Brit photographer who shot demolition of flyover arrested for terrorism
Alex took his camera out to photograph the demolition of a flyover (overpass) in Chatham, England. After refusing to give his identification to two plainclothes people who refused to identify themselves, he was arrested under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act (he did explain to the police and the mystery plainclothes people why he was there and what he had photographed, which is more than I would have done). The police officer put him in cuffs and led him down his town's main road and locked him in a police van. Once in the van, he was questioned about his views on terrorism. Later, a policewoman who said that he had caught her in one of his shots felt "intimidated" by him because he was tall (implying, I suppose, that he wouldn't have been arrested if he was shorter -- terrorists take note). Alex has complained to the police Professional Standards Department:
Section 44 in Chatham High Street. (Thanks, Mike!)
I believe the way I was treated was unjustified and wholly disproportionate. I assert that officer xxxxx misused her powers of arrest and demonstrated a poor understanding of the law in relation to arrest, the use of force, the use of detention, photography in public places, obstruction and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000. Furthermore I assert that officer xxxxx is unsuitable to act as a police officer or at the very least requires further training if she is intimidated by a male of an unremarkable stature taking a single picture with a camera pointed in her direction. I assert that officer xxxxx failed to follow the correct procedures when conducting his search of me and perpetuated the use of unreasonable force by refusing to release me from handcuffs. I assert that PCSO xxxxx demonstrated an unacceptable attitude by making a veiled threat towards me in relation to my future activities as an amateur photographer. I seek for these matters to be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me. With regards to redress I seek a written apology in relation to any shortfalls identified with regards to the involved officer's conduct and consideration of compensation to be made to me for the upset, embarrassment and psychological trauma caused. I would also like Kent and Medway Police to liaise with Medway Council in order to identify the two unidentified men that initially stopped and questioned me. I seek for their conduct to also be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me.
the latest
latest episodes
With so many of these stories coming out of the UK I am doing what I can do from across the pond to voice my objection by simply not be spending my holiday money in the UK. If enough of us follow suit, there would be change.
Am I the only one thinking that British cops are, basically, complete pussies? How many stories have we heard where they were whining about someone taking a photo that is going to end up on some nerd's facebook page? BFD. Grow a pair, for "Bob"'s sake! Or get out of the police force and let people with thicker skins in.
To make matters worse, they decided to stop the poor guy again for the exact same offence. The Register has details and an analysis of exactly how legal this really is under UK law (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/22/kent_police/)
@1 it would help if you wrote to parliament and informed them of that. Nuns in the monastery, all that.
Why on earth were there plainclothes officers present? Is it a criminal act to detain plainly dressed folk on the basis they're pretending to be police officers? I might try that.
As for stories coming out of the UK, the overall attitude of US citizens is one of such thorough intimidation by the numerous police forces that I'm constantly shocked. In the UK people enjoy giving the coppers two fingers.
Even if they break them.
Interestingly, the US supreme court held up an arrest conviction of a person who failed to properly identify himself;
http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=security/bigbrother/supreme-court-backs-police-on-showing-ID.txt
So this is not isolated to Britain. Anything to prevent terrorism.
Ok, you Britons are starting to seriously worry me. COming from New Zealand, which has historically taken its lead from Britain, and from Australia, which seems to be following Britain more closely, I am becoming increasingly concerned after each such article.
I occasionally daydream about, if I was to live in another country, which it would be. Every time any news item comes out of Britain, it gets knocked further down the list. Mind you it makes the Now Show funnier.
The line about 'intimidation' might have been an attempt to lay the groundwork for a charge under the 1986 Public Order Act. It's an offense (although a very minor one) to do anything that might lead to a reasonable person feeling intimidated. Hence once in a while cops try this one on: magistrates don't always let them get away with it.
Since I like to take pictures when I go on vacation, it seems to me I would be better off avoiding the UK. I guess the terrorists won.
Thank you, John Marshall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review#Judicial_review_of_primary_legislation
(N.B. No, America is not in any way immune to stupid police and stupid laws; it's just nice to know Congress isn't assumed always to be right.)
@#2 I think you send too much time watching Chuck Norris films mate.
So, a serious question instead of my usual snark - my wife and I were considering a trip to Scotland, but as I continue to read these sorts of stories coming out of the UK, I wonder: is it this bad in the North? or is this somewhat restricted to the South? I saw a post somewhere (BB?) that showed CCTV cam density superimposed on a map of the UK, and it seemed everything was far away from where I want to go. Is this really the case? Can any Scottish Boingers comment?
#4 @WalterBillington I think I'll take your advice and write that letter to Parliament. I'm doing somewhat ok despite the recession, perhaps the threat of dollars missing will hold stronger than the threat of protest and strike?
She was "intimidated" by him because he was tall? That policewoman is either a liar or a whimp. Either way she needs more training or to find another job. If she can't deal with the public without controling her ego she isn't fit to be a police officer.
Phil: sorry, but not really. Check my comments on http://www.boingboing.net/2009/07/20/cctv-density-maps-of.html for details.
@1 CJP: With so many of these stories coming out of the UK
I've been wondering about this, actually. I believe the UK is over-represented because Cory lives there, he pays attention, and is loud about these issues.
I live in France, and I'm positive there are tons of similar stories in this country, but we don't have a froggy Cory highlighting them.
These are a problem, certainly, and these things need to change.
But I think the problem is just over-zealous policing rather than any "police-state". Better training should eliminate this.
I hope...
So I image the game of "badges" is a little difficult in the UK.
I have spent countless bored hours at airports with friends seeing who can take the most and the best pictures of TSA security badges. (yes. basically to creep out TSA employees and see if anyone gets pissy).
Equally effective - Ask for complaint forms and a supervisor to explain the process of making a complaint.
Robot Mistake
@9
I've lived in Scotland for three years and am an amatuer photographer myself. Usually I do landscapes but I have occasionally done street photography and I've never felt anything along these lines. I haven't really heard of many of this type of thing in Scotland. I hope you enjoy your visit to Scotland...it's truly a beautiful place!
In general though I have heard of a few in the states as well not just the UK.
2 plainclothes people who refused to identify themselves tried to detain Alex? Bullshit. They ASSAULTED Alex.
This is exactly why more people in Britain should be armed. Self defense is not a crime.
I'm beginning to suspect that we'll see these sorts of stories daily. It's nice to see that he isn't putting up with this crap, and the first thing he's done is made a complaint.
The law prohibiting photographing police is horse manure, and is readily spilling over into photography in public spaces.
Cory was taking photos of the Police not 12 hours ago. Why? Because we document the world around us. It's what we do.
What happens of a police officer walks in front of a CCTV? Omigosh... instant crime! Better take down all those cameras to avoid breaking the law.
Or alternatively, since CCTV-covered areas are already sooooo safe, the police could simply avoid those areas altogether.
I used to live in Chatham when I was growing up. Awful, awful place to be.
Get out of England now. No joke. Don't wait to be trapped there.
Easy, #15, no need to flee the country just because a few dumb cops got it wrong.
And they did get it wrong. The whole sorry saga is of cops getting it wrong. Since the incident, the Met put out a memo saying, roughly, "photography is not a crime" (which needs to be on a T-shirt, skateboarding-style).
There is _no_ law prohibiting ordinary photography. If any of these stories ever made it to prosecution, that prosecution would be thrown out because there's no terrorism connection. Everyone gets released after a bit of intimidation, which suggests the usual cop+person attitude fail in most cases.
@#8: Actually... I don't recall ever seeing a Chuck Norris film. I am, of course, familiar with the actor and the meme. Regardless, it still doesn't change the pussiness of British cops. A little photo and a snarky comment isn't going to hurt anyone and if they think it will then they are in the wrong profession.
@11 : stories of people arrested for taking pictures of a building ? I don't think so. I may be wrong, but I haven't heard of anything like it.
