Photography and the law - UK Government response
- Thread starter petebown
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 12
- Views 1K
Shok
Low Roller
So, essentially they're hand-balling it to someone else to deal with. Nice.
BillBingham2
Registered User
Very cool site, I really like it.
Sad to see that some of our wonderful approaches to avoiding dealing with issues has gone across the pond so well.
Who says that we have no more exports in the country!
B2 (;->
Sad to see that some of our wonderful approaches to avoiding dealing with issues has gone across the pond so well.
Who says that we have no more exports in the country!
B2 (;->
sojournerphoto
Veteran
Actually, the law in the UK is absoulutely clear. There is no right of privacy in a public space and you have a right to photograph buildings etc if you are in a public space.
I have a letter from the chief of security at the ministry of justice, received after I complained to the Home Secretary after an incident when I took a photo of said ministry's offices in London, which acknowledges the law and explains their policy with respect to phjotographers.
However, the enforcement of the law, and the habitual exceeding of the law by the police and (to an even greater extent) private securioty guards is simply not addresses. Unfortunately, I am left wondering, given the defence of the unlawful and beyond policy actions of the guards I had to deal with, whether the law is being deliberately ignored by those in the seats of power.
Mike
I have a letter from the chief of security at the ministry of justice, received after I complained to the Home Secretary after an incident when I took a photo of said ministry's offices in London, which acknowledges the law and explains their policy with respect to phjotographers.
However, the enforcement of the law, and the habitual exceeding of the law by the police and (to an even greater extent) private securioty guards is simply not addresses. Unfortunately, I am left wondering, given the defence of the unlawful and beyond policy actions of the guards I had to deal with, whether the law is being deliberately ignored by those in the seats of power.
Mike
Nick De Marco
Well-known
In addition to being a keen photogarpher myself in London, I am a barrister practising in, amongst other things, human rights law. I am very keen to do some work, initially writing, on this issue to help recieve a wider audience. If any of you have any experiences with police or othere agencies restricting your photogarphy or otherwsie interfering with you, I would be intersted to find out details and if you have letters from the police to see what they have said to you. Please feel free to pm me on this site.
Thanks
Nick De Marco
Thanks
Nick De Marco
kuzano
Veteran
In red can be replaced by various words. Some that come to mind are:
Sheep
Acquiescent
Subjugated
Whipped
Confused into submission
I can do this all day... but breakfast calls. The only thing that prevents me from becoming an anarchist is anticipating my next meal. This world would be different and possibly better if it weren't for the need to pleasure one's taste buds often.
Last edited:
Gumby
Veteran
OK, but what are you (not YOU, specifically, but the generic 'you' or 'us') going to do about it. Talk is cheap.
John Lawrence
Well-known
I find this part of the response particularly worrying:
So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.
My interpretation of this (which may be befuddled due to the amount of wine I've just drunk), is that effectively the police have been given carte-blanche to deal with photographers as they see fit.
So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations, inflame an already tense situation, or raise security considerations. Additionally, the police may require a person to move on in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to avoid a public order situation, or for the person’s own safety or welfare, or for the safety and welfare of others.
My interpretation of this (which may be befuddled due to the amount of wine I've just drunk), is that effectively the police have been given carte-blanche to deal with photographers as they see fit.
Gumby
Veteran
The problem is that it is trying to fight irrationality and fear with rationality. Doesn't work, even if lots of people join in. It's like taking the politics out of politics. How many times have candidates said that they were going to reform the political engine... whichever political engine they are driven by. Here in the US I know what my response is whenever I hear a candidate say they are going to "reform Washington"... or the state... or the city. That is enough to make me vote for "the other guy" because that's just not an realistic accomplishement that is likely to be achieved.
Gumby
Veteran
In summary... let's get real: baaa. 🙂
John Lawrence
Well-known
It may have been posted before, but here's a useful link:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html
peterm1
Veteran
Having worked for a number of years in a role in Government where it was from time to time necessary to field such complaints from the public, this is known as the "polite p*ss off" letter. In other words sound reasonable, say nothing, give nothing away.
However, create enough public stink that my political masters think they may lose a few votes at election and that may be a different matter. Unfortunately for the latter, the reality is that anti terrorism is a vote winner. Photographers' rights is not. Besides public servants LOVE anti terrorism laws - more powers to them!
Many better commentators than I have written about the ,,,,(I was going to say slow but its actually been rapid) diminution of our rights as citizens in the holy name of anti terrorism. Governments of all pursuasions play this game. Most times in democracies they are benign. Sometimes they not. But the end result is loss of legitimate rights. Was there not a quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm or some such, about moving from a situation where all things not expressly forbidden are permissable ( in a democracy)o a situation (in a dictatorship) where all things not expressly allowed are forbidden.
However, create enough public stink that my political masters think they may lose a few votes at election and that may be a different matter. Unfortunately for the latter, the reality is that anti terrorism is a vote winner. Photographers' rights is not. Besides public servants LOVE anti terrorism laws - more powers to them!
Many better commentators than I have written about the ,,,,(I was going to say slow but its actually been rapid) diminution of our rights as citizens in the holy name of anti terrorism. Governments of all pursuasions play this game. Most times in democracies they are benign. Sometimes they not. But the end result is loss of legitimate rights. Was there not a quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm or some such, about moving from a situation where all things not expressly forbidden are permissable ( in a democracy)o a situation (in a dictatorship) where all things not expressly allowed are forbidden.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I completely agree that there has been a substantive erosion of individuals freedoms under the law in recent years within the UK. Much of this has been driven by the misuse of draconian legislation brought in with the surface intent of helping address terrorism. Our recent government has had a strong underlying belief that it knows best even to the minutiae of each person's life I'm afraid and has been happy to extend legislative power to give it the reach it desires.
