Matus
Well-known
I have just come across this:
UK minister aims to reassure photographers
UK minister aims to reassure photographers
Better time for UK photogs?
- Thread starter Matus
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 19
- Views 2K
John Lawrence
Well-known
IMHO a lot will depend on whether the guidance issued to the Police et al actually filters down to those concerned.
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
John
Guess we'll have to wait and see.
John
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Well IMHO...
If some members of the the police force (who should already understand the laws they enforce) need it explaining to them, then what hope have we got against the more ill-informed?
By which I mean PCSO's, security guards and the general public who insist on attempting to enforce this non-law with powers they do not possess.
I think rather than a change in the law something has to be done to change people's attitudes. Though I find it hard to believe it has got this way in a time when photography as a hobby and camera ownership is more widespread than ever.
Perhaps we will soon have to be licensed and insured like dogs.
If some members of the the police force (who should already understand the laws they enforce) need it explaining to them, then what hope have we got against the more ill-informed?
By which I mean PCSO's, security guards and the general public who insist on attempting to enforce this non-law with powers they do not possess.
I think rather than a change in the law something has to be done to change people's attitudes. Though I find it hard to believe it has got this way in a time when photography as a hobby and camera ownership is more widespread than ever.
Perhaps we will soon have to be licensed and insured like dogs.
Last edited:
Michael Markey
Veteran
We will try it out on Sat , Bob. First one booked buys the coffee.
Sparrow
Veteran
coffee?....
uhligfd
Well-known
Actually, reading the words of sad (sic and intended) minister, he says absolutely nothing at all really and so it is: words against stupidity ... Stupid rules in the UK from now on.
And the blah-blah from the power through fear usurpers goes on.
And the blah-blah from the power through fear usurpers goes on.
Sparrow
Veteran
I had thought of having an “I am a terrorist not a photographer” see-shirt printed to see if any of them were bright enough to spot it.
wgerrard
Veteran
Agreed. This is a reassertion of a statement made several weeks ago.
40oz
...
Doesn't it seem kind of silly, or simply lip service, to suggest that search and seizure authority only be used in cases where guilt has already been determined?
"...these powers and offences should not be used to stop innocent member of the public, tourists or responsible journalists from taking photographs."
On the other hand, I did see this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...p-stop-and-search-law-says-terror-watchdog.do
"...these powers and offences should not be used to stop innocent member of the public, tourists or responsible journalists from taking photographs."
On the other hand, I did see this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/stand...p-stop-and-search-law-says-terror-watchdog.do
peterm1
Veteran
The words of the UK Minister are........
"For the 58A offence to be committed, the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."
This statement is so general in its effect as to be meaningless - clearly there is already a large body of police who believe that anyone taking photos is preparing for an act of terrorism.
What is needed under the current law is not a statement of this sort which is clearly risible but actual training of police officers in when and when not to stop and search. Without this in they will continue to rely on their personal discretion and nothing will change. What will happen is that if they are conscientious (or bored or if you just piss them off) then you will still be stopped and maybe arrested.
Ideally though what is needed are changes to the law itself in the manner mooted in the other article - so that Police can only do so at major events or when there is a terrorist "flap" on.
I find it startling that in the UK where so much of the economy is dependent on tourism , this sort of law is being indiscriminately enforced - so they not realize that it is mainly tourists who use cameras, not terrorists. Maybe there was a misprint in the training manual.
"For the 58A offence to be committed, the information is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."
This statement is so general in its effect as to be meaningless - clearly there is already a large body of police who believe that anyone taking photos is preparing for an act of terrorism.
What is needed under the current law is not a statement of this sort which is clearly risible but actual training of police officers in when and when not to stop and search. Without this in they will continue to rely on their personal discretion and nothing will change. What will happen is that if they are conscientious (or bored or if you just piss them off) then you will still be stopped and maybe arrested.
Ideally though what is needed are changes to the law itself in the manner mooted in the other article - so that Police can only do so at major events or when there is a terrorist "flap" on.
I find it startling that in the UK where so much of the economy is dependent on tourism , this sort of law is being indiscriminately enforced - so they not realize that it is mainly tourists who use cameras, not terrorists. Maybe there was a misprint in the training manual.
Last edited:
Michael Markey
Veteran
I agree with Peter.This is a typical responce which seeks to silence any critics but still leaves wriggle room for any operational imperitives.
Having said that there were five of us out at weekend in Manchester and nobody had any trouble. However I did get a look from a members of a small demo but I`m afraid that I`m a bit official looking and sometimes mistaken for such 🙂
Taken with a Pany FX3 . Sorry.
Having said that there were five of us out at weekend in Manchester and nobody had any trouble. However I did get a look from a members of a small demo but I`m afraid that I`m a bit official looking and sometimes mistaken for such 🙂
Taken with a Pany FX3 . Sorry.
Attachments
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Although I didn't see them myself. Upon seeing your shots Mike, it struck me as odd that people waving banners in the middle of the city centre seemed unhappy to be having their picture taken. Demonstration is about reaching a greater public after all.
I imagine the protesters' experience with authority in their own coutry as well as ours has given them a distaste for anybody who could be seen as recording their actions.
Could it be that opposed to terrorists that it is the government photographers that are giving us a bad name? I know that if you shoot in rougher neighbourhoods nobody thinks you are a terrorist or even a burglar, they assume you are snoopers from the DHSS or the Inland Revenue.
I imagine the protesters' experience with authority in their own coutry as well as ours has given them a distaste for anybody who could be seen as recording their actions.
Could it be that opposed to terrorists that it is the government photographers that are giving us a bad name? I know that if you shoot in rougher neighbourhoods nobody thinks you are a terrorist or even a burglar, they assume you are snoopers from the DHSS or the Inland Revenue.
Sparrow
Veteran
That and Michael does look a lot like Cmdr Markey from Special Branch, I didn’t sense any hostility
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Interesting how we as photographers perceived in general:
- Govenment officials - think we're anti government.
- The poor - think we're from the government
- The middle classes - think we want to steal their children.
Sparrow
Veteran
I often go to the Media Museum in Bradford, what was the National Film and Photography Museum, and I’ve even had some odd looks while taking photos in there
Bit OT but the Simon Roberts, We English exhibition looks interesting
http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/SimonRoberts/
Bit OT but the Simon Roberts, We English exhibition looks interesting
http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/SimonRoberts/
Olsen
Well-known
I have just read the two books of James Morton 'Gangland; London's Underworld'. He has no hight thoughts of Scotland Yard and the London police force. He regards them as 'corrupt and incompetent'.
Strong words.
Strong words.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
The irony of being of being chucked out of the National Film And photography Museum for taking photographs. It'll happen one day - mark my words! 🙂
I half expected we would be 'questioned' for having a cameras in the Royal Exchange theatre this weekend (we were looking at their exhibition on surveillance which was put on in conjunction with their production of George Orwell's 1984). That, in turn, would have been sweet irony. However to be fair to the theatre we were left in peace.
I like the look of the Simon Roberts Exhibition Stewart. We'll have to take a trip to your hometown and check it out.
I half expected we would be 'questioned' for having a cameras in the Royal Exchange theatre this weekend (we were looking at their exhibition on surveillance which was put on in conjunction with their production of George Orwell's 1984). That, in turn, would have been sweet irony. However to be fair to the theatre we were left in peace.
I like the look of the Simon Roberts Exhibition Stewart. We'll have to take a trip to your hometown and check it out.
Last edited:
Michael Markey
Veteran
Sparrow
Veteran
Yep, I checked their “mission statement” it would be the ultimate irony, they allow photography anyway except in the actual galleries, I asked
I hung about by that large BB poster hoping to get a security man or someone being shifty but I don’t think I got much it was too dark.
I’m taking no responsibility for Bradford, but there is a Witherspoons just over the road, and a vast choice of currys to be had. But it can feel a little edgy these days, I'll think about it and check what else is on
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
If only that were true! Unfortunately, that's at the mild end of what happens in this wonderful world we now live in.
...Mike
(who just read an article about how Amnesty International [!!] has suspended one of their own officials for holding an "unapproved" opinion. I guess they didn't imprison her, but still...)
Last edited:
