I know that the limits of police powers is always elicits an interesting debate here, so what do folk make of the recent trend for police to stop, question and sometimes arrest people for taking photos?

This poor bloke was stopped twice last week in Kent:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/15/tall_photographers/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/22/kent_police/

Is this a necessary measure to prevent those dastardly terrorists/pedos/perverts/tourists or a complete invasion of basic human rights?

What? Police abusing their powers? Again? Shocker!

As ever, this stuff is difficult to explain unless you accept that modern British policing is basically an exercise in intimidating the public at large.

There was a story on the Guardian website about the same issue although a different story (I would link but I can't find it now).

Apparently this power is related to the terrorism act and therefore police only have the power to demand that you show them photos/hand over photographic gear if you are being harrassed under the terrorism act. It seems that snippet of info hasn't been passed on to many officers who seem to think that they can arrest anyone who takes of photo of them.

A case in point is that lad from Harry Potter who was initially arrested for taking a piccy of a police car and then was fouind to be growing weed in his mums house.

Handsome, I think you're referring to one of these.
I've been following them too.

This one is an ongoing appeal and campaign – the people detained are part of a group speciifically set up to photograph the police in action and interfer with police attempts to photograph/intimidate protestors.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-police-surveillance-val-swain-emily-apple-arrests

This one really annoys me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court

useful content from the one above:

The force instructs officers that when searching people under the Terrorism Act, they "have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones". It adds that the new offence relating to photographing officers does not apply in normal policing activities.

…

The Met's guidance is different to that issued by the National Policing Improvement Agency, which specifically advises that "officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film", and suggests that, while digital images might be viewed during a search, officers "should not normally attempt to examine them"

From that second link of Stoner's, I find the following just as worrying as the photography thing "She said the officers walked away – all but one of them refused to identify themselves to her." I thought they had to identify themselves?

Handsomedog: In the case of Alex Turner in Chatham High Street the photo he was stopped for looked like this:

and the officers that initially stopped him were plain-clothes officers.

So I don't think he could be fairly charged with photographing a police officer. Instead he was apparently arrested under section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000.

Wouldn't the police just be happier wearing Balaclavas.

modern British policing is basically an exercise in intimidating the public at large.

Yep, "Keep the public scared and intimidated and they'll let us do whatever we want" seems to sum things up pretty well. Depressing, but true.

He was obvoiusly photographing a unique case of a correctly placed apostrophe in the name of a vegetable.

(Given that the apostrophe indicates the abbreviation of the "e" in potatoes.)

you guardian readers voted new labour so shut up moaning and enjoy your hard won freedom?

easy on that nasturtium casting there, mt.

A population in fear is a population under control. However, it's part of a broader move by politicians (the world over) to subjugate the populace, and not just restricted to the police.

fascist state – just admit it people

Almost agree with you there Woody, although I would say that a population in fear is a population which is easier to control.

Edit: spelling

Im gonna go out with my camera in the street and see what happens.

it is becoming a more common occurance with the police stopping amatuer photographers

http://www.not-a-crime.com/

any photographers that wish to add thier portrait to the above website please do.

The article was thinking of was the second that Stoner posted.

GrahamS – sorry, my point was perhaps not too clear, I wasn't suggesting they arrested him for taking pics of police officers – the guy from harry potter was initally arrested for this though.

From the links posted by Stoner the officers shouldn't have demanded to see his pictures/camera equipment/arrested him unless they had due cause to suspect that he was plotting a terrorist atrocity, seems unlikely against Mick's Plaice

Totally insane, particularly as I spent a happy afternoon in london a few years back taking pics of various landmarks and some amusing ones of armed police outside horseguards who were only too pleased to pose for pics with visiting kids!

Probably the vast majority of people taking photos in public places don't have their collar felt by the police so, while no doubt it's pretty crap for the ones that do, you can't really go straight from the actions of an over-zealous minority of Daily Mail-reading coppers to a fascist state.

There are people like that everywhere, so the fact that there are some in the police force too doesn't really tell you anything much about police policy in general.

IMHO.

darrell – Member

fascist state – just admit it people

Get a grip and read up on what fascism is.

There are people like that everywhere, so the fact that there are some in the police force too doesn't really tell you anything much about police policy in general.

Maybe it's proportional representation? They need a certain number of thugs, racists, and bullies to reflect society.

Or perhaps it shows there is a lack in police policy if these thugs are allowed to wear a uniform which is supposed to demonstrate certain standards and behaviour?

Probably the vast majority of people taking photos in public places don't have their collar felt by the police so,

Agreed, but when it gets to the point where it is debated in Parliament, the Home Office issues specific advice about photography, we need websites giving legal advice on photographers rights and the Met has posters like this:

Image from ThomasHawk

then it is clear that it isn't just one or two "suspicious-looking" people who are being stopped.

there's a few more on flickr as well

The issue is not really that a very small number of people actually get harassed by the police for taking pictures, it is that the police are permitted to harass anyone for taking pictures, and appear to be doing so. For wholly spurious reasons.

Has anything remotely resembling an actual terrorist plot been foiled because police swooped at the taking pictures stage?

But Google Streetview was fine. Don't photograph us, we'll photograph you. 🙂

Always reminds me of this
You Can't Picture This

Has anything remotely resembling an actual terrorist plot been foiled because police swooped at the taking pictures stage?

I believe that question has been asked in parliament at some point. Some of the discussion is here, but I can't be arsed to read it all:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090401/halltext/90401h0004.htm

Seems to me that those cunning terrorist types might covertly use a mobile phone camera while pretending to take a call rather than say show up with an SLR, a tripod and a photography bag.

But Google Streetview was fine. Don't photograph us, we'll photograph you.

Presumably you are aware that Google is not the police or state?
It took the Streetview photos subject to the same conditions that the rest of us face. It's just they have a handy lair of lawyers available.

Google Streetview was also banned for uploading photos of Cop Shop.

They are a bit paranoid, have they put on weight and a little touchy about it?

Presumably you are aware that Google is not the police or state?

give them time……

Seems to me that those cunning terrorist types might covertly use a mobile phone camera while pretending to take a call rather than say show up with an SLR, a tripod and a photography bag.

Seems to me the best way to take these sorts of pictures is to act like any old normal tourist with an SLR, tripod and camera bag!

Presumably you are aware that Google is not the police or state?

Indeed. I am also fairly confident, for the record, that Google is not currently planning terrorist attacks in the UK. 😀

Yeah, but terrorists could use easily Google Street View to find out where the Queen lives or where the MI6 headquarters are… 😀

You laugh, but MI6 HQ has an enormous bus in front of the vehicle entrance on Streetview. 🙂

its very much like this…..

woman reports 2 black men for being dodgy

More worryingly, they can clearly see Torchwood:
http://blog.torchwoodforum.co.uk/torchwood-hq-in-google-earthmaps-street-view

I am also fairly confident, for the record, that Google is not currently planning terrorist attacks in the UK

but if Google did it, it wouldn't be terrorism, it'd be a business requirement…

And they're searching random white dudes to balance their "racial statistics", whatever that is.

I followed an absolutely pissed motorist whilst ringing 999 as I genuinely thought I was watching a road fatality "in progress" and received back a text message giving me a non-emergency number to call in future.

It's all gone a bit mental..the word "priorities" springs to mind

Hopefully this woman will win her judicial review, and it will be ruled illegal!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/21/police-search-mobile-phone-court