photographers, both professional and amateur, who fear it could exacerbate the harassment they already sometimes face.

On Monday, a group is gathering outside New Scotland Yard for a "mass picture-taking session" in protest.

The event is organised by the National Union of Journalists. It insists the right to take pictures in public places is "a precious freedom" that must be safeguarded.

NUJ organiser John Toner 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."

“ The problems we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations they find uncomfortable ” Neil Turner British Press Photographers' Association

'Suspicious circumstances'

The British Journal of Photography recently reported an incident involving a photographer in Cleveland who was stopped by a police officer while taking pictures of ships.

He was asked if he was connected to terrorism, which he wasn't, and told his details would be kept on file.

A Cleveland police spokeswoman told the journal that "in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent," anyone in "suspicious circumstances" could be asked to explain themselves.

Photojournalist Marc Vallée is among those angry at the law. He specialises in covering protests and fears for the implications of Section 76.

"Alarm bells really are ringing," he told the BBC News website.

"I know some of it sounds a bit funny. Train spotters being stopped for taking pictures, that sort of thing, but I've spoken to people who've been on their own, at night and they're surrounded by several officers. It can be intimidating.

"It may be that officers are just doing their best with a bad law, but if that's the case, they need guidance to tell them, 'Stop harassing photographers.'"

Mr Vallée also pointed out that members of the Royal Family were part of the Armed Forces.

"Are we going to be stopped from photographing them?" he said.

'Outrageous'

The NUJ said some police officers wrongly believed they had the right to delete photographers' images.

Other critics, meanwhile, fear the new law could inhibit their right to peaceful, democratic protest.

Leo Murray is a spokesman for climate change campaign group Plane Stupid. His members film any direct action they take.

"It's outrageous," he told the BBC News website. "It's yet another in a long line of measures designed to erode people's civil liberties.

"Being able to film the police has completely changed the way they are able to police our protests. It's made us much, much safer and the risks of a violent confrontation have almost disappeared.

"If we couldn't film they could act with impunity, they could just mete out violence with the confidence that nobody would find out.

"There's absolutely no way we are going to observe this ban. If they try to bring charges against us we will fight them in the courts."

In a statement, Number 10 said that while there were no legal restrictions on taking pictures in public places, "the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else".

"So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations," it said.

Photographers could therefore be asked to "move on" for the safety of themselves or others.

"Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the police officer concerned as to what action should be taken," the statement added.

Junior officers

This discretion, however, is what some feel is the key problem with the law.

Neil Turner, vice chairman of the British Press Photographers' Association, said he believed there was no intention among senior ranks of the police to prevent legitimate photography.

"The problems that we can see arising are with junior officers using the legislation to overcome situations that they find uncomfortable or where they make judgements about photography and don't know how to apply the legislation on the ground," he said.

"We firmly expect that there will be inappropriate uses of the act and that someone will end up in front of a judge before there is some clarity and before the purpose of the act is properly defined."

The Metropolitan Police insisted the law was intended to protect counter-terrorism officers and any prosecution would have to be in the public interest.

"For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists," it said.

"Taking photographs of police officers would not, except in very exceptional circumstances, be caught by this offence."

Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7888301.stm

Published: 2009/02/16 10:16:46 GMT

Police protest over terror law ban on holiday snaps
Justin Davenport 16.02.09

Tourists could face prosecution for taking holiday snaps of London's sights, police said today.

The Metropolitan Police Federation has joined a protest against an anti-terror law making it a potential offence to photograph police guarding London's landmarks.

More than 150 people protested outside New Scotland Yard today at the law which makes it an offence to publish or communicate information on members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Peter Smyth, chairman of the federation, said: "This is open to wide interpretation or, rather, misinterpretation.

"How, for example, will it be expected to apply in practice to the 2012 Olympics, which will be both a photo-event par excellence and subject to an intense security operation?

"Are going to be rounded up and arrested en masse for taking suspicious photos?"

Commenbt:

Does anyone else think that Labour have introduced the law as a sneaky way to turn the country into a Republic? Think about it: the main reason given for maintaining the Royals is that tourists like them. Yet this new law means you won't be able to take photos of any of the Royal sites because they are all guarded by police and members of the armed forces. -- e.g. photographing the changing of the guards will be a major no-no since it demonstrates protection for the Queen. Therefore tourists will not want to visit Royal sites, and the monarchy can be abolished. It's genius.

- Kate, London, UK

Did it occur to them at the Police Federation that people would only be prosecuted if the police were idiotic enough to arrest them in the first place?

- Henry Gurwood, London, UK

For ages now I have been writing to the Press about the "unfreedom" in Britain. Having had first-hand experience of life in the Communist Bloc, and particularly in East Germany, I see that by direct comparison, there is virtually no difference between Britain as is, and East Germany as was.Britain has become a police state in exactly the same way as Soviet Russia, China, and all of the Communist Countries were , and in most cases still are. All of this is modelled on the Gestapo practices of Nazi Germany, and once this kind or Regime takes over,usually the only way out is major confrontation within the Countrys' borders, (and often outside the borders). I fear it is already too late to stop the rot. Britons never shall be slaves? Ha.

- Ray King, Wood Green London

The Metropolitan Police Federation
has warned that anti-terrorist legislation could prove unworkable and undermine public perceptions of the police. In a statement released on Monday, the organisaion warned that "poorly-drafted" laws could also hit tourism and the 2012 Olympics.

The concerns focus on Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which takes effect today. It criminalises anyone who "publishes or communicates" any information about a member of the armed forces or a police officer which is "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Amid fears that this will cover anyone taking photographs of officers, the federation called for a code of conduct to be drawn up by the Home Office, police forces and the professional bodies which represent photographers.

The organisation, which represents officers serving in London, warned that the law is open to "wide interpretation or, rather, misinterpretation". "How, for example, will it be expected to apply in practice to the 2012 Olympics, which will be both a photo-event par excellence and subject to an intense security operation?" it asked. "Does the law mean tourists are going to be rounded up and arrested en masse for taking suspicious photos of iconic scenes around the capital? "That will work wonders for the international reputation of the London bobby and for the city as a whole as a welcoming destination. "If there is a terrorist attack in the capital, will the media concentrate their efforts on fire and ambulance crews and prudently avoid broadcasting or publishing pictures of police officers, rendering them invisible to the public?"

The federation said that good relationships between the police and media benefit both sides and the wider public. "As things stand, there is a real risk of photographers being hampered in carrying out their legitimate work and of police officers facing opprobrium for carrying out what they genuinely, if mistakenly, believe are duties imposed on them by the law," said the federation.

"This is unfair on everyone and completely avoidable ? hence, the Met Fed's call for joint action to produce a mutually-agreed code. We do not want to become the 'secret' police."
- http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/police-warning-on-anti-terror-law/ -

The chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation has called for the introduction of a photography code.

Peter Smyth said the Federation shared concerns expressed by photographers about Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 which creates a new offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about the Armed Forces, intelligence services or police which may be used by terrorists.

It follows protests in the capital yesterday outside New Scotland Yard on the day Act became law, reports Media Lawyer.

Professional and amateur photographers say the new law gives police the power to stop and search them at any opportunity, under the pretext they might doing something "useful to someone preparing to committing an act of terrorism".

Mr Smyth said he was supporting a call by Grimsby MP Austin Mitchell for a photography code to be drawn up by the Home Office and professional bodies.

He said the Code "should be to facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it".

"Police and photographers share the streets and the Met Federation earnestly wants to see them doing so harmoniously," he added.

"Good relationships between the police and media benefit everyone, including the public, which both sides exist to serve.

"As things stand, there is a real risk of photographers being hampered in carrying out their legitimate work and of police officers facing opprobrium for carrying out what they genuinely, if mistakenly, believe are duties imposed on them by the law."

The Home Office argues the new powers are intended to help protect those in the front line of counter terrorism operations and that photographing police officers would not be an offence except in "very exceptional circumstances".

