Close

Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    DF VIP Member Bald Bouncer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,771
    Thanks
    4,161
    Thanked:        5,596
    Karma Level
    1132

    Info Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    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.

    After arguing his rights in a series of protracted legal debates with officers, the sixth former says he was pushed down a set of stairs and detained for breaching the peace until the parade passed.

    He is now considering taking legal action against the Met which has often been criticised for its heavy handed approach towards photographers in the capital.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0slOE

    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.

    Under laws that guarantee the freedom of press in Britain, there is no restriction on photography of children, police or armed forces in a public space. There is new legislation to protect the identities of some police officers but only those working undercover or in instances where an officer genuinely believes a photographer is collecting data for terrorist purposes.

    In the audio recording, when asked by Mr Mattsson what law police were using to detain him and ask for details, one officer replies: “We don’t have to have a law.”

    The 16-year-old continues to argue his case, informing the officers that he has a right to photograph in public places and asks whether he can get back to work.

    Instead he is told by a second officer that he is now “considered a threat under the Terrorism Act” and escorted away from the parade. Mr Mattsson claims he was then pushed down a set of four concrete stairs and detained until the parade passed.

    The incident in Romford came just 24 hours after the force was forced to pay compensation to two photojournalists for a similar incident. Marc Vallee and Jason Parkinson took civil action against the Met after they had their camera equipment grabbed by officers in December 2008 while reporting on a protest outside the Greek Embassy.

    In a public apology the Met admitted that its officers had “failed to respect press freedom” of the two journalists and agreed to pay them each £3,500 plus legal costs.

    Police forces across the country were told to stop using anti-terror laws to question and search innocent photographers after The Independent ran a campaign last year highlighting how legislation was being regularly misused. But groups representing photographers say the message is often struggling to get through to some front line officers.

    A spokesperson for the Metropolitan Police said the force had no information on the incident but added that police officers should not stop amateur or professional photographers from capturing images in a public place.

    Mr Mattsson has been given legal advice not to talk publicly about the incident. He is believes to be planning to take legal action against the Met.

    Source

  2. #2
    DF VIP Member WRATH OF BOD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Monkey Hangers
    Posts
    6,611
    Thanks
    2,585
    Thanked:        1,229
    Karma Level
    791

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    what a pack of jumped up pricks.
    criminal offence bollox.
    it was only cadets too.i was an air cadet in the early 80's and went on loads of parades.everyone was there with cameras.
    i just dont get what the coppers are thinking.

    Sent By Brick Wrapped In Paper Thrown Through The Window..........

  3. #3
    DF Super Moderator
    DejaVu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Essex
    Posts
    9,107
    Thanks
    1,836
    Thanked:        4,004
    Karma Level
    954

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    It's Madness. Use any excuse they like to stop you doing something they don't approve of... Photo's? I mean seriously.

    I can understand if he was peering over walls into peoples gardens while the missus was sunbathing.

    Come on, public event in public - FOR THE PUBLIC. With no photographic proof... Pointless!


  4. #4
    DF VIP Member burner1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    7,570
    Thanks
    329
    Thanked:        676
    Karma Level
    1214

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Makes me annoyed. so many aresholes using 'terrorism' as some justification for their paranoia. God help us if we have any more attacks in the future, I can see this sort of thing getting Government endorsement.

    I thought our troops were fighting for our 'freedom and liberty', not a fucking reason to generate a Police state.
    "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - Adolf Hitler, 1933

  5. #5
    VIP Member CzarJunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    13,754
    Thanks
    832
    Thanked:        3,225
    Karma Level
    1993

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Our freedom is being eroded day by day and we just sit back and accept it. Apathy is the real enemy, it's about time we started to take back what is ours.

  6. #6
    Argyll's Apprentice TwoPlAnKs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    5,191
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    620

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    I know a guy who immediately stops and gets his camera phone out to start filming every time he sees the police doing anything, just because there is nothing they can do to stop him. If you don't like them doing this, I suggest doing the same. Almost every time he gets into an argument with them for it.

