• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

brave policemen save armed forces from evil photographers

#1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-2012827.html

hilarious but sad two police cadet officers attempt to bully a 16 yr old photographer and come off worse looks like his tution fees will be paid by the met :twisted: photography is not a crime apart from mdns album obviously. Its fair one to ask what someones doing with a camera if out of the ordianry but that can be done without making somebody feel like a criminal

Two police officers stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day parade - and then claimed they did not need a law to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he was ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental permission to capture images of the cadets.

The student, who works as a freelance photojournalist in his spare time, decided to record his confrontation on his mobile phone, providing an insight into the legal arguments that the officers were using to justify stopping him from taking photographs.

The parade he was photographing was one 350 public marches held to mark Armed Forces Day, a new event which was created last year amid criticism that the country didn't do enough to honour its military.

Mr Mattson said his confrontation began when he started taking photographs of police cadets.

“I was quickly and aggressively stopped by one of their adult officers asking me who I worked for,” he wrote on his blog. “I responded that I was a freelance and upon being told I needed parental permission to photograph them, I explained this was a public event in a public place and that I didn’t for editorial use.”

The audio recording begins minutes later with an officer initially arguing that it is illegal to take photographs of children. He then claims that it is illegal to take images of army members and police officers
 
#2
Brave police save children in uniform from child with a camera by lying about their authority?

Whoop-de-do. Roll on the "Great Reform Bill".
 

ancienturion

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
It is unfortunate that the previous government allowed the constabularies and their senior offices to get grand ideas and the term "force" was, and still is, bandied about. It would seem that, similar to certain MPs, there are those police officers who consider themselves above the law or providing their own law. The use of the descriptive term force is not necessary and the police should stop using it.
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Phiotographer was a fukcwit
When asked by plod what he was up to he should have pointed out he wanted to call them all baby killers, priase allah and jihad
They would have gave him grandstand seats
 
#7
brighton hippy said:
The audio recording begins minutes later with an officer initially arguing that it is illegal to take photographs of children. He then claims that it is illegal to take images of army members and police officers
The cadet instructor attempts to throw around weight that he does not have. When his bluff is called by the photographer, the fun started.

They initially make vague accusations that the photographer is a paedophile. When this fails to intimidate him, they state that he is a suspected terrorist. That puts him in a group of 300,000 people who were stopped on that basis last year.

When that also fails, they fall back on breach of the peace and anti-social behaviour. Although he was never arrested, he was "detained" (what's the difference) and taken out of the public view before, allegedly, being pushed down a flight of stairs.

Harassement of people like this is becoming a serious problem, so much so that the Met have published guidelines for all police and PCSOs about what they can and can't do to photographers.

I am aware of:-

A woman being pushed to the ground and handcuffed to a railing in a tube station for photographing police searching her boyfriend for drugs.

A bloke being arrested 'on suspicion of terrorism' because he videoed a police car driving the wrong way down a one way street to collect fish and chips from a chippy.

Another arrest on 'suspicion of terrorism' for photographing a celeb switching on the Christmas lights. The arrest and physical detention of the photographer was made by a PCSO who has no powers of arrest on suspicion. Strictly speaking, I think the PCSO was guilty of kidnapping.

A councillor, stopped and searched under the terrorism act for taking photos of the ward he represents to put on his web site.

There are a whole load of videos about this on youtube.
 
#8
Hopefully, this government might look at the ridiculous amount of legislation introcuded by the last, and simnplify it.

Hopefully this government could look to regaining our rights to make our own laws, and remove the unnecessary and crushingly inefficient needs to meet Eurpoean Laws.

Hopefully this governmen't actual plan to reduce the emphais on targets and allow CC's to police to their own priorities will assist, and might even rsult in more police officers being qualified to get out facing the public again.

hopefully this government will nnot go ahead with its marvellous new idea of reducing prison places, to have more offenders out on the street.

That is, however, a lotta lotta hope.
 
#9
I strongly suspect the boy may eventually get enough compensation to buy a fancy new camera or two. I hope he does. At one point in my career I was an attorney for a police department on my side of the pond. Where I worked this would have resulted in a period of retraining for all officers involved and perhaps a bit of vacation time without pay.
 
#10
Curious. There might be a confusion in the report:

Two police officers stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day parade - and then claimed they did not need a law to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he was ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental permission to capture images of the cadets.
Were the people being photographed on this Armed Forces Day parade really 'police cadets', or were they in fact army, air or sea cadets?

Police cadets are not children.

But an ACF officer would have had no authority to order a member of the public to give his personal details.

Persistent and annoying taking of photographs could amount to an assault or breach of the peace type offence in extreme circumstances, but I would find it hard to argue that normal photography of cadets engaged in a public Armed Forces Day commemoration requires the photographer to obtain permission from the cadets' parents.
 
#11
If you watch and listen to the video on the Indie link it is police cadets, then he changes his mind as there are ACF/ATC there and then again to 'taking pictures of the soldiers or the police is illegal'. The main protagonist is clearly a more mature police constable. It's very reminiscent of Constable Dimbleby at his best...
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
DavidBOC said:
I strongly suspect the boy may eventually get enough compensation to buy a fancy new camera or two. I hope he does. At one point in my career I was an attorney for a police department on my side of the pond. Where I worked this would have resulted in a period of retraining for all officers involved and perhaps a bit of vacation time without pay.
Compensation would be nice - but only to restitute what was broken or damaged, rather than for damaged feelings. It all comes out of the public purse anyway.

What should happen is that those involved be named, shamed, and trained in the law correctly. I don't for a second think that this will happen - the Coppers will close ranks and defend their own (much as the Army did in Basra). This is laudable in one way, as a show of group spirit and loyalty, but can be pretty offensive to the vast majority of people looking on from the outside, I'm afraid.
 
#13
hackle said:
, but I would find it hard to argue that normal photography of cadets engaged in a public Armed Forces Day commemoration requires the photographer to obtain permission from the cadets' parents.
You would find it impossible, as it doesn't.

msr
 
#15
I know some members of this site are also part of the Old Bill - they need to fucking grip their people. This properly grips my shit as the fuzz are out of control. This is relatively minor compared to several instances of police actions I've witnessed during three years living in the north...including a platoon strength riot police squad complete with dogs literally attacking a student house party. Only 5 people ended up in hospital, were any weapons or drugs found? No. Were the damages to property and physical abuse paid by the police. No.

Can't fucking stand the police in this country.
 

Attachments

#16
hackle said:
Curious. There might be a confusion in the report:

Two police officers stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day parade - and then claimed they did not need a law to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he was ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental permission to capture images of the cadets.
Were the people being photographed on this Armed Forces Day parade really 'police cadets', or were they in fact army, air or sea cadets?

Police cadets are not children.
Yes they are. This is the organisation in question: http://www.met.police.uk/cadets/

hackle said:
But an ACF officer would have had no authority to order a member of the public to give his personal details.
Neither does a Police Cadet leader. The blokes on the tape are actual Police Officers. The cadet leader who originally approached the photographer was female and her voice doesn't feature on the recording.

hackle said:
Persistent and annoying taking of photographs could amount to an assault or breach of the peace type offence in extreme circumstances, but I would find it hard to argue that normal photography of cadets engaged in a public Armed Forces Day commemoration requires the photographer to obtain permission from the cadets' parents.
Yep. The reaction was fcuking ridiculous.
 
#17
top quotes by inspector John Fish of the metropolitan police

"you were acting silly"

"you know what, I consider you a threat under the terrorism act"

"my public privacy law"

Another Own goal by the Met.
 
#18
Can't remember exactly but the police say they are stopping terrorism under some crime act (Sect 44?) WTF has this guy done to be suspected as a terrorist? I believe that the police have no rights to tell you to stop photographing anyone or anyone and certainly not some parents at school plays/sports days etc.

Get a life. If I wanted to harm your child, I'd think of better ways than temporarily blinding them with a camera flash!
 
#19
It would appear that the Met Police are so confused by the Law that they have needed to Publish this on their website:

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

What I can not understand is why the police officers concerned have not been charged with assault at the very least.

For those that think this was a one off: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jun/28/press-freedom-police-marc-vallee

Photography advice
The Metropolitan Police Service’s approach towards photography in public places is a subject of regular debate.

We encourage officers and the public to be vigilant against terrorism but recognise the importance not only of protecting the public from terrorism but also promoting the freedom of the public and the media to take and publish photographs.

Guidance around the issue has been made clear to officers and PCSOs through briefings and internal communications. The following advice is available to all officers and provides a summary of the Metropolitan Police Service’s guidance around photography in public places.

Freedom to photograph/film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.


Terrorism Act 2000
Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000
The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000
Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.

Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000
Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of the armed forces, intelligence services or police where the information is, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

Any officer making an arrest for an offence under Section 58A must be able to demonstrate a reasonable suspicion that the information was, by its very nature, designed to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism

It would ordinarily be unlawful to use section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests because there would not normally be grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist. An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.

Guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews
Members of the media can, like any other person, be stopped and searched under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They may also be stopped and searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 if an officer reasonably suspects that they are a terrorist. However, where it is clear that the person being searched is a journalist, officers should exercise caution before viewing images as images acquired or created for the purposes of journalism may constitute journalistic material and should not be viewed without a Court Order.

Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.

Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfill their duties without hindering each other.

Creating vantage points
When areas are cordoned off following an incident, creating a vantage point, if possible, where members of the media at the scene can see police activity, can help them do their job without interfering with a police operation. However, media may still report from areas accessible to the general public.

Identifying the media
Genuine members of the media carry identification, for instance the UK Press Card, which they will present on request.

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

Access to incident scenes
The Senior Investigating Officer is in charge of granting members of the media access to incident scenes. In the early stages of investigation, evidence gathering and forensic retrieval take priority over media access, but, where appropriate, access should be allowed as soon as is practicable.

Film Unit
The aim of the Metropolitan Police Service Film Unit is to be a central point of contact, to co-ordinate, facilitate and bring consistency to those people filming in London with MPS support.

We work together with Film London and stakeholders of the Film London Partnership to make London accessible, whilst minimising inconvenience to Londoners and increasing the economic benefits of filming.

For more information please visit the Film Unit web site.
 
#20
Disgraceful behaviour by the MET, makes me ashamed to say I used to be a Constable.

Regardless of the lectures and endless ‘memos that circulate around every Police Station regarding their behaviour in Public, some coppers are, and will remain bullies.

Unfortunately this sort of behaviour will happen again tomorrow, and the day after that. All it achieves is to add to an ever growing stockpile of ammunition for the criminal defence lawyers & anti-Police elements of UK society.
 

Latest Threads