SMILE PLEASE: Snappers adding to their collection.

HUNDREDS of photographers protested in London on Monday against a new law which makes it illegal to take pictures of the police.

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which came into force yesterday, allows for the arrest of anyone who takes photographs of police officers, police stations and other public servants which are "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

Some 300 angry snappers gathered outside the Scotland Yard headquarters of the Metropolitan Police to flout the new law by taking photos of the building.

The demonstration, organised by the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and the British Journal of Photography, issued a demand - backed by Labour MP Austin Mitchell - that the Home Office draws up guidelines to prevent photojournalists being searched by police and even prosecuted, merely for doing their job.

In contrast, police have the right to photograph citizens engaged in legal public protests.

NUJ vice-president Peter Murray described the law as "bizarre."

He said: "Even if the officer happens to be in the background, the photographer may end up on the wrong side of the law."

Amateur Photographer magazine news editor Chris Cheesman said that his readers were being stopped at a rate of two or three each week. Speaking at the protest, he said: "It seems that, if you have a professional-looking camera or you are using a tripod, the police feel they have to stop you. The law is being misinterpreted more and more often."

Comedian and civil rights campaigner Mark Thomas said that, unless new guidelines are issued, Section 76 will make work "hazardous" for photojournalists.

"In a democracy, the government should be accountable to the people. This law is putting the reverse into practice, making the people accountable to authority."

The Home Office denied that the law would be used to prevent legitimate photography.

But Metropolitan Police Federation chairman Peter Smyth said later that his organisation shared the concerns of the photographers and backed the call for a photography code to "facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it.

"As things stand, there is a real risk of photographers being hampered in their legitimate work and of police officers facing opprobrium for carrying out what they believe are duties imposed on them by the law," he added.

Because snuck in today under the usual cover of the war against terror came Section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.

This criminalises anyone 'eliciting, publishing or communicating information on members of the armed forces, intelligence services and police officers which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". But given the police's regular and blatant misuse of other laws such as Section 44 of the existing Terrorism Act and Section 1 of PACE, photographers feel it's a racing certainty that it'll get used to suppress evidence the police don't want used against them. "I can see it now", wrote photographer Marc Vallee in Thursday's Guardian

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/11/police-terrorism-photography-liberty-central -

"If you don't stop taking pictures of me hitting this protester on the head, I'm going to nick you under section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008."

At least three legal cases are currently pending relating to such police over-exuberance at last year's Climate Camp in Kingsnorth, Kent. Almost two thousand cops from 26 forces assembled at a cost of over 6 million quid and - having first harassed and delayed the press - chose to lay in on a regular basis on campers with steel batons. Sadly for them these attacks were nevertheless filmed and photographed and this evidence stands ready to disprove the lies they make in justification for that behaviour. Imagine how much easier life will be for them in future if those newsgatherers can be taken away from the scene under threat of a ten year stretch. High up behind the mirrored windows of New Scotland Yard the Forward Intelligence Team will have been at work photographing the photographers for their records.

And they'll have noticed something new - as well as the usual twenty or so photographers they always target for "reporting the news the wrong way" there were a couple of hundred new faces: working news photographers who've had it up to the back teeth with being pushed around illegally on threat (and sometimes the reality) of arrest.

It's no longer just an activist minority that sees through this sham of repression presented almost as a health and safety issue (keeping us safe from the bad men). Political police intrusion is becoming ever more invasive, is affecting all our lives and fucking up the freedoms we're supposed to believe are (were?) our right. This new law is just one more subtle tool in the armoury of public repression and this extraordinary turnout by what is normally an apathetic and politically careless bunch of photographers sends a clear signal that the worm is finally turning.

Published: February 17, 2009

Photo by tkellyphoto, courtesy Flickr

A new anti-terrorism law in Britain gives police the right to stop photographers from taking their picture and to threaten arrest.

Digg this LONDON — Some 200 British photographers protested outside Scotland Yard's headquarters on Monday as a new counterterrorism law went into effect that allows police to stop photographers from taking their picture, the Associated Press reports.

The measure, which makes it a crime to "elicit, publish, or communicate information" about British police or military personnel, is meant to prevent terrorists from taking reconnaissance shots. It gives officers the right to ask photographers to stop taking pictures of them and to threaten arrest.

A photographer who refuses to stop after a warning faces arrest, up to 10 years in prison, or fines.

Many photographers oppose the new law, saying they already face a hard enough time from the police. "The press is seen as an annoyance and under the terrorism acts they [the police] can deal with that," said Marc Vallee, a photographer who specializes in shooting protests and gatherings.

Under the Terrorism Act of 2000, police have the right to stop, search, and question anyone taking photographs in public.

Copyright © 2009, Louise Blouin Media. All rights reserved.
Use of this site constitutes agreement with our Privacy Policy and User Agreement.
ePublishing :: CMS, Hosting & Web Development

Hundreds of photographers gathered outside New Scotland Yard today to exercise their right to take pictures in public.

The gathering of over 300 snappers coincided with the launch of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 which became law today.

As reported on HoldtheFrontPage last week, some photographers fear the Act could increase police powers to stop them taking photos in public places and even lead to arrest.

Among those at the event were comedian Mark Thomas and London-based freelancer Jess Hurd. She said: "I think we have really stood up for journalism today.

"I've been stopped and detained under the old counter terrorism laws and this takes things even further."

Marc Vallée, another freelance photographer who helped organise the event, added: "This turnout shows that if a press photographer is arrested under the new law it will be a big news story. Hopefully that will make the police think carefully."

NUJ vice-president Peter Murray said: "There is a threat of photographers being criminalised just for doing their jobs.

"Life is already hard enough for them. Photography budgets are being cut and so-called citizen journalists are being used instead of professionals.

"This is a further unnecessary threat to their livelihoods."

New terrorism law 'could curb press photography'
by holdthefrontpage staff

"Overzealous" cops could stop press photographers from taking pictures in public under new laws due to come into force later this month.

The Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which updates and amends the Terrorism Act 2000, contains rules targeting gathering information on police officers and members of the armed forces.

Section 76 of the new Act states: "A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of Her Majesty's forces, a member of any of the intelligence services or a constable which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

The Act goes on to say it would be a defence for a person to prove that "they had a reasonable excuse for their action" with convictions carrying a fine, imprisonment or both as punishments.

The new Act is expected to strengthen existing powers under the Terrorism Act 2000 for police to stop and search photographers and prevent them from taking pictures in public.

Olivier Laurent, news editor at the British Journal of Photography, said: "It means anyone that takes images or notes anything about police officers, armed services personnel and Her Majesty's servants.

"Anything that would be able to be used by terrorists planning an attack.

"Officers could be over zealous and stop photographers, especially in places such as a press photographer covering protests and it looks as if a police officer is doing something that he does not want to be seen, he could invoke that act.

"The fact they will be able to detain that person is of great concern for photographers. A lot of them wouldn't know their rights."

In answer to the question whether it gave the green light to officers to arrest photographers for taking pictures of police or military personnel, a Home Office spokesperson said: "It's down to police forces to interpret whether a crime or offence takes place but that's not what Section 76 says."

The new Act was given royal ascent in November and is due to come into force on 16 February.

In recent months, several incidences of photographers being stopped and questioned while taking pictures in public places have come to light.

Leslie Cheyne, from County Durham, said an officer from Cleveland Police stopped him while he was indulging his passion for photographing ships in Redcar.

Mr Cheyne told The Northern Echo the officer asked him if he had any terrorism connections and told him his personal details would be kept on file even though he was not committing a crime.

He said when he phoned the police to complain he was told: "For all we know you could be bin Laden's brother."

A Cleveland Police spokesperson said: "If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities."

Last month it was reported that Andrew Pelling, MP for Croydon Central, was searched by two police officers despite showing his Commons pass after taking photos of a cycle path in his constituency.