Not that France is a rose garden, we do have our lot of police abuse, including roughing up photographers, but that usually takes place in or around demonstrations - not to say it isn't a big deal, but it is a little more understandable. Seems to me that Britons have it a lot worse.
It's not as bad as these articles make it seem, though I think Section44 was a mistake and we have the Blair Admin to thank for that. The best thing you can do is just comply with what you have to comply with, however you don't have to comply with as much as you might think. Here is some info for any British person or anyone visiting Britain that is concerned about this sort of treatment.
YOUR RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 44:
• The police can only give you a pat down, remove outer clothes (eg jacket, hat), search your bags and have you empty your pockets
• You do not have to give your name and address
• You do not have to explain why you are there
• You are not allowed to flee the search, but you are not required to be actively compliant. You are allowed to 'go limp' as passive resistance during the search if you wish not to comply
• There is no permission to collect DNA data during the search
• You do not have to comply with any attempt to photograph or record you
• Women cannot be touched by male police during these searches
• Make notes about the officers searching you - name, number and police force
• Note the time and the events preceding the search
• Note the specific wording used by the police to explain their authority to search you
• Ask the police for the reason that they are searching you. Specifically, are they searching for terrorists or are they simply trying to deter, delay or inconvenience you?
If you want more information just check http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/
I have written to my MP about three times already on this subject. I suggest you all do the same(those of you who are 'subjects' of the arcane UK political system). How about starting a mass movement that systematically takes photos of police officers at every occasion we see one. Anybody interested? Maybe if they are sensitised to it they will stop hassling us.
No permission to collect DNA data during the search? OK I'll admit, that's pretty smart and forward-thinking.
But "women cannot be touched by male police".... sexist much? What about the other way around? What if a gay cop tries to caress my sack? Or what if the person being searched is a minor? Paedophiles rank pretty high up on the UK's threatdown list.
if UK citizens have no rights it seems far too dangerous for foreigners to visit there.
The British public has a long history of appeasement. They, like many others, have the government they deserve.
Maybe police officers heard that when someone takes a picture of you it takes a little bit of your soul and this has really upset them.
"This is exactly why more people in Britain should be armed. Self defense is not a crime."
No, Ted.. but a disproportionate response surely is.
If you think an armed reaction is an appropriate play when being detained non-violently by the police, you may be the problem.
Whatever about the bullshit ways the police are treating people regarding their right to unhindered public photography, bringing violence into the equation is exactly what society doesn't need.
I'll bet you put little effort into trying to change misguided laws and civil liberty transgressions, and an awful lot of running your mouth about the right to arm bears. I'd happily be wrong, but I'd guess I'm not.
I propose a means of measuring relative police oppression: the PCI ("police criminality index") It is derived by the number of police killed by citizens in ratio to civilians killed by police. We need to keep score. Wide awareness of the PCI would have a salutary effect on all since each side could know who was losing and was therefore most motivated to catch up.
@20
If it's the other way round, ask her to check your pocket for offensive sharp objects ;)
If a gay officer tries to caress your sack, count yourself lucky it isn't a 'strip 'n show us your crack' search. Also if he really likes you maybe he'll give you his number and then you can write him up.
In terms of minors I think they are more restricted since the only thing worse than terrorists is swine flu, bankers, politicians' expense accounts and peados! Quick withdraw all your money and lock it in the basement with your children!
At the end of the day at least the CCTV cameras are they to protect us all from crime...or at least to record the crime and put it on a TV show.
The "terrorists" (politicians overuse that word today for their own agendas) have won; one of the world's old democracies has turned into a Fascist state.
Every so often the Police get out of hand, and if it continues there will be riots, and the police will be cornered, they'll get what they deserve. They have distanced themselves so far from the public, they are on there own now. I saw some footage of a group of police surrounded by G20 demonstrators, they where crapping themselves. Its coming, UK is tipping over, the economy is going down the shitter, there will be riots.
Anonymous @30: And, doubtless, you have a long history of making fatuous statements under the cloak of anonymity.
I don't get it ... Paranoia deep destroyer! I was in Australia in 06' Daydreaming, oodles of time on my hand, walking around Sydney. When something took my fancy on the street I snapped ... for the most part I was fine, though I sensed a weirdness to me as a weirdo with camera strolling at snails-pace exhibiting random curiosity. In Paddington, a cafe with shiny, cool looking aluminum tables and chairs, placed on the sidewalk was irresistible to my lens. I slowed down, crouched down for a second, shot a few down, shot a few up, across the angle and finished with an extreme close-up of the surface of one table. No big deal, right! A waiter from within the cafe came stomping out of the empty cafe and started yelling, "who are you, what are you doing" I said, "I am me a person on the street and I'm taking a photograph of objects on the street." ""You can't do that" he squawked" I politely told him I could and to mind his own business. Nothing happened, he backed off furious, but WHY,WHY? I continued my liberty walk but it put a slight dent in the overall atmosphere. This easily had potential to go awry had my attitude been more adversarial.
Weirdo With a Camera!
This is the exact reason why I will not be visiting the UK any time soon. Doesn't seem like much of a friendly place any more.
When photographing, just keep cool like #38 and be aware that people may fuss about this.
It's a stupid diversion anyway - the level of accuracy required for a terrorist attack like Mumbai is easily achieved with a camera nestled in a bag etc ... so many devices.
I remember the uproar when some brits were detained in Greece for (I though stupidly!) taking pictures of a military airfield.
Anyhoo - if a "plainclothes" and unidentified officer makes any attempt whatsoever to detain or question me, they can expect a sharp response. I should treat them just like a potential kidnapper or assailant. In fact, even if a uniformed person does so, I may well insist on talking to their station to ensure they are who they say they are!
Let's remember England has a long history of civil liberties, starting with the Magna Carta.
And how embarrassing for Kennington police station - four of their officers caught shagging one civilian in the loos of a pub, and so on and so on.
It's really all a bit dirty, isn't it?
how about some posters?
"Notice to the Public:
Terrorists have been infiltrating the area by posing as plain-clothes policemen. Be alert! Do your civic duty by challenging and questioning anyone claiming to be a police officer and failing to produce identification. Do not hesitate to use physical force on these terrorists if you suspect them! We recommend immobilizing them by stabbing them in the eye with a ball-point pen until real authorities can be summoned. Do your duty for your country!"
@Arkizzle: Being detained non-violently isn't much of a detention, is it? How are we *sure* the plainclothes security pair didn't try to physically restrain the photographer?
If two combative individuals attempt to restrain you, and they haven't identified themselves as law enforcement, self defense is entirely appropriate. Of course, the most appropriate defensive action in that situation would be to leave. No need for ursine brachial appendages.
Not to excuse this case, which I feel is very wrong, but anecdotally, I have been living in the UK in London for the past 3 years, and have taken photos whenever and of whatever I have felt like, and not been harrassed once.
I have not even witnessed any police hassling anyone taking photos. Not to say it doesn't happen, but just adding in a voice of the possibly silent majority of perfectly happy snappers.
Ted,
So you are suggesting that the penalty for misidentification is wounding with a deadly weapon?
I'm in the middle of listening to the audio book of Cory's "Little Brother." I no longer believe that it's fiction.
Miles
@Arkizzle: nope, not suggesting wounding at all. Misidentification requires no "penalty" at all, except maybe for an awkward apology.
If a person gets jumped by 2 goons, they ought to be able to get to safety. That's all.
Britain got this way because its people relinquished their capacity for violence. When only the state is allowed to protect you, it will protect you, good and hard.
And no, the appropriate response to being kidnapped is to use every means available to get away, including lethal violence.
Cops should be in uniform, they should identify themselves, and they should stop engaging in chest-thumping, "respect mah authoritah" security theater.