    I think the problem is quite specific to the Met police though, I know the police here stop and argue with my mate but they never do anything or speak utter shite about it so they must know the law and as soon as they realise he does do they shut up and fuck off.
    "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  7. #7
    DF VIP Member Over Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,125
    Thanks
    3,975
    Thanked:        1,690
    Karma Level
    1252

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    When I was in the Air Training Corps, I hated drill/parades. If members of the public were actually interested enough to be taking pictures of me, who know, maybe that would given me a sense of pride or something instead of getting bored.

    If it happened to me, I would be very tempted to get a mate to make a contract out supposedly dated a week before, saying he was paying something like £10k for me to take these photos, and the police would have criminally damaged/stole £10k of my property.

  8. #8
    DF VIP Member Over Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,125
    Thanks
    3,975
    Thanked:        1,690
    Karma Level
    1252

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoPlAnKs View Post
    I know a guy who immediately stops and gets his camera phone out to start filming every time he sees the police doing anything, just because there is nothing they can do to stop him. If you don't like them doing this, I suggest doing the same. Almost every time he gets into an argument with them for it.

    I think the problem is quite specific to the Met police though, I know the police here stop and argue with my mate but they never do anything or speak utter shite about it so they must know the law and as soon as they realise he does do they shut up and fuck off.
    I've often thought about doing the same. However, Tomlinson did much less. I also don't want to be the guy who's getting searched every time I leave the house. As much as I think it's brilliant what your mate's doing, I also reckon these things are pointless unless in organised numbers.

  9. #9
    DF VIP Member neo2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked:        105
    Karma Level
    621

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    It's a case of busybody cops vs a know it all little fucktard. They are both as bad as each other. As much as that whiney little cunt was in the right, he didn't half antagonise the coppers.
    I'd probably have arrested the prick as well, under the "whining like a prepubescent girl in a public place" law....
    "There's nothing worse than arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about...."

  10. #10
    VIP Member CzarJunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Atlantis
    Posts
    13,754
    Thanks
    832
    Thanked:        3,225
    Karma Level
    1993

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by neo2810 View Post
    It's a case of busybody cops vs a know it all little fucktard. They are both as bad as each other. As much as that whiney little c*nt was in the right, he didn't half antagonise the coppers.
    I'd probably have arrested the prick as well, under the "whining like a prepubescent girl in a public place" law....
    I know you're being flippant, but this is about the law. If being a cunt is the prerequisite for being arrested I'd be forever in chains. As a society it's our duty to test the law to keep the lawmakers honest.

  11. #11
    Argyll's Apprentice TwoPlAnKs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Aberdeenshire
    Posts
    5,191
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked:        0
    Karma Level
    620

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by Over carl View Post
    I've often thought about doing the same. However, Tomlinson did much less. I also don't want to be the guy who's getting searched every time I leave the house. As much as I think it's brilliant what your mate's doing, I also reckon these things are pointless unless in organised numbers.
    Those are pretty much the reasons I don't do it to be honest, although his experiences would imply you get off with it quite easily with the local police and just get a few fun arguments with it. My real worry would be that the only time I see the police doing anything is if I am in the city centre getting drunk and would therefore argue like a dick and get lifted for being drunk, being a twat, or both rather than the nice sober statement of facts that is required.

    I do often think I'd be pretty pissed off if some random prick started filming me when I was doing my job, and if I had a bit scary arm-of-the-law appearance with a can of tear gas and a massive metal stick I'd be inclined to have a word with people about it too. The fact it's already a huge issues, especially with the met police, makes me think they are just being dicks about it now though. They need to put a memo out and tell them to deal with it the same way as all the other police forces do and stay out of the news.
    "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  12. #12
    DF VIP Member Bald Bouncer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,771
    Thanks
    4,161
    Thanked:        5,596
    Karma Level
    1132

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by neo2810 View Post
    It's a case of busybody cops vs a know it all little fucktard. They are both as bad as each other. As much as that whiney little c*nt was in the right, he didn't half antagonise the coppers.
    I'd probably have arrested the prick as well, under the "whining like a prepubescent girl in a public place" law....
    If by "antagonise the coppers" you mean request the reasons and laws covering this is your right and in this case the Police officers are committing the offences so he has every right to be "a whiney little c*nt" and you have to remember this is how the police treated him KNOWING he had taken pictures and was recording them I would imagine but for that he would have been in the cells charged under section 5 or similar.

