AddThis SmartLayers

Police u-turn on anti-terror photography laws

The rising tide of resentment over police harassment of photographers in public places appears to have forced a u-turn.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has sent a strongly worded e-mail to all 43 forces in England and Wales saying it is “unacceptable” to use Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to “unnecessarily restrict photography” by either amateur or professional snappers.

Section 44 gives police officers and police community support officers the right to stop and search anyone in a designated area without the need for suspicion.

Exact areas where the powers can be enforced are not made public but they often include places thought to be at risk terrorist attacks such as famous landmarks.

Over recent months cases of press photographers being restricted by police during their work have come to light including two journalists from the Evening Gazette, who were stopped from conducting a vox pop, and a news editor from Portsmouth whose camera was snatched off him by an officer.

Writing in The Independent, the chair of Acpo’s media advisory committee chief constable Andy Trotter said: “Everyone…..has a right to take photographs and film in public places.

“Taking photographs…..is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place.

“We need to make sure that our officers and PCSOs are not unnecessarily targeting photographers just because they are going about their business.

“The last thing in the world we want to do is give photographers a hard time or alienate the public.

“If an officer is suspicious of them for some reason they can just go up to them and have a chat with them – use old-fashioned policing skills to be frank – rather than using these powers, which we don’t want to over-use at all.”

Comments

John Nevill (07/12/2009 11:51:15)
Presumably, Andy Trotter will be removed from office in the near future. “if an officer is suspicious…have a chat” – that sounds very close to common sense and we can’t have that in today’s Police Service, you never know where it will end. Before you know it drivers will be asked to move obstructing cars rather than just being fined. And officers will actually attend premises that have been burgled.

Rob (07/12/2009 11:56:51)
I was taking photos of a police raid on flats. We had been invited along by the local force. However the street where it was taking place was blocked to traffic and when I tried to walk down the road I was stopped and asked where I was going. When I explained the officers refused to let me past and said they needed to clear it with a senior officer. When I eventually got down to the scene of the action another senior officer was asked whether it was ok to take pics (not by me, i might add). He said he could do nothing to stop me going about my lawful business and let meget on with it. On my way back to teh office (still on the same street) I took some pictures of a police van and cars that were parked up. Two officers got out of a cart further up the street and asked me what I was doing. To say I was exasperated is an understatement. Even the senior cop who knew the law was begrudging, so its no wonder the plods on the street pick up on senior management’s reluctance to let photographers and journalist report. I hate to think what would have happened if I wasn’t an invited guest of the Met!

Stephen Counsell (07/12/2009 14:04:39)
The only real way we’ll know that the UK is not becoming a Police State is when the Police start treating the public with real respect. They work for us after all.
There has been a consistent increase in the heavy handedness of the Police which is essentially driven by the Governments drive to stamp out terrrorism.
All well and good to try to get rid of terrorism but to impose more and more restrictions on the general public is not the way.
If you’re law abiding you have nothing to worry about! I don’t believe that for a minute.
I’m law abiding but I do fear that I’ll be harassed or even arrested for taking photos in public. I’ve been so affected by this that I rarely take such photos anymore.
TO use a terrorism act to stop people going about their lawful business or hobby is truly objectionable in the extreme.
I believe that the Government and the Police have already given in to Terrorism by imposing these restrictions.
That’s my opinion anyway.

carl wilder (07/12/2009 16:37:13)
Well I might be one of the few, but I think it must be hard for the street bobbies. They must feel damed if you do and damed if you don’t. The mighty word of police by consent are in the past. Police through many years of complaints(some justified) need to know that the sysytem also protects them and I do not think for one moment that anyone in the police would risk their job for what could be a petty issue. Then again if they didn’t ask questions or do what they are expected we the public would be outraged. Why because we feel that the law is the law until it has anything to do with us, then its a police state.