andygardener Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 My son has just phoned me to tell me of his interesting encounter while out for his evening run. He has just started running in an attempt to get fit for the summer. To prove to his girlfriend how far he had got, he decided to take a photo of himself outside Hackenthorpe Police Station, near Crystal Peaks. At which point a police car screamed around the corner, dragged him into the back seat and started to read him the riot act about anti-terrorism and how it was ILLEGAL for him to take a picture of a police station or ANY public building, for example Meadowhall (their example not mine). I always thought you could take a picture of any public building so long as you were stood on the public highway. As for quoting Meadowhall as an example, how many tourists do you think would be taken into custody daily if that was the case. I have always believed the police are prone to abusing their powers given half a chance, but have they seriously got nothing else to do but threaten a clapped-out jogger with the anti terrorism baton? Get it reported to the Star. Did they confiscate his phone or insist he delete the pic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbeard Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 This subject comes up every couple of weeks it seems http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=701293 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terrorfirma Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Get it reported to the Star. Did they confiscate his phone or insist he delete the pic? The laughable thing is they didn't even look at the picture.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 APCO have tried to clarify with regard to photography but the message doesn't seem to be getting through. Here it is. There is no law preventing taking photographs of police stations, shopping centres or other public buildings. The police can arrest someone if they reasonably suspect they are taking photos in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism. Your friend might wish to ask who they think your friend was practically assisting to do what. A vague inkling or spookiness doesn't cut it. More details in various places on the web. http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=police+photography+terrorist&site=&psite=0 http://www.epuk.org/Resources/958/police-photographers-and-the-law http://photographernotaterrorist.org/ http://photorights.org/ Sadly the intro page on the final one says professional photographers concur with your "police state" comment. It is now hard to find professionals who have not been repeatedly stopped, searched and questioned under S.44 of the Terrorism Act, especially among those who cover news. Some report repeated interrogation on the same day or several times in a week, notwithstanding presentation of a National Press Card. Vanishingly few photographers will oppose the police duty and intention to keep people safe but security appears to have mutated into routine harassment. Either this a pointless and inept waste of police resources or it serves an undeclared policy : the prevention of inconvenient photography rather than terrorism. Incidents involving illegal means and threats or physical assault are now too common to dismiss as anomalies and errors of judgement, and UK seems to be sliding toward the sort of overt interference we might expect in China or Zimbabwe. Even Saudi Arabia relaxed its street photography laws last year and that is where Al Quaida comes from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The laughable thing is they didn't even look at the picture.... Definately get it reported to the star then, and the police complaints commision. Using anti-terrorist legislation is clearly meant to be only used where terrorist intent is suspected, if they used the law in the manner it is meant to be used ie, they suspected terrorism, and failed to even look at the picture that is gross misconduct. We both know they did it because they felt they could get away with it. There are good coppers, but there are a lot of not so good coppers too so holding the bad ones to account is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike edds Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The laughable thing is they didn't even look at the picture.... they had no right to act this way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike edds Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 ill be making my way to the nearist police station at the weekend to take photos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike edds Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Actually, due to an old case, you are allowed to "pass and repass", however stopping and taking a photo could be prosecuted, although not for the taking of the photo. IIRC it could be unlawful obstruction, though don't quote me 100% on what the offence actually is. (I'm exaggerating a bit, you don't have to be constantly in motion, but they might be able to wrangle a case out fo it) if its a public place you can take photos/film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloomdido Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Phone the SY Police press office tomorrow. Pretend to be a journalist. ask them for a comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike edds Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 check these two out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas stand up for your rights like this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyLmvrTwZ34&feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.