Man Arrested For Taking Photos In The Street.

Apologies for the length of this video, you might want to get a cuppa before you watch it.

This guy was taking photos in the street in Lancashire.

The subsequent actions of the police are interesting to say the least.

Are our civil liberties being eroded by giving the police these powers? Or are they necessary for our protection?

This sort of thing has been happening a lot. Hopefully it's just a hangover from the police state that Labour were trying to set up and the new government might relax the laws, but I wouldn't bet on it.

More cases here - http://www.google.co.uk/search?num=50&hl=en&safe=off&biw=1358&bih=622&q=arrested+for+photography+uk&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&gs_rfai=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas

Police tried to nick this bloke for recording in his own garden.

Apologies for the length of this video, you might want to get a cuppa before you watch it.

 

This guy was taking photos in the street in Lancashire.

 

The subsequent actions of the police are interesting to say the least.

 

Are our civil liberties being eroded by giving the police these powers? Or are they necessary for our protection?

This is a pretty old story, I've seen it before.

As somebody who wanders around the streets of Sheffield taking photos (see my panoramio pages in my signature below) I've not had any police officer approach me to ask me what I'm doing. I've had the odd police car drive past me a few times but my opinion is that S.Y. police are pretty clued up on the implementation of the anti terror legislation when it comes to people out and about taking photos and if they're not then I'm more than willing to enlighten them.

Your average bloke just going out to try out a new camera doesn’t start telling the police how to do their job and reel of their civil rights ……..

Apologies for the length of this video, you might want to get a cuppa before you watch it.

 

This guy was taking photos in the street in Lancashire.

 

The subsequent actions of the police are interesting to say the least.

 

Are our civil liberties being eroded by giving the police these powers? Or are they necessary for our protection?

Probably the first time they'd seem a camera in Accrington - they might have thought it was some kind of death ray.

He seems to know his rights very well for a man having a "bit of fun". Very odd.

On the other hand, the police can't arrest a man for purely taking photos. Odd on both accounts.

Scotland Yard has told police officers there is "an enormous amount of concern" about the use of anti-terror laws against people taking photographs in the street.

 

 

In a circular to all Metropolitan borough commanders, John Yates, the assistant commissioner for specialist operations, advocated a "commonsense" approach and reminded officers there were no laws to stop people photographing buildings.

 

 

"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped," wrote Yates, who is Britain's senior counter-terrorism officer.

The police do not have any power to "stop and question" as such. A police officer is perfectly entitled to question anyone with a view to finding out whether an offence has been committed or who has committed it, but unless there are grounds to arrest or stop and search, the person can simply refuse to answer and walk away.

Police conduct during searches is regulated by a code of practice. Although there is no legal power to "stop and question", the code also says that where the police seek to question someone in a public place they should comply with the code. The code says that "all stops and searches must be carried out with courtesy, consideration and respect for the person concerned" and that "every reasonable effort must be made to minimise the embarrassment that a person being searched may experience"

There are circumstances in which the mere taking of a photograph or video footage will engage the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) – but in general if the person concerned is in a public place there will be no reasonable expectation of privacy, and any issues under Article 8 will only arise when it comes to the publication of the material - but it is not unlawful.

As in the video clip, the first officer with her 'grounds for suspicion' were wholly unjustified, and she clearly implies the photographer is not being detained. For the Acting Sergeant to arrive and cite anti-social behaviour as reasonable grounds for his detention is simply laughable.

You do not have to give your name and address to any Police Officer, if there is no lawful reason for you to comply with a request for it.

However, when a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed he has the power to arrest anyone who he has reasonable belief to have committed that offence, and then you do have a lawful obligation to supply the information requested regarding your identity.

These reports, as in the OP, make the Police look fractured and incompetant at street level, and the more these reports are brought to the fore, the more that unsuitable practices can be addressed.

Held for 8 hours and released without charge - says it all really - and at what cost to the public?

So the next time someone is on road wars and the police office says " he can do what he likes he's in a public place" in reference to the camera.. that's wrong..

Your average bloke just going out to try out a new camera doesn’t start telling the police how to do their job and reel of their civil rights ……..

He knew what he was doing, he probably has a chip on his shoulder regarding the police.