http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... tographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws
Fury as stop-and-search powers are used to block and confiscate legal pictures
By Jonathan Brown
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
The artist Reuben Powell was arrested and imprisoned for photographing an old government building
WILL WINTERCROSS
The artist Reuben Powell was arrested and imprisoned for photographing an old government building
Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.
With a studio near the 1960s shopping centre at the heart of this area in south London, he is a familiar figure and is regularly seen snapping and sketching the people and buildings around his home – currently the site of Europe's largest regeneration project. But to the police officers who arrested him last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk.
"The car skidded to a halt like something out of Starsky & Hutch and this officer jumped out very dramatically and said 'what are you doing?' I told him I was photographing the building and he said he was going to search me under the Anti-Terrorism Act," he recalled.
For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five hours in a cell after police seized the lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils. His release only came after the intervention of the local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was handcuffed and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database.
But Powell's experience is far from uncommon. Every week photographers wielding their cameras in public find themselves on the receiving end of warnings either by police, who stop them under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, or from over-eager officials who believe that photography in a public area is somehow against the law.
Groups from journalists to trainspotters have found themselves on the receiving end of this unwanted attention, with many photographers now fearing that their job or hobby could be under threat.
So serious has the situation become that the MP and keen photographer Austin Mitchell, chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Photography Group, tabled an early day motion last March deploring the "officious interference or unjustified suspicion" facing camera enthusiasts around public buildings, where they are increasingly told that it is against the law to photograph public servants at all – especially police officers or community support officers – or that members of the public cannot be photographed without their written permission. The Labour MP is now calling for a photography code for officers so that snappers can continue going about their rightful business.
Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. "Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places," a spokeswoman said.
But still the harassment goes on. Philip Haigh, the business editor of Rail magazine, said the bullying of enthusiasts on railway platforms has become an unwelcome fact of life in Britain. "It is a problem that doesn't ever seem to go away. We get complaints from railway photographers all the time that they are told to stop what they are doing, mainly by railway staff but also by the police. It usually results in an apologetic letter from a rail company," he said.
In the summer, armed police swooped on a group of trainspotters known as the Steam Boys as they waited with high-powered photographic equipment to capture a 1950s engine called The Great Marquess as it crossed the Forth Bridge near Gordon Brown's constituency home in Fife.
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also taken up the cause, highlighting the case last month of the photographer Jess Hurd, whose camera was taken from her when she was detained for 45 minutes under Section 44 while documenting a traveller wedding in London's Docklands. Last week police were filmed obstructing photographers covering a protest at the Greek embassy in London. Scotland Yard promised to investigate.
Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the NUJ, said: "It's time the police realised that taking photographs doesn't automatically mean you're a terrorist. Every month the NUJ finds itself dealing with yet more cases of officers infringing journalistic freedoms and, very often, exceeding their legal powers.
"Even the police's own guidance makes it clear that there's nothing in the Terrorism Act that can be used to prohibit the taking of photos in a public place. The authorities have got to do more to ensure that those people charged with upholding the law don't keep on contravening it by trampling over well-established civil liberties."[/quote]
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/N ... p?num=5855 Why can't we take pictures of policemen?
Telegraph / 14-02-2009
In that brief time not long after he became Prime Minister, when Gordon Brown was regarded as a serious political figure and one refreshingly less artful than his predecessor, he delivered a speech at the University of Westminster on liberty. It was an erudite and thoughtful exposition of this country's difficult, and sometimes bloody, attempts to come to terms with the countervailing demands of individual liberty and state power.
I recall being impressed that a prime minister was making such a weighty and thought-provoking speech. I even kept a copy, though it can be found on the Number 10 website; and after last week's decision to ban a Dutch MP from visiting Britain because of his views on Islam, I thought it apposite to read it again.
"Too often in recent years the public dialogue in our country has undervalued the importance of liberty," Mr Brown said. "Now is the time to reaffirm our distinctive British story of liberty – to show it is as rich, powerful and relevant to the life of the nation today as ever; to apply its lessons to the new tests of our time."
Yet, not for the first time, what the Government does bears no resemblance to its rhetoric. From today, new counter-terrorism laws come into effect that will entrench a growing tendency by the police to prevent anyone taking photographs in public, especially if they (the police) are the subject. There has been a worrying increase recently in police arresting or seeking to prevent what is a lawful activity.
Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours. When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".
Whereas in the past the police have not had the power to prevent photographs being taken of them, from today they have. Under the new Counter-Terrorism Act it is an offence to take pictures of officers "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". This is such a catch-all measure that it can be used – and, in view of recent trends, will be used – to prevent photographs to which the police object merely by invoking counter-terrorist requirements. While it is important for officers involved in such operations to maintain anonymity, many photographers fear these powers will be abused.
In an article in the British Journal of Photography, Justin Tallis, a freelance photographer, recounted how he was threatened while covering a protest against the BBC's decision not to broadcast a fundraising film for Gaza. He was approached by an officer who had just been photographed. According to Tallis, the officer tried to take his camera away, but gave up as other photographers captured the incident.
A few weeks ago, an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file. According to the Government, while there are no legal restrictions on photography in public places, "there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations".
The problem is that there are so many instances of counter-terror laws being invoked to stop perfectly innocent activities, such as trainspotting or bird watching, that many photographers do not believe such assurances.
There is a wider issue of creeping censorship which a new organisation, the Convention on Modern Liberty, is seeking to highlight with the publication today of a list of examples of this insidious development. They include a demand by Suffolk police that Facebook shut down a page dedicated to an over-zealous traffic warden because it contained "hurtful criticisms"; proposed curbs on financial reporting during the banking crisis; a ban on students filming an interview in Parliament Square; the threatened arrest of two evangelical preachers for committing a "hate crime" by handing out Gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham; the occasions when the police have reprimanded people for wearing T-shirts carrying political slogans; and, of course, the ban last week on Geert Wilders from showing a film on Islam to a group of parliamentarians.
In his speech on liberty, Mr Brown said: "The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty – by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather then reduces the sphere of freedom." At least it sounded good at the time.
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/N ... p?num=5856 Photographers angry at terror law
BBC / 16-02-2009
Hundreds of photographers have staged a protest outside Scotland Yard against a new law which they say could stop them taking pictures of the police.
The law makes it an offence to photograph police officers or military personnel if the picture could be used for a purpose linked to terrorism.
The National Union of Journalists said the law could be used to harass photographers working legitimately.
The Home Office said it was designed to protect counter-terrorism officers.
The NUJ wants the government to issue guidance to police forces on how exactly the law should be used by individual officers on the ground.
'Treated as terrorists'
The photographers, both professional and amateur, held a mass photo-call outside the Met Police headquarters at Scotland Yard on Monday.
They are angry at the introduction of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act and argue it can be used by police to stop and search them in any situation.
The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack
Metropolitan Police
Is it a crime to take pictures?
It makes it an offence to "elicit, publish or communicate information" relating to members of the Armed Forces, intelligence services and police, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Vice President of the NUJ Pete Murray said it was absurd to treat photographers as terrorists simply for doing their job.
"If the police officer isn't doing anything wrong then what are they worried about?" he told the BBC.
"I mean, we as citizens constantly get told that these extra security laws, terrorism laws, all of this surveillance stuff, is not a threat to us if we're not doing anything wrong.
"So why on earth it becomes a threat to a police officer to have a photographer, a working journalist, a photographer taking a picture of them is quite beyond me."
He said that even if an officer were in the background of a shot - for example, at a football match or street parade - "the photographer may end up on the wrong side of the law".
Critics say the law will prevent them reporting on legitimate protests
In a statement, the Home Office said taking pictures of police officers would only be deemed an offence in "very exceptional circumstances".
"The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack," it said.
"For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists."
The police added that anyone accused under the act could defend themselves by proving they had "a reasonable excuse" for taking the picture.
Anyone convicted under Section 76 could face a fine or a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment.
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/N ... p?num=5866 Calling the police to account
Guardian - Comment / 16-02-2009
On the day that it becomes illegal to take pictures of police engaged in counter-terrorist operations – in practice a ban on taking pictures of the police – it is worth noting events in Brighton recently where police set up outside a cafe and photographed people attending a meeting about the environment.According to the Brighton Argus, members of the Cowley Club, which was hosting a meeting of Earth First, "were confronted with four uniformed officers outside the Somerfield store, opposite the venue, snapping visitors using a paparazzi-style lens". One of the club members, David Biset, said the police were behaving in a deliberately "intimidating manner". He said:
Avenues of dissent are being closed down and police feel able to treat politics as a police matter. There was no suggestion of anything going on outside the building. The police have no reason to be there beyond intimidating people. You shouldn't be put on a database simply for attending a meeting.
The local MP, David Lepper, agrees that the police operation was designed to scare activists rather than prevent crime, and has written to the divisional commander for Brighton and Hove demanding to know why officers were photographing people engaged in a political activity. The police have refused to comment other than to produce the usual assertion that this was a normal police operation.
But of course this action breaches the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of association. It is clear that people will not feel free to meet on these legitimate matters of concern if the police are taking photographs and adding images to a database. What is worrying is that this operation may be an intimation of things to come with the new central intelligence unit set up by Acpo to monitor activists and extremist groups.
Although I write as someone who has no particular axe to grind about the police, I am beginning to wonder whether we have a serious problem with a police force that believes it is entitled to monitor political activity. Set against the new law banning photographs of the police – which surely will be used by every policeman parked on a double yellow line or meting out the rough justice – there is increasing tendency of the police to photograph people in an aggressive fashion. It shows an innate lack of respect for the innocent citizen and the conventions of our free society, which is extremely disturbing.
Yesterday the Mail on Sunday published an extensive investigation into Acpo and alleged that not only was it making vast amounts of money as a private company – a status that seems extraordinary given the money received via the Home Office from the taxpayer – but that it had been pushing a self-serving agenda that mimicked the governing board of a national police service, yet without the accountability and scrutiny expected in most public bodies.
The Mail called it "One of the most mysterious and powerful organisations in Britain". The paper, which has led a lot of reporting on the crisis of rights and liberties in this country, went on to comment:
Now it turns out to be a comfortable gravy train for retired police chiefs and a grasping business charging the public up to £70 for criminal records information which it can obtain for 60p.
In response to this story, Acpo produced a statement from its head Ken Jones:
British policing is among the best in the world and in counter-terrorism, in the way we investigate murder, in forensics and many other areas of criminal investigation we are recognised leaders through the efforts of chief officers working through Acpo. Beyond 44 local police forces there is no national operational policing structure and so chief officers voluntarily combine through Acpo to agree approaches, lift the performance of the police service and protect lives.
He did not address the substantive issue that Acpo is run on largely secret and unaccountable lines and in the rest of the statement he doesn't deny Acpo's profiteering activity. The paper is right when it says "Parliament should urgently investigate this strange, unaccountable body and bring it under proper control". We need to take a serious look at the police and policing in Britain and establish certain ground rules which say that the police have no business assessing what is and what is not legitimate political activity.
I end with the quote from Winston Churchill, which I first used in the Summerfield lecture at the Cheltenham Literary Festival two years ago. It bears repeating.
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
For all our sakes this battle must be fought now and not left until it is too late.
Any other suggestions welcome 
As a licence fee payer am I now an accomplice to... terrorism?
