Photographers fear police complaint repercussions

[Mr Olympia]

Two elderly photographers who were stopped while taking pictures say they have lost trust in police and fear that making a complaint would only worsen matters.


^{Picture credit: Don Morley}

Surrey Police last month defended an officer who urged photographers to delete their pictures amid concern - later proved unfounded - that they had captured indecent photos of a toddler on Guildford High Street.

Surrey Police chiefs denied that an off-duty officer overreacted when he asked acclaimed photographer Don Morley, 76, to remove the images from his digital camera. *
Police said uniformed officers were obliged to investigate after they were alerted by a woman who had seen Morley, and his 79-year-old friend Bernard Lockley, taking photos that included her grandson.

However, the photographers maintain that it was an off-duty officer who alerted the child's family to the picture-taking in the first place.
Asked whether he is planning to lodge an official complaint, Morley told Amateur Photographer (AP): ‘Bernard has gone off to France on holiday, still very upset about it all, and we discussed it between ourselves again before he went.
‘I have been persuaded - somewhat against my own judgement - not to make an official complaint, basically because neither of us now trust the police not to target us in other ways if we do.'
Morley said that, until the incident on 27 June, he has always supported police officers and revealed that he earned a police commendation for bravery a few years ago after he ‘waded in to thwart an armed payroll theft'. Morley said police have not issued an apology.

The drama - first reported in AP earlier this month - was last week picked up by reporters at BBC Radio Surrey.


Source

[BertRoot]

In two minds about this. If he had taken pictures of my kids I would want to see them but I also uphold the freedom to take pictures of a scene where folk are in that scene. All depends on the nature of the photo in question. I also think the pig involved needs to be taken to task as this is another perfect example of give a cunt a badge and he will think he has to wear it 24/7.

[DejaVu]

I think this is a non-story and a great example of a nation that's too wrapped up in cotton wool.
I see that publishing the photo on the AP's website was not a problem either then (parental permission or financial gain?)

Taking a random shot of a kid in the street is completely different to taking one of a kid messing about in say, a paddling pool!
My kids all put pictures of themselves all over Facebook. No-one worries too much about that.

In my opinion, it's only polite to show the picture you just took of someone else's kid and if they disapprove, delete it.
If they don't and like it, offer a copy of it. Simple.

The problem is where to draw the line.

Am I in the wrong if I take my kids and their friends out for the day and take a few photographs of them playing without their parents consent - do I need to ask first? What's the point in Camera phones if all this shit follows it?

[Zoots]

‘The uniformed police... explained that we had been reported by their off-duty colleagues as being under suspicion of taking indecent images,' Morley continued.

How exactly? The kid was fully clothed on a public high street. How were these pictures supposedly indecent..?? I mean, how could they be?
Did he have his nudger out or something?

‘They more or less apologised but said they had been obliged to investigate.'

I don't understand how the police had 'been obliged to investigate' ? Investigate what?? There's no law to say that anyone can't take a picture of the public where there are no restrictions, so presumably investigate someone taking photographs of the general public going about their every day business in a public place,, yeah?
If he had done it on an iPhone no one would have give a flying fuck, but because he had a 'pro looking' camera people go with the 'must be a paedo then' stance.
Fucking bollocks.

[greaseweasel]

The kid was probably ugly anyway.

[dpSparhawk]

Been a while since I saw something like this (that is, people with "big" looking cameras being bullied yet again by the police).

It's not illegal to take photographs of ANYONE in public.
The police can not make you delete the photograph.
The police cannot touch or take your camera or the media (afaik)

They can ask to see the images and they can request you delete them. However you can refuse point blank to delete them. Showing them the images is common sense because if you've nothing to hide then it shouldn't be an issue.

The worst case scenario is that you're taken to the local police station but I think that would only happen if you were particularly obstructive.


I have not yet been stopped by the police but if I were to then I'd happily let them see my images and probably cheekily ask if they would like to purchase any. . I would refuse to delete any images but then what police officer is going to tell me to delete images of bugs or landscapes. I expect any urban stuff I'd do would probably be a ten stop long exposure so there would be no people in the image

I'd also make a note of the police officers number so dependant on his attitude and knowledge, put in a complaint against him.

I fucking hate the police simply because the vast majority of them are jumped up egotistical morons with very little intellect worth a shit.

On a final note, the image above is shite and probably would have been deleted off the card before anyone had had chance to complain.