Stopped by the police for taking photos!!

[BobNewYork]

But let's get practical: How to react?

Starting a campaign against that kind of control?
We should not forget that many people want that control, so it's not just the authority.

Just have oneself checked and go further as long as they don't stop you taking photographs?
Well, I have nothing to hide at a police control, but they might think, that guy has been mangled that often through the computer, there must be something wrong with him.

That's the big question - and an excellent one to ask. And you're right - many people want the control because somehow it makes them feel safe. I used to commute daily into London in the early seventies in the middle of the big IRA bombing campaign and there was a sense then, that if we allowed things to change because of the terrorism we would, in effect, be surrendering. The police had everyone's cooperation and mutual respect prevailed - and it worked. This time around it's so very different.

I agree, I have nothing to hide, let them search me; but random search and seizure was outlawed for a reason - the power it afforded was abused. We've seen too many countries where civil rights were sacrificed in the name of security, and it's always gone tubular. It never starts without some sort of apparently reasoning, but it nearly always degenerates bit by tiny bit until it's just too damned late.

Perhaps the U.S. Bill of Rights, or the U.N. Bill of Rights or the European Bill of Rights would be a good start. They're all good documents and perhaps if we really stood for that (as we say we do) then personal "security" may, in some instances be at odds. It's a choice - and one which we should be permitted to make. As it is we are instructed as to which of our rights we will forgo and it becomes a fait accompli

It's become either unpatriotic, naive or just plain stupid to promote rights over security, but to my mind too many people have died fighting for those rights over too many years to just surrender to people who no better than us what liberties we deserve.

I'll just go format my hard drive now

Bob H

 

[k_jupiter]

The bottom line is:

You are pissed that this cost you money. If they had gone away and not come back, you would have chalked it up to whatever. But t cost you money. I have felt that way many times before, I am of Irish heritage a it carries with it.

They left you alone to do wht you wanted. After the incidents of last week, all police in GB are gonna err on the investigative side. Is it right? Nope. But it is how it is. And apparently legal.

You screwed up.

Face the music and pay the fine. I haven't been stopped by police indamn time. But when I was, I said thing. They always caught me fair and square and I paid the fine. The number of times I have gotten away with it justified the price.

And yes, I have been stopped in Germany by the polizei for shooting after midnight on the streets of Bitburg, asked many questions, and let go. I did nothing wrong, but they thouit was worth while checking out.

It's not right, but it is.

tim in san jose

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

This post has split in to two threads, I don't disagree that being disturbed or prevented from photographing in legal places
is a PITA and an infringement of my rights as a citizen, blah, blah, blah,, but you did screw up, sorry, breaking the law is breaking the law.
If you had crashed into my car and had no insurance I would have been well pissed off.

 

[Markus Röhling]

In Germany the insurance companies inform the authority who registered a car when an insurance expires. I'm not sure if there is any fine but you will loose your car registration.

I don't care because I don't have a driving licence. But I care if the police poses me questions when I'm carrying my camera in a rucksack or am photographing.

And I see a problem if the police is checking number plates for an expired insurance because somebody is photographing and not because they are stopping and checking cars on a random basis. The consequence will be that it's more likely for a photographer to get a fine than for a non-photographer. I wouldn't call this equality before the law.

Markus

 

[apkujeong]

I'm in total agreement with Mourr. In my (apparently quaint) opinion, the police have no business whatsoever asking questions of someone taking photos of a derelict building. The question of whether he is a professional or not seems quite irrelevant, also (they were probably buying time to think up a reason to be asking questions). They asked for ID?! Even a former head of MI5 (Stella Rimington) recently accused the Government of using terrorism threats to scare the public into accepting this sort of treatment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7893890.stm

 

[BobNewYork]

I don't think the OP's main point was the GBP200 fine - although I personally think it a little excessive, and I also note that their concern for the public at large didn't go as far as impounding the car to prevent uninsured driving - but rather how things have changed dramatically in recent years and not for the better.

In New York, following the London Underground bombings, the police are now empowered to stop and search any bag or backpack at random and believe me I absolutely understand this need to prevent tragedies like those in London. Since that time, however, no terrorist attack has been uncovered - but thousands of other arrests, (mainly drug-related) have been made. It seems strange to me that the otherwise illegal search and seizure did not restrict the prosecutions that could arise from any non-terrorist discoveries. (And yes, I do question the intelligence of anyone carrying a bag of weed on the subway when they know they can be stopped and searched at random!)

