“Home Office letter on Photography and Counter-Terrorism – pdf” – From David Hanson MP – Minister of State responsible for crime and policing to Jeremy Dear – National Union of Journalists General Secretary.
“Home Office circular 012 / 2009 – Photography and Counter-Terrorism legislation” – homeoffice.gove.uk
On Tuesday (18.08.09) the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism at the Home Office sent out new advice to all the Chief Police Officers in the UK to “clarify counter-terrorism legislation in relation to photography in a public place”.
In a letter about the new advice from David Hanson MP – the Minister of State responsible for crime and policing – to Jeremy Dear – the National Union of Journalists General Secretary – the minister writes in the closing paragraph on Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000,
“I believe this circular removes once and for all any suggestion that the new offence can be used to prosecute innocent photographers such as responsible journalists, simply because they are taking a photograph of a police officer.”
A victory for photographers? To read more about this go to the “I’m a Photographer, Not a Terrorist!” website.
Tags: ACPO Association of Chief Police Officers Counter-Terrorism David Hanson Free Press Home Office Human Rights Jeremy Dear Media Freedom Media Restriction Media Workers Metropolitan Police Photographers Photography Photojournalism Picture Libraries Police Press Freedom State Repression Terrorism Terrorism Act War on Terror
Filed under: Journalism/Press Freedom, National Union of Journalists. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.
“I believe this circular removes once and for all any suggestion that the new offence can be used to prosecute innocent photographers such as responsible journalists, simply because they are taking a photograph of a police officer”.
Perhaps, but was that ever in doubt? Certainly the possibility of prosecution in these circumstances has ALWAYS been most unlikely. The problem is not the likelihood of of prosecution but of PERSECUTION, harrasment, and bullying, perhaps leading to wrongful arrest. I see little in the circular to prevent that.
I agree – that is way I have said that Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 – commonly known as section 76 – should be scrapped. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jul/09/photography-anti-terrorism-regulations
[...] is the example post: Marc Vallée » Blog Archive » New polity advice on Photography … Posted in Uncategorized | Tags: and-thoughtfully, david, dear, general-secretary-, [...]
Right on, people!
In Saudi Arabia – commonly believed to be a very restricted sort of place – photo rights are very clearly defined and very simple. No women (without their express permission) no government installations or royal properties. That’s about it. Easy, simple and very open.
The problem here – as it seems to be in the UK is that the street level policeman doesn’t (or will not) understand or even know the law.
Last December in the high street of Kingston Surrey I was detained by two CSO’s and police ‘officer’ for “taking photos of the high street.” In April at a press conference in Grosvenor House hotel I asked the head of Visit Britain if they had a policy on photos in tourist areas, particularly as Buckingham Palace is opening its grounds to the public for tours.
Naturally, Visit Britain was not even aware of the problem……
And if they hadn’t noticed, should any terrorist want information about the details of anywhere in the UK with a view to planning something nasty, Google and the British Library between them could easily furnish all the information they could shake a stick at!
Ban them now before anyone finds out!!
Well done for making waves – at last someone is protesting effectively about the oppressive nature of the British state.
R
What is quite ridiculous about all this is that many police forces seem to be falling over themselves to have all their officers (and their names, faces and areas of operation), shown to millions of viewers on a never ending string of TV reality shows.
In one show on Channel 5 recently, it even showed an officer posing for a photograph with a member of the public (on his camera phone) because the guy had recognised him from the programme. Surely this is nothing but hypocrisy on the part of the police, aren’t they a little concerned that some potential terrorist might be sat at home taking notes of all this?
Of course not, so why is it then okay for them to be captured on TV cameras (close up), but not for photographers (and often used an excuse for harrassing us) when we photograph them, often at a distance, and in full uniform, helmet etc.?
Whatever happened to common sense and discretion, maybe all photographers should start saying that we’re taking them to sell to ‘Hello’ magazine, and then all will be alright with the world!:-)
Sorry for commenting Off-Topic – what Word Press theme do you use? It looks amazing.