Photographer arrested for...wait for it...being too tall!

[Al Vallario]

Good thing for him he didn't do that then.

The only time a police officer (and not a council worker or PCSO) asked for ID was after he was arrested for "being initimidating" with the excuse of section 44 of the anti terrorism act. At which point he provided it.

It is unclear from the photographer's account whether or not he refused to provide identification when asked to do so by the police officers. He states that "the same line of questioning followed until such time I was arrested" with the police officer, referring to his earlier encounter with both the council workers and the PCSO. In those encounters the line of questioning comprised him explaining his activities on the high street but refusing to provide identification.

This is all neither here nor there, of course, because even when arrested under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 an individual is not required to disclose their name and address to the police. It seems the photographer caved in this instance when he realised that exercising this right would result in the even greater inconvenience of a trip to the local police station.

As an aside, it should be clarified that there is nothing here to suggest the photographer was arrested for "being intimidating". Although specific details of the reason for his arrest remain unclear, as Surfer correctly outlined a police officer need only suspect an individual of having committed, intending to commit or being in the process of committing an offence to enact their powers of arrest. In this case the individual's photography activities, his hostile attitude expressed towards the council workers, PCSO and police officers, and his refusal to provide identification — although all being within the law and none constituting an offence — contributed to a reasonable suspicion on the police officer's part that led them, quite rightfully, to enact an arrest under the Terrorism Act while investigations could take place.

The issue of the police officer feeling intimidated, according to the photographer's account, was only raised towards the end of the encounter when the officers were explaining the rationale behind their actions in what seemed to be a friendly encounter, before apologising for the inconvenience caused. The notion that this was the sole reason for his arrest, as the article in The Register suggests with its sensationalist headline is nothing short of absurd. The arrest was well justified long before the inconsequential issue of intimidation was considered.

 

[Flibster]

Aaaaaaaaand he's been stopped again....

http://monaxle.com/2009/07/20/the-p...ty-of-the-public-do-you-find-that-reassuring/

 

[Ucof]

Where the hell did you find this thread?
Ive just spent the past 10 mins looking through GD for it.. then you find it!

I was enjoying reading his original write up: http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/

 

[Flibster]

Where the hell did you find this thread?
Ive just spent the past 10 mins looking through GD for it.. then you find it!

I was enjoying reading his original write up: http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/

Search..

 

[a1ex2001]

Aaaaaaaaand he's been stopped again....

http://monaxle.com/2009/07/20/the-p...ty-of-the-public-do-you-find-that-reassuring/

He's an attention seeking numpty who has enjoyed his brief moment of fame and now wants to prolong his time in the spotlight.

 

[mmj_uk]

But it isn't really about logic, is it - this was a case of a photographer getting a few complaints, gave an account of what he was doing, refused to give his ID to those who didn't have a right to demand it, and got arrested for taking a police officers picture (and for being 'difficult'). Now, if you think that it's logical and sensible to call that suspicious behaviour then I guess we disagree on what that means. It's useless saying you don't have to give ID if you will get arrested for not doing so. Even if you don't get charged, you shouldn't be arrested for taking photos in a town centre, and I don't think saying that is being sensationalist.

Well said.

Half of the people on this forum would defend the police if they were using the Gestapo's policing hand book.

Well it's good to see the police making use of their new anti-terrorism powers, it shouldn't be long until farting is considered a biological attack at the rate we let them erode our civil liberties under the guise of anti-terrorism and "protecting the public".

 

[markweatherill]

Perhaps the 'point' of this is that the Government has a habit of bringing in legislation that grants the Police new powers, with the intent of addressing specific issues, always with assurances that 'guidelines' will be in place to prevent their misuse, and the Police are then found to be using those powers in unexpected and unwanted ways.

 

[D.P.]

Meh, if you were stopped randomly in the street by a police officer who was investigating a call to the police, would you not give details to clear your name?

Instead he refused to give details to the first officers at the scene, again with the second officers at the scene, and then took photos of the officers.

And then he moans?

I'm all for the rights of photographers, but some of them bring it upon themselves with their reactions.

Well, the first officers were not in uniform and refused to rpoovide any ID. For all the guy knew it could have been a scam to try to steal his camera or wallet or such like.
Plus, I am not sure, but I think before you legally have to provide an ID the police have to give an explanation or reason why they need to check your ID.

 

[D.P.]

How about the right to damn privacy? Do photographers care about that - dont think so. He's taking snaps of strangers going about their business? kids as well? Glad he was detained, he's a muppet - well done Kent police

There is no right to privacy in public places. If you don't want your mug photographed then buy a Burka.

