[Closed] Should you be allowed to photograph a Police Officer?

"They take away our freedom
In the name of liberty"

It depends really. Police generally have a right to be able to go about their business without feeling that they're being targetted by anyone. That said, at no point during the problems in Northern Ireland did UK police ban photography of officers going about their work. If there's a reason for sensitivity in certain places or situations, fine but generally people should be free to take photos by default with prohibitions where needed.

Yep, it's another shitty bit of legislation that seems to have slipped in 🙁

That's always been the case in NI, or so I thought.

presumably the pictures on the freshly confiscated camera would have to be showing something the police didnt want you to see and they would therefore delete them, thus removing the evidence that you had been taking pics, thus there would hve been no crime..............

seems fairly unenforceable?

If you want to find a policeman to photograph, wandering about taking photos of CCTV cameras usually gets them to turn up pretty quickly 🙂

It's just a petty extension of the 'law' which states you're not allowed to take photographs of public buildings. I got harrassed in London for taking a picture of the Downing Street sign (it was for a Friend, don't judge me), but there's actually bugger all they can do to you unless you let them. They certainly can't take your camera away (although they'll try to tell you they can).

Be afraid though, it's going to be a rough Summer.

/edit/

It appears they've now trumped up a way to take your camera away from you. Bloomin' 'ek.

Anything or anyone in a public place may be photographed.

Right of peaceful political protest? [url= http://news.scotsman.com/terrorismintheuk/Over-600-held-under-terror.2666380.jp ]Removed as it's terrorism, apparently[/url]
Right to protest near Parliament? Removed
Right to heckle or raise an opinion at a conference? [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm ]Removed, as it's terrorism, apparently[/url]
It goes on......

I don't care if anyone takes a photo of me when I'm working. I would though appreciate 15 seconds prior notice so I can quickly put my tie back on.

ditto, although would be nice if they wake me up first.

I don't care if someone takes a picture of me working - as long as they give me a job first.

So of course Arab al Terrorist will walk right up to Plod and take a snap with his Ixus because they don't have telephoto lenses in towelheadland.

.A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been: a member of Her Majesty's forces, a member of any of the intelligence services, or a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates any such information..

So if I were incorrectly accused of trying to rip someone off on the classifieds and you lot started a witch hunt against me in an AATOB-stylee and you published my name, address etc on the internet, as I'm an ex-member of Her Majesty's Forces you'd be committing an offence of some kind?

I think it's a law which will be difficult to implement. I mean, you can stop some random lonephotographer, but what are they going to do, when the World's press are watching? Arrest all the foreign news crews? That'll look good, when this country speaks about Democracy and Freedom of Speech, won't it? We'll have the Chinese boycotting our Lympics, because of our appalling Human Rights record.

Truth is, any 'terrorists' will be able to get whatever information they need; have you seen how tiny little cams can be these days? It's not the Fleet St. snapper with a big Nikon you wanna worry about; it's the bloke quietly walking past apparently minding his own business...

Snap snap snap.

Democracy does not in any way really exist in this country anyway. You could argue, it never has. The mechanics of Government are there to serve the ruling elite; always have been, always will be. No politician, driven by a need to serve society, will ever rise to the top; look at Ken Livingstone. Whatever you may think of him, he's a man of principle, and has mostly sought to serve those he represents. Boris is little more than a Tory stooge; a puppet who can easily be manipulated. The media campaign to remove Ken was carefully orchestrated; and people fell for it. What we actually need are more independant thinking politicians, not fewer! But people are too blinded by consumerism, to actually see the truth.

Even the whole Labour/Conservative thing is a smokescreen; the real people with power, the industrialists, arms dealers, leaders of global corporations, media agencies etc. are still in power. No-one's gonna knock them off their perch.

I think this grip on power is slipping, however. The global financial mess has made ordinary people start to wake up a bit, and realise the wool has been pulled over their eyes for far too long. The power structure itself will remain the same, but it will need new faces, if people are to believe in it once more. Oh, hang on...

I think this new law will put quite a bit of pressure on the police. Some bod photographing Bradford Town Hall, for example, might only be doing it for a college project, or their interest in architecture. Or are they a terrorist? Either way, it could take up a lot of police time, and hang on, aren't they already understaffed and under resourced?

