Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

If a link to terrorism can be proven, taking a photo of police officers could be illegal...

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

It's madness, I could be in trouble for taking a photo like this one from last week.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3298/...aa6b838d_b.jpg

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Only if your linked to terrorism mate, your not, are you ?

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

"likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" is incredibly broad and any photo of any Policeman could be construed as such.

This basically makes any kind of demonstration where the police may be present, pointless, since the whole of point demonstrations is to draw attention through the media.

Still, if you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear..as long as you don't intend trying to prove yourself innocent with photographic evidence.

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

All cops are different and when presented with woolly law descriptions from the government, they always apply it differently. That would the government's fault for wording the laws so loosely.

From all the coppers I have ever known (and I have known a lot), none have ever refused a photograph or argued against having a photo taken providing the photographer had good intentions (like DW's photo). However, that doesn't extend to:

1. The pond life that turn up to photograph a pedestrian or motorist smeared across the road so they can take the photo home and furiously masturbate over it later.

2. When cops are struggling to control violent, drug-crazed and mostly armed clients/customers/****, they don't need wannabe papps a few inches from their face shouting and trying to incite the situation.

If anyone agrees with #2, I could turn up while they are at work, constantly videoing goading them and threatening to post it on Youtube, and see how well they do their job. Its not easy, even without the violent, armed, drug-crazed criminals.

This law was drafted to prevent a reoccurence of the situation we had before when a Muslim British soldier was targetted for kidknapp and summary (Youtube) execution. To think anyone who has a hi-vi jacket in the corner of their photo should just turn themselves in is rubbish.

---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:09 ----------

Also, another thing to bear in mind: coppers are people too. Like others, they might be photophobic and not want their photos taken and plastered all over the public. It would be nice if photographers respected that as well as the others who don't want their photo taken and (mis) used.

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

And there are plenty of people who will do that. Where I work there are at least two people well known for skulking about the town centre at weekends with cameraphones and putting edited highlights onto Youtube. Arresting a struggling bag of cocaine, alcohol, tattoos and muscle isn't pretty at the best of times and when certain sections of the incident are removed or glossed over it can look even worse.

Plus the uniform makes you look fat :D

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

That'll be the body armour, slim-boy! ;)

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Under the act they could decide I was, arrest me and use the photograph as evidence to send me down. This is what is being fought against.

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Errr of course. Not a fish-supper, McDonalds, kebab, curry or KFC has ever passed my lips when on duty oops:

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Nope,it was Dunkin' Donuts instead :D

From today you can no longer film the Police.
 

Although they can film you without permission, you will find yourself breaking the law if you film them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7888301.stm

This is just another piece of the jigsaw to completion of a Police State.

Re: From today you can no longer film the Police.
 

You aren't being paranoid.

WE ARE OUT TO GET YOU! :erm:

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

I bet the RUC wished this law existed in the 70s and 80s in Northern Ireland though

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

They will use this against anyone they want to. There have been example of them using anti terror laws against people who are not terrorists.

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

What??

Think of all the motorists they'll be missing out on catching....

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

It's true.

Some one has already been arrested for photographing a policeman or taking photos near a police station.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1228149.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....4&in_a_source=

Also the Natwest/Enron three were extridited to the USA using terror legislation.

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

:cool:

re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

The Met have issued "Guidelines" regarding photography:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

It covers not just the use of the new law (Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which amended the Terrorism Act 2000 with Section 58a) regarding photographing police officers, but also the use of Section 43 & Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Telegraph journo Kate Day has blogged about it:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture...hotograph-who/

Apparently the Met's advice is not Home Office approved:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_285926.html


Another article at The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...sm-regulations

It includes some examples of Section 76 being used to stop photography of the police.

It also has a link to a blog post by someone who was arrested (& later eventually "de-arrested") under Section 44 after taking photographs in Chatham High Street:

http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/sectio...m-high-street/

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Its all getting a little silly isn't it! If I ever get approached by the Police or arrested for taking photos around Glasgow I will not be happy.

Ahh Chatham High Street, I used to live down there. The Fish shop used to be a Subway and to the right of the photo is a McDonalds :P

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Would it be these two by any chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGA9ZUEa3ZY

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Yesterday a local bully tried his luck with the police and came off worse now my son who has been a victim of this little piece of **** couldn't resist filming his arrest. As soon as he was spotted by an officer THREE of them (my son is slight build and couldn't be threatening if his life depended in it) came over threatened him confiscated his mobile phone and held him till they had factory resetted it wiping everything from his phone.

This happened in the town centre in broad daylight in a little market town where we might have a little reputation for whinging but not terrorism. I have always supported the police and their actions on this forum and elsewhere but i can't help think there was a complete over reaction on the part of the police here and it is not something i like to see our officers doing. End result of this is they scared the hell out of a bunch of kids that are no trouble and have come across as anything positive.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

the officer could end up in trouble for that and in any case it doesn't do what they think there are various bits of software and or equipment that can easily retrieve all the information from even a factory reset phone or camera

so he failed in his understanding of the law and in getting rid of the evidence ;)

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

My son doesn't want to take it any further despite my wishes and while a factory reset isn't the end of the world it meant he lost all his photo's, contacts and all the other stuff that kids have on their phones these days. I just thought it was a completely unproportional response and makes me wonder what our police have to fear so much from a bunch of teens filiming them doing their job. This incident has got me thinking a lot more about whether my unconditional support of the police in the past has been the wisest thing to do.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

I am tempted to take my camera in to Glasgow on Saturday just to see what happens, lol.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

the only problem with not taking things further ( and i can well understand not wanting the hassle ) is that the powers that be start to say its common practice we haven't had many complaints as a defence when they go to court eventually and common practice is often a successful means of defending actions


ps

try this if he had a memory card and wants his pics back

http://www.mjmdatarecovery.co.uk/mem...ysoftware.html

or this

http://download.cnet.com/PC-Inspecto...html?tag=mncol

if you can attach the phone to pc via cable or bluetooth

or use badcopy pro ( my choice but you have to pay for that one ;) )

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Thanks for those links Roger will try and get his phone off him and see if i can get back some of his stuff.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

"Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. "Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places," a spokeswoman said. "



Left arm does not know what the right arm is doing? or coppers being over the line?

Reading the above quote I personally would have waited my day in court and asked that a member of the aocpo atteneds the hearing to give evidence.
But my guess is that the case would not even get heard, the police would not turn up.
We are being made criminals in our own country, but until someone has the balls to challenge the police state it will get worse.
By the way don't be fooled by the alleged backdown on the id card scheme, they still have your details on the database, but if they turn around and say that they are scrapping the details of innocent people then it will be a step in the right direction.
Just to finish, had it been a digital slr used by your son the pics could be recovered if he had used one of the latest sandisk memory cards.
They come with a recovery disc.

---------- Post added at 16:57 ---------- Previous post was at 16:37 ----------

Top Link.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

If you have done something wrong then deleting the images will be seen as destroying evidence, if you haven't done anything wrong then there is no need to delete the images.

Either way, the police (or any other security jobsworth) do not have the right to make you delete images.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

I can't see the point of cops wanting to get involved in a fight with someone filming if its blatantly obvious they aren't doing anything illegal. It reminds me of the episode of top gear where they race through London and some cop pulls James May over to check the film crew have the relevant permits and then completely misses the joke about escorting the crew through traffic on blues and twos and makes himself look like a tit.

That said most cops are very edgy about any arrests or what they do being filmed by outsiders as its way too easy to be edited and shown in a bad light. They don't have any powers to delete the images but they can seize the phone as evidence if need be (I've never heard of it actually coming to this but it is an option)

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Rizzy - Totally unacceptable IMO. I think he should take it further - I don't think they had any right to do what they did.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

If it was purely upto me it would go further but he has a caution from a couple of years ago (he and his friends were camping on a field without permission) and is worried that the police would give him more hassle if he makes a big thing of this. I have to be honest speaking to him while trying to convince him to take it further i am finding i was wrong many of todays youth are scared of the police but it's the wrong type of fear for the wrong reasons and thats something i am going to have to think more about in relation to my defence of the police in future.

On a plus point one of my friends who is into the whole mobile phone thing (i am a luddite use it for calls nothing else :)) has come and restored everything and he did it in less then a minute so completely pointless thing for the officer to do making this whole thing even more pointless.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

the seizing of the phone as evidence doesnt bother me if it was needed though it would likely be better to just get them to send or down load the relevent video pictures at a station

as as i see it either the police or the person deleting it could be seen as tampering with evidence if an offence by the officer or those he was dealing with got to go to court

but i fear most of this down to police being overly sensitive to being watched something the rest of us seem to have to put up with wit cctv etc

if the filming was causing a disturbance or the officer really believes it is being done to further terrorism then surly he should seize the phone as evidence of such not get the person to save them selves from prosecution for either by deleting it which as i see it may even lay themselves open to problems if either of those things they believed were true

the good police need to help get the rest working to the rules to help keep those of the public who try to support them on side as i fear this one could rapidly cast them in te role of the enemy rather quickly if they are not careful

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

As someone of restricted size I say fairplay to Kent Police in cracking down on the menace of moderately sized photographers.

As a person who has a small amount of common sense though I find myself thinking "What on earth were they doing when they arrested him?"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07...photographers/

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Lmao that is totally the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time!

So I guess the officer couldn't think of any reason at all and was feeling a little intimidated by the 'tall' person.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

It can't be easy Derek.....

and stories like this don't help

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...nd/8149629.stm

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Traffic going to a cyclist on the Motorway. He's lucky he wasn't shot. They aren't the most forgiving of people.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Yes, but now through their incompetence he is getting away with it completely. I'd have thought traffic should know immediately what offence(s) were being committed.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

They clearly didn't know. they just saw that it was a motorway and did the script where motorway = car = licence = points and money.
I think the fact he was on a bicycle makes the officer a wally.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

I think the cyclist was a wally - according to the story
He "accidently" went on the Motorway - you thought he may have noticed all the cars travelling at 70MPH and the motorway signs. :dozey:

Rule 253 of the Highway Code states

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

The cyclist was (is) a wally putting his own and other lives at risk.

ffs - claiming he was directed there by his sat nav.:rolleyes:

Those BIG blue signs are a bit of an indication that there's a motorway coming up.

I'd have thought, at the very least, if it had been handled correctly he should have got a fine.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

You can issue fixed penalty tickets designed for motorists to people on pedal cycles...

Just because it has a space for driving licence numbers doesnt mean it that space has to be filled in.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

With this in mind, is it any wonder a large proportion of the public are dubious about the spurious benefits of CCTV, surely what's sauce for the goose...

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

But you don't get three penalty points on your driving licence if you're commiting the offence on your push bike.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

but he still could have been given a fine by a court of up to £2500 for a various number of offences from recklesness to ignoring signs having wa sat nav doesnt negate your responsibility to check the road

personally i think any one who says the sat nav told me should automatically get done for due care and attention ;)

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

There's all sorts of things that he could have been given. but they gave him 3 points on his driving licence, which were taken off because they had no cause to issue them to him in the first place.

it's like banning you from driving because you were drinking on a bus :)

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Yes but you can use the same ticket book and its quite easy to put something in the wrong box on them.

---------- Post added at 17:48 ---------- Previous post was at 17:46 ----------

Well apart from the fact the CCTV is time coded and used for evidential purposes and can't be edited.

I've absolutely no problem with being filmed while working, in fact a number of my colleagues have body mounted cameras that record what they do.

What I do have a problem with is footage taken from across the street which can all too easily be edited or put out of context and there is no comeback available when it gets uploaded onto Youtube by the token ned who can use a computer rather than just ramraiding them from the local comet.

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

Someone should ask him if they had a problem finding his tax disc on his bike, and whether they asked who he was insured with.

I know the bike came back as no registered keeper :)

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

hmm i may argue that just because its time coded makes it uneditable ;)

i see no difference between some on witnessing it from across the street and them witnessing and filming it to aid their recollection its what your pocket note books for ;)

the way to deal with this is to use the laws on evidence if its going to be used for a trail

papers and tv stations should not show or direct people to footage if they think its going to be used against some one whether it be the police or members of the public

and maybe if some officers ( with force backing ) sued for defamation where videos are posted claiming to show something they don't it may get better for every one

i know even though i know quite a few in the force if i was stopped and questions i would start recording ( albeit via sound only ) everything that was said for my own benefit ( and i wouldn't tell anyone i was doing so either )

by the same token though i am not happy with there being cameras every where the personal cams the police in some areas use i would be quite happy to be recording at the same time as i think it helps keep everyone on the same page ;)

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

And another example from today's news:

Rest of the article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8163428.stm

No reason (allegedly, of course) to hold her boyfriend, so how on earth could it be legal for them to try to confiscate her phone?

Re: Photographing the police (Come on Derek...smile :D)
 

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/2009/05/14/u...ers-rights-v2/

Any thoughts / comments?