Deja vu all over again - Christmastime amateur photographers hassled by the police

As BBW's work develops, I find it terribly depressing to write a story like this, which is pretty much identical to a story about which I was interviewed over the last Christmas break...

We've catalogued the absurd situation in which photographers in the post-Terrorism Act age are targeted by overzealous, overbearing plods (and security guards) who think they wield powers to do as they wish, "for our own good" (even to the extent of seeing footage of people filming their own wrongful arrest). We've also catalogued Theresa May's promise to protect photographers. Which one had hoped would be good news for photographers, both amateurs and professionals alike. So it's depressing to read a familiar story over at Amateur Photographer: an innocent 78-year-old man taking photographs in Norwich city centre was stopped and hassled by the local police at Christmas.

Worse still, although the police refuse to say why his actions were deemed 'suspicious', they insist that they had every right to stop him:

Retired university professor Howard Temperley was quizzed by police officers on Christmas Eve following what police described to Amateur Photographer (AP) as 'a report of suspicious behaviour'.

Police officers in a patrol car swooped on Howard moments after he had been banned from taking pictures outside nearby Chapelfield Shopping Centre.

A security guard had approached Howard - a former professor of American Studies at the University of East Anglia - after he was seen taking pictures of people doing Christmas shopping.

Yes, that's right. Shopping. In Norwich, the not-so-notorious terror target.

Howard, who was using a compact camera, told the Norwich Evening News: 'No sooner had I begun taking pictures than a security man was at my elbow asking me what I was doing. I said I was taking pictures of happy shoppers.

'What was he worried about – did he think I was planning a heist?'

Nothing so sinister it seems. Howard planned to turn his photos into computer-generated sketches for Christmas cards.

After leaving the shopping centre police stopped him in nearby St Stephen's Street.

Officers reportedly allowed Howard to continue on his way - but only after recording his name, address and date of birth and checking his details with the force's headquarters.

What possible reason was there for this? Under what powers was he stopped and interrogated? You can bet - if there's any justification at all - that it will be under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

The centre's managers defended the move, saying that the building and its immediate surroundings were private property.

"The immediate surroundings"? They're asserting ownership of the street..? And what difference does this make, anyway? Everywhere's owned by someone.

In a statement, the centre's marketing manager Sheridan Smith told AP: 'Our security team will always challenge members of the public taking photographs in and around the centre, especially if the photographer is photographing the building itself or groups of shoppers who are obviously not friends or family of the photographer.'

Why?

Neither Norfolk Police nor Chapelfield would explain how Howard's behaviour could have been seen as 'suspicious.' A police spokeswoman refused to give any details about the incident.

Amateur Photographer understands that the centre's security officers routinely monitor people taking photos, to (crashing catch-all, cover-all, justify-all non-explanation cliché approaching) "protect privacy and public safety". Which, plainly, this pensioner was threatening...

A police source added: 'A police officer does not need to use any specific powers to speak to people to ask them general questions, for example, about where they are going or what they are doing. However, there are occasions where an officer may have his, or her, attention drawn to something, or someone, that is out of the ordinary for that location or “looks suspicious”.'

In an official statement, released shortly after Christmas, the force said: 'Officers from Norfolk Constabulary spoke to a gentleman following concerns raised by local businesses in the area. They were satisfied with the explanation given by the individual and the matter was resolved.'

By Alex Deane

Hat tip: NR, who writes to say "I don't understand the police fascination with photographers." Perhaps it's "we watch you, not the other way around. We keep records on the public, and the public gets recorded. End of equation."

Comments

[tolpuddlemartyr]

Off piste - slightly. Thought you might be interested in my comments re Boris Johnson, who, with the Camden Council have given the say so to the MASSIVE and potentially dangerous UKCMRI Laboratory. To be constructed alongside St. Pancras Station, above several very busy underground lines, and next to thousands of peoples' homes.

[Furor Teutonicus]

XX Following what police described to Amateur Photographer (AP) as 'a report of suspicious behaviour'.XX

Notice with these stories though, there is nearly always some pratt from the public that has "reported" them.

You think the people in Britain would not stand for a "Gestapo" or "Stassi"? Too many willing to go running to plod at every "suspiscious" drop of a hat, and those that don't are too willing just to shrug and do nothing.

[Mike Cunningham]

I believe in a wider dissemination, when confronted by the 'Gestapo', of the only reply which works, and works immediately.

If asked to give name, address, inside leg measurement, type of camera, last known address, or any of the above by a Warrant-carrying policeman, the only reply necessary is "Are you detaining me?"

As the average wanna-be copper knows, the only response to that question is a hasty retreat, because the amount of paperwork, and computer screens full of PC-generated garbage generated by a positive reply from the plod, is equal to the commencement of a murder inquiry, but without the body!

[Purlieu]

Since photography was invented well over 100 years ago, you'd think law enforecemnt would have got used to it by now, and when did photography of anything anywhere* become "suspicious" ?

* except obvious MOD etc etc

[NR]

Do you have to give your name and adress etc in this situation? I believe not but does somebody know exactly the law? This situation with photographers is so ludicrous. Why don't they stop somebody wearing a bobble hat because it's suspicious or pushing a pushchair, both equally innocent activities. Somehow the idea has taken hold that the country is full of terrorists doing reconnaisance which they do by standing in broad daylight taking photos of things. All so much nonsense. Please somebody with common sense get control of this situation and sort it out.

[Richard Craven]

Three things:-

(1) Mike Cunningham is right. Always ask "are you detaining me?" A positive answer leads to a blizzard of paperwork. A negative answer means you can just walk away and carry on with what you're doing.

(2) Do you think it might behove BBW to organize a mass amateur photography expedition to the shopping centre in question?

(3) Please tell the Norfolk Constabulary to fuck off from me.

[alastair]

@Richard:
You don't really want to do the latter, since that will give them a genuine excuse to arrest you (swearing at a police officer is a public order offence, IIRC).

However, asking whether they're detaining you, and under what section of what Act they are claiming to have the power to demand details and/or prevent you from going about your lawful business is not such a bad idea. Note also that if you have a smartphone (e.g. an iPhone), you can actually look up the text of the Act they are quoting (OPSI publishes all of them on the 'Net) and see what it really says, as opposed to what they are *claiming* it says.

[Demeter]

Whilst in no way wishing to detract from the advice given above, please do not think that Plod 2.0 (i.e. 21st Century plod) cares a fig about paperwork. It's warm in there, and there are plodesses to gawk at while waiting for Windows to boot up.

[Liz Barber]

During the recent chaos at Heathrow airport, tv cameras were not allowed in to film the plight of stranded passengers. I suppose BAA has that right ? Of greater concern are the numerous reports of passengers being ordered to stop filming/taking pictures on their mobiles - and to delete those they had already taken - no doubt with the threat of being thrown out of the terminal and losing their flight.

I find it profoundly depressing that I feel the need to 'bone up' on so many aspects of the law, just to set foot outside knowing what is 'against the law' and what some makey - on cop or 'enforcement' operative would have me believe.

[rc]

I do hope and trust that the stranded passengers told BAA's goons not to be impertinent.

[ME]

Having read the article, and the comments, I think it would be wise for everyone to arrange for their lawyer to be contacted at short notice in situations like this.

I'm not sure whether this retired lecturer with his camera was stupid or just ignorant in providing any details at all.

He should certainly have had his lawyer at short notice at the end of his mobile fone.

He should certainly be prepared to be arrested, and then prepare to sue for wrongful arrest thereafter. Then look forward to the compensation.

[Richard Craven]

@alastair

I live quite a long way away from Norfolk. Perhaps I should urge the Norfolk Constabulary to fuck off in writing. I very much doubt that they will pursue me for doing this, but would be very proud if they did.

[ME]

"Please tell the Norfolk Constabulary to fuck off from me"

= " call your solicitor "

[oakley sunglasses]

why why why?We spent time watching the manufacture of Xytol, from collecting stump water under a full moon at midnight, to the very modern bottling operation.