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

wgerrard said:
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.
Click to expand...


Ah, but you didn't photograph the Ministry of Justice. I did and was given grief by ba pair of non-commissioned security guards who were 'just doing their duty'. I later received a letter that tacitly acknowledged that their action had been contrary to procedure and illegal, but stopped short of apologising for this, preferring to justify the behaviour on grounds of our common security, the terrorist threat and simply apologising that I had been upset by this. I see the distinction as being an important demonstration of the mindset of some people in positions of power (I refuse to use the word authority in this context).

Mike
 
I find it a bit weak that the BBC has made such an issue over this because it was 'one of their own!'

How many other camera users got harassed around 'old blighty' on that particular day for photographing suspiciously I wonder ... and if one of them had rung the said BBC with their story would they have shown any interest?

I doubt it!
 
Last edited:
And yet, this is the once great civilisation that gave to the world the Magna Carta and the Westminster parliamentary system. What a total joke Britain has become.

Btw, London would have to be the singularly most surveilled place in the world, with all those cameras around. Why don't the British people rise up? Well, they don't because they're too stupid.
 
RFluhver said:
And yet, this is the once great civilisation that gave to the world the Magna Carta and the Westminster parliamentary system. What a total joke Britain has become.

Btw, London would have to be the singularly most surveilled place in the world, with all those cameras around. Why don't the British people rise up? Well, they don't because they're too stupid.
Click to expand...

So true … even today, did habeas corpus die in vain? I ask myself
 
I think generalising about the mental capacity of any country's population is fraught with danger on a democratic forum like this one!

Hope you have your flame proof suit handy! 😛
 
RFluhver said:
And yet, this is the once great civilisation that gave to the world the Magna Carta and the Westminster parliamentary system. What a total joke Britain has become.

Btw, London would have to be the singularly most surveilled place in the world, with all those cameras around. Why don't the British people rise up? Well, they don't because they're too stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, at least we believe in evolution and have passports!
 
Keith said:
I find it a bit weak that the BBC has made such an issue over this because it was 'one of their own!'
Click to expand...

True, but this is an issue that gets little mainstream attention and is something most people are surely not aware of. So, the coverage helped to spread the word.

It's far from a sure thing, however, which side the public will come down on. A lot of people seem to be intent on taking genes, skin color or religion as markers of evil intent, so it wouldn't be a stretch for them to add photographers to their list of things that go bump in the night.
 
Sad. Then again, didn't England enact a law against public music with repeating beats? Who comes up with this stuff?
 
I've had similiar experience. I was once stopped by a couple of support officers while shooting the parliament building from the South Bank with a tripod. The funny thing is that I was told shooting parliament building with a camera on a tripod was not allowed. The reason was so weired. Would a photographer launch a rocket attact on a tripod?

www.flickr.com/photos/tongfoto/sets
 
Well, this discussion has nothing to do with rangefinders now! But I have to add my 2 cents to it anyway!

I don't think that Britain is really unique here. All the "anglo-saxon" countries are suffering in a similar way. The US is certainly no better. Northern Europe isn't much better, but a little it seems.

Like Roger says, the Latin European countries have managed to escape the worst of it seems. There, terrorism might be an issue. But fixing a good dinner is maybe even more important.

Ack... It makes me sick when I think how the ideals of the American revolution have been perverted.

I take pictures to keep my mind away from thinking about this subject too much.

JP
 
Last edited:
photocrazy said:
I've had similiar experience. I was once stopped by a couple of support officers while shooting the parliament building from the South Bank with a tripod. The funny thing is that I was told shooting parliament building with a camera on a tripod was not allowed. The reason was so weired. Would a photographer launch a rocket attact on a tripod?
Click to expand...

Usually prohibitions of tripods in public spaces are due to the legs being an impediment to safe movement. That is, clumsy folks tend to trip over them.

Oh, and photographers don't launch rocket attacks.
 
This is not unique to the UK; there have been quite a few similar examples in the US posted on this very forum, but I do agree that we, in the UK, have a fairly acute problem. I see one unfortunate commonality between the situation in the UK with photographers and general policing in Afghanistan (ironically), both being driven by an ignorance of the law. This may be almost total in the case of Afghan cops and specific wrt to Brit police, but its unacceptable either way.

There was reference to community support officers, which may well be a factor, but so is the apparent fact that the nature of policing in the UK has changed dramatically in recent years. Policing seems to have become as 'issue ridden' as politics! I have quite a bit f experience in the security sector and will be the first to admit that understanding the nuances of what is legal, whats is not, the limits to authority, common sense, contextual understanding, discretion and sound judgement are not the sector's fortes.

Just as it often is outside a nightclub, I think the first reaction on the part of police is to 'dig in' in that they regard any form of listening or flexibility as a sign of weakness, hence their astounding stubbornness even when confronted by the blinding wrongness of their initial position. It might be somewhat appropriate at 0300hrs outside a night club after a fight, but it has no place much of the rest of the time.
 
There was a case local to me yesterday or the day before in Burgess Hill (a small town north of Brighton, pop. 30,000?) where someone was using a Zenit (the Commie's Terrorism Camera of Choice no doubt....) and got stopped by the Stasi... sorry a PCSO (Police Community Support Officer) asking him what he was up to.

Long and short of it, they took his name, address and date of birth -- all for taking photos of CHRISTMAS LIGHTS IN THE TOWN CENTRE.

As for Brits being stupid, well a lot of them are, but so are a lot of people in a lot of nations -- nationality doesn't breed idiocy, the human race does that all by itself.

And yes, some of us are protesting about it and refusing to be questioned like this by people who are not much more than a jumped up traffic warden. I was stopped getting on for 2 years ago in London taking photos of Big Ben, the difference was I had an SLR against a sea of arm's length digital shooters. Damn those 50mm lenses have some reach for all manner of terrorist activity - not.

If there's any solace it doesn't happen often, but once is too often. This is the unfortunate consequence of legislation that was rushed through after 9/11 by our previous PM's government, Tony Bliar (ahem) and now our civil liberties are being taken away.

Anyway I'm gonna stop there as it's making me angry just thinking about it.

And yes raves were banned by the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 by the description of dance music.

Anyway, if you have frustrations like this of any kind, it's best to air them to those who you elect in and hassle them chronically to get things moving; rather than in some muddled rant on the 'net, only to slip into your working attire to become Anonymous Citizen no. 13,655,487 slipping out of suburbia under the hood of complicity only to become vocal again the minute you get on the 'net -- that's what I don't get....
 
Lilserenity said:
. . . Anyway, if you have frustrations like this of any kind, it's best to air them to those who you elect in and hassle them chronically . . . QUOTE]

Or write a magazine column about it (another one going in today about the latest ICO 'guidelines') and support the AP 'I am a photographer, not a terrorist' campaign.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom