BBC photographer stopped from taking a picture @ St Pauls in London

bmattock

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
6:16 PM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,655
Just another nail in the coffin of freedom:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8384972.stm

BBC News photographer Jeff Overs was stopped and questioned for taking photographs in Westminster.

Speaking on The Andrew Marr Show, for which he takes photographs, Mr Overs said he was worried that policing against terrorism was making the UK feel like "the Eastern Bloc".
Click to expand...

Click on the link to watch the video interview.
 
This madness is exacerbated by the omnipresence of 'Support Officers" - civvies who are helping out. AS the song goes, "you can't trust a Special like an old-time copper). Many of them are idiots* with no understanding of the law, for the Met recently issued instructions stated that photographers shoudl not be stopped without good reason.

I spoke to a friend of mine, an ex high-up in the Labour party about this; he acknowledged it was pitiful; pointing out only that politicians are terrified to speak out about such civil liberties, for fear their words will come back to haunt them in the event of a terrorist incident. There's courage for you - for after all, what are we trying to defend?

(* not all of them; a fortnight ago I witness a crazed hit and run driver - sadly, the only other person who took chase, in front of dozens of people, was a Special... with more stamina than me).
 
One of the reasons I have very little desire to return to the UK.

Then again, hysteria (mostly fanned by the gutter press) is nothing new in the UK: cf the Dangerous Dogs Act, recent Firearms Acts, etc.

Fortunately most of continental Europe is more level-headed most of the time, though I have my doubts about the Swiss and minarets.

Cheers,

R.
 
The number of people with cameras who walk along the South Bank every day must surely be in the thousands. It's more than a bit like nabbing someone taking pictures of the Washington Monument from the Mall.

I shot the same pictures in almost exactly the same place last month. Good thing no one saw me cross over to the west side of Westminster Bridge and point the camera at Parliament. And I believe I also grabbed a few shots of the Ministry of Defense as I walked along Whitehall.

What about all those people taking pictures of that big house where the Queen lives?

I can, reluctantly, understand prohibitions of photography at truly secure facilities. But, I don't understand how confronting photographers clearly shooting photos of something clearly in public view improves anyone's security. In this case, St. Paul's is in addition one of the most photographed landmarks in the UK.

It's good that voices on an institution like the BBC are questioning this.
 
Last edited:
Having been approached whilst photographing outside Liverpool St Station in London I feel similarly puzzled, frustrated and, at the time, annoyed. The 'officer' even followed me as I walked down the road away from the station! He seemed bemused when I asked if it was alright to take a picture of a bus as it went by.
 
Last edited:
You should worry; my seventeen-year-old son has been stopped several times by the 'hobby bobbies' for the grave offence of carrying a trombone to orchestra practice in Kingston upon Thames. Of course, he could have a Stinger missile launcher in his gig bag – or even my old D100… :eek::eek:
 
Philip Whiteman said:
You should worry; my seventeen-year-old son has been stopped several times by the 'hobby bobbies' for the grave offence of carrying a trombone to orchestra practice in Kingston upon Thames. Of course, he could have a Stinger missile launcher in his gig bag – or even my old D100… :eek::eek:
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous, why not go after the real offenders and their piano-accordions

I do wish one of these would come to trial, it's one of those silly new laws that have no chance of getting to court but allow the police to be difficult and collect some data.
 
Last edited:
This is something that concerned me greatly for a time, it's still a worrying trend however the sheer number of cameras, photographers (pro, amateur and tourists) simply makes this unpoliceable.

The law is still, for now, on our side. So long as no one lets this type of unwarranted attention actually stop them from either enjoying their hobby or doing their job then there is little that 'they' can actually do.

...and Roger's right, the British Press, especially certain publications, have always been...excitable shall we say. Something that has always been a little embarrassing when seeing Brit papers sold abroad:D
 
What's really annoying is that people with smart phones can go anywhere with them, taking pictures where ever and when ever they please without anyone questioning them. They have cameras in them. But they are more annoying. If a terrorist wanted a photo of a government installation, how likely that he would whip out a light meter and a Leica instead of clicking the camera button while pretending to talk on the phone? Stop the madness!

BTW, I was stopped by a cop in DC for taking a shot of the Smithsonian with another government building in the foreground. The UK is not alone in this stupidity or unimaginative curbing of photography.
 
Do these Support Officers have arrest powers? Are they uniformed in public?

Of course, they aren't the entire problem. Section 44 of the Terrorism Act is the bigger problem. Where do the Tories and David Cameron stand on that, given his certain next job?
 
Last edited:
Sparrow said:
That's ridiculous, why not go after the real offenders and their piano-accordions

I do wish one of these would come to trial, it's one of those silly new laws that have no chance of getting to court but allow the police to be difficult and collect some data.
Click to expand...

The real offenders are bouzoukis. The name even sounds dangerously like 'bazooka', and the damage they do is incredible. Shock and awe, indeed.
 
I would sooner be pulled in for questioning than stop photographing St. Paul's Cathedral. It's absolutely ludicrous, why would a terrorist even go to London to get pictures of it? There are thousands all over the internet.
 
bmattock said:
The real offenders are bouzoukis. The name even sounds dangerously like 'bazooka', and the damage they do is incredible. Shock and awe, indeed.
Click to expand...

Yes but mandolins are more easily concealed, and anyway come the revolution I get to choose ... the first against the wall


 
This story is nothing new. I have lots of similar stories (and crazier ones) from when I lived in London in the 90's (there was terrorism then too). I am kind of surprised that the photographer had never been stopped before.
Unfortunately New York is not much better. They play the same intimidation game. It will never be brought to court, because it is so much easier to just harass someone with a camera, and tell them to go away. Most people are easily intimidated. If you protest it, you are just wasting your own time (and theirs).
What they think they are achieving? Your guess is as good as mine.
 
As Januaryman stated, the UK is not alone in the stupidity; I was once stopped and questioned by a U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service officer in 2003 after taking a photo of a building in downtown Tampa, Florida near where a knuckleheaded 15-year old intentionally crashed a Cessna into the Bank of America building in 2002. The officer wanted to make sure I wasn't scoping out more buildings for attack.....sheesh.
 
A little over reaction by the Brits -- no biggy. I understand 1/2 the nation is now Middle Eastern. It has the natives paranoid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom