PC Plod still gets it wrong

[Whiternoise]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-15236758

Mr White explained that he had already posted two photos, in which his daughter was the only person in the shot, to Facebook.

The police were called and Mr White was told there were "clear signs" saying no photographs were allowed.
Chris White took this picture of daughter Hazel in Braehead shopping centre Chris White took this picture of his daughter in Braehead

Mr White said that one officer claimed that under the Prevention of Terrorism Act he was within in his rights to confiscate the mobile phone on which the photos were taken.

He said the police officers took his details and he was eventually allowed to leave.

When will they learn?

I think I'm right in assuming that's total bunk?

[DDY]

As far as I know:

Prohibiting photography while the photographer is on private property is legitimate, crazy as it seems; their house - their rules.

Under the Terrorism act, if a police officer suspects an article (e.g. camera) can be used in connection with a terrorist act, the officer may stop and search the suspect and seize that article.

In my opinion, the ice cream stand is a sensitive terrorist target and it’s clear that Mr White was performing reconnaissance for terrorist organisations. Invoking the prevention of terrorism act was the right thing to do.

[TheAnimus]

As far as I know:

Prohibiting photography while the photographer is on private property is legitimate, crazy as it seems; their house - their rules.

Yes, this isn't crazy thou, what would happen if someone wanted to take photographs of you in your home say.

However when its a public place, those restrictions don't apply.

Under the Terrorism act, if a police officer suspects an article (e.g. camera) can be used in connection with a terrorist act, the officer may stop and search the suspect and seize that article.

In my opinion, the ice cream stand is a sensitive terrorist target and it’s clear that Mr White was performing reconnaissance for terrorist organisations. Invoking the prevention of terrorism act was the right thing to do.

Absolutely, once again we're better off thanks to sacrificing liberty for security!

[kalniel]

To: all Chief Constables and Commissioners

Dear Colleague

Section 44 Terrorism Act and Photography

Adverse media coverage of the police service use of Section 44 powers, when dealing with issues relating to photography, have recently hit the headlines again and suggests that officers continue to misuse the legislation that is available to them. The evidence also suggests that there is confusion over the recording requirements of 'Stop and Account' and the actual police powers of 'Stop and Search'. The purpose of this letter is to clarify the legislation and guidance in relation to these matters.

Stop and Search
Section 44 gives officers no specific powers in relation to photography and there is no provision in law for the confiscation of equipment or the destruction of images, either digital or on film.

On the rare occasion where an officer suspects that an individual is taking photographs as part of target reconnaissance for terrorist purposes, then they should be treated as a terrorist suspect and dealt with under Section 43 of the Act. This would ensure that the legal power exists to seize equipment and recover images taken. Section 58A Counter Terrorism Act 2008 provides powers to cover instances where photographs are being taken of police officers who are, or who have been, employed at the front line of counter terrorism operations.

These scenarios will be exceptionally rare events and do not cover instances of photography by rail enthusiasts, tourists or the media.

The ACPO/NPIA Practice Advice, published in December 2008, is again included with this letter and specifically covers the issues surrounding photography. The guidance also includes the need for clear briefings on the use of Section 44 and it may be appropriate to include photography issues within those briefings.

Stop and Account
Encounters between police officers and PCSOs and the public range from general conversation through to arrest. Officers need to be absolutely clear that no record needs to be submitted to cover any activity that merely constitutes a conversation.

Only at the point where a member of the public is asked to account for their actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of an item, do the provisions of the PACE Act apply and a record for that 'stop and account' need to be submitted. Even at that point, such a discussion does not constitute the use of any police power and should not be recorded under the auspices of the Terrorism Act, for example.

Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers.


Yours sincerely


Andrew Trotter OBE QPM
Chief Constable
Head of ACPO Media Advisory Group

Craig Mackey QPM
Stop and Search
Equality, Diversity and Human Rights Business Area

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1

[DDY]

Yes, this isn't crazy thou, what would happen if someone wanted to take photographs of you in your home say.

Hang on a sec, a bit of clarification on my part.

[tounge-in-cheek]crazy as it seems[/tounge-in-cheek]; their house - their rules.

[Funkstar]

This story has reminded me to get a copy of that letter printed out to keep in my camera bag.

[Saracen]

This story has reminded me to get a copy of that letter printed out to keep in my camera bag.

Good idea, but be careful to understand what it prevents police from doing, and what it doesn't prevent them from doing.

It doesn't stop them from stopping and searching - it just changes, and considerably raises, the grounds they need to do so.

The more-or-less blanket power, under s.44 has gone, at least in relation to individuals and their person, but s.43 still remains. It does, however, require and officer to have reasonable grounds to suspect the subject is a terrorist. So it all depends on the interpretation of those grounds as "reasonable".

Here's the problem. A father taking pictures of his kid is just normal parental activity, right? So what about the prospective terrorist that plonks his kid in front of his intended target in order to take reconnaissance photos? One is a dad taking pics of his kid, and the other is planning on blowing stuff up. We have a problem in balancing between a taking photographing his kid on one hand, and protecting other's kids from bombs on the other.

So before we get too indignant about police and their powers to search (i.e. examine photos) remember the objective of the exercise.

In that situation, personally, I'd have no problem explaining to an officer what I was doing and letting them see the pics. I would have a problem with them confiscating my camera, and if they did that, I'd expect therm to be able to justify to a court what their "reasonable" suspicion was.

As for the shopping centre, it's private property and, as DDY said, their house, their rules. If you're on private property you are there with the permission of the owner, and abide by their rules, one of which is often "no photography". If you break that, you're trespassing and can be required to leave, and while it's legally a minefield, "reasonable force" can be used if you refuse. Police do not directly have a role in that, but they do have a role in ensuring no breaches of the peace .... or assaults.


Oh, and there are other powers too, like s.58, which can be used if you're photographing certain things, like members of the armed forces, intelligence services, etc. Again, powers exist, but with caveats and conditions attached.

[Whiternoise]

Good idea, but be careful to understand what it prevents police from doing, and what it doesn't prevent them from doing.

It doesn't stop them from stopping and searching - it just changes, and considerably raises, the grounds they need to do so.

The more-or-less blanket power, under s.44 has gone, at least in relation to individuals and their person, but s.43 still remains. It does, however, require and officer to have reasonable grounds to suspect the subject is a terrorist. So it all depends on the interpretation of those grounds as "reasonable".

Here's the problem. A father taking pictures of his kid is just normal parental activity, right? So what about the prospective terrorist that plonks his kid in front of his intended target in order to take reconnaissance photos? One is a dad taking pics of his kid, and the other is planning on blowing stuff up. We have a problem in balancing between a taking photographing his kid on one hand, and protecting other's kids from bombs on the other.

So before we get too indignant about police and their powers to search (i.e. examine photos) remember the objective of the exercise.

In that situation, personally, I'd have no problem explaining to an officer what I was doing and letting them see the pics. I would have a problem with them confiscating my camera, and if they did that, I'd expect therm to be able to justify to a court what their "reasonable" suspicion was.

As for the shopping centre, it's private property and, as DDY said, their house, their rules. If you're on private property you are there with the permission of the owner, and abide by their rules, one of which is often "no photography". If you break that, you're trespassing and can be required to leave, and while it's legally a minefield, "reasonable force" can be used if you refuse. Police do not directly have a role in that, but they do have a role in ensuring no breaches of the peace .... or assaults.


Oh, and there are other powers too, like s.58, which can be used if you're photographing certain things, like members of the armed forces, intelligence services, etc. Again, powers exist, but with caveats and conditions attached.

Their house, their rules, but they are not allowed to delete or ask you to delete pictures because afaik that constitutes destruction of evidence?

Just get an eye-fi card and tether to your phone's 3G connection, problem solved.