Feb 2009 16

Policemen cease to be photo-friendly5

I suppose that by now it should no longer be surprising to see yet another ridiculous criminal offence introduced, but this one did give me a bit of a shock. From today it is arguably illegal to take a photograph of a police officer.

Yet again, whilst our laws fail to properly clamp down on those openly preaching death and destruction to innocent, freedom-loving British people, the Government has chosen instead to infringe the freedoms of the law-abiding majority. There have for some time been problems in other countries with the police seeking to hid their identities and to prevent members of the public from photographing them, but recently similar practices have spread here.

As the article linked to above mentions, a number of press photographers have been ordered not to take pictures of officers, have had equipment seized or have even been detained under the terrorism act for the shocking offence of taking pictures of a wedding. In 2005, Austin Mitchell MP had his photos deleted after he dared to take pictures of his own party's – Labour – conference in Brighton!

This is not just an issue of heavy handed "counter-terrorism" legislation, it's about the accountability of a key public service: the police. Members of the public should have the right to observe just about any public servant going about their business of spending our money, and to hold them to account if they are doing wrong. That applies when one is talking about publishing the bonuses of council chief executives, or bailed out bank officials, and it should also apply to the right to take photographs of police officers.

In many ways, given that the police have the unusual status of being allowed to use force on members of the public in particular circumstances, it is even more essential that they are open to full scrutiny in the way that they exert those powers. Furthermore, their time, kit and training is all paid for by us taxpayers, so if they are abusing any of it we should have the right to gather evidence and pull them up. I'm going to take a photo of the next policeman I see, and I'll let you know what – if anything – happens.

Related Posts

  • Call me Dave

    Hi Mark, I doubt anything will result from your action of taking a Bobby’s picture. I have a few freinds in the force and I suspect this action is being taken to prevent individual officers being targetted by the associates of criminals they have been individually involved in bringing to justice.
    Showing a picture of the PC that “grassed me up” to his pals ensures the crims make no mistake in identifying the car or property which would then be the target of vandalism.

  • Tony Rogers

    I have recent experience of Devon & Cornwall police already practising this kind of censorship. A few months back I witnessed four police officers arresting a woman for drunken behaviour in Plymouth. They pulled her out of the police car, put her face down on the ground, and had their knees in her back as they cuffed her. Perhaps all this was necessary, only the officers involved know.
    However, just because it was a curiosity really, I decided to film the arrest on my mobile phone. Within seconds I became THE focus of attention. Two of the officers rushed over and I was told that my phone would be confiscated if I didn’t erase the footage within “two seconds”. One of the officers quoted the public order act as justification. Given that I was being intimidated by these officers, I erased the footage under pressure.
    I do find it hillarious that, once again, “terrorism” is being used by the State in order to stifle any possible opposition from those over whom it reigns supreme. Perhaps this latest measure was the other half of the police Tazer (torture device) package? This retched government should hang for treason.

  • Richard

    To:Call me Dave
    I find it ironic that they used the public order act as justification. The public order act makes it possible for the police to stop people from doing things that make other people feel threatened or uncomfortable. Specifically private individuals, NOT public servants. In the process of (mis)enforcing the public order act, they broke it!

  • Christian Braun

    I will hence forth photograph every police officer I see, we should all do it.

  • VANWINKLE

    THIS IS JUST ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN OF CIVIL LIBERTY,THE NEW ACT OF CIVIL LIBERTY IS NOW GOING THROUGH PARLIMENT WITH ALL KINDS OF NEW LAWS SNEAKED IN, BUT THE WORST OF THEM IS THE ONE, WHERE BY A PERSON CAN BE ARRESTED, AND THEN DIE WHILST IN POLICE CUSTODY AND ONE MAY NOT THEN BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND A CORONERS HEARING IN ORDER TO FIND OUT HOW A PERSON DIED.NOW THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO FILM POLICE ATTACKING PEOPLE ON THE STREET;THE GOVERNMENT HAVE NOW GIVEN THE POLICE THE RIGHT TO COMMIT MURDER WHITH IMPUNITY.THERE IS NO EXCUSE WHATSOEVER FOR SUCH LAWS AS THESE TO BE PASSED UPON THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.