TERRORISM ALERT
|
This could be a terrorism alert. Not what's happening in the street - it's me taking the picture. In the last few years, there has been a lot of talk in the photographic press about the relationship between photographers and the police. Stories of unreasonable behaviour by the police now come in thick and fast, not helped by pronouncements by members of the government backing up such behaviour. I believe, and perhaps you thought too, that it was fine to use a camera in a public place. (With the proviso that you weren't causing a genuine public nuisance or that you weren't using long lenses to pry into private places.) Well, that has all changed. Here's what Gordon Brown has said: "There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However … there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations." These 'security considerations' have been the basis for many stop and search attacks by police on innocent photographers. It's been used on trainspotters. It's even been used to stop accredited press photographers from taking pictures of incidents such as train crashes. The situation is serious. New laws now allow for the arrest and imprisonment for up to ten years of anyone who takes pictures of officers. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 targets 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'. This is not acceptable. We cannot walk down a street with a camera with the fear that we will be arrested for taking pictures. Remember what the new U.S. president said in his inaugural address. He referred to the false choice between security and freedom. That is what is happening here. Here's how Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (is she still Home Secretary? It's hard to remember...)recently summed it up. "There is no legal restriction on photography in public places … [and] there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place. Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation. It is for the local chief constable to decided how his or her officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection." One immediate question is: "What are the public being protected from?" Reported in a recent copy of the magazine British Journal of Photography is the story of amateur photographer Andrew Carter. He was arrested and kept in a cell for five hours for photographing a police officer, PC Farooq, driving into a road against a no-entry sign. The eventual apology from the Avon and Somerset Police begs the questions, "Why was Mr Carter arrested, and what was the public being protected from?" Extended correspondence from a photography representative with Avon and Somerset Constabulary deputy chief constable Rob Beckley ended with the following: 'I do not intend to spend any more time in correspondence with you on this matter." This followed the asking of such question as: 'Did PC Farooq drive his police van past a No Entry sign?' 'Did PC Farooq knock Mr Carter's camera to the ground?' 'Did PC Farooq accuse Mr Carter of assaulting him?' ' Was Mr Carter innocent of all the offences PC Farooq accused him of?' 'It's a matter of security' is a phrase used to justify all manner of unreasonable behaviour by authorities. But just stop for a minute. Why on earth would a genuine terrorist take pictures in the street, of the police or a building or anything? You can find more pictures on the internet of just about anything than you could possibly take yourself. In all but extreme instances already covered by ordinary legislation, there can be no security consideration that could permit the police to harass a photographer. Even worse, the expression 'operational matter' has crept into the police and government vocabulary to cover photographing anything at all: banning pictures of illegally parked police vehicles, for example. Or anything.
|