A press agency photographer has lodged a formal complaint with West Midlands police after claiming he was forced to delete photos from his camera.
Lawrence Looi, from Birmingham-based News Team International, says he was also manhandled by officers outside Labour’s spring party conference.
He was covering the conference at the city’s International Convention Centre and tried to take shots of the security outside the building.
In his letter to chief constable Sir Paul Scott-Lee, Lawrence said: “During the incident in question … I took photographs from a public area to illustrate the security presence.
“These included some general pictures of the police officers standing guard in front of barriers surrounding the ICC.
“A police officer objected to having his photographs taken.
“Despite explaining my identity and purpose in taking the photographs he physically detained me by grasping hold of my upper arm and requested that I delete the photographs.
“I was then released and allowed to carry on with my work.”
He said a few minutes later a second officer requested to see pictures he’d taken of a retired policeman.
Lawrence claimed the officer said he didn’t want to appear in newspapers in case he had to do future undercover work.
Lawrence said: “The officer then threatened to take my camera from me to delete the photographs, to quote him ‘Do it or I’ll do it myself’.
“He then took hold of my camera. Under duress and to avoid conflict, I deleted the photographs as requested.”
Lawrence claims that preventing him from doing his job was unlawful and consequently his agency had lost out on revenue from selling the shots.
“I believe that the argument presented regarding the protection of the police officers’ possible future undercover assignments was misguided,” he added.
“The police officers were on guard in standard police uniforms and positioned in a public place, guarding a high-profile newsworthy event.”
The Association of Chief Police Officers has guidelines for officers when dealing with the media.
They state:
West Midlands Police spokesman Steve Garey said: “During the course of the Labour Conference we received one complaint in respect of how an individual has been treated by a West Midlands Police officer. This is now the subject of an internal investigation.”
Comments
Ray Bradbury (04/03/2008 12:15:00)
Its worse than Russia was..its now getting to be a Police state or are we there already
Richard Austin (04/03/2008 22:26:34)
This has been happening in the Westcountry of late. The problem needs to be sat on very quickly before all of of these misinformed police officers start confiscating our data cards.
What these prats don’t realise is that after the snapper has deleted the images and in doing so massaged the copper’s ego at the same time…he will then run the data card through ‘Photo Rescue’ and restore all the images that were deleted.
Claudia (05/03/2008 02:59:58)
If the copper wants to do ‘undercover work’ in the future perhaps he shouldn’t leave the house, make friends or even work as an average bobby on the street.
Wasn’t the copper meant to be looking after someone else’s security and not his own?
Alan Watkins (05/03/2008 08:59:17)
Everywhere you go these days with a camera, you are at risk of being stopped by police, security officers, uniformed bumptiouns, do gooders, do no-gooders and assorted other busybodies.
You may be recording street scenes, transport, crashes, or anything else that is of interest, and someone will object.
For me the classic was to be rodered by a police officer in Kent to stop taking photographs – only for an appeal a few days later for help to find witnesses.
Paul Delmar (05/03/2008 10:52:54)
Student Photographers on the nctj course in Sheffield have been told they will be arrested at several public place incidents..the press office at South Yorkshire Police will not explain why photographers are treated this way !….has every police officer been told to act this way ?…as part of the the course training. The photographers now shoot and run like hell.
Trell O’hara (05/03/2008 14:29:32)
Photographers in Hull City centre run the risk of having equipment and/or film confiscated, as has happened recently to street photographers. In the words of the police, if photographers act ‘covertly’ they may be suspected of terrorism, or photographing ‘sensitive’ buildings. The most sensitive building in Hull is the Guildhall.
Humberside Police Chief has condoned his officers behaviour, and said he will fully support them if they wish to confiscate equipment in the future.
I myself was yesterday unceremoniously ejected from Hull’s Paragon station by 3 burly security guards for taking photographs in the station. No explanation could be offered, no company policy could be quoted, just an insistence that the train station was not a public place!
Laurence Underhill (05/03/2008 14:37:00)
My experience of South Yorkshire Police as an NCTJ photography student in Sheffield is varied, from polite and reasonable to threatening and farcical. At a car crash scene after both drivers had been removed ot hospital and other local press had already taken pictures I was threatened with having my memory card confiscated from me under provisions of “the Data Protection Act”. On appeal to the senior officer at the scene I was permitted to take “one more photo”. When pressed for evidence of guidelines in dealing with the media South Yorkshire Police Corporate Communications Office stated:
“we do not have an official set of guidelines. The process tends to be that at an incident there will be a police cordon which you will not be able to pass and you will usually be able to take photos from there. In the event of a major incident, there will probably be a police press officer there to coordinate the media and to determine a good vantage point for you, providing that this does not interfere with Scene of Crime Officers (SOCOs) work.”
I have forwarded a copy of the Metropolitan Police’s media guidelines. Any further suggestions can be sent to:
Amy Grimshaw
Corporate Communications Assistant
South Yorkshire Police
[email protected]
Jason Sheldon (06/03/2008 23:09:29)
I was prevented from taking photos at the scene of an RTA – even after showing my press card and after all people had been removed from the scene.. I was still refused access to shoot the wreckage of the vehicles, while passers-by with their mobile phones were not prevented from standing there recording!
Matt Stewart (07/03/2008 14:25:09)
Unfortunatly this is a very widespread problem. I myself have been stopped from taking pics on numerous occasions, have been threatened with arrest several times and once had a copper tell me he was going to destroy my camera when I challenged his lack of knowledge on the law.
Jack Harland (10/03/2008 16:18:31)
I have had a couple of run-ins with PCSO’s (Community Bobbies)trying to prevent me taking pics. I get the impression they haven’t been told we can take snaps at incidents
Darren Bernard (13/03/2008 19:15:32)
The sad
thing is none of this is unusual any more. I’ve lost count of the number of times the police or private security officials have questioned me or stopped me from taking shots in public places. I’ve involved my local MP on one occassion and even then the apology I got back was begrudging. But what should we expect when the London Mayor considers anyone with a camera in central London a potential sex offender?!
Keith Taylor (17/03/2008 15:18:27)
I would have gladly deleted any of the images in front of the over zealous police officer.On return to the office I would have used image recovery software to get them them all back again!!
end of problem.
Valerie (18/03/2008 15:47:17)
I’ve never been stopped, but I have been subject to a great deal of attention for producing a camera in public, even when there’s no particular event taking place. I wondered if it was because I often carry photo equipment in a backpack and wear a hoodie. I’m always hanging to avoid hanging around near underground stations. I’m blonde, not south American, but I could look like a terrorist to a frightened armed response unit…
Tony Smyth (18/03/2008 21:11:25)
Deleting on scene and recovering later is not the answer… this only confirms for the mis informed cops that they were right to do what they did, and that cannot be allowed.
jason hurst (23/04/2008 10:00:24)
i always use the “hide images” feature on the nikon range, it worked a treat on the rozzers in chard! i was on an organised raid with avon and somerset police and was told by the wooden tops i could snap everything, only to find when the heroin dealer started bleating about my presence i was ordered by the head shed to delete, i hid the images on the card and gleefully showed them that the images were gone, tee hee, but as mentioned above it doesnt stop the problem of hobby bobbies and the mcoy from getting in our way and stopping us from doing our job, the police dont have a clue about how we work, the older officers have more experience where we are concerned, just head for the more seasoned copper next time you have the displeasure of dealing with them, the upshot, they dont know there asses from there elbows.
Aussie Photog (07/07/2008 09:31:39)
I am reading this from down under, and I am shocked to learn just how far my home country has descended into the abyss.
In Queensland, Gold Coast Surf Lifesavers have reportedly detained anyone with a camera, required deleting of shots, and in several cases violently confiscated equipment. Surf Lifesavers have in Australian or Queensland Law no more power to do this than an ordinary Joe Blow, which raises questions in itself.
All this happened without even the thought of requiring a Police Officer to be involved.
It is difficult to even raise a camera to eye level here on the Sunshine Coast, where I have personally received a blow to the side of my head while looking through the viewfinder at a locally well-known coastal headland. The assailant was muttering something about `worshipping graven images’ and seemed to be motivated by some of the ultra-Christian mumbo-jumbo that is everywhere here these days.
The impending `World Youth Day’ event, featuring a visit by His Holiness Benedict the Great, has also seen unprecedented legislative powers given to New South Wales Police, with anyone causing `annoyance’ to WYD participantst risking arrest, a fine and/or imprisonment.
Again, like in the UK, the definition of `annoyance’ has been left to the discretion of individual Police officers, which offers wide scope for misinterpretation, but in the Police Officers’ defence, also places unacceptable responsibility on the individual officer on the ground to reach a controversial decision and make it in the heat of the moment, possibly in the middle of a protest.
There are likely to be many protests about the WYD event itself, so Police are likely to have to make a number of snap decisions on the spot. There are also a growing number of protests from NSW politicians and others about the very loosely drafted legislation and the almost limitless powers it seems to confer on Police Officers.
I do not know whether `annoyance’ will for some religious persons include having their photograph taken, but in the light of my own encounter with a `worshipper’, I expect a fair number will, and the NSW courts will be busy over coming months as case after case comes up to be sorted out.
For the rceord, I am a Catholic, would have loved to have evetually seen a real live Pope, having failed to eb able to catch John Paul, but the atmosphere surrounding His visit and the possibility of finding myself arrested for taking a souvenir photo, I am sorry but the Pontiff will have to accept my sincere apologies for not coming along to His party.
David Hicks (13/07/2008 12:09:17)
I just came across this story with dismay but to be honest it is happening much more often.
I would like to add to Trell O’hara’s Hull Paragon experience, as I was also given the same treatment (April 2008), by one idiotic ‘security guard’. When I asked for an explanation he told me I was in violation of the ‘data protection act’ and ‘terrorism act’! He showed me no ID, and did not appear to be working for any train/station operator by the lack of uniform (which was clearly visible on other members of staff
, in fact he was wearing black clothes and a high vis jacket, could have been anyone. I’ve heard of people who pretend to be authority figures, and steal your stuff (this man threatened to take my camera if he caught me again taking photos).
Clearly this guy had never heared of the National Rail Guidelines and thinks he is ‘above’ the rules, either that or he was brainwashed by some security company that have never heared of the guidelines.
RThomas (23/01/2009 14:49:13)
If the police are concerned about undercover operations, then maybe they should just were ski masks and helmets when on duty! I know I’d feel much safer if all the cops wore full riot gear all the time…
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at