Tuesday 17th February 2009
Chris Cheesman

The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) has come out in support of photographers by condemning the latest anti-terrorism legislation as 'unfair', 'poorly drafted' and open to misuse. The body, set up to ensure high standards of policing, backs the campaign led by Labour MP Austin Mitchell who is calling for the introduction of a photography code to be followed by officers on the ground. Last year the MP for Great Grimsby launched an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons, highlighting photographers' right to take pictures in public. The petition has won cross-party support from more than 240 MPs and was drawn up largely on the back of the experiences of Amateur Photographer (AP) readers. In a statement the MPF said: 'The code should be drawn up jointly by the Home Office and the various professional bodies representing police and photographers. Its aim should be to facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it.' Yesterday, amateur and professional photographers staged a demonstration outside Scotland Yard over fears that police will enforce Section 76 of the Terrorism Act 2008 to stamp out photographs of police officers. As reported by AP, Section 76 of the new Act (which came into force yesterday) expands on Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which made it an offence to record an image likely to be useful to a terrorist. The MPF warned that Section 76 is open to 'misinterpretation'. It adds: 'How, for example, will it be expected to apply to the 2012 Olympics which will be both a photo event, par excellence, and subject to an intense security operation? 'Does the law mean tourists are going to be rounded up and arrested en masse for taking suspicious photos of iconic scenes around the capital? That will work wonders for the international reputation of the London Bobby and for the city as a whole as a welcoming destination.' Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking photographs of police officers would not - except in 'exceptional circumstances' - be covered by the new offence.

Hundreds of photographers have staged a protest outside Scotland Yard against a new law which they say could stop them taking pictures of the police.

The law makes it an offence to gather information on security personnel if that data could be used for a purpose linked to terrorism.

The National Union of Journalists said the law could be used to harass photographers working legitimately.

The Home Office said it was designed to protect counter-terrorism officers.

The NUJ wants the government to issue guidance to police forces on how exactly the law should be used by individual officers on the ground.

'Treated as terrorists'

The photographers, both professional and amateur, held a mass photo-call outside the Met Police headquarters at Scotland Yard on Monday.

They are angry at the introduction of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act and argue it can be used by police to stop and search them in any situation.

“ The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack ” Metropolitan Police

It makes it an offence to "elicit, publish or communicate information" relating to members of the Armed Forces, intelligence services and police, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Vice President of the NUJ Pete Murray said it was absurd to treat photographers as terrorists simply for doing their job.

"If the police officer isn't doing anything wrong then what are they worried about?" he told the BBC.

"I mean, we as citizens constantly get told that these extra security laws, terrorism laws, all of this surveillance stuff, is not a threat to us if we're not doing anything wrong.

"So why on earth it becomes a threat to a police officer to have a photographer, a working journalist, a photographer taking a picture of them is quite beyond me."

He said that even if an officer were in the background of a shot - for example, at a football match or street parade - "the photographer may end up on the wrong side of the law".

Peter Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, backed a call by Grimsby MP Austin Mitchell to introduce a formal code to clarify the position of both the police and photographers.

"Its aim should be to facilitate photography wherever possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it," he said.

"Police and photographers share the streets and the Met Federation earnestly wants to see them doing so harmoniously.

"As things stand, there is a real risk of photographers being hampered in carrying out their legitimate work and of police officers facing opprobrium for carrying out what they genuinely, if mistakenly, believe are duties imposed on them by the law."

'Reasonable suspicion'

In a statement, the Home Office said taking pictures of police officers would only be deemed an offence in "very exceptional circumstances".

"The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack," it said.

"For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists."

The Home Office added that anyone accused under the act could defend themselves by proving they had "a reasonable excuse" for taking the picture.

Anyone convicted under Section 76 could face a fine or a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/7892273.stm -

Posted By: Kate Day at Feb 16, 2009 at 17:46:00 [General] Posted in: Arts

Tags: Civil liberties, Police, public places

More than 300 photographers descended on New Scotland Yard this morning to protest about a new law that could criminalise anyone taking a photograph of a police officer. Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act, which came into force today, permits the arrest of anyone taking photographs of the police, the armed forces, or the intelligence services which are "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". Now a policeman might not be your first choice of subject but this should concern us all.

Photographers protest outside New Scotland Yard
First of all, consider the practicalities. Policemen are often present at news-worthy events - football matches, marches, processions, concerts and so on. There are already frequent reports of photographers being stopped and searched and surely this new law makes that more likely. While it might be true that legitimate photographers have nothing to fear, being asked to prove that you aren't a terrorist could make covering events much much more difficult and that's assuming the police officer concerned does nothing more than stop and search people. I was once stopped for taking a picture of a hospital for a student newspaper. I was standing in the road, not on the hospital grounds, but as I didn't have a press card, the security staff refused to listen to my explanation and threatened to call the police. By that time I had a picture I could use so I let it go but it did make me think twice about taking pictures in public.

More importantly, this is part of a larger, creeping assault on civil liberties in the name of terrorist prevention. Each time we give up the freedom to do something, even something apparently small and insignificant, we are giving away part of what makes us a free society. As Philip Johnston argued, too often the Government introduces new measures which fly in the face of Gordon Brown's rhetoric about the British tradition of liberty.

So well done to the photographers who turned up to protest this morning, I was with you all in spirit. You can see pictures here, here and here. We should all follow their lead.
Comments

The first thought that struck me on hearing this was; who ever sees a policeman on the street these days?, surely such an rare occurrence is reason to commemorate it with a photograph, if ony for bragging rights. Imagine arriving at the pub & remarking "Saw a policeman on the street today." Met with cries of "B*llsh*t!", "Pull the otherone!", "Yeah, right!". And there you would be, unable to pull out your camera & show them.

Seriously though, if police cannot be photographed, because they are likely targets of terrorism, then logically Royalty, Government Ministers & MPs cannot be photographed for the same reason. However, as members of the general public have also been targeted then they too cannot be photographed.

QED photography of any person is illegal.

Al Hamilton

February 16, 2009 06:00 PM GMT

Another thought. Have all the post cards of smiling British Bobbies been removed from the tourist shops? Or is the fact that they are smiling considered sufficient disguise to confuse the terrorists?

Al Hamilton

February 16, 2009 06:03 PM GMT

Every day a new news story comes out about the destruction of civil liberties under the guise of anti-terrorism. I don't know what we can do to raise awareness of it and protest against it, but we have to write about it. Thank you fro this article.

Loz

February 16, 2009 06:03 PM GMT

I guess us folk will just have to ask them to step to one side out of the frame (yeah right), this is another nail driven in to our freedom to photograph in public let alone wherever there is a police officer. Wayne

waymol

February 16, 2009 06:04 PM GMT

What about bus drivers, parking wardens, school crossing ladies, and road sweepers - why aren't they being protected?

Another fatuous piece of Nu-Lav legislation. Do they get paid a bonus for b*llsh*t?

parabellum

February 16, 2009 06:08 PM GMT

Scene, a dark alley behind Canterbury Cathedral. Man in stained trench coat approaches.

"Psst, you want feelthy pictures? Naked ladies? Small boys?, PC49? Dixon, The Sweeney?"

Al Hamilton

February 16, 2009 06:08 PM GMT

Unless the relevent legislation has been rescinded it is against the law to photograph police stations and many other public buildings. This fact was driven home during my art student days in the 1960s, when our photography class, accompanied by a lecturer, decided that for our architectural project we would photograph the city centre cop shop.

We had set up our Kodak Specialist half-plate stand camera and were deep in discussion as to the relative merits of orange or red filters, when a sergeant sauntered from the building and inquired what we thought we were about. Whatever it was, it was almost certainly illegal. The consensus among the students was that the lecturer should be slung in chokey to teach him a lesson. The sergeant saw the funny side. Not so the lecturer.

I had good cause to remember that incident many years later, when an IRA terrorist was blown up planting a bomb outside the general post office. You can't be too careful, IMO.

Junius

February 16, 2009 06:17 PM GMT

The one thing that comes across from this is how the British police have destroyed their relationship with the British public. Nobody doubts for a second that this law will be used by aggressive jobsworth policemen and the ridiculously named "police community support officers," in particular, for no reason other than to mess around law abiding members of the public who are behaving perfectly reasonably. I wouldn't trust a British policeman for a second and I don't appear to be at all unusual in that. Massive reform of the police is a vital task for the next government.

ChrisL

February 16, 2009 06:19 PM GMT

These proposals have nothing to with terrorism and everything to do with preventing members of the public filming and photographing police officers beating the living daylights out of their fellow countrymen or blowing their brains out on tube trains.

Lance Grundy

February 16, 2009 06:37 PM GMT

Lance Grundy - spot on! It would have prevented the filming of the skin-headed Met thugs beating seven bells out of the peaceful, jacket-and-tied, middle-aged Countryside Marchers for example - and of course, as you say, any of the numerous incidents of murder by Rambo Plod.

parabellum

February 16, 2009 06:46 PM GMT

This will stop the tourists in their tracks, imagine the loot the Courts will steel from the likes of the innocent, Susuki San and Lester G Wanderlust III, next Summer.

geoffthereff

February 16, 2009 07:05 PM GMT

It does not appear to say UNIFORMED police, so apparently you would be guilty of a crime if you took a photograph by accident of a plain clothes policeman.

When cameras become criminal only criminals will have cameras.

Does anyone think that a terrorist intent on a suicide mission will be deterred by this law?

If I wanted to take illicit photographs of policemen, police stations, train stations, airports, port facilities I can do so with a small camera hidden on my person or in hand baggage. This does appear to be, as others have pointed out, a method for the police to remove embarrassing evidence of their wrong doing.

Al Hamilton

February 16, 2009 07:06 PM GMT

George W. Bush claimed that El Qaeda attacked us because they hated our freedom. If this is a war whose side is Jacqui Smith on? Maybe she should wear a burqa?

Come to think of it there is no maybe about it, she should be forced to wear one.

Al Hamilton

February 16, 2009 07:10 PM GMT

Ahem....an estimated 4.2 Million CCTV cameras throughout the uk, plus countless hundereds of thousand of internal premises private cameras filming everyones everything.

Has to be 1 in every 2 mobile phones with a camera capability and who knows who is doing what with them?

Millions of tourists - shall we turn a blind eye because they are wearing badly tailored shorts?

Tell me the story, Jacqui? More friday night claret induced thinking?

Shocker

February 16, 2009 07:42 PM GMT

No photographing police men? How daft. Do their large retractable truncheons make them shy? How about pin-up firemen? No one would ever want a photo of a traffic warden, I would really love a law that stops traffic wardens photographing cars- especially those cars that are given a ticket!

I have read in the press that a new law has been made- 1st in the country - a NO KISSING LAW- a notice has gone up at Warrington station, wherever that is. Can you believeit no kissing- a final farewell long lasting kiss is now a criminal act. Link uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090...

True Belle

February 16, 2009 08:22 PM GMT

Remember Rodney King

Loz

February 16, 2009 08:39 PM GMT

Shocker

Good point..CCTV is watching us 24 hours a day! Sounds like they don't like a taste of their own medicine!

Loz

February 16, 2009 09:19 PM GMT

Wasnt there a similar case to the Rodney King affair where a man was beaten in North Wales,shown on the 6o'clock news on the BBC,but only then reported on the 9o'clock news,luckily the video is still around-perhaps posting on youtube might be interesting.

Jusjacqueline

February 16, 2009 10:02 PM GMT

I am concerned. There is more to this story than meets the eye. The Government are preparing for civil unrest.

How we used to mock the Stalinist control

Photography ban is straight from the Soviet Union
Michael Binyon

Is this Russia? Or the Middle East?