    CJ is spot on when he says "Our freedom is being eroded day by day and we just sit back and accept it. Apathy is the real enemy" if you went back 20 years and showed me what would be going on in this country I would never believe it and I doubt anyone else would and there was a lot more chance then of a terrorist attacks, we are sheep being herded under the guise of our own protection.

    I also think this had a lot to do with the photographers age and that's why he was picked on, I'm sure nearly everyone can relate to being treated like a twat at that age from trying to return something to a shop or make a complaint and the same is true now but that does not distract from the fact he was correct, they ignored and abused his rights also committing greater crimes which no doubt they will never answer for.

  13. #13
    DF VIP Member Zippeyrude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    4,317
    Thanks
    238
    Thanked:        792
    Karma Level
    535

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    i hope the ipcc screw those cunts

    bunch of cunts makes my blood boil

  14. #14
    DF VIP Member Mario87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Sunny Aberdeen
    Posts
    7,228
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked:        92
    Karma Level
    691

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Bunch of c*nts if you ask me! The lad was taking some pictures in a PUBLIC place, who really gives a flying fuck?! Hope those c*nts have to pay him another £3,500 like they did with the other 2 photographers, however, I want to see it come out of their own salary! Why the fuck take it from a central fund when it was just these 2 c*nts who did it.

    They should pay up £1,750 EACH in cash, and then be further disciplined as per guidelines. 100% agree with CJ about our freedome being erroded. Hence why I look forward to the day I can leave this country and go live somewhere else.

  15. #15
    DF VIP Member neo2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked:        105
    Karma Level
    621

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by CzarJunkie View Post
    I know you're being flippant, but this is about the law. If being a c*nt is the prerequisite for being arrested I'd be forever in chains. As a society it's our duty to test the law to keep the lawmakers honest.
    I couldn't agree more... I'm not defending the cops in any way. You know I'm also a photographer and as yet I've not been challenged by anyone but I'd be kicking off if cops tried to tell me I couldn't snap in a public place.
    "There's nothing worse than arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about...."

  16. #16
    DF VIP Member neo2810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    5,166
    Thanks
    86
    Thanked:        105
    Karma Level
    621

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by Bald Bouncer View Post
    If by "antagonise the coppers" you mean request the reasons and laws covering this is your right and in this case the Police officers are committing the offences so he has every right to be "a whiney little c*nt" and you have to remember this is how the police treated him KNOWING he had taken pictures and was recording them I would imagine but for that he would have been in the cells charged under section 5 or similar.
    Let me clarify... My remarks were (as CJ pointed out) flippant. I completely agree the cops had no right to challenge him, and what he was saying was prefectly correct. He was, however, whiney
    "There's nothing worse than arguing with someone who knows what they're talking about...."

  17. #17
    DF VIP Member
    Realist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    5,321
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked:        734
    Karma Level
    674

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    There will always be two sides this problem but Im on the side of the police.

    If every tom, dick and harry used the excuse of taking photo's in a public place then no one would feel protected in marches like this.

    A line has to be drawn and if the young lad had just shut up and moved away and started taking his photo's later and there would of been no hassle.
    I’m alive and kicking yeh baby.

  18. #18
    DF VIP Member Over Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    13,125
    Thanks
    3,975
    Thanked:        1,690
    Karma Level
    1252

    Default Re: Officers claim they don't need law to stop photographer taking pictures

    Quote Originally Posted by Realist View Post
    If every tom, dick and harry used the excuse of taking photo's in a public place then no one would feel protected in marches like this.

    A line has to be drawn and if the young lad had just shut up and moved away and started taking his photo's later and there would of been no hassle.

    So those on parade needed protection from a kid and a camera? So you wouldn't mind coppers assaulting you and stealing your property without any valid cause? They should be locked up to set an example in my opinion, but the law only gets used to keep subjects under control, the ruling class are exempt.

Similar Threads

  1. girlfriend pictures [adult]
    By Mav in forum Funny Pictures
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: 17th September 2006, 02:49 AM
  2. When will it stop?
    By Cenus_ in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 3rd October 2002, 11:57 PM
  3. Ferguson must stop protecting
    By baronvon in forum Football
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 2nd September 2002, 03:52 PM
  4. Am i taking the p*ss ?
    By sanjuro in forum The Dog and Duck
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 30th August 2002, 01:39 PM

Social Networking Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •