Rant Stopped, ID'd and cautioned under the Terrorism Act today!

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
You. Won't. Believe. This.

So we've got an architecture themed photo competition going on at the moment and I had a half day off work, so I decided to get out there and take some urban shots. I gave up with the architecture and went over to obscure. I went to my local shopping centre knowing that might be problematic and got two shots of an escalator. Within minutes, security were over (this is as close as I can remember the chain of conversation):

"Can I ask what you're taking photos of please."

"The escalator".

"Photography is not allowed here".

"Oh? Says who?"

"The management - this is private property."

"So what about tourists, people with point and shoot cameras and people with camera phones - do you stop them too?

"Yes, we stop everyone photographing here."

"So what's the reason behind that?"

"You could be photographing someone's children, infact it was a mother that reported you".

"So you're suggesting I'm a paedophile?!" - loudly at him.

"No no no sir, I'm only suggesting that members of the public could see it that way."

Now I know my rights, if it's deemed to be private property, he can stop me taking photographs, but I know they have absolutely no power - including the police - to stop me taking pictures in a public place provided it's not a sensitive subject; so I took the trumped up bastard on.

"Can I take photos from outside the building?"

"No, that's not permitted."

"Sorry mate, it's a public place, you can't stop me taking pictures in a public place - I'll respect your request not to photograph inside here, but I'll be taking as many as I like outside"

Then he radios in "he says he knows his rights...". So I start to take a couple of shots from the public road of the front of the building. At that point he and his security mate run out shouting "we don't want you taking pictures outside either".

"You can't stop me, phone the police, get them down here and i'll prove it"

"Well if that's how you want to play it".

Five minutes later, old bill show up and interview me. Fair play to him, he was as nice as pie and I answered all his questions. I told him I was taking photos for personal use and that it was a hobby. Then he sucked through his teeth;

"You can't really take photos here though".

"All due respect, but this is a public place - you can't stop or arrest me for anything - I know my rights"

Then came the trump card:

"Well, under <whatever section> of the Terrorist Act I must caution you that this building could be deemed a sensitive subject and as such I'm going to have to ask you not to. I'm also gonna need to see some photo ID and take some details".

Gobsmacked, I complied - address, occupation, employer, had to review most of my memory card, driving licence. I've been through this before when photographing an oil refinery.

I then said "If i was a terrorist, do you honestly think I'd come down here in broad daylight and snap photos like this? Don't you think I'd be better off using google maps? or maybe use a long lens from far away?".

They said "yeah we know, we hear that a lot, we understand that but we have to follow up every reported case".

I followed up with "look - you know it and I know it, I can take photos here all day long - can you advise what law i've broken exactly?".

He sighed and said "right - you've not broken any law, but I would appreciate it if you didn't just now".

I said "As I say, I know my rights, but for the interest of a peaceful life, I will respect your request". Off I went.

So there you have it, two photos of an escalator and two photos of the exterior of a shopping centre and I get stopped, searched and cautioned under the terrorism act.

Un-fucking-believable.
 

Ch3tan

I aer teh win!!
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
27,318
Kick up a big fucking stink, local paper etc. Make the shopping center management feel the heat if you can. Because that is ridiculous.
 

Raven

Fuck the Tories!
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
45,461
I agree, write to your local paper.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,560
You're only required to give the officer your name if he believes that an offence may have been committed.

The officer has no right - none - to examine the contents of your memory card. A search warrant is required for that.

I would have taken the officer's epaulette number, and made an official complaint. While taking pictures of his face.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,549
Un-fucking-believable.
Perfectly believable.

Playing devils advocate,
  1. In your own words you "took the trumped up bastard on"
  2. The exterior of the building could still fall within privately owned land?
  3. Challenging people to get the old bill involved always promotes harmony?

However, you should kick up a stink. This is exactly why this act is bullshit as it's now used as a "cover all" for whenever existing legislation doesn't allow the old bill, government, etc. to do what they deem appropriate at a given opportune moment.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,549
You're only required to give the officer your name if he believes that an offence may have been committed.
Terrorism Act 2000 said:
89 Power to stop and question

(1) An officer may stop a person for so long as is necessary to question him to ascertain—
(a) his identity and movements;
(b) what he knows about a recent explosion or another recent incident endangering life;
(c) what he knows about a person killed or injured in a recent explosion or incident.
(2) A person commits an offence if he—
(a) fails to stop when required to do so under this section,
(b) refuses to answer a question addressed to him under this section, or
(c) fails to answer to the best of his knowledge and ability a question addressed to him under this section.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
(4) In this section “officer” means—
(a) a member of Her Majesty’s forces on duty, or
(b) a constable.
Without taking expert legal opinion, I'd suggest that you're wrong Tom.

Which again is why this act is bullshit.
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
Sorry but to me you seemed rather cocky.

I was stopped and searched under the terrorism act for photographing a shopping centre from a public road, where no law was broken when I knew my rights; and you have the cheek to criticise me for standing up for myself and my legal rights?
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
Without taking expert legal opinion, I'd suggest that you're wrong Tom.

Which again is why this act is bullshit.

Tom, I'd agree - the terrorism act states they can view your memory card, but I understand they can't delete anything.
 

Bahumat

FH is my second home
Joined
Jun 22, 2004
Messages
16,788
Big G I bet you go round photo bombing nurseries! EEEeee!!!!
 