The surveillance cameras that hone in only on registration plates, for example. They seem to have nothing to do with anti-terrorist operations. The sad fact is that these governments rely on fines to fund themselves and that necessity results in stupid legislation based not on what is good for the public but what is good for government coffers. I would add that these policies adversely affect the less well-off. (The OP's GBP 200 fine is a relatively bigger penalty to him than to a multi-millionaire.) If punishment for non-violent offences were restricted to community service you would see huge changes, if not in the law - then most certainly in their enforcement.

I know, I know - I'm on a rant. Sorry - but being in my fifties, I just see everything that used to be important, and that we used to stand for being flushed down the crapper,

Bob H

 

[Anthony Lewis]

The other evening I saw what I believe is an iconic image of our times. A small lonely child in a local fenced-in playground, tokenly playing but looking bored. The light was dull that said it all. The parent had their bum on the railing looking bored and impatiently waiting for the child to finish their token-after work playtime.

I though this would make a great social photograph of our times. Twenty years ago there would be no problems with such a photograph. Now such a shot is wrought with problems – under age kids - even though they would never be identified.

Just a few decades ago kids would be down the creeks, the back lots, the bush, whatever, with no parental supervision after every school day, doing whatever they liked. Great for the imagination, getting into trouble and everything else.

A photographer around a playground – I am likely to be rounded up by a group of parents presuming I am a paedophile. Oh what a sad society we now live in. What the answer is I do not know.

Any comments!

 

[BobNewYork]

Very sad Anthony.

Last autumn, an architect client of mine had just opened a new community centre which included soccer fields, baseball fields and a playground. Apart from the usual architecture shots he wanted documentary shots of the area including kids in the playground and school teams using he ball fields. No problem, I thought then stopped to consider. I insisted on a letter from the director of the centre and from the architects before shooting. Even then, I approached the coaches and every parent before I took a photo. And just to make sure, I put on a shooting vest and carried way more gear than I needed - because I felt awkward!

As a kid of 10 or so, I would take off for the day with a friend on London Transport "Rover" tickets - unlimited bus and underground travel for a day. It was a great adventure for a 10 year old. I just can't imagine that happening today.

It all seems to have gone tubular as far as I can see.

Bob H

 

[archphoto]

Sorry for you Anthony,

But that is the price all of you in the UK and US are paying by getting involved in the middle east the way the UK and the US have.
You got your bombings in London and 9-11.
A life does not have much value in the middle eastern culture, so if you value yours: accept this.

And ofcourse both goverments have gone too far in fighting terrorism at times.

Peter

 

[redrockcoulee]

Last night on PBS they reran a New Tricks episode that was about the Battersea Power Station, and if that was indeed the building I can see why you stopped to photograph it. As far as the car insurance goes, if you were not in the car and it was legally parked I see no reason for the police to ask for your car insurance and registration. The fact that it expired has no bearing on the fact that due to your photographing a building in public view from a public place you were asked to produce documents that should not have been needed to be produced. Your personal ID is one thing but a parked vehicle is another

 

[JDP]

Another supporter here, Mourr. At this rate we will have to go around in pairs:- one to furtively take some photos, and the other to keep a look out for the police!

I was recently taking some pictures of the building where I work (ok maybe that is strange..!), when a security guard came and informed me I was not allowed to take pictures. I held my ground and after some discussion he radioed his boss. The reply came back clear: "It's ok if its outside". So I carried on. Like with you there was no big deal therefore, but the experience was not pleasant and I resented the inference that I was doing something wrong.

If you are still upset by the experience and want to do something about it, might I suggest you write to your MP? You don't have to mention the insurance!

 

[Jaq]

I think this is what we are talking about: http://www.colorsmagazine.com/cease-fear/

Politicians/ Police are breeding paranoia into our minds and hearts to better control the general population.
It's a sad thing for them to be doing this, but even sadder that we accept this attitude, hardly questioning this abuse of the power invested in them.
Police spend far too much time bothering good people and not nearly enough preventing crime.
Politicians spend far too much time empowering themselves and not nearly enough forging a better society.
And we are ok with this. Because we believe what they tell us.
If you look at the statistics, terrorist attacks are at an all time low. Terrorist attacks in the '70s was way higher than now.
Having to take your shoes off to get on a plane is ridiculous and humiliating (especially for those with holes in their socks) that hardly makes flying safer. The whole business of all these security checks is nonsense, but yet we feel reassured by the process.

It's pathetic on every level.

 

[BobNewYork]

....... As far as the car insurance goes, if you were not in the car and it was legally parked I see no reason for the police to ask for your car insurance and registration........

Me neither - but it doesn't seem to stop them. And it just doesn't seem to be getting any better. Even asking for personal I.D. - what countries do we know that require national I.D. cards and have police forces able to stop people at random and demand papers? None that I want to live in!. Oh wait........I do!!

Bob H

 

[removed-user-1]

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that (in the US) the Miranda "right to remain silent" does include not having to produce ID on demand... I have no idea how this works in the UK.

 

[BobNewYork]

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that (in the US) the Miranda "right to remain silent" does include not having to produce ID on demand... I have no idea how this works in the UK.

I think you're right. However, the reality, Miranda or no, is that you end up face in the dirt and cuffed for "failure to comply" - we've seen an increasing number of these in the press of late. I think much of the change has come from a sincere attempt to avoid meaningless confrontation in the past to one of almost provoking it. There was the recent case of a Canadian tourist in Washinton who was pulled over and ordered to turn off the engine. The Canadian told the officer to say please and was promptly pepper-sprayed, dragged out of his car, thrown to the ground and arrested for "failure to comply." I admit that telling the police to say please pushed it a little - but it's not so long ago when they would always have said "please" or "would you mind" as a matter of course. It just avoids unnecessary escalation.

Still on the soap box

Bob H

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

I thought this link might be of interest. If you read about half way down under the heading..Photography: Public palces.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80716-0001.htm

I think the very last comment from Lord Bassam of Brighton sums it all up nicely.

Stoo

 

[Terence]

Food for thought (in the U.S. anyway):
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/dorf.police.id/index.html

 

[Shangheye]

I have some sympathy for the OP (on the photography subject and not the insurance). The main issue facing us today is not today per se, but where we are heading. I consider it a human right to photograph that which my eyes can see. The State however sees this differently (and for some maybe justifiably so), and has legislated against those rights. In principle, the idea that I am stopped and questioned is equivalent to profiling on airlines. Being someone from an ethnic background, I invariably find myself pulled over and searched in airports etc. I really don't mind that, since I see it as more for my protection than anything (despite that tediousness of it all). But...and here is the big BUT....a photographer in a field photographing a derelict building in the open with large RB67 does not (or at least should not) fall in to the "profiling" bracket. Quaint, yes, suspicious?...only to the photographically uneducated policemen.

These guys were friendly, and were doing what they believe to be their job keeping Britain safe, but I wonder about what harm was being done elsewhere while they interviewed the OP. The insurance was an aside, not truly relevant to the idea of stop and search. And so here is the question that we need to ask ourselves about this story.....

Why is taking a photograph suspicious, and when can it be clearly shown that photography formed a key role in either a terrorist event, or the stopping of photography shown to have averted a terrorist event? Has the state ever looked at that.....or do they care?

It was a true statement in one of the posts above that freedom to photograph is a measure of freedom in society...reference the Soviet Union if you are not sure about that...K

 

[BobNewYork]

I thought this link might be of interest. If you read about half way down under the heading..Photography: Public palces.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldhansrd/text/80716-0001.htm

I think the very last comment from Lord Bassam of Brighton sums it all up nicely.

Stoo

I agree that everyone should act "responsibly". I do note however that Lord Bassam failed to define "reasonably" and that's the crux of the matter. Standing in the middle of the M25 or I-80 in the middle of rush hour to get interesting photographs is not reasonable. Taking photos of ones kids in the park is reasonable. It's the in-between that's ill defined and left to the interpretation. I think that's what the issue is. Who gets to decide? It used to be the law - but with lawmakers like Lord Bassam bandying around terms like "reasonable" then passing the buck you'll see increased conflict. If the law wants to use a defining term such as "reasonable" then government must ensure that the law is applied in a "reasonable" way and enforced by "reasonable" people. It's the same with education. If you want to judge teachers based on "standardized" tests - then you'd better provide them with "standardized" students.

There's been a great move to make the language of the law broad and unspecified - so that it can be enforced in a broad and unspecified way, and without recrimination or responsibility.

In the case of the OP - we've already abandoned the principle that there is no presumption of privacy in a public setting. How many more are we going to nibble away at? We already know in the U.K. that constabularies are assessed based upon the number of convictions, ASBOs issued, tickets written etc. There's absolutely no mileage for them in crime prevention. Would it be "reasonable" to apply the same criteria to Special Branch or the other security services? God I hope not!

It's a good thing that the legislature is discussing this issue - but given the long, (very long) standing tradition of their being no presumption of privacy in public it's very sad that it's even a topic for discussion.

Bob H

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sorry for you Anthony,

But that is the price all of you in the UK and US are paying by getting involved in the middle east the way the UK and the US have.
You got your bombings in London and 9-11.
A life does not have much value in the middle eastern culture, so if you value yours: accept this.

And ofcourse both goverments have gone too far in fighting terrorism at times.

Peter

Peter,

You really need to keep things in chronological order. They bombed the US and the UK first. Rewriting history is the speciality of terrorists. Are you joining their ranks?

Additionally, add the comment that terrorist bombing is not the act of a rational or civilized person.

Steve

 

[JBrunner]

I'll take danger and freedom over the illusion of safety provided by a police state any day.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

I agree that everyone should act "responsibly". I do note however that failed to define "reasonably" and that's the crux of the matter. Standing in the middle of the M25 or I-80 in the middle of rush hour to get interesting photographs is not reasonable. Taking photos of ones kids in the park is reasonable. It's the in-between that's ill defined and left to the interpretation. I think that's what the issue is. Who gets to decide? It used to be the law - but with lawmakers like Lord Bassam bandying around terms like "reasonable" then passing the buck you'll see increased conflict. If the law wants to use a defining term such as "reasonable" then government must ensure that the law is applied in a "reasonable" way and enforced by "reasonable" people. It's the same with education. If you want to judge teachers based on "standardized" tests - then you'd better provide them with "standardized" students.

There's been a great move to make the language of the law broad and unspecified - so that it can be enforced in a broad and unspecified way, and without recrimination or responsibility.

In the case of the OP - we've already abandoned the principle that there is no presumption of privacy in a public setting. How many more are we going to nibble away at? We already know in the U.K. that constabularies are assessed based upon the number of convictions, ASBOs issued, tickets written etc. There's absolutely no mileage for them in crime prevention. Would it be "reasonable" to apply the same criteria to Special Branch or the other security services? God I hope not!

It's a good thing that the legislature is discussing this issue - but given the long, (very long) standing tradition of their being no presumption of privacy in public it's very sad that it's even a topic for discussion.

Bob H

Bob, I feel that you are being a bit hard on Lord Bassam, as I thought that all he meant by his comments was that photographers (most) will use their own discretion, and act in a way that they themselves feel is responsible, while taking in to account today's over sensitive society.

That said, there will always be someone who will disagree with what they (the photographer) interpret as to be reasonable and responsible.

Stoo

 

[Steve Smith]

I do note however that Lord Bassam failed to define "reasonably" and that's the crux of the matter.

The term 'reasonable' appears quite a lot in English law And probably in US law as well.

Phrases such as 'beyond reasonable doubt', 'reasonable to expect' and 'reasonable force'.

But as you ask, what is reasonable? You have to get as far as a court to get judgement on that.


Steve.

 

[mike c]

This is a very lively and interesting discussion, can anyone tell me what a GBP 200 fine is? Dose it happen only in England or is it here in the US also?

 

[JBrunner]

This is a very lively and interesting discussion, can anyone tell me what a GBP 200 fine is? Dose it happen only in England or is it here in the US also?

It would vary with the exchange rate, but roughly $300 US dollars. The fine in the US will vary from state to state, as it is the individual states that register and regulate automobiles as far as the mundane stuff goes. Here in Utah diving without insurance will get your car impounded and garner a fine in the neighborhood of $400 plus impound fees, and rightfully so.