Snap a Copper Today
Back in June (when the sun was shining) a group of protesters gathered at the EDO MBM factory to express their views on the arms trade and EDO’s involvement. The protest descended into what was described as a riot with police struggling to keep the crowds under control, resorting to using dogs, batons and strong-arm tactics.
An associate of the illustrious Amateur Brain Surgery Club was in attendance, snapping pics on his fancy new digital SLR. He soon found himself confronted by several police officers who warned him that if he continued to take pictures his equipment would be confiscated and he was liable to be arrested under section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000.
Not wanting to lose his new camera, or be arrested, he ceased snapping. But the truth of the matter is that people don’t need permission, in the UK, to take photographs in public places and the police have no power to stop people from filming or photographing them or events as long as they are occurring in a public area.
This post: Photography is actually still legal in the UK makes the point very clearly.
More detail on photographers rights in the UK can be found here: UK Photographers rights.
So we encourage every camera carrying reader to snap pictures of any and every incident involving the police because they cannot legally arrest you for doing so. The UK law makes it clear that photography is not a crime – but preventing people from doing so by threatening them with arrest and confiscation of their equipment surely is.
Herbert Lex Shallcross III wrote,
You put the police there because you often cannot be trusted to behave. The police are your creation. Unfortunately they are people much like yourself, and there is no reason to assume they will always behave either.
Police are tired of being portrayed as the villain when they are mostly just trying to maintain order, so it’s illegal, yes, but understandable that they would like to get some control of the narrative. When they see someone taking pictures, they know from bitter experience that the caption isn’t going to be “Heroic policemen restrain dangerous rioters”. Of course, they aren’t going to have much luck putting that genie back in the bottle, with almost very person carrying a cell phone camera, often with video capability, and the proliferation of police security cameras.
Free speech is a very fine thing, but I see a clear difference between writing a comment on a website, or orating on a soapbox in the park and conspiring with others to create a riot.
Try to convince me that the G-20 protestors setting fires, breaking store windows and assaulting police didn’t come there to create as much havoc as they could.
It’s important to remember that there are some who would like the social compact overthrown, and since they have no legitimate way to convince a majority to agree with them, they will use force. Whatever you think of their ends, it certainly would require breaking a lot of eggs to make that omelet. The police are your defense against having your shell cracked.
Interesting that the police officer cited an anti-terrorism statute. A protest riot(unlike say, a soccer riot) is a attempt to use violent intimidation to achieve some end or other. Sounds like terrorism to me!
Link | July 16th, 2011 at 2:44 pm