 

[D.P.]

So he can use those photos of other people for whatever reason at all? I dont think so.

Ive got the right to walk down the street without some photographer jumping in front of me taking my photo then using it for whatever illicit means (ie commercial or for their own "artistic" use)

The photographer does not have the right to do that. Maybe they do in UK law i dunno - but that doesnt mean its right.

I can understand the police being suspicious of someone who is photographing strangers and then refuses to give his own identification and then has the cheek to try to put the blame on the police when he is the one who is acting in an underhand manner.

Take your head out of your arse.

 

[Vonhelmet]

Plus, I am not sure, but I think before you legally have to provide an ID the police have to give an explanation or reason why they need to check your ID.

I don't think that's right. I don't think that the police can demand to see identification unless you're being arrested or cautioned.

 

[Vonhelmet]

So he can use those photos of other people for whatever reason at all? I dont think so.

Ive got the right to walk down the street without some photographer jumping in front of me taking my photo then using it for whatever illicit means (ie commercial or for their own "artistic" use)

The photographer does not have the right to do that. Maybe they do in UK law i dunno - but that doesnt mean its right.

I can understand the police being suspicious of someone who is photographing strangers and then refuses to give his own identification and then has the cheek to try to put the blame on the police when he is the one who is acting in an underhand manner.

If you're out in public, where people can - let me remind you - SEE YOU WITH THEIR EYES, then you can be photographed. Some would say it's polite to ask, but it's by no means a requirement.

 

[Pug]

the way i understand (and IANAL) you dont have to provide I.D. or give details, but NOT doing so will only result in a longer detention (under the terrorism act). They CANNOT delete photos, but can view them.

 

[Surfer]

Take your head out of your arse.

Dont like the opinion - dont read it. Attack the argument - not the person.

 

[Surfer]

But it isn't really about logic, is it - this was a case of a photographer getting a few complaints, gave an account of what he was doing, refused to give his ID to those who didn't have a right to demand it, and got arrested for taking a police officers picture (and for being 'difficult'). Now, if you think that it's logical and sensible to call that suspicious behaviour then I guess we disagree on what that means. It's useless saying you don't have to give ID if you will get arrested for not doing so. Even if you don't get charged, you shouldn't be arrested for taking photos in a town centre, and I don't think saying that is being sensationalist.

Its always about logic and simple common sense.

Just looking at what you have just posted above ^^ i think we have a difference of opinion.

You are saying the photographer was arrested because he took the police officer's picture?
I sortof doubt that - but if you can supply the evidence for that claim - great

Secondly it appears that you have tried to malign my logic MonkeyPuzzle (which i'm surprised at because i would not have suspected you have using this tactic)

I'm talking about your use of that which is deemed "suspicious behaviour". At no time had i indicated that i thought refusing to identify oneself is categorized as "suspicious behaviour" and thereby would justify arrest by a police officer.

I thought it was clear in my argument that i thought that it was the photographer's behaviour that was deemed suspicious hence him being reported. So it is his activity when photographing the buildings and people that is thought to be suspicious NOT his refusual to provide identification. I mean why do the council workers question the photographer in the first place if it is not for his "suspicious behaviour"?

Or maybe they question him and are happy by his answers(ie photographer explains what he is doing, taking artistic photos etc) but when they decide to ask him who he is and he refuses to answer THIS then gets their hackles up and makes them suspicious? Because they think - why would he refuse to give ID hrmm hes dodgy phone the police!

Perhaps i am wrong though and it will say in the arrest warrant at the police station that the "Mr X was arrested for refusing to identify himself which the arresting police officer thought was suspicious and so subsequently arrested him".

Its his behaviour which is open to scrutiny, if he is antagonizing other members of public etc etc THIS is what should be under investigation. Not whether he is Mr Z or Mr X.

I thought it was clear that this is what this was all about.

 

[Surfer]

I'm sorry you sound ridiculous, if we had it your way every photo we ever have would require people to not be in the picture, what does that leave you with? Hardly much.

How about you elaborate a little before sounding like you do, arrogant and clearly not thinking at all about what you just said?

Imagine trying to take a picture of time square..
"Oh no can't do that, there's PEOPLE in the picture!!!"

If you don't like it, you tell the photographer and they will respect you, I would.
Only ever had one person tell me, some lady getting tattoo'd in Berlin with thousands of people doing the same thing and TV cameras, wrong place love but..I had to respect her wishes.

I guess you feel the same way about video capture?

Yours is a fairly reasonable, engaging post that doesnt villify me too much, so a response is warranted. Firstly try not to exagerrate your claim beyond the facts for dramatic effect - it does make good reading though for those who are only interested in emotional arguments and not the truth.

When i said that i found it offensive - i didn't mean that i found all photography in public offensive. What i find offensive is photographers thinking they have a god-given right to photograph all and sundry, including close up shots, photographing more intimate personal human behaviour and such without first asking permission. I would have hoped they would adher to some kind of professional code that respects personal space and privacy. Yes no doubt some of you will bleat that there is no privacy in "public" To which i would respond: if theres a person there then there is a right to some *level* of privacy. If we ignore that then we ignore what is human and what should be dear to us (imo).

An easy example of an unethical photographer (e.g. paparazzi) behaviour for me. Is constantly following a targeted person, stalking them, getting in their way taking lots of shots at every conceivable moment of the target all with the purpose of finding that one photo that will display the *person* in whatever light they want (or rather the magazine) wants to portray them (usually negative).

But what about someone who is not paparazzi? Where it is just their hobby? Well i have no problem as long as they dont seek to take advantage of their human targets. By that i mean: say they see a couple arguing and getting very emotional, tears etc the photographer is happily snapping away these scenes (including close up shots) and plans to use such emotional human content for their own artistic purposes (not for commercial gain initially). I would imagine if the photographer went up to the couple later and asked if it was alright for him to keep the photos because it was good stuff, very intense emotions caught on film etc - that the couple probably wouldn't be too happy with how the photographer acted. This is only one simple example of many, but each example has one thing in common - its private personal behaviour of people. Unfortunately not all photographers will even tell people that they are taking shots of them...they wont ask permission at all..

An elderly person walking along, falls over, cries but is not seriously hurt. Does the photographer take photos of all this? Or do they act like a human being.

 

[Jono8]

I was thinking that, 5'11 isnt tall, if anything its short!

lol wut

 

[Raikiri]

When i said that i found it offensive - i didn't mean that i found all photography in public offensive. What i find offensive is photographers thinking they have a god-given right to photograph all and sundry, including close up shots, photographing more intimate personal human behaviour and such without first asking permission. I would have hoped they would adher to some kind of professional code that respects personal space and privacy. Yes no doubt some of you will bleat that there is no privacy in "public" To which i would respond: if theres a person there then there is a right to some *level* of privacy. If we ignore that then we ignore what is human and what should be dear to us (imo).

You don't. If you don't want something to be seen or documented then do it in private, it's called in private for a reason.

An easy example of an unethical photographer (e.g. paparazzi) behaviour for me. Is constantly following a targeted person, stalking them, getting in their way taking lots of shots at every conceivable moment of the target all with the purpose of finding that one photo that will display the *person* in whatever light they want (or rather the magazine) wants to portray them (usually negative).

And that, rightfully so isn't allowed. If you follow someone or take photos on over two seperate occasions charges can be pressed.

But what about someone who is not paparazzi? Where it is just their hobby? Well i have no problem as long as they dont seek to take advantage of their human targets. By that i mean: say they see a couple arguing and getting very emotional, tears etc the photographer is happily snapping away these scenes (including close up shots) and plans to use such emotional human content for their own artistic purposes (not for commercial gain initially). I would imagine if the photographer went up to the couple later and asked if it was alright for him to keep the photos because it was good stuff, very intense emotions caught on film etc - that the couple probably wouldn't be too happy with how the photographer acted. This is only one simple example of many, but each example has one thing in common - its private personal behaviour of people. Unfortunately not all photographers will even tell people that they are taking shots of them...they wont ask permission at all..

If you ask permission before taking the photo and the person is aware then the photos won't be natural, which completely ruins the point of a candid portrait. Also, legally speaking if the person is on public land my first point applies... they should keep their private lives private.

 

[ChrisJSY]

snip

...and elaborate you did, thank you.
I agree.

 

[Surfer]

You don't. If you don't want something to be seen or documented then do it in private, it's called in private for a reason.

If you ask permission before taking the photo and the person is aware then the photos won't be natural, which completely ruins the point of a candid portrait. Also, legally speaking if the person is on public land my first point applies... they should keep their private lives private.

I find the implications of what you are saying ^^ kinda incredible so i wont answer yet. I'll wait and see if anyone else has a problem with it or agrees with you RE: private-public distinctions behaviour of persons.