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

....

PCSU plan to unleash Prescott?

Although Mrs Rigby thinks there might have been a bit of a typo and they were referring to the "forces of Hull", you'd think, wouldn't you, that they'd have waited until after the election to make a threat or two, especially as the government hasn't yet repealed the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill that limits protests around Parliament. and Generally extends to whole UK - otherwise they won't get to have their well-supported protest marches.

We'll 'unleash hell' on Tories, threaten unions as public sector is gripped by new militancy

And you think, wouldn't you, that because the Police aren't allowed to take industrial action the vitally-important-to-national-security PCSOs would be bound by the same rules.

Seems not.

· Solid support among civilian staff working for the Met Police, including 999 operators, community support officers and House of Parliament security.

Goes to show that they're no better than the rest of us and maybe, if anybody sees a PCSO chewing gum and then chucking it on the ground, any of us could issue them with a fixed penalty notice for littering.

Sauce for the goose and all that? No?

Anyhow, it looks as if, if the Tories win the next election (and the Unions seem to think it's a foregone conclusion) there might be more "public sector" strikes called by the PCSU - which might make it easier to take photos of the sights of London.

Some clouds really do have silver linings.

....

End to stop-and-search?

Spotted on Unenlightened Commentary - a timely reminder.

Ten Years For Photographing Police?
"If new rather nebulous "anti terrorism" laws are introduced next month then possibly yes.

Update: Yes this is from last year. "

It may have been 'old news' but is worth revisiting

"Set to become law on 16 February [2009], 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. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week."

and

"Check bjp-online.com for updates."

Here is the BJP's latest update, dated 4th March 2010

Terror watchdog calls for end to stop-and-search

Lord Carlile of Berriew, the UK's terror watchdog, has called for Section 44 of the Terrorism Act to be scrapped, weeks after the European Court of Human Rights found it illegal.

Speaking at the Policy Exchange think-tank, Lord Carlile said that the use of the controversial powers had become counter-productive in the fight against terrorism, according to the Evening Standard.

He added: "The power given by Section 44 continues to cause a disproportionately bad effect on community relations, with the often inaccurate but genuinely felt belief that it is used in a discriminatory way. It has certainly been used in some instances without reason, let alone suspicion." Read the Evening Standard's full report here.

Section 44 powers have been found to be illegal by the European Court of Human Rights. The court said that officers could easily abuse the powers and that, since police officers can stop anyone without the need for suspicion, it was virtually impossible for a member of the public to prove that the powers had been abused.

In the past two years, the powers have been increasingly used against photographers. In January, close to 2000 of them - amateurs and professionals - gathered in Trafalgar Square to defend their rights to take pictures in public places and protest the 'illegal' use of stop-and-search powers against them.

Lord Carlile has also advised police officers to use Section 43, which requires officers to have suspicion before stopping someone.

More references on Evening Standard's site relating to ECHR are here

....

Again.

Another photographer stopped, in Manchester.

Here

He says

[an official in a red jacket] decided that I wasn't allowed to take pictures of him and the PCSO doing their job, I explained that I was and took another picture to prove it. He then instructed the PCSO to get my details and began ranting about terrorists and not wanting his picture in the paper.

Luckily he knew what to say, and what to do, because

As a retired officer with 30 years experience I am confident in dealing with these situations but many people aren't. I am baffled by the idea that anyone would think me a terrorist threat. Why would terrorists look for pictures of enforcement officers in newspapers and then target them?  Many Police Officers appear in Public relations photographs and to my knowledge none of them have been knobbled by Al Qaeda. I am living testament to that, as a Community Constable I was encouraged to get my photo in the local paper whenever possible.

Read the whole post, also the follow up comments, there are some useful pointers - in case it ever happens to you.

And, by the way, Robert Norbury has some rather nice photographs on his other site. Enjoy.

....

Don't be a stranger.

Imagine this happening in your town.

You go for a day  out with a friend, on the way home you decide to get some fish and chips. You spot 'something happening' and more Police than you've seen in years. It's all quite exciting, so you decide to take some pictures with your nice new camera so you can show the folks at home.

You are challenged by a Police Officer as follows:

“You are a stranger in *insert-town-name** and you are . . . . .”

“I am not a stranger in *insert-town-name* I have been here two years.”

“Then tell me who you are I’ve never seen you before.”

This actually happened to Stephen Russell, in Kidlington, near Oxford. He recorded events until :-

the officer manhandled me and switched off my camera,

He had his pockets searched, was taken to the police station. You can read the whole story on Stephen Russell's own blog.

Stephen also explains, in a later post, how easy it was for him to be confused with a terrorist.

There is a report about this incident on Amateur Photographer, along with a discussion within their forum. The Oxford Times also carries a report and goes on to explain the why the Police were there in the first place :-

Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. 

And what happened to the bottle throwers?

Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.

Good job none of them had a camera!

....

Scanners

Back to this again

all images will be destroyed after the individual has walked away from the scanner.

This might be very careful use of language - meaning that images resulting from scans of those who "walk away" are deleted, but there is a means of storing scans that show something suspicious. Logically there has to be - otherwise there would be no proof (evidence) that a scan has shown an irregularity that's used as a reason for either a more detailed search, an individual being banned from a flight, or even arrest and prosecution.

Same sort of principal as when an officious person says pictures on a digital camera must be deleted - without the pictures there is no evidence of wrongdoing, so there could never be either a prosecution or a defence.

As for the 'child porn laws' mentioned by 418 it seems that there will be even more laws "... to ensure airport security staff do not commit offences under child pornography laws". It's hard to understand how laws can be made to stop existing laws being broken - the whole idea of having a law in the first place is that if it's broken the perpetrator gets punished. Adding a pre-emptive legislative layer should be unnecessary and creates legal tangles and all sorts of unintended consequences.

The only way to be absolutely sure no person can break existing porn laws would be to have these scanners checked by machines, with no human intervention, but that's neither likely nor possible because somewhere along the line there has to be a human, even if it's just to check the machine is working properly. The earlier article suggests that

Airport officials say the scanner image is only seen by a single security officer in a remote location before it is deleted.

So who's keeping an eye on what that single individual is doing? Common sense suggests that their room is at least monitored by CCTV - which is checked by yet more watchers, who are checked by ...

What was that Latin thing again?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

..

Victor Meldrew and art.

The Mail reports that the BBC has decided to carefully pre-empt viewers complaints.

Let's put you in the picture with a bit of help from Flog it! presenter Paul Martin :-

'Yes, they had to have the painting moved. It wasn't a big deal but they do get complaints about this sort of thing. You'd be surprised.'

No, actually, there's little that would surprise most British people these days, but let's move on to what Mr Aldridge, the auctioneer, thinks :-

'It is absolutely ridiculous.

'This is a 19th century neo-classical work of art.

So Mr Aldridge tried to deal with the problem himself

'I tried putting a Post-It note over the offending part of her anatomy, but that wasn't good enough apparently.'

The Mail is, of course, less concerned and carries a snapshot of the offending painting - which shows a woman's nipple. And it isn't even a fresh one

As the auctioneer explained, the painting is 19th century, neo-classical, oil on canvas.

Presumably the BBC will now, when making any of their programmes, make ensure that no classical art or sculpture is in the background - nowhere, not anywhere - on case one viewer comes over all faint and nervous, or in case another gets all excited.

This isn't, sadly, quite a full-on Victor Meldrew moment, not really, because this sort of thing already happens in the online photographic world, where photographers have to label pictures of naked people, including statuary, as "adult material" - due to complaints from vociferous one or two (who could even be the same person) who threaten legal action which could take a site offline and their usual excuse is, "In case a child sees it.".

These people are, slowly but surely, suppressing freedom of artistic expression - with one place after another toppling like dominoes - as each becomes an example of "best practice" for others. They've clearly ratched up the ante now, by getting the BBC to conform.

It's not good to speculate who these complainers might be, or what their motives might be, or what their background might be, but it seems more than likely that they are not native Britons.

Sometimes people need to understand that prudity was never listed as a virtue, and children need to know that being without clothing is not a crime.

Street and architectural photography in London

If you're a photographer and have a few hours spare tomorrow, 23rd January 2010, why not pop along to Trafalgar Square around midday when you can meet up with other like-minded souls and take some pictures of London.

The get together is being organised by these people, and supported by Amateur Photographer.