I say, people should just get out en masse, an walk round Westminster, snapping at everything. Show this new law is unworkable, and an infringement on our civil liberties. What they gonna do, nick everyone?

Bring on the Summer of Our Discontent...

I think TJ's right, but I guess how it pans out when the PC's in front of you demanding you hand over your camera is another thing.

As those in power are wont to say "Why not if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". What's good for the citizen is good for the public servant.

What's good for the citizen is good for the public servant.

If only that were true.

They're certainly not shy of taking your picture though, the filth

This is genuinely shocking

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/06/police-surveillance-protesters-journalists-climate-kingsnorth

So now, as far as the plod are concerned, if you are involved in any type of protest, then they have the right to photograph you and add you to a database. Whether you've committed any crime or not.

This government are the biggest threat to genuine personal freedom that this country has ever seen. The sooner everybody wakes up to this, the better

*puts tinfoil helmet back on and hides under the the desk*

TJ: "Anything or anyone in a public place may be photographed."

Not outside or inside courts.

NUJ has been lobbying government on this.

There have been many instances of overzealous police officers stopping press photographers taking pics at crime or accident scenes.

Previously the authorities have backed down when challeneged, but now Home Office minister Vernon Coaker says photography can be limited in certain circumstances in public spaces.

There is no detailed list of circumstances, so once this filters down to the rank-and-file it's highly likely that there will be many more officers deciding that photographs shouldn't be taken of road traffic accidents, house fires, murder scenes or any kind of ongoing incident.

[url=

this video.[/url]

Not outside or inside courts.

A bit pedantic, but the actual wording of the law is "in the precincts of the court", if memory serves.

It's common practice or photos to be taken outside court.

Think of all the pics you see in the paper of Pete Doherty or whoever on the court steps.

RudeBoy
One demo has already taken place.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Pictures_Hundreds_attend_photographers_rights_protest_update_news_277136.htmlate

This legislation is so dangerous and open to misuse it almost makes me weep.
Think of the possibilities - Rodney King type scenario anyone? Would those pictures see the light of day in a British Court if this legislation had already been passed?

Professional working photographers I know in London are regularly harassed by the police. To understand how we got into this state I recommend reading a mate of mine's book:
[url] http://www.amazon.co.uk/Assault-Liberty-Dominic-Raab/dp/0007293399/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236601582&sr=8-1 [/url]
We seem to have given up basic freedoms without even realising it.

try taking a picture of an american airbase from public ground. They'll come straight out and threaten you with all sorts of things, as i've found out whilst biking.

Fair enough Cha****ng - I think I have been told you can't outside also (in Scotland at least) or there may be signs outside our courts.

It is only an offence to take a picture IF you are going to use it for terrorist purposes. So paparazzi taking pics, tourists taking pics of coppers these aren't offences, unless they are going to pass them onto terrorist organisations to use.

The article is really typically journalistic (IMO) and not covering the full facts.

It metions the powers the police have to just stop and search terrorists. We do not have a power if we are walking down the streets to just stop someone I think is a terrorist. There needs to be substantial grounds decided by a Senior Officer (Superintendent) who then authorises that these search powers can be used in a specific area for a specific length of time.

It further mentions the presumption of guilt. This is again in correct. It is similar to drugs. If you have a packet of fags which you think is a packet of fags however your mate has put some cannabis in there you commit the offence of possession of a drug. You will then have to show on the balance of probabilities (lesser than beyond all resonable doubt for prosectuion) that your mate slipped the cannbis in and you didn't know. This isn't simply saying "you're guilty tough".

let's face it it is so easy to find out who a copper is. We all overtly (when in uniform) display our unique shoulder numbers and names (on stab vests and jackets). I don't have a problem having my pic taken but obviously I don't want it being used for terrorism offences!

Munge-chick - How do you draw that conclusion based on the actual wording of the Act.

A person commits an offence who elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been: a member of Her Majesty's forces, a member of any of the intelligence services, or a constable, which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or publishes or communicates any such information

[i]Likely to be useful to...[/i] is particularly vague. Protester of some sort takes a picture of a constable, posts it on a protesting blog with name of said constable underneath and it becomes [i]useful to[/i], or is not the sort of thing that CI training is teaching these days?

"likely to be useful to" is going to be very tough to prove in a court I have no doubt. We are simply going to have to wait until someone gets nicked and we begin to get case law surrounding this new piece of legislation.

are people no longer allowed to take pictures of the soldiers in front of Buckingham palace now then? That's a legitimate terrorist target if I ever saw one.

I'm guessing probably not! although that wil be funny to try and police .. oh look they won't be able to!

stupid flipping government!

Indeed, yet another case of this [i]"stupid flipping government"[/i] implementing legislation that is pretty much unworkable and unenforcable.

someone had better tell the Japs

You will then have to show on the balance of probabilities (lesser than beyond all resonable doubt for prosectuion) that your mate slipped the cannbis in and you didn't know. This isn't simply saying "you're guilty tough".

Hmm, I suspect that once the police have deleted the memory card in the cam, they won't be worried about the person having to prove 'reasonable doubt'..

Munque-Chick: I have seen police officers rip film out of a journalist's camera. I've seen police smash cameras, whilst other officers were busy sticking the boot into protestors. I once witnessed a BBC crew attacked, by riot police, to prevent them filming the police using excessive force.

The institution you work for is often used as a political tool, to suppress legitimate, democratic protest. Protests that actually seek to highlight the erosion of all of our liberties, yours included.

During one demonstration in London, word got round that police had been issued with baton-rounds, rubber bullets. I spoke to a photographer, bloodied and dazed, who told us that he'd been round the back of some police vans, unnoticed, and seen some officers getting out of a van, with baton round launchers. He started to take pics, and was suddenly attacked by other police. They smashed his camera to bits, then took him and pushed him back into the crowd.

Don't be fooled. Suppression of the Truth is happening. It's always been happening. Censorship of the media has always been going on, in the 'Public Interest'.

As for the 'impartiality' of the BBC; don't make me laugh. Marginally more impartial than Sky, perhaps, but not much.

cameras don't kill people, people kill people.

terrorism is usually a final symptom of a party's disquiet over an issue important to them not being correctly addressed, If the intention was to make the country a safer place then there are far better methods of doing so rather than the manipulation of legislation or curtailment of personal freedoms.

how about taking playstations & satellite TV out of the prison system for a start?

You know what I was simply trying to say that the article is biased, and tried to add in a few more honest bits but I should've known better.

Tht's about as much as i am now going to say on the matter now, I know there are "dodgy" coppers out there and boy does it rile me that rank within the job do not do enough to get the corrupt/dodgy ones out but I sure as hell know that the majority work their ar** off.

I'd just like to add that most coppers I came across in my time as a reporter and snapper were friendly, helpful and happy to have their picture taken.

But I'm worried how that might change if the perception starts to spread that they [i]can[/i] stop photographers doing their job - because some might take this as meaning they [i]have[/i] to.

I'd be interested in your opinion on that Munqe-chick. And also, do you think there is sufficient training and understanding of media law among police officers?

I remember a coupleof years ago 'Practical Photography' magazine tried to do an urban photo-shoot tutorial type article in London. They were showing how to look for subjects at different times of the day etc. and as it approached sunset they got their tripods out to photograph something or another. I think it was The London Eye.
They were approached by Police and told they could use their camera, but not on a tripod.....wtf?

And also, do you think there is sufficient training and understanding of media law among police officers?

I know you're asking Munqe-chick, but I would say definitely not. What I know about police powers and photographers is as a result of looking it up on the internet, which I did a while back after seeing the same youtube clip that you linked to earlier on, and having no desire to make a prize prick of myself like they all did. I've never had any training or advice about such things (the only tenuously relevant exception being S44 etc Terrorism Act powers)

because some might take this as meaning they have to

some might, but most won't

You just don't photograph police officers on the continent do you? Italy and Spain certainly. I thought the reason for that was that their police forces were paranoid, hot-headed, amateurish and violent, and that ours was slightly different. Ach well.

There is no training with regards to media and law, you should know by now it's all about race and diversity!! The old saying of "knowledge is power" is so true and I would not dream of doing something unless I knew that it was either correct in law or I had a duty to do it, for that very reason looking like a prized plum!

Like the video that Uplink posted!! They clearly have no idea about their powers, as the resident he should've just asked them to leave his land (and carried on filming) as when they refused to get off his land they became trespassers and the police would've looked a plum!

You can tell neither has a clue what they are talking about! Plus we would get boll**ed for standing with hands in pockets! oh and we can only take ties off with the permission of Inspector (and normally only when it's cooking hot!).

chumps ... give police force a bad name, no wonder people bit** about them.

I know there are "dodgy" coppers

I though you end up as a copper if you weren't though enough to be a gangster. Uk is getting as bad as France. Is that fred said is true. When I see a cop in the street I change pavement just to be on the safe side. I think I'll do that in uk as well.

There is no training with regards to media and law,

I think this is a serious problem, actually. What are the educational requirements to become a Copper, again? What qualifications do you need?

I believe that all police should at least be educated in basic law, to A-level standard. They aren't. The actual knowledge of Law, by yer average Bobby, is woefully poor. I was arrested a while ago, and charged with a particular offence. Solicitor turns up, turns out I'd been charged under the wrong section, and therefore my arrest was invalid. RudeBoy's outta jail...

A friend of mine was in an argument with a Copper. Copper says; 'Oh, so you know the Law better than I do, then?'.

Her reply: 'Yes, actually- I'm a Solicitor'. Oh dear.

But it serves the Governement's interest, to keep Coppers ignorant. So they don't question orders, where their actions would be unlawful.

Time for a change. I think many Babylonians would agree. The Police have a responsibility to protect Society, and uphold Law and Order. Better education would significantly enhance their ability to do so.

And we wouldn't be witnessing stuff like in Uplink's video clip.

I do agree with some of your points RudeBoy. Due to all the various acts of discrimination you do not have to have any specific education to become a copper. The application procedure now is so pathetic it is unbelieveable! I agree that they need a higher standard. I also agree that the training is so pathetic and we aren't taught enough law.
I'm sitting my Sergeants exam tomorrow (After 6 months of solid studying) it is unbelievable how much they don't teach us and a lot of it is learning as we go along!

Again I know there are facetious coppers out there and there are a lot that give us a bad name! I would never say that about knowing the law better than someone else for the very example that you have given here!

In relation to your example of you being nicked, everyone can make mistakes and if there is a small discrepancy in the charge then it can often be corrected at court. So interesting that you got off it!

I do think the police service needs a big re-think in the way they train, the application procedure and specifically WHAT training they focus on. But hey that's another topic for dicsussion that go on into next year!!!!

Senior officers haven't cottoned on to the perception is reality facet of modern living. A minority of corrupt/incompetent officers are doing the police service serious damage aided and abetted by the federation who will leap all over an investigative journalist who digs up confirmed dirt with libel writs.
Source here [url= http://flag.blackened.net/blackflag/215/215cops.htm ]Black Flag[/url]

It is only an offence to take a picture IF you are going to use it for terrorist purposes. So paparazzi taking pics, tourists taking pics of coppers these aren't offences, unless they are going to pass them onto terrorist organisations to use.

But 'terrorist purposes' will no doubt be interpreted as including journalists' pictures of any group involved in any kind of political demonstration. ie. one of the few times when the police might want to be able to get away with bad stuff without it being splashed on the front page of the papers / on the BBC news. They don't give a damn if anyone takes pictures of a policeman on the beat or whatever, it is policing of political demonstrations that all this is about.

It's doubly stupid as the events they are using these powers at, typically there are also tons of police taking pictures of journalists to intimidate them. Photographers at protests and use of mobiles, the internet and news organisations to distribute the pictures quickly are one of the few things stopping police just ploughing in there and beating up random people like they are alleged to have done all the time in the good old days.

Joe

Given the fact that the recent anti-terrorist legislation has been so disgustingly misused (Icelanders aren't terrorists, OK?) I really can't see how such a piece of legislation would NOT be misused.

I do think the police service needs a big re-think in the way they train, the application procedure and specifically WHAT training they focus on.

I am really glad a member of Her Maj's Finest has said that. I've got every respect for coppers that stand up and question the Status Quo.

I really think out police force would benefit enormously, from being better educated. Police-Community relations would surely be a lot better, and the individual Wooden-Top's ability to deal with particular incidents and situations, would be greatly improved by increased knowledge of Law.

I may come across a negatively critical of the Police. I do have first hand experience of some shocking behaviour by individual officers, however, I will say the majority of Coppers are ok.

Being a Rozzer is a complex and difficult job. More education, and better training is needed.

But as I've said, having an ignorant, docile Force is perhaps of more use to our wonderful Governement...

[i]I'd just like to add that most coppers I came across in my time as a reporter and snapper were friendly, helpful and happy to have their picture taken.[/i]

I think there are two kinds of coppers to be honest. There are happy, jovial coppers who wander around dancing with ladies dressed up at carnivals, you're allowed to take their picture. Then there are vans full of much bigger and less humorous coppers who spend a lot of time down the gym holding big sticks who talk about how many squat thrusts they can do. You're not allowed to take their picture.

The law just needs to make that clear.

RudeBoy I completely agree with everything your saying. It's hard being in the police when people do criticise and normally because they have a valid reason and have had a bad/negative experience. It's just infuriating and frustrating being on the inside when I see corrupt coppers, I see coppers that have NO clue what they are doing, are rude, ignorant and treat members of the public with disgrace but the management do NOTHING about it! The amount of times I have brought up issues with people within the force and nothing is done about it is enormously frustrating.

[img] [/img]

Redthunder; is that the new Community Support uniform?

I really can't be bothered with all the 'taking down my particulars' and 'it's a fair cop', 'I'll come quietly' jokes. Too obvious.

Oh.

I assumed it was Munque-Chick posting her mugshot here, and not to the "Mugshots" thread ??

would be fun if I could run in heels like that!!

Thanks for all the considered replies to my original post.
Still think the legislation stinks, but nice to know that the serving Coppers who post on here seem to have a really sensible attitude & don't see it as any kind of licence to harass.

I do a lot of street photography in Manchester and have, on occasion, asked Coppers if I could take their photo (the 'Decisive Moment' often needs a helping hand :-)). Only on has ever refused, but was very polite about it!

Munqe-chick, you seem to have a great approach to what I'm sure is a very frustrating job - hope the exam went well.

I had a conversation about this with an officer of the law a few weeks ago, its a shame he didn't come across as well as you Munqe-chick.

In fact it was a very disturbing conversation. 😯

Did he do something with his truncheon to make your eyes pop out like that?

Only times I've ever been stopped were:

1. York station a few weeks ago - a very polite station manager asked what I was taking pictures of, so I showed him. He was fine about it and asked me to send him a CD of the pictures once photoshopped.

2. Local garden centre, taking pictures of their Christmas Lights about 9.30pm. Staff member came out and started shouting and swearing at me, threatening to call the police. I informed him in Anglo Saxon that he was welcome to as I was doing nothing illegal. Thinking about it, I think they were possibly trading outside legal hours and were a bit worried I was from the trading standards.

3. Taking long exposure night shots on the canal. Approached by irate local
convinced I was taking pictures of his bedroom window. As I was using a very wide lens, you could hardly see his house, never mind his window. Happy once I showed him he pictures.

Having a large heavy camera on a tripod to hand is always useful on such occasions!

I wonder why they don't like being photographed?

[IMG] [/IMG]

Amsterdam's finest?
Doughnut poisoning?

This lot didn't seem too bothered! I did ask first though.

[img] http://www.cosybike.co.uk/Resources/cosybikepolis.jpe g" target="_blank">http://www.cosybike.co.uk/Resources/cosybikepolis.jpe g"/> [/img]

I think there are two kinds of coppers to be honest. There are happy, jovial coppers who wander around dancing with ladies dressed up at carnivals, you're allowed to take their picture. Then there are vans full of much bigger and less humorous coppers who spend a lot of time down the gym holding big sticks who talk about how many squat thrusts they can do. You're not allowed to take their picture.

That's funny, but in reality even some of the tough-nut ones like to get their picture in the paper to show their gran.