Detained and questioned in London today

[daveleo]

. . . . To get all annoyed like I'm sure I would have done, would have escalated the issue I'm sure, and as much as I'd be full of "righteous" indignation, that's obviously not always the smart decision.
. . . .

Yeh, me too . . . . as much as I preach "peace at all costs", I'd be in cuffs with them sitting on me if this was me, but that's like the stupidest possible outcome. I admire people who can win with a smile and pleasant chatter. Those police people are doing what they get paid to do, you know?

 

[citizen99]

Of course the paranoia created by 9/11 has leapt the pond and rules are different over there, but here in the US, if taking photos in public places, a warning just doesn't hold any legal ground, and detaining a photographer (unless they are impeding an officers activities, endangering others, or photographing military installations) holds even less ground.

So no, submitting to an illegal demand is not the "right" thing to do, it's just sometimes the easiest thing to do.

Just to be clear about the background and implications of this, as many people reading this are not UK citizens, the 'paranoia' is not imitative, it does have a real foundation.
There was a terrorist bombing, now designated '7/7' for obvious reasons, in one day on three London Underground trains and a bus, with many killed and maimed. There have since been several foiled attempts in the UK, and there was also a bombing of the railway in Madrid, again with many killed.

Subsequently, in a tragic case of mistaken identity, armed plain-clothes security officers were trailing a Brazilian electrician, and followed him on to the Underground. He was not a tourist, and there was speculation raised about whether he might have been lacking a work permit, but most likely he thought he was being pursued by muggers.
He ran.
He was shot dead to ensure that he did not let off a (supposed) bomb on a crowded subway platform.

The rights, or otherwise, of photographers did not come into it.
Just so that we realise why the security procedures are what they are, for better or worse.

 

[Michael Markey]

Just to be clear about the background and implications of this, as many people reading this are not UK citizens, the 'paranoia' is not imitative, it does have a real foundation.
There was a terrorist bombing, now designated '7/7' for obvious reasons, in one day on three London Underground trains and a bus, with many killed and maimed. There have since been several foiled attempts in the UK, and there was also a bombing of the railway in Madrid, again with many killed.

Subsequently, in a tragic case of mistaken identity, armed plain-clothes security officers were trailing a Brazilian electrician, and followed him on to the Underground. He was not a tourist, and there was speculation raised about whether he might have been lacking a work permit, but most likely he thought he was being pursued by muggers.
He ran.
He was shot dead to ensure that he did not let off a (supposed) bomb on a crowded subway platform.

The rights, or otherwise, of photographers did not come into it.
Just so that we realise why the security procedures are what they are, for better or worse.

Well said and of course prior to all that there was a sustained 40 year campaign of bombing of pubs, shopping areas and public utilities.
We don`t need to imitate anyone.
That is the background and that informs the situation which you are stepping into.

 

[pdh]

just to clarify a couple of points:
John Charles de Menenez ran to catch his train. He did not appear to be aware of being pursued until the point where he was shot seven times in the skull at point-blank range.
"a tragic case of mistaken identity" was more of a series of blunders by police, and they sought subsequently to mislead and divert attention from these in order to escape culpability.

 

[Ming Rider]

In the 70's and 80's there were almost weekly IRA bombings in London, Belfast etc.

Many hundreds of people were killed, yet I don't recall a 'every photographer's a potential terrorist' mentality. Come to think of it, I don't recall any imposed restrictions on our freedom as individuals.

In fact, one leading terrorist was Minister for Education in Northern Ireland. 😀

 

[Michael Markey]

I don't recall an 'every photographer's a potential terrorist' mentality. Come to think of it, I don't recall any imposed restrictions on our freedom as individuals.

Yes , correct as you were in your earlier post about the tenuous connection between photography and terrorism.

 

[Sparrow]

In the 70's and 80's there were almost weekly IRA bombings in London, Belfast etc.

Many hundreds of people were killed, yet I don't recall an 'every photographer's a potential terrorist' mentality. Come to think of it, I don't recall any imposed restrictions on our freedom as individuals.

In fact, one leading terrorist was Minister for Education in Northern Ireland. 😀

Then you clearly didn't try to photograph any striking miners in eighty-four or five

 

[robur]

Nice story and beautiful photo.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In the 70's and 80's there were almost weekly IRA bombings in London, Belfast etc.

Many hundreds of people were killed, yet I don't recall an 'every photographer's a potential terrorist' mentality. Come to think of it, I don't recall any imposed restrictions on our freedom as individuals.. . .

Quite. I drank a few times in the Birmingham pub that was bombed by the IRA. I could have been there that night...

If I recall aright, the likelihood of being killed by terrorists is about the same as that of being struck by lightning. The likelihood of dying in a car crash is many times higher. But restricting driving is a good way to lose votes, and keeping people frightened is a good way to control the voters.

THE TERRORISTS HAVE ALREADY WON.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BlackXList]

Not going to be a lengthy rant, I agree with many of the statements above, I just also wanted to point out that 7/7 (as tragic as it was) is now 7 years ago.

I find it difficult to believe that we are in exactly the same place as 7 years ago, to me it feels like those tragic events (and the ones in other countries) were used as a way to justify all sorts of restrictions and "countermeasures" which often infringed on people's rights, and made the kind of incident that this thread is about commonplace, and yet, when the situations changed, and alert levels were lowered, the vast majority of the restrictions stayed in place (with the notable exclusion of Section 44).

I'll leave people to draw their own conclusions as to why, because I'm beginning to sound like I need a tin foil hat, and that's not my intention at all