agi
Well-known
Hmmm...what the heck is going on that you can't even photograph out the streets without getting arrested for shooting "sensitive buildings" or people feeling anxious? He was using his Bessa R4A. Insanity...
Police seize films from amateur photographer -
Chris Cheesman Police have seized films from an amateur photographer, accusing him of obtaining photographs of possibly sensitive material in Hull city centre.
Photo enthusiast Steve Carroll has lodged an official complaint against Humberside Police after the incident on 1 December.
Carroll said that the officers objected to him photographing 'sensitive buildings', one later adding that people had been anxious about his use of the camera.
Carroll told the officers he was entitled to take pictures in a public place.
'All the shots were of people. I took shots of people crossing the road, the Big Issue seller, two youths drinking from beer cans, people walking in the street and so on,' said Carroll who told us he was making his first attempt at 'street photography'.
He admits a few of his shots were taken candidly, adding: 'I did not take any photographs of children. I took most of the photographs openly, not trying to disguise the fact that I was photographing.'
Humberside Police seized two films containing the shots Carroll had taken. At the time of writing they had yet to return the films to the photographer.
A spokeswoman for the force told Amateur Photographer: 'Camera film was seized by Humberside Police following a complaint from members of the public about photos being taken in the area of Prospect Centre, Hull.
more in link here
Police seize films from amateur photographer -
Chris Cheesman Police have seized films from an amateur photographer, accusing him of obtaining photographs of possibly sensitive material in Hull city centre.
Photo enthusiast Steve Carroll has lodged an official complaint against Humberside Police after the incident on 1 December.
Carroll said that the officers objected to him photographing 'sensitive buildings', one later adding that people had been anxious about his use of the camera.
Carroll told the officers he was entitled to take pictures in a public place.
'All the shots were of people. I took shots of people crossing the road, the Big Issue seller, two youths drinking from beer cans, people walking in the street and so on,' said Carroll who told us he was making his first attempt at 'street photography'.
He admits a few of his shots were taken candidly, adding: 'I did not take any photographs of children. I took most of the photographs openly, not trying to disguise the fact that I was photographing.'
Humberside Police seized two films containing the shots Carroll had taken. At the time of writing they had yet to return the films to the photographer.
A spokeswoman for the force told Amateur Photographer: 'Camera film was seized by Humberside Police following a complaint from members of the public about photos being taken in the area of Prospect Centre, Hull.
more in link here
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
The irony is rich, considering how many video cameras are pointed at us constantly, in public places.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The police seized films in response to citizen complaints. In other words, the police don't know the law, but fear criticism and bad press from the uneducated, uninformed, fear-ridden public.
Turtle
Veteran
What I love about this is that the films were seized in response to complaints by members of the public... to which my response would be "SO DID THE LAW AND LEGALITY OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING NOT COME INTO IT MR PLOD...IF ID ONT LIKE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR BECAUSE HE PICKS HIS NOSE, WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO COME ROUND AND NICK HIM? "
This does not surprise me, sadly. The police are supposed to uphold common sense of course, but only where it is rooted within the law. They have no other jurisdiction! I would love to know what the nature of the public complaint was...I can imagine the police file reading, "Well sir, we have three mothers who thought you were a paedophile, two office administrators who thought you were a terrorist and a middle aged mum who strongly suspects 'people like you' were responsible for the death of Princess Diana."
To be rude for a moment, in my experience the police have many admirable officers, but also more than their fair dose of complete idiots. I think they have forgotten what they are there for - and it is not to enforce social intolerance and propagate paranoia!
This does not surprise me, sadly. The police are supposed to uphold common sense of course, but only where it is rooted within the law. They have no other jurisdiction! I would love to know what the nature of the public complaint was...I can imagine the police file reading, "Well sir, we have three mothers who thought you were a paedophile, two office administrators who thought you were a terrorist and a middle aged mum who strongly suspects 'people like you' were responsible for the death of Princess Diana."
To be rude for a moment, in my experience the police have many admirable officers, but also more than their fair dose of complete idiots. I think they have forgotten what they are there for - and it is not to enforce social intolerance and propagate paranoia!
jesse1dog
Light Catcher
I suspect the matter isn't quite as simple as it appears.
If the Police receive a complaint they are supposed to investigate.
They seem to have done so here, and are entitled to seize any material evidence there might be - in this instance film.
I'm not too happy about this but it seems to be legitimate.
So, so far so good (!).
What then is the mystery is the alleged reason written on the form.
So what to do?
I don't know what would happen if several dozen 'amateur' photographers were to be in Hull City Centre on a Saturday afternoon. If I were one of them I would make sure any police were included in my subject matter.
If the Police receive a complaint they are supposed to investigate.
They seem to have done so here, and are entitled to seize any material evidence there might be - in this instance film.
I'm not too happy about this but it seems to be legitimate.
So, so far so good (!).
What then is the mystery is the alleged reason written on the form.
So what to do?
I don't know what would happen if several dozen 'amateur' photographers were to be in Hull City Centre on a Saturday afternoon. If I were one of them I would make sure any police were included in my subject matter.
Matthew Allen
Well-known
Hmmm, interesting and somewhat worrying. One thing: your thread title is incorrect. Being stopped and searched in the UK is not the same as being arrested.
I think that as in nearly all of these cases, the problem is the ignorance of the public which in turn may have been reinforced by the ignorance of the police.
Matthew
I think that as in nearly all of these cases, the problem is the ignorance of the public which in turn may have been reinforced by the ignorance of the police.
Matthew
Pablito
coco frío
Intersting that on the form filled out by the police, there are spaces for the ethnicity of the officer and of the person being searched. While ethnicity might be part of the description of a suspect in the US, I don't think you'd find it on a comparable form.
patrickhh
GAS free since Dec. 2007
I wonder how anything that's exposed to public audience can be "sensitive" or so top secret that it may not be photographed.
chambrenoire
Well-known
The world is turning into a prison planet!
Superbus_
Established
What kind of sensitive building could be in the city centre of Hall? A nuclear reactor or what???? Or the policeman's wives nude café? 
m_chris
Newbie
shouldn't be anything t worry about.... street photography is not YET illegal
The truth will set him free!
The truth will set him free!
crawdiddy
qu'est-ce que c'est?
I don't know about the U.K., but in the U.S., we might need to worry. Our federal government is above the law. They wiretap citizens illegally, and investigate what books we purchase and read. And at the same time, they might easily lock up someone deemed "suspicious" who was making photographs. Or at least tell him to stop.
Our government is very big on secrecy. And not so much on privacy.
Our government is very big on secrecy. And not so much on privacy.
itf
itchy trigger finger
I think the problem is that every time this happens it establishes and reinforces a precedent until it's normal for people to be worried about a person with a camera and normal for the police to follow it up. Eventually it will be a much smaller step to outlaw photography in public because of this.
The ridiculous thing is that if people thought it through, he was the last person they needed to be worried about. He was right there, in the street with his camera out in the open. Surely a person with bad intentions (I won't call them a photographer) is not going to be so noticable; a zoom lens, mobile phone camera. I won't use the expletives to explain my frustration.
I was in a similar situation early this year, also in the UK. I was regularly out walking around with my Canon QL17 or an SLR with a 28mm or 50mm lens, and I always made a point of having it in my hand.
I'll tell the full story, but its long winded. Read on if you wish.
One day a group of local kids (15-18ish) became suspicious of me, I think they thought I was a paedophile out for their younger siblings. I noticed a commotion going on, and thought it looked like something interesting was about to start. I didn't realise I was the cause.
I walked right past the group and everyone just froze. At that moment quite a big rough guy with a shaved head came running up to the rest of the group, shouting aggressively "where is he?" The rest of the group were just stood there stunned and he looked around and saw me slowly wandering past within 1.5 metres of him. He too froze.
I still hadn't realised I was the cause, I thought they were worried because I'd seen something building. I just kept wandering. I think my complete lack of any fear stunned them; they didn't know what to do. I kept walking and the group of abou 15 of them started following from about 15 meters back. Of course, I realised now what the problem was. I noticed one of the parents standing in her doorway, and one of the kids called to call the 5-0 (police). So I stopped and waited, and sure enough the police arrived.
I told them what I was doing, and that I thought the area was interesting. They heard my accent (Australian) and relaxed a bit. They told me to be careful in that area. I asked if I could go and apologise to the kids for worrying them but the police said they'd rather do it on my behalf.
I decided to write a letter of apology for causing so much concern (but made it clear it was the concern I was sorry about, not carrying and using a camera) and also told them a bit about myself. I dropped it off at the house I'd noticed a parent at. I got a call back pretty soon, she was fine. She said they were just on the lookout for paedophiles. I also contacted the local paper, who were interested, so I could point out what was going on and also make light of the situation a bit.
However, before the local paper came out, I was contacted again by the police. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was NOT to go out with my camera again, under any circumstances. Then they contacted me again the next day while I was at work. They needed to see me urgently and I had to finish work early so I could meet them at my place.
The officer came in the door, his first words "Well, I suppose you know why I'm here." I said "I suppose it's something to do with the other night." He went straight into "Where were you at 9:00 on the morning of blah blah blah, and can anyone verify that." My explanation checked out, and my sister had been with me.
Apparently someone had been seen taking photos around a school from their car. It seems that after the event, parents had passed on my letter of apology to the school and I had become the main suspect. Even though it sounded like there were previously convicted paedophiles known to be in the area, I with the old film camera, normal to wide lenses, and my camera always in plain sight had become the most likely to be up to no good. I was furious but kept cool.
The article came out, and it was ok. Kind of funny actually. The main quote from the police chief was that he thought I understood the differences between my country and England. I thought this was hilarious, so many people in the UK seem to think Australia is perfect and now the police chief seems to think we don't have these crimes!
Anyway, in the end I was cleared. The local officer ended up being a nice guy and I ended up a bit more involved with him and the community.
The ridiculous thing is that if people thought it through, he was the last person they needed to be worried about. He was right there, in the street with his camera out in the open. Surely a person with bad intentions (I won't call them a photographer) is not going to be so noticable; a zoom lens, mobile phone camera. I won't use the expletives to explain my frustration.
I was in a similar situation early this year, also in the UK. I was regularly out walking around with my Canon QL17 or an SLR with a 28mm or 50mm lens, and I always made a point of having it in my hand.
I'll tell the full story, but its long winded. Read on if you wish.
One day a group of local kids (15-18ish) became suspicious of me, I think they thought I was a paedophile out for their younger siblings. I noticed a commotion going on, and thought it looked like something interesting was about to start. I didn't realise I was the cause.
I walked right past the group and everyone just froze. At that moment quite a big rough guy with a shaved head came running up to the rest of the group, shouting aggressively "where is he?" The rest of the group were just stood there stunned and he looked around and saw me slowly wandering past within 1.5 metres of him. He too froze.
I still hadn't realised I was the cause, I thought they were worried because I'd seen something building. I just kept wandering. I think my complete lack of any fear stunned them; they didn't know what to do. I kept walking and the group of abou 15 of them started following from about 15 meters back. Of course, I realised now what the problem was. I noticed one of the parents standing in her doorway, and one of the kids called to call the 5-0 (police). So I stopped and waited, and sure enough the police arrived.
I told them what I was doing, and that I thought the area was interesting. They heard my accent (Australian) and relaxed a bit. They told me to be careful in that area. I asked if I could go and apologise to the kids for worrying them but the police said they'd rather do it on my behalf.
I decided to write a letter of apology for causing so much concern (but made it clear it was the concern I was sorry about, not carrying and using a camera) and also told them a bit about myself. I dropped it off at the house I'd noticed a parent at. I got a call back pretty soon, she was fine. She said they were just on the lookout for paedophiles. I also contacted the local paper, who were interested, so I could point out what was going on and also make light of the situation a bit.
However, before the local paper came out, I was contacted again by the police. I was told in no uncertain terms that I was NOT to go out with my camera again, under any circumstances. Then they contacted me again the next day while I was at work. They needed to see me urgently and I had to finish work early so I could meet them at my place.
The officer came in the door, his first words "Well, I suppose you know why I'm here." I said "I suppose it's something to do with the other night." He went straight into "Where were you at 9:00 on the morning of blah blah blah, and can anyone verify that." My explanation checked out, and my sister had been with me.
Apparently someone had been seen taking photos around a school from their car. It seems that after the event, parents had passed on my letter of apology to the school and I had become the main suspect. Even though it sounded like there were previously convicted paedophiles known to be in the area, I with the old film camera, normal to wide lenses, and my camera always in plain sight had become the most likely to be up to no good. I was furious but kept cool.
The article came out, and it was ok. Kind of funny actually. The main quote from the police chief was that he thought I understood the differences between my country and England. I thought this was hilarious, so many people in the UK seem to think Australia is perfect and now the police chief seems to think we don't have these crimes!
Anyway, in the end I was cleared. The local officer ended up being a nice guy and I ended up a bit more involved with him and the community.
Kim Coxon
Moderator
Sorry - Long Post!
IMHO, this needs to be looked at in context before shouting about Police tactics or Government Policy. As I read it, several people saw this guy taking photos with what they probably considered a "pro" camera and reported to the police that they thought he was acting suspiciously. The police then investigated, as they are duty bound to do. It may even have been that one of the "reports" mentioned children. If the police had not responded, they would have been at fault. They did not arrest the guy nor did they "seize" his camera. If there was a report that he might be a paedophile, then they will look at the pictures and if there is no evidence, return the film and the guy will have his processing done for free. The police did not observe the guy taking photo and so could not tell what he was taking pictures of. Looking at the map, Prospect Street is in the area of the University and several museums and so may be areas where there could be children.
As to the precedent, it is a little worrying but I think it is important to look at the reasons. This may be controversial but I think the greatest blame lies firmly at the door of the Media and not the Police or Government. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, people are quite happy to wander the streets despite the security cameras. If someone use there mobile phone, (some of which now have 5Mp cameras on board) nobody bats and eyelid. Point a "pro" camera at them and suddenly they get nervous. I may be wrong but this certainly didn't happen 5-10 years ago. The Police haven't changed this nor the Government. IMHO, the problem is the reporting in the Press and also the TV.
Take the case of Paedophiles. Perhaps, there has been an increase with the advent of the internet but is it really that prevalent now? Hardly a day goes by at the moment without the case of "Maddie" being plastered all over the front pages of the Tabloids. Even the hint of a case gets the Sensationalist treatment on the front pages. In a recent survey, 35% of children under the age of 10 had not been allowed to play outside and 65% had not been allowed to purchase anything in the shops on their own. My wife used to work in a school in Lincoln. A couple of years ago, I had a day off and arranged to take her out to lunch. I parked near the school in a public car park mainly used for people visiting the Castle and Cathedral as well as the local shops and waited for her. After about 10 mins there was a tap on the window and I was asked what I was doing because it was near the school. When I said I was waiting for Linda (whom they knew,) all was OK.
Linda also runs both the local Guide and Brownie units. There are now whole rafts of rules about photographs. Nobody can take photos at a Guide event without Parental consent, the photos cannot show the faces, names cannot be published etc etc. Her unit recently won some prestigious national awards. The official Guiding magazine rang shortly afterwards saying they wanted to run a story in the official mag and could Linda sent some photos. :bang: They were actually quite upset when she said no because the rules had said she couldn't take any!
I think another reason is also the increase in the number of "reality" shows and exposure stories on the TV and the press, many of which severely distort the truth. A classic example was recently when the BBC portrayed the Queen as leaving an event and being very cross because she had been kept waiting. This was shown as a trailer to promote their recent series on the work of the Queen. After a formal complaint from the Palace, it transpired that this was completely untrue and she was going to that event and had not been kept waiting. There has been a large increase in the number of "stories" in the name of investigative journalism that put forward an unbalanced view and quite often distorts the truth by "selective" editing. There have always been publications that have done this but even the mainstream papers, magazines and TV does it frequently now.
Look also at the antics of the Paparazzi. You see images on the TV of what they are sometimes doing which under other circumstances would be called harassment. There defence is that they are taking pictures legally in a public place. Is it any wonder then than the public start being concerned especially when this gets reported by their colleagues as "invasion of privacy"! :bang:
Even in this case, AP seems to be presenting the "facts" in a way that they feel will appear to appeal to their readership and sell more magazines. Lincoln, although not large, is a University City with some quite popular tourist attractions. A couple of times a year, you will see a bunch of students out on the streets for a week taking pictures as part of their media course at the Uni. Apart from that and around the Cathedral, you rarely see anyone carrying a "proper" camera in the city let alone taking photos. I am sure the situation in Hull is similar and cases like this will become more common.
As to the Law, that is a different story. A couple of years ago, the Mayor of London was proposing to ban digital cameras in the public areas of London to "protect" children. Sense prevailed but ultimately, the politicians will do what they think will get them votes. If they feel that the "public" are concerned about photography, then they will go that route and leave it to the Police to pick up the pieces of legislation that cannot be properly enforced. Shouting about our "rights" will not change that. Our "rights" are governed by the law of the land. It would be far better to educate the "general public". itf's story shows that. Unfortunately, that will prove to be very difficult mainly due to our professional brethren and their writing colleagues.
Kim
IMHO, this needs to be looked at in context before shouting about Police tactics or Government Policy. As I read it, several people saw this guy taking photos with what they probably considered a "pro" camera and reported to the police that they thought he was acting suspiciously. The police then investigated, as they are duty bound to do. It may even have been that one of the "reports" mentioned children. If the police had not responded, they would have been at fault. They did not arrest the guy nor did they "seize" his camera. If there was a report that he might be a paedophile, then they will look at the pictures and if there is no evidence, return the film and the guy will have his processing done for free. The police did not observe the guy taking photo and so could not tell what he was taking pictures of. Looking at the map, Prospect Street is in the area of the University and several museums and so may be areas where there could be children.
As to the precedent, it is a little worrying but I think it is important to look at the reasons. This may be controversial but I think the greatest blame lies firmly at the door of the Media and not the Police or Government. As has been said elsewhere in the thread, people are quite happy to wander the streets despite the security cameras. If someone use there mobile phone, (some of which now have 5Mp cameras on board) nobody bats and eyelid. Point a "pro" camera at them and suddenly they get nervous. I may be wrong but this certainly didn't happen 5-10 years ago. The Police haven't changed this nor the Government. IMHO, the problem is the reporting in the Press and also the TV.
Take the case of Paedophiles. Perhaps, there has been an increase with the advent of the internet but is it really that prevalent now? Hardly a day goes by at the moment without the case of "Maddie" being plastered all over the front pages of the Tabloids. Even the hint of a case gets the Sensationalist treatment on the front pages. In a recent survey, 35% of children under the age of 10 had not been allowed to play outside and 65% had not been allowed to purchase anything in the shops on their own. My wife used to work in a school in Lincoln. A couple of years ago, I had a day off and arranged to take her out to lunch. I parked near the school in a public car park mainly used for people visiting the Castle and Cathedral as well as the local shops and waited for her. After about 10 mins there was a tap on the window and I was asked what I was doing because it was near the school. When I said I was waiting for Linda (whom they knew,) all was OK.
Linda also runs both the local Guide and Brownie units. There are now whole rafts of rules about photographs. Nobody can take photos at a Guide event without Parental consent, the photos cannot show the faces, names cannot be published etc etc. Her unit recently won some prestigious national awards. The official Guiding magazine rang shortly afterwards saying they wanted to run a story in the official mag and could Linda sent some photos. :bang: They were actually quite upset when she said no because the rules had said she couldn't take any!
I think another reason is also the increase in the number of "reality" shows and exposure stories on the TV and the press, many of which severely distort the truth. A classic example was recently when the BBC portrayed the Queen as leaving an event and being very cross because she had been kept waiting. This was shown as a trailer to promote their recent series on the work of the Queen. After a formal complaint from the Palace, it transpired that this was completely untrue and she was going to that event and had not been kept waiting. There has been a large increase in the number of "stories" in the name of investigative journalism that put forward an unbalanced view and quite often distorts the truth by "selective" editing. There have always been publications that have done this but even the mainstream papers, magazines and TV does it frequently now.
Look also at the antics of the Paparazzi. You see images on the TV of what they are sometimes doing which under other circumstances would be called harassment. There defence is that they are taking pictures legally in a public place. Is it any wonder then than the public start being concerned especially when this gets reported by their colleagues as "invasion of privacy"! :bang:
Even in this case, AP seems to be presenting the "facts" in a way that they feel will appear to appeal to their readership and sell more magazines. Lincoln, although not large, is a University City with some quite popular tourist attractions. A couple of times a year, you will see a bunch of students out on the streets for a week taking pictures as part of their media course at the Uni. Apart from that and around the Cathedral, you rarely see anyone carrying a "proper" camera in the city let alone taking photos. I am sure the situation in Hull is similar and cases like this will become more common.
As to the Law, that is a different story. A couple of years ago, the Mayor of London was proposing to ban digital cameras in the public areas of London to "protect" children. Sense prevailed but ultimately, the politicians will do what they think will get them votes. If they feel that the "public" are concerned about photography, then they will go that route and leave it to the Police to pick up the pieces of legislation that cannot be properly enforced. Shouting about our "rights" will not change that. Our "rights" are governed by the law of the land. It would be far better to educate the "general public". itf's story shows that. Unfortunately, that will prove to be very difficult mainly due to our professional brethren and their writing colleagues.
Kim
manfromh
I'm not there
A little sidenote: Hull means insane/crazy in estonian
John Robertson
Well-known
So thats where the name came frommanfromh said:A little sidenote: Hull means insane/crazy in estonian
Dundee harbour area used to be a great place for photos, now you face constant harassment from security people and police, which considering the docks are virtually unused, is weird. What ARE they hiding there???
George Orwell was correct. just 20 years wrong with the date.
Big Brother Brown is watching you
Last edited:
petebown
Established
Anyone caught taking photos of the buildings in central Hull needs to be sectioned not arrested
gb hill
Veteran
Thanks for the post. After reading through I just noticed you titled it "Man gets arrested". He didn't get arrested he just got his film seized which makes me wonder? If the man was shooting with a digital camera would they take the SD card or ask him to delete the photos. Some of those SD cards are pretty expensive. I think I would hate to have one of those confiscated.
migtex
Don't eXchange Freedom!
Here in the SouthWesterns Europe we do feel that these actions (based on the stories) went a way over the common sense... for now, like Toyotadesigner says, we still find some some of it.. but time will tell since government are always to eager to control the masses that pay the taxes.... if you know what I mean.
gb hill
Veteran
Pitxu said:
Pitxu: Those French police hats are interesting. I knoticed the officer on the left has a different hat than the officer on the right. Do you know their ranks?