ECA

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
9,466
I'm with Big G on this one, utterly ridiculous.

Some tinpot mall guard who likes authority kicking off in the first place.
It's utterly ridiculous how trampled on you can be.
 

TdC

Trem's hunky sex love muffin
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
30,925
tbh while I do feel you could have handled the situation better, G, I also feel that what you've gone through today is one of the most grotesque misuses of an already disgusting law I've ever heard.

being self assured is one thing, but being preemptively treated like a criminal for the crime of doing nothing wrong is quite another imo.
 

00dave

Artist formerly known as Ignus
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
1,549
You're right Big G I can't believe it.

After you entered that picture of Rocamadour you thought you might clench victory with a picture of an escalator????

Utterly disgraceful :p
 

Embattle

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
14,014
I was stopped and searched under the terrorism act for photographing a shopping centre from a public road, where no law was broken when I knew my rights; and you have the cheek to criticise me for standing up for myself and my legal rights?

Actually you were originally asked to stop, you got cocky like so many people seem to do when it comes to the law and as you admitted you got trumped because they used the ubiquitous terrorism act on you.

I'm not advocating anything with this post in terms of supporting such stupidity when it comes to using this act for everything but neither do I find taking such an attitude you seem to take ever helps either but oh well.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
Until the Terrorism act is repealed you really want to avoid this situation - taking a picture of the Policeman would have been an extremely bad idea - it always upsets them :p

Taking pictures in a public place is no longer a safe hobby if the police choose to see it as preparation for terrorism which since its not strictly defined as to what places are covered can be construed as anywhere.
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
Actually you were originally asked to stop, you got cocky like so many people seem to do when it comes to the law and as you admitted you got trumped because they used the ubiquitous terrorism act on you.

I'm not advocating anything with this post in terms of supporting such stupidity when it comes to using this act for everything but neither do I find taking such an attitude you seem to take ever helps either but oh well.

No.

The security guard was a trumped up idiot. He eventually tried to tell me I wasn't allowed to take photos from outside, in a public place then followed me outside to try to stop me on a public road. If you read my post, after a few exchanges of words, I respected his stance on photographing inside because strictly speaking a shopping centre is private property. I also said that I respectfully complied with the police even though they were wrong and I knew my rights, so I wasn't in the slightest cocky towards the police.

That's when they played the terrorism act card.
 

rynnor

Rockhound
Moderator
Joined
Dec 26, 2003
Messages
9,353
tbh while I do feel you could have handled the situation better, G, I also feel that what you've gone through today is one of the most grotesque misuses of an already disgusting law I've ever heard.

You havent been reading the news then - this happens hundreds of times a day and there are far worse examples.

Look at that kid from the Harry Potter films who got in trouble for photographing a Policeman (now an offence) - they searched him - went through the images on his phone then nicked him for growing weed :)
 

Zenith.UK

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,913
A better source...
Metropolitan Police Service - About the Met - Photography advice

...which basically underlines what BigG said.

Also, where were you when you were stopped? Authority to use the Terrorism Act 2000 in a particular place can only be given by an assistant chief constable or higher and is valid for only 28 days. In London, it is effectively renewed every 28 days to maintain the Act's effect continuously.
Terrorism Act 2000 said:
(4) An authorisation may be given—
(a) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of a police area outside Northern Ireland other than one mentioned in paragraph (b) or (c), by a police officer for the area who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable;
(b) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the metropolitan police district, by a police officer for the district who is of at least the rank of commander of the metropolitan police;
(c) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of the City of London, by a police officer for the City who is of at least the rank of commander in the City of London police force;
(d) where the specified area or place is the whole or part of Northern Ireland, by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who is of at least the rank of assistant chief constable.​
 

Wazzerphuk

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,054
You want to try taking photos in London then. This isn't new or shocking. Been happening for years down here, pain in the arse though.
 

Dreamor

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
1,464
Why didn't you make some story up that you work for a famous film Director and needed shots... fake offer the security guard and/or (bender) copper a part? :p

n00b error :D
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
"I'm taking photos for Freddyshouse, and if you don't let me I'll make sure Trem sees to your next lot of DIY".

They'd be bowing at my feet.
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
You're right Big G I can't believe it.

After you entered that picture of Rocamadour you thought you might clench victory with a picture of an escalator????

Utterly disgraceful :p

Edit: Lol, just noticed this post.

By the way, here is one of my acts of terrorism that got me all this bother. Hardly worth it really.

igp6294c.jpg
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,560
Without taking expert legal opinion, I'd suggest that you're wrong Tom.

Which again is why this act is bullshit.

No, I'm not. The officer must have reason to suspect that an offence may have been committed.

Officers cannot arbitrarily rock up to someone and demand their personal details without first satisfying the above.
 

MYstIC G

Official Licensed Lump of Coal™ Distributor
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,549
No, I'm not. The officer must have reason to suspect that an offence may have been committed.

Officers cannot arbitrarily rock up to someone and demand their personal details without first satisfying the above.
In the time honoured tradition, strict proof please.
 

old.user4556

Has a sexy sister. I am also a Bodhi wannabee.
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
16,163
That isn't true.

From British Journal of Photography - Jail for photographing police?

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target 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'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places.

Whilst it's not an offence, all the police need to say (like they did to me) - "Under section LOL of the AIDS up your ass act, we're arresting you for taking my picture because you might use it to masterbate to".

Or something.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom