I am a Photographer and Not a Terrorist.

[RajP]

Interesting site..

I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist

 

[Trollslayer]

A badly needed one.

 

[Pirate!!]

Team America springs to mind . . . .

 

[Dave]

I'm probably going to get shot down in flames for this but hey ho.

I think some photographers have a bit of a "poor me, my civil right " attitude regarding the police and photography.

Police have to act on information given to them. Imagine for a moment the headline "Police told about terrorist photographer and do nothing". That can't be allowed to happen. If someone tells police that someone is taking photographs and they look dodgy they are duty bound to investigate, likewise if they see someone photographing significant buildings etc. The excuse of "well I don't look like a terrorist" will simply not wash, what does a terrorist look like? Should police only target Irish photographers or Asian photographers? Of course not.

I know that some people on here have had very negative experiences with Police and I'm not naive enough to think that this doesn't happen but the vast majority of coppers are more than supportive of your right to photograph whatever the hell you want. I've even put a photographer straight about the law as he wanted to photograph an armed police officer and wasn't sure if he'd get shot for it. (During a very nice chat about the history of crime on the canals as he was a historian researching the subject). On the flip side I've gone to chat to a photographer mainly to dribble over his very nice gear only to be virtually ignored and have 2 of his friends run over to "rescue him" in their own words (rescue him from what? Gear envy?).

I suppose my point is that a lot of photographers tend to initiate a self fulfilling prophecy when in the majority of cases it is simply not needed, the copper might be trying to dribble on your lovely kit rather than infringe your human rights. I know my view is obviously different to most but I get to see it from both sides of the fence.

 

[Triggaaar]

If someone tells police that someone is taking photographs and they look dodgy they are duty bound to investigate

And so they should investigate. And I'm sure some of the time they tell the photograper to carry on. What upsets some photographers is when a policeman makes no attempt to judge the situation. It should be fairly easy for most of us to show a policeman the photos we've taken, and how we're trying to get the composition right, and the light spot on etc. I'm no expert on terrorists, but I don't think they'd need SLRs, they're more likely to have a tiny compact and walk along unnoticed.

 

[weetsie]

Police have to act on information given to them. Imagine for a moment the headline "Police told about terrorist photographer and do nothing".

i don't see the point you are trying to make here.


if the police have evidence and have been told that a certain person may possibly be a terrorist and then they are seen photographing buildings then fine, go arrest them, no one will have a problem with that.

when the police are harassing photographers on the street they cant have any possible evidence that they are terrorists because, well, they are not terrorists.

 

[Stinja]

I'm probably going to get shot down in flames for this

Nope all valid matey.

Saying that... i find it laughable the police bother to stop any photography in highly popular areas. I was on the South Bank and saw some guy get questioned, but all around them were tourists snapping away furiously To me it almost seems like the police-mindset is:

- little camera = tourist. Ergo not terrorist.
- big camera = recon terrorist.

If you were doing recon wouldn't it be better to use video anyway? As far as i can tell you'd want images of security cameras, guard positions, entry/exits into buildings, structural points etc So someone taking a picture of a pigeon on a bollard should be assessed as non-threatening, someone shooting pictures of the serial numbers on alarm boxes should be given a once over?

But really i think it's a bit overblown, how many photographers are really being stopped, and is it really as numerous as made out? What i do think is wrong is the police thinking they can do what they like if they do stop you, and it's they who should know they cant delete images from the camera, not your responsibility. How upset would the public get if traffic cops thought they were allowed to strip search drivers and remove the petrol from gas tanks when stopped?

 

[mark.carline]

God i hate this country at times, heres one such exmaple of how somebody who probubly would have no motive to become a terrorist would be thinking twice about getting revenge due to they way we have treated them...

Muslim architecture student quizzed by police over Canary Wharf photo project| News | This is London

I have a great example of how bad our police are when this woman (!) was beaten up for just taking a few pictures....

Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun | UK news | The Guardian.

 

[eduk]

Not a photography case, but still a worrying aspect of Police overreaction like the examples above.

Man arrested after Twitter joke about bombing airport under Terrorism Act | Mail Online

 

[mucca_D]

Not a photography case, but still a worrying aspect of Police overreaction like the examples above.

Man arrested after Twitter joke about bombing airport under Terrorism Act | Mail Online

OMG thats insane!!!

As for the stop and search. as with most laws and most people. some will use a bit of common some will not. Some Plice officers are very good and the sort of person you would like to share a pint with some are not. Thats the way it is.

However, just like most places of work, the Police do have perfomace reviews and if you are not happy with the way you get treated. complain, but complain later.
Take down the PC's number and then put down the complaint in writing.

Hit the RED button at the time and all you are going to do is make it worse.

 

[SkyCaptain]

Not a photography case, but still a worrying aspect of Police overreaction like the examples above.

Man arrested after Twitter joke about bombing airport under Terrorism Act | Mail Online

Sorry but if we criticise the police for an apparent lack of common sense and then people do this then we dont really have a leg to stand on. As mentioned before, if the cops are tipped off then theyre duty bound to chase it up. People on both sides of the fence have to be sensible here.

 

[shotokan101]

Sorry but if we criticise the police for an apparent lack of common sense and then people do this then we dont really have a leg to stand on. As mentioned before, if the cops are tipped off then theyre duty bound to chase it up. People on both sides of the fence have to be sensible here.

+1

...if nothing else the guys case will make sure that a lot of people don't do anything that stupid online again

Jim

 

[eduk]

Sorry but if we criticise the police for an apparent lack of common sense and then people do this then we dont really have a leg to stand on. As mentioned before, if the cops are tipped off then theyre duty bound to chase it up. People on both sides of the fence have to be sensible here.

There is a HUGE difference between sending a local copper around to make enquires and arresting the guy as you would a terrorist.

If you can't see that difference, well....

 

[mark.carline]

to be honest - if your stupid enough to say your going to blow up an airpoint online then you get just what you deserve.

Should have charged him with wasting police time.

 

[OrbitalPete]

That twitter case brings up a very real issue of free speech here though; the inference is that you cannot make any joke of terrorist activity without being charged as a terrorist.

That's absurd. You can ask about the quality of the joke, certainly, but the point remains that free speech is supposed to preserve our ability to comment on any topic around us. To send the message that we are not allowed to mock the utterly ridiculous security situation which we find ourselves in at the moment is tantamount to saying you can't criticise policing, and any attempt to will result in your arrest.

That joke is no worse that saying of an airline after experiencing grumpy cabin staff/bad landing / lack of legroom etc etc etc 'that flight was so bad I can't blame terrorists for blowing them up'. Does a joke like that warrant police interview? Is no degree of common sense or rational interpretation applied to these cases?

Common sense doesn't come into it; what is being suggested is that some form of self censorship should be applied. You can't arrest people for bad jokes. If you could, Bernard Manning would have spent his life behind bars. In the same way, you may as well argue that people should use common sense and not photograph sensitive buildings like St Pauls...

 

[eduk]

to be honest - if your stupid enough to say your going to blow up an airpoint online then you get just what you deserve.

Should have charged him with wasting police time.

You could argue the same for photographers being "stupid enough" for taking photographs in the current climate. But then I thought that we had a right to go about our business without being thrown into jail on a terrorism charge. Silly me...

 

[shotokan101]

If you could, Bernard Manning would have spent his life behind bars.

Pete - your argument was doing really well right up until the above quoted remark........

JIm

 

[mark.carline]

We do have free speech here, you can say what you want but then you are accoutable for what you say.

Noone is going to stop you from saying anything but they will lock you up once you have said it.

I guess (maybe) the Daily Mail (wow I managed to type it!) would have had a different headline had the person saying and (i quote!) - "I’m blowing the airport sky high" been a foreigner with a dark skin tone and a name like Aslam or somthing.

 

[FazerThou]

I have a great example of how bad our police are when this woman (!) was beaten up for just taking a few pictures....

Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun | UK news | The Guardian.

Where does it say she was beaten up?

 

[OrbitalPete]

That's not free speech Mark. Now technically, we don't have completely free speech anyway as we have laws covering incitement to hatred etc.

However, what free speech we do have in this country is intended to protect against being arrested for things such as satire. The idea is that no subject is beyond discussion. Those things which fall into prescribed categories are incitements to commit illigal acts.

If you're getting arrested for saying things, it's not free speech, and is no different to arresting photographers for recording images of famous buildings.

 

[eduk]

We do have free speech here, you can say what you want but then you are accoutable for what you say.

Noone is going to stop you from saying anything but they will lock you up once you have said it.

You have a very odd view of what freedom of speech is!

"Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation."

 

[shotokan101]

Where does it say she was beaten up?

Don't know if I'd class it as beaten up but :-

She was searched and, after an altercation with one officer, was accused of being aggressive, bundled to the ground and arrested

Which if she wasn't in the wrong could constitute assault....

JIm

 

[Jammyb]

I'm a Photographer, not a Terrorist

That sounds like terrorist talk to me!

There you are muttering about Bokeh (which sounds like some sort of far eastern extremeist group!), blowup, barrel distortion, slave units and trying to remove abberations. Well... what's the humble British bobby supposed to think?

 

[eduk]

Well... what's the humble British bobby supposed to think?

They aren't paid to think apparently.

 

[OrbitalPete]

That sounds like terrorist talk to me!

There you are muttering about Bokeh (which sounds like some sort of far eastern extremeist group!), blowup, barrel distortion, slave units and trying to remove abberations. Well... what's the humble British bobby supposed to think?

hahah