Section 43 and photographers.

You may recall the incident less than a fortnight ago when young Jules Mattson was taken to one side by several Police officers during the Armed Forces Day events in Romford.

It appears that it's happened again, a mere 10 days later, and this time in London - when he was photographing Cadets near Buckingham Palace. He had "received approval from the cadets' supervisors as he was shooting images for the cadets' website". (link to BJP)

The Police have, perhaps, at long last been told that using Section 44 is out of bounds - because the BBC tells us it was ruled illegal by the European Court of Human Rights in January 2010 a fact that was brought to the public eye again in June 2010 when the BBC announced that "Thousands of anti-terror searches were illegal" - but didn't mention that the last government had lodged an appeal against the earlier ruling, which was lost.

Today the Police chose another section of the Terrorism Act 2000 - they chose to use Section 43. But this isn't the first time. (Also mentioned here in February)

Here's what Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (link OPSI) says :-

43 Search of persons

(1) A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(2) A constable may search a person arrested under section 41 to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

(3) A search of a person under this section must be carried out by someone of the same sex.

(4) A constable may seize and retain anything which he discovers in the course of a search of a person under subsection (1) or (2) and which he reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist.

(5) A person who has the powers of a constable in one Part of the United Kingdom may exercise a power under this section in any Part of the United Kingdom.

Mrs Rigby thought it was odd that a teenager, legitimately taking pictures in a very public place could be 'reasonably suspected' of being a terrorist. She has absolutely no idea what the young man might look like, but she thought he must be very unusual, perhaps of striking appearance, perhaps wearing outlandish clothes, and maybe looking a bit unkempt?

Perhaps like this a younger version of this chap? (image Telegraph)

Or maybe he looked like a youthful tramp - such as the one at the front right of this picture? (image HeraldSun)

Perhaps he was tidy-ish, but was smoking a cigarette - like this chap (source)





Mrs R isn't at all sure whether the famous people pictured above might be 'reasonably believed to be terrorists', but the Police must have reasonably thought Jules was one, from either his behaviour or his appearance - otherwise they shouldn't have detained him. That is what the law clearly says.

Here's how some people who know Jules Mattson describe him ... According to this person who says ...

I know Jules and he couldn't really be any more the opposite of the above description. He's polite, courteous and very unobtrusive as he goes about his business.

and another person says ...

knowing people who teach him and help him and guide him while shooting along side him, and his dad being a well know photo journalist, he is trained very well from what I am told and remains very quiet and invisible where he can, I am talking about marc vallee, david hoffman and many other well know shooters. I doubt he was causing any trouble at all. I feel a harassment case coming on very soon.

So, maybe today some 'MOP'* pointed to Jules and his camera and said that he was a terrorist, maybe somebody or other has complained that the pictures on his Flickr pages are unsuitable (they're of politicians, and protests, and other things like that) or maybe somebody has told the Police they're not happy with his blog?

Who knows? It seems that earlier today the Police weren't too sure either because (link to Amateur Photographer)

A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police did not have a record of the incident when contacted by Amateur Photographer this afternoon.

There's a saying, isn't there, it's something like "Once is an Accident, twice is a Coincidence, and three times ..."

..........
*
MOP = Police-speak for Member of the Public.

P.S.
Just noticed that the same issue is mentioned by Al Jahom along with some other tidbits - please read what he says.

....

Time for the Police to snap out of it?

The Filthy Engineer mentions that yet another photographer has been arrested for taking photographs.

This time, according to the BJP

On Saturday 26 June, photojournalist Jules Mattsson, who is a minor and was documenting the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford, was questioned and detained by a police officer after taking a photo of young cadets.

Now take a look at the video for yourself, and listen to how this 'incident' is escalated by the Police, and how the supposedly 'criminal acts' change from one moment to the next.



Now you've seen that it's good to remember that this was, initially, the Police trying to prevent a teenager taking pictures of other teenagers who are Army Cadets - all of which took place during the Armed Forces Day parade in Romford. An event you would presume local people would want to record for posterity.

It's a pity, isn't it, that nobody had told those Police officers about Mark Vallee

A photographer and a videographer have each won £3,500 in damages from the Metropolitan Police after the pair were prevented from recording a protest outside the Greek Embassy in 2008.

The Met admitted that it breached Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - and failed to respect press freedom - when an officer pulled a camera away from photographer Marc Vallée and covered the lens on a camera being used by videographer Jason Parkinson.

The pair were attempting to record a political protest outside the Greek Embassy in December 2008.

Marc Vallée told Amateur Photographer: 'This is the second time I've been forced to take legal action against the Metropolitan Police since 2006 and I would like it to be the last.

'The question to consider is: "Is the overall harassment of photographers by the police a deliberate policy or a series of unrelated mistakes?".

In 2008, Vallée won £4,000 in an out-of-court settlement after clashing with police while photographing a political protest outside Parliament.

Read the rest of that article at Amateur Photographer, and also see from their news archive how often this sort of thing is happening, and also how often photographers are being awarded damages.

In case you were wondering, a Met spokeswoman issued a statement to the BJP

"It is clearly not the intention of the MPS to prevent people from taking photographs, although, as the public would expect, officers will remain vigilant, particularly in crowded public places. Any allegations or complaints about police treatment of photographers are taken very seriously by the MPS."

She adds: "Anyone who is unhappy with the actions of individual police officers can make a formal complaint, which will be thoroughly investigated. Although at this time we have not received a complaint about this incident and no allegations of crime have been made, we will investigate the circumstances. Our officers do receive guidance around the issue of photography through briefings and internal communications and we continue to drive this work forward."

As always, please read the original article for yourself, because Mrs Rigby always changes the order in which things have originally been written.

Now a question.

What would you do if your teenager came home and related how they'd been treated by the Police, showed you some pictures and let you listen to a recording ... and then you later found out that the same Police hadn't even taken the trouble to record a crime?

It makes Mrs R wonder what all those threats were for ... because at the moment she hasn't a clue. She does, however, think it might actually be worth buying Amateur Photographer when it hits the shops on 6th July, because included with the magazine is a 'photographers' lens cloth". (Picture from Amateur Photographer)

P.S.

To read Jules Matteson's own words please go here

For a transcript of the recording please go here

....

Met uses comedian for training

The Met Office plans to use Mr Thomas's case as an example when training officers.

A typo, but even so it might go some way towards explaining why the Met Office can't get the weather right.

The story actually refers to Mark Thomas, the comedian, who has successfully claimed damages from the Metropolitan Police after being stopped and searched - because he appeared over-confidant.

Maybe they think we should all be quaking in our shoes whenever we see a Police Officer?

And the Met Office, the one that is meant to be able to forecast our weather? That one's in trouble too - possibly also a case of over-confidence. Airlines and allied employers and businesses are complaining because,

“The Civil Aviation Authority base their decision on what they are being told by the National Air Traffic Services [Nats]. Nats say they base their decision on what they are being told by the Met Office and the Met Office say they are only making a weather forecast.”

All well and good, perhaps, to say they're 'only making a weather forecast' - but this is the same Met Office that decided to stop making long range forecasts because it is too difficult for their lovely computer system to manage.

Their predictions of doom relating to this volcanic dust are based around a theoretical computer model, no doubt put together by somebody, or a team of somebodys, who thought they knew what they were doing - but it seems they may have been wrong.

Maybe they should look at this picture, from the Mail. The streak of light crossing the picture is an aircraft. It's there, right above the volcano. It's a survey plane, collecting data.

As the IATS (International Air Transport Association) says,

“We have seen volcanic activity in many parts of the world but rarely has it resulted in airspace closures, and never on this scale

And all this chaos, all these stranded holidaymakers and businessmen and women, all the school closures and the distinct lack of supermarket tomatoes - all this can be safely laid at the door of the Met Office and their computer modelling. The same Met Office that brought Britain to a standstill last winter because they couldn't manage to predict ice and snow has now been allowed to bring Europe to a halt.

They, and organisations like them, are why Britain is losing credibility. Our weather forecasters are dependent on computer models that don't work - and because of this the organisation will, surely, soon lose lucrative international contracts, which will mean job losses ...

....

Misogyny in the Metropolis.

Some things you read in the media make you shudder.

Here was a man of powerful appetites. And dangerous if denied them. Most damning of all, perhaps, were the transcripts of telephone messages [he] left to an [...] ex-lover, Mandy Darougheh.

She had dumped him having discovered he was married, to his second wife Natalie. His reaction, left on her voicemail, was recorded ... 'I will take such revenge from you, that like a dog, you will be sorry that you will never treat me like this again,' he declared.

'Mandy, I am going to declare war on you and I have declared it as of now. See what I will do to you. From now on you are dead. I will start with your mum first. I am so emotionally disturbed now that anything is possible from me.

'I give you an hour and see what I will do to you. If you think I am worried about my career, to get back at you, you must be joking.

'Just remember what I did to ******'s (name unknown) husband. You are not safe. I am going to come and catch you, on my mother's life. If you are at home, get out because if I see you, I am going to lose it right now.

'You want war, bitch, you're going to get some war. You will see now what I can do so you will cry for years. First I will start with your family, then I come to you and your reputation. I will spread all over London that you are a prostitute.'

Even his barrister, Michael Mansfield QC, had to admit during arguments not heard by the jury: 'No police officer, no human being, should be talking like that. We all make mistakes, but it's unacceptable.'

It seems that this man was lucky because

..... the jury did not see these transcripts

The man who issued these threats is one time Commander of the Metropolitan Police, Ali Dizaei - who will be spending the next two years in Wandsworth Prison, having been found guilty of "Misconduct in a public office and perverting the course of justice" after he "... attacked Waad al-Baghdadi [a web designer to whom he owed £600] before arresting and attempting to frame him for assault". The pity is that "he seems certain to appeal against conviction," but at least he won't be able to rely on this chap.

Nobody is 'all bad' though, it seems Mr Dizaei, a Muslim, might not be a fan of the burqa :

When Dizaei's office was searched, photos were found of him with a lap dancer taken during a National Black Police Association jaunt to Canada. The woman was wearing his police hat and her breasts were out. Dizaei was wearing his police shirt.

.

"Met will not probe expenses leak"

Mrs Rigby has just spotted this item here Timed at Tuesday, 19 May 2009 14:19 UK

"The Metropolitan Police will not investigate the leak of MPs' expenses to a newspaper, Scotland Yard has said.

Senior officers and Crown Prosecution Service solicitors decided that a police inquiry would not be in the public interest.

Commons authorities had called in the Met after the Daily Telegraph published details of MPs' expenses claims.

Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said the force was working with the CPS to study whether MPs broke the law.

The decision not to investigate the leak was taken at a meeting between the CPS and officers from the Met's Economic and Specialist Crime Command, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.

He added that they concluded that a public interest defence would be a "significant hurdle" to any successful prosecution."

Hmmm, that's interesting, and could have meant another nail in Mr Martin's parliamentary coffin had he not resigned a few minutes after this hit the media, because it was the Speaker's Office that called for Police involvement.