I remember the list from 40 years ago, when I first went to the Soviet Union: no bridges, no junctions, no railway stations, no government buildings, no soldiers and, above all, no police.

Point your camera at any of these and you were under arrest.

How we used to mock the naivety, the paranoia, the Stalinist control. How striking was this example of totalitarian mentality, where even benign attempts by tourists to snap daily life were treated as full-blown espionage.

At least in the West we understood that a good shot of a majestic bridge or the sight of a policeman's back among the throng in the square was not a threat to the State's security. In the Middle East I learnt to be careful for other reasons. Take pictures of people without their permission and you risked a furious outburst. Even shots of animals, picturesque villages or ancient streets risked official anger. Are you trying to dishonour our women? Do you want to portray us as backward? Forget the West's former easy tolerance. Paranoia now stalks the streets and shopping centres of Britain. From this week, any unauthorised photograph, even inadvertent, of a policeman could land you in jail for up to ten years. Ten years! What madness is this? And it's not just the police.

Under Section 76 of the 2008 Counter-Terrorism Act, any picture “likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism” is prohibited.

That means almost anything: railways, public buildings, government offices, monuments, parades, communications centres. Every officious jobsworth now has a right to stop you, tear out the film or delete the images and issue charges if you cannot convince the police that you are a train spotter or innocent amateur photographer. Background Former spy chief says UK is now a police state

COMMENT:

that's a bit rich, Dame Stella

Why MI5 comes out of the shadows First ID cards are to be issued within weeks Watch out for more trouble if you're a professional. The bigger the camera, the more flashes and tripods, the greater the suspicion.

Photographers are reporting regular harassment, by angry members of the public as well as police. And the new law is sure to be used by those who don't want embarrassment or publicity to prevent pictures of scuffles, demonstrations or accidents.

It is because of terrorism, you see.

But wouldn't zealots ready to plant bombs take pictures with phones or concealed cameras?

And how will a ban stop them from downloading detailed satellite pictures freely available on websites?

What an irony: a nation more photographed in secret by surveillance cameras than any on Earth now wants to stop people taking unauthorised pictures.

It's time to snap such officiousness and hold it up to ridicule.

Have your say If you check the Law, it is not against the law to take photos. It is an ACT that created this feature and in court, you are a free man/woman and all you have to do is waver the fine or jail sentence.

No one can Judge you, when you declare yourself to be a human being and not a person. Portia Barrett., London, uk

We must consider mass civil disobediance, something I usually condemn as I believe we have always had adequate means to voice our concerns in this country. Not any more. Subsequently, I am going to go out of my way to take photos of public buildings, the police and anything else I damn well please
James, Beverley, East Yorkshire,

UK It is a very narrow interpretation of the section which is titled "eliciting, publishing or communicating info of a kind likely to be useful..." and it also provides for the statutory defence of reasonable excuse. Girls asking a soldier for his phone number or address would also be "an offence!"
Jon, Preston,

My current photographic interests include drinking fountains, cattle/horse troughs, (church) lychgates ... I imagine alas, that in this country, someone somewhere will somehow manage to determine that my innocent picture of a cattle trough could be used for sinister purposes! Michael, London, England

The answer is for everyone to carry an camera and take photographs of police officiers at every opportunity - just swamp the system. I understand that it is now technically illegal for tourists to photograph the changing of the guard .
Peter Evans, Walton on Thames, Surrey

And what will 'Dave' and the wet Cameroonians do about it after they win? The silence is deafining.
CR, Essex, UK

And freedom and democracy in this country slowly ebb away.....
A.N, Greenwich, UK

Oh dear. It just gets worse and worse, doesn't it? The vandalism committed against liberties in the name of preventing terrorism, curbing obesity, protecting minorities from 'offence' , (insert noble cause here) ... our government seems intent on turning the UK into a nightmare. I've already left!
Toby Donovan, New York, USA

Holding something up to ridicule doesn't always lead to its removal. Just look at ZaNu Labour and Gordo's "drinks party" management of the financial crisis.
Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia