Photography and the terrorism law.
 

I thought I would just tell you about a little happening I had today on Liverpool Lime Street station.

Whilst waiting for my train home tonight at around 18.40, which to no ones surprise was cancelled, I decided to take some pictures of trains waiting at the platforms. I had taken about a dozen pictures when I was approached by two security men who asked what I was doing. I told them I was just taking pictures of trains approaching the station. I was told to stop straight away and if I refused I could be arrested under the prevention of terrorism act. I was also told that I could be a suspected terrorist. I was also asked if I had a ticket, which I showed to them. They then said Network Rail don't allow photography on any of their property. What annoyed me most was the fact that they suspected me of being a terrorist and the fact that I was threatened with 28 days detention under the prevention of terrorism act for doing nothing more than following my hobby.

The moral of this story is that you now have to think hard about what you are going to photograph and where you are taking your pictures. Perhaps we are looking at a ban of taking photos in public places.

So just remember big brother and big business are watching you.

Alan

Sobering isn't it? I read the police would like to bring in detention for as ''long as it takes.'' No charge, no trial, just held for an indefinite period until the powers that be see fit to release you with no appeal. That is scary! Terrorism is serious but can be used to bring in a whole raft of measures that would not normally have a chance of becoming law so who knows what could happen to photography in public places. Funny thing is when something does happen they want any pictures that may have been taken!

We need to remember that the United Kingdom following recent events is on high alert for terrorist activity. We need to comply at all times with these requests however petty they may seem at the time for the sake of our hobbies and more importantly our safety.

Once the national state of alert is reduced then these requests will reduce.

Many years ago I noticed on Horley station platform (which is the next stop to Gatwick) a sign saying photography in the station was not permitted. That what comes of privatising the Railways.

Shopping Centres are taking the same attitude as it is not public land.

We are already on the threshold of the police abusing this power. If they can't nick you for something proper they will nick you because they suspect your a terrorist without any real reason to suspect.

If you believe that your believe anything. This country has become too much of a police state for my liking and it has little to do with terrorism.

I certainly hope so.

I sympathise with Stephens point of view, but we have seen far too many cases of the prevention of terrorism act being used to harass someone. The old man who was ejected from the Labour Party conference when he heckled a speaker is a prime example. And at the same conference an MP (Austin Mitchell?) had his camera taken from him by a police officer, and the images wiped, under the same act. Then there was the case of an Anglo Asian man arrested for taking happy snaps. The police later apologised.

In any case I am not convinced a terrorist would take pictures so openly. Using a camera in a mobile phone while pretending to make a call would be so easy to do.

On balance I would say that it was harassment. To politely ask someone to stop taking pictures because it is not allowed on the property is fine IMO. But to threaten someone with the prevention of terrorism act is petty harassment. But to be fair, they might be edgy given that there have been so many near misses in recent weeks, and a few years ago many people died in multiple explosions. I guess I would choose minor harassment rather than sleepy security staff.

The real problem IMO is that there are said to be thousands of Muslim extremists with violent intentions currently at large in this country and the security services do not have the resources to monitor them all. I suspect they do not even have enough Arabic and Urdu speakers to monitor calls. And of course for many years we allowed no end of nutty mad men to congregate and preach hatred throughout London and elsewhere. We knew they were violent but assumed the violence was directed overseas.

Leif do they take it that we are a country of terrorists or is it a question of forcing your will on all your subjects. What next town centres or just to be bloody minded, banning the use of cameras. don't forget they don't have to be in an airport to shoot down a plane. Ihave had it happen to me and it wasn't pleasant, all I am doing is passing on a warning. Please note there were no signs on the station saying "no cameras to be used in the station."

Alan

Stephen I was not compromising peoples safety.

Alan

It's a sad reality that it's the law abiding citizen who suffers additional restrictions because of the crazed behavior of the terrorists. I would have thought that the incident at least rates a polite request to the CEO of the Company concerned to remind them that their public image might just be improved a notch if they posted prominent no photography signs. Saves embarrassment for the image maker and makes the security personnel's job a shade easier - might even curb their apparent zeal to threaten so many arrests. It's a big ask to abide by laws that you have no way of knowing anything about!

on a previous forum I was a bit nervous about posting a pic of the armed guards at the entrance to Menwith Hill entitled 'shooting menu' and one or two others. The moderator, a right wingish guy said no problem, there is so much stuff on the web about it you would be hard put to it to add anything new. Likewise DIY sheets for making nuclear weapons etc.

I think its a bit like weather forecasts getting much more dramatic in the week FOLLOWING floods.

Not that I like it any more. The real worry is becoming that if there is a public demand for arrests (as there was during the IRA bombing campaign), it will be far easier now to frame a scapegoat from random gleanings of the surveillance camera and bugging networks. They must produce more info than the entire population could process meaningfully working full time.

Alan: It is usually forbidden to take pictures in shopping malls and inside shops. The reason is commercial secrecy i.e. they do not want competitors analysing in detail the shop interior. So this might be along those lines. We just do not know. You could ask?

But to threaten to use the prevention of terrorism act on someone taking innocent pictures is IMO over the top, especially given the fact that signs are not apparent.

I have twice been stopped and questioned in Windsor Great Park. On one occasion my photo rucksack was searched (only a quick look inside). I was a bit taken aback because I walked around there often, and the only time I got searched was when I walked on a particular piece of grass, directly in front of a gate. They were polite and I guess they have to check people.

As has been mentioned above all anyone has to do who wants a photo of a banned area is to have a ''conversation'' on a mobile held up to their ear and take shot after shot on the inbuilt wide angle 5mp camera and no one would be any the wiser. That's what is so annoying when the obvious enthusiast photographer is targeted because it's so easy while ignoring others.

A couple of links you may want to look at

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/passen...nthusiasts.htm

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/1582.aspx

Much depends on whether we are conspiracy theorists, or just sensible.

In many countries just having a camera on display is enough to get a gun pointed at you.

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf

This should also be of interest,
Also you cannot be forced to delete images or hand over film or memory cards by anyone other than a police officer with the appropriate court issued warrant.

Applies in the US too as in this PDF http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Politely tell them where to go
 

[quote=blackmarlin;22063]I thought I would just tell you about a little happening I had today on Liverpool Lime Street station.

I had taken about a dozen pictures when I was approached by two security men who asked what I was doing. I told them I was just taking pictures of trains approaching the station. I was told to stop straight away and if I refused I could be arrested under the prevention of terrorism act.

As a retired Police Officer with Special Branch experience I would tell them where to go... A Security man has no powers of arrest or detention unless he has been sworn in as a special constable, in which case he should be able to show you his warrant card; and any such unlawful and unreasonable action on their part would be both an assault on you and actionable in law - you would be able to afford 2 or 3 Nikon D3's on the resulting damages. Call someone close by and explain what is happening and ask them to witness the Security Mens actions, then invite them to call a proper British Rail Police Officer and repeat their allegation. They should back off if they have half a brain. Try and make note as soon as possible of any identity badges or numbers they display and make a written complaint to Network Rail as soon as possible after and send a duplicate to your M.P.
Andy M.
Please note above that the Network Rail links refer to guide lines - unless otherwise stated they are not bye-laws. But it is sensible to see a member of staff and tell them what you are about. I have never had any trouble when I've asked a member of staff if they minded me taking a few pics for my own use.

Thanks to all for the good advice just in case this ever happens to me.

Jim

Todays world is changed significantly. All I can add is that, though a lot of time the sequence of events may look totally comic and hilarious, things can go to the full fledge wrong direction in matter of fractions of second. In other world the boundaries are not well defined, lines not drawn. take two more pinch of salt and be ready to walk out of trouble with full compliance to authorities.

A bit more info on the topic

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...otography_law/

Hi Rob, Interesting the bit about forbidding couples in registry offices from being photographed signing the register.

A little bit of recent info.....

The bureau of freelance photographers are now issuing 'blue cards' to all members. These little cards basically outline UK legals on photography in public places, with the intention that members carry them to "gently persuede the authorities", should a member be approached.
They are quite proactive on this, and encourage any member to contact them with their experiences.

I don't see the rational behind this one.

"I don't see the rational behind this one."

Hi again, I don't either - It does not seem to have filtered down to Churches - all Church of England clergy are de facto registrars - so after the Church Service - in my church the couple go to the vestry to sign the registers after which the photographer takes over and does the usual/unusual shots but during the signing, the best man or witnesses often take pictures and as far as I'm aware we have no instructions to stop them.

I did catch something on the TV about it the other night. Something to do with data protection act. I assume it refers to the fact that an other entry may show up in the photo.

Apparently they took it from the Daily Mail which as per usual is found to be full of crap. The Register prints a correction:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06...otography_law/

There are to many people saying what we Can and can't Shoot ! I had a similar experience a few weeks ago at Heysham port, I was told by a private security firm that I wasn't allowed to take any pictures because of the nuclear power stations opposite, My reply was it is a public right of way And I don't take pics of concrete blocks, He was not a happy bunny and asked for the port police to come, This guy was great asked to see what I had taken then told the private bloke to stop wasting his time.

Mind you I had been testing my 300m lens so it may have looked a bit suss:rolleyes:

regards Ian

Heck my pana with its 420mm look just like a standard lens. Its a bit more sticky out when I put the tcon17 on, but then that does move it up to 700mm.

Went photographing CCTV cameras in Coventry this evening, no-one seemed concerned.

Yep as you say it all depends on the individual and how you react with them?

That security guy at one point said that there were armed police on top of the power station? My reply was " if they want to take a pot shot fine by me, But first ask them to check my camera". They have got used to me now that I can phone port control and ask them what is in and if they are expecting anything special.

I sent the port controllers some A4 prints of some of my pics to show I was genuine.

Regards Ian

At least some MP's are on the photographers side. Good job Austin Mitchell is into photography .
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/sho...ml?page=803420

Don

This is another aspect of the continuing paranoia:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...n-at-fair.html

Why had she allowed her kids to go on the slide naked in the first place?

I don't know which story you've been reading walwyn............

I understand what Walwyn means, you can not take an indecent shot if the subject is not indecent so if the shot could be deemed indecent then the women must have let her child on the slide naked so she is a guilty party too. I think....

It is the classic case of extrapolating a basic concept into the realms of the ridiculous. The masses want those in power to be seen to be acting on a problem regardless as to how ineffectual that action maybe.

Any half wit could think of a million ways to bring about mass death and destruction. Little that those in power could do to predict or stop it.
They would have to ban everything to stand a chance. That would make living pointless if that were the case.

If you take 9/11, it was about attacking the symbols of power, the death toll would of been much higher if humans were the target.

Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the examples of true terror.

We see the security stepped up at airports every so often to keep people on their toes. The armed police are told to walk around the building a few times and every item double checked. The real cost to us is millions for the extra staff, equipment and delays. Why attach the front door when the back door is wide open ?

Road safety is another area for concern. Soon we will told we are walking too fast to save another life because the bean counters want to reduce the death toll by one over a ten year period. Crazy when you think that on average 2000 people in the UK die everyday for one reason or another. A fact of life. Work it out for yourself if you don't believe me ( average life span 70 yrs population 60 million). It is crazy when the news headline is that 3 people died today. What about the other 1997 or so that also died.

I am sure we have all got a local person with bee in their bonnet who wants to clamp down on something or the other.

Now to the case in question of photographing children in public. I don't question that it is a problem but how big a problem is it really ? By peoples reaction I guess there must be 10 perverts lurking on every street corner and vastly out number those who have a genuine reason to photography their own kids. I am sure the pervert community already has enough photos to keep them going so why would they risk taking more ?

When will the human race get a sense of proportion and act accordingly ?

Rant over :rolleyes:

Well Miketoll got the point.

If photos of fully dressed kids are causing people to get off then we need to do something about people spanking the monkey whilst watching CBEEBIES, the Disney Channel, or the Littlewoods catalog.

On flickr from time to time one sees complaints from a parent about photos of their child getting unwanted attention. Those photos are not your normal kid in playground photo. Rather they are photos of the child naked in the bath, or dressed in highly sexualized clothing, or posing in a suggestive way. No doubt the parent thought it cute, but such images will attract the perverts.

Lets have a sense of proportion as to what is problematic and what is not. Though I suppose he could have been trying to get upskirt shots of lttle girls.

Anybody read "1984" by George Orwell?

Yes and Orwell was really complaining about the state of affairs in 1948 god knows what he would of made of the current situation.

I added a entry to my political blog on that a couple of weeks ago:
http://spark-in-the-ashes.net/warr/?p=23