One more attack on our liberties. Whilst small and insignificant to
many, as a professional photographer I not only have to watch my back
for someone intent on smacking me on the head to steal my kit, I have to
now watch out for the uber pig with no brain and too much power to
pepper spray me for doing my job. Another nail in the coffin of
liberty. I note the writer asks will it be abused by the police? Well
I can only suggest he apply for the stupid question of the month award.
Jail for photographing police?
The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next
month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and
imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends
the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about
members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a
police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A
of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit
information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind
likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment
for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by
police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers,
from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police
officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin
Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.
Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest
on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer.
Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see
the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press
photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.
According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away.
Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken
that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera
by photojournalist Marc Vallee.
Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British
Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds,
but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from
your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.
The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur
photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police 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.
A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious
circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police
officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and
areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not
something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to
verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers
are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.
The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by
more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the
police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places.
'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places.
However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in
a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of
photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise
security considerations,
'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter
for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in
respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a
specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of
the relevant force.'
However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the
excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under
section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James
Welch, said the powers were used too widely.
In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for
more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of
a couple married in Docklands.
She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was
forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card, three
police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.
'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to
detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because
you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped
under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the
photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive
place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.
The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited to
the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on
photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the
country's parliament building.
Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he was
targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic police
systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying them,'
he says.
The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing
parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial system
collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of foreign
debts incurred by its banks.
Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted
by the Icelandic Police.
http://www.bjp-
Friday, 30 January 2009
Posts
