Photographer threatened with arrest and forced to delete images
in [UK Photography]
|
From: Ian Jackson on 2 Aug 2010 10:36 In message <8u4pdDDiNsVMFA2f(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> writes >In message <l4fY8CKlvrVMFw1m(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET >HISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> writes >>In message <wLy5o.68607$zo4.55624(a)hurricane>, nonanon >><none(a)invalid.com> writes >>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:17:03 +0100, Phil Stovell wrote: >>> >>>> They're still at it. >>>> >>>> http://londonphotographers.org/2010/08/photographer-threatened-arrest- >>>forced-delete-images/ >>> >>>That police officer should be in serious trouble - >>>* she was in public >>>* outside the cordon >>>* she was carrying a press card >>>* she identified herself by showing her press card. >>> >>It is irrelevant that she was carrying a press card and identified >>herself by showing her press card. She has no more (and no fewer) >>rights than any other person present. > >It is relevant. She had ID and a legitimate reason to be there. She was in a public place, outside the police cordon. Did she have a 'more legitimate' reason than anyone else to be there? > Press >cards are not issued lightly and have a picture on them. > They simply serve to identify the holder as a bona fide employee or member of one medium or another. >Normally this does make a difference as I discovered yesterday at an RTA >and the press are treated slightly differently to the general public and >it is a two way street and the police often need the help of the media. > The police will often (and quite rightly too, and for whatever reason) allow certain privileges and facilities certain people (for example, access to restricted areas, such as crime scenes). This will be at the discretion of the police, and not a 'right'. As such, they could just as well allow non-card-carrying persons the same privileges (maybe just because they liked the look of your face). The point I'm getting at is the NUJ keeps on stressing that it is press photographers and reporters who are being messed about by the police. This is undoubtedly true but, as a results of their protests, I would not like to see the press being granted any legal privileges over 'ordinary people'. -- Ian
From: spacecadet on 2 Aug 2010 11:20 >> > It is irrelevant that she was carrying a press card and identified > herself by showing her press card. She has no more (and no fewer) rights > than any other person present. In fact she has. Press photographs are privileged and even if they suspect they may be useful to a terrorist the police cannot insist on seeing them, let alone deleting.
From: spacecadet on 2 Aug 2010 11:20 I would > not like to see the press being granted any legal privileges over > 'ordinary people'. They already have them.
From: Chris H on 2 Aug 2010 12:21 In message <pan.2010.08.02.14.30.58.308103(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk>, Phil Stovell <phil(a)stovell.nospam.org.uk> writes >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:04:25 +0100, Chris H wrote: > >> So far I have been lucky when dealing with the police. > >Please report back when you get hassled, it can only be a matter of time. I agree.... that is why I said "I have been lucky" so far. I also always carry several photographers rights cards from various sources. Some home office letters on photography, the Met Police guidelines and the Mark Thomas stop and search card. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Chris H on 2 Aug 2010 12:20
In message <m8rY9PB1ftVMFwUF(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET HISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> writes >In message <8u4pdDDiNsVMFA2f(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H ><chris(a)phaedsys.org> writes >>In message <l4fY8CKlvrVMFw1m(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET >>HISjackson(a)g3ohx.demon.co.uk> writes >>>In message <wLy5o.68607$zo4.55624(a)hurricane>, nonanon >>><none(a)invalid.com> writes >>>>On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:17:03 +0100, Phil Stovell wrote: >>>> >>>>> They're still at it. >>>>> >>>>> http://londonphotographers.org/2010/08/photographer-threatened-arrest- >>>>forced-delete-images/ >>>> >>>>That police officer should be in serious trouble - >>>>* she was in public >>>>* outside the cordon >>>>* she was carrying a press card >>>>* she identified herself by showing her press card. >>>> >>>It is irrelevant that she was carrying a press card and identified >>>herself by showing her press card. She has no more (and no fewer) >>>rights than any other person present. >> >>It is relevant. She had ID and a legitimate reason to be there. > >She was in a public place, outside the police cordon. Did she have a >'more legitimate' reason than anyone else to be there? Yes under Counter Terrorist and other laws. For example (certainly in the past if not now) the Police in a riot situation would move people out of the area. However they would not move the press who were recording the event rather than taking part etc. This seems to have changed of late. Also of course the Press usually had insurance. Though in some, legitimate, cases the police do not want any pictures taken. At one incident I was asked not to take any pictures of some people and delete some pictures. This was because some were undercover police and some of the armed team had their faces visible. The situation and the operation was ongoing. I deleted the photos as asked. >> Press >>cards are not issued lightly and have a picture on them. >They simply serve to identify the holder as a bona fide employee or >member of one medium or another. Yes... And having a legitimate reason for having lots of recording equipment of various sorts and showing more than a passing interest in proceedings. You would expect in depth questions and telephoto lenses from the press but not usually from a random collection of bystanders. >>Normally this does make a difference as I discovered yesterday at an RTA >>and the press are treated slightly differently to the general public and >>it is a two way street and the police often need the help of the media. >> >The police will often (and quite rightly too, and for whatever reason) >allow certain privileges and facilities certain people (for example, >access to restricted areas, such as crime scenes). This will be at the >discretion of the police, and not a 'right'. Agreed. However the reporter in this case was in a public place. >As such, they could just as well allow non-card-carrying persons the >same privileges (maybe just because they liked the look of your face). As happened to me yesterday. I have a company id that says I am a photographer but not Press card as issued by the NUJ or BBC etc. BTW my company ID does not claim to be a press card. There are a lot of photographers carrying UK/Euro/World "PRESS-CARDS" that are no more valid than my company ID. You can buy them from many web sites and Psuedo press organisations aimed at people who don't qualify for a real press-card. >The point I'm getting at is the NUJ keeps on stressing that it is press >photographers and reporters who are being messed about by the police. Yes... Not just the NUJ but many groups are complaining. >This is undoubtedly true but, as a results of their protests, I would >not like to see the press being granted any legal privileges over >'ordinary people'. I understand your point. Why not? -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |