>’terrorist’ photography

Posted on Posted in Uncategorized

>This is slightly old news now – had meant to put this on the blog a while back, but you know how it is. Anyway, this is on the NUJ site, and it’s stuff I think FITwatchers will want to know about.

The Met has been pressured into changing its guidelines on restricting photography (see previous FITwatch post), after they turned out to be, er, bullshit.

“The original guidelines issued in July had been attacked by the NUJ as “hugely misleading” for stating that under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 police and community support officers had the right to demand to see photographs held in mobile phones and digital cameras.

“To suggest that police have the power to see anyone’s photos is not just hugely misleading, it’s factually wrong”, said NUJ Legal Officer Roy Mincoff.

The revised guidelines clarify that officers can only inspect such photographs under section 43 if the photographer is actually suspected of being a terrorist, and that a court order may be needed to view journalistic materials, such as digital photographs or notebooks. See www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Also:”The Home Office have since issued a written circular detailing police powers under sections 43 and 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, following correspondence with NUJ General Secretary Jeremy Dear.

The new circular clarifies that neither section permits police officers to prohibit photography by either the press or members of the public: www.photo-terror.notlong.comhttp://www.londonfreelance.org/fl/0909phot.html

19 thoughts on “>’terrorist’ photography

  1. >I cant remember the exact wording of the initial issue of the guidelines by the Met in July, but it is of no importance really, save to say the revised guidance is no better.
    Directly cut and pasted from the link provided.
    To me there is little or no difference especially when considerign Section 44 stops, it is license to trawl nothign more nothing less.
    Terrorism Act 2000

    Photography and Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000

    The Terrorism Act 2000 does not prohibit people from taking photographs or digital images in an area where an authority under section 44 is in place.

    Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, provided that the viewing is to determine whether the images contained in the camera or mobile telephone are of a kind, which could be used in connection with terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects is intended to be used in connection with terrorism.

    Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search.

    Photography and Section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000

    Officers have the power to stop and search a person who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist. The purpose of the stop and search is to discover whether that person has in their possession anything which may constitute evidence that they are a terrorist.

    Officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched under S43 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to discover whether the images constitute evidence that the person is involved in terrorism. Officers also have the power to seize and retain any article found during the search which the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist. This includes any mobile telephone or camera containing such evidence.

    Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search.

  2. >Thinking about this a little more it really is a pity that KF124 hasnt read this or in fact the previous version.
    He has an highly entertaining and amusing interpretation all of his own.
    Duly recognised and treated with equal contempt.

  3. >You would think that people would realise how easy people have it in the UK compaired to the USA. The footage of the G20 in the USA was more like the Nazi stormtroopers, the MET have a long way to go to match them.

  4. >@Anon 5.38

    I think what you actually mean is that the US falls even further below reasonable lawful standards than the UK and it's surprising for a country that professes such a love of freedom to be in such a bad state.

  5. >I'm personally afronted that both Emily and Val have once again been convicted of obstructing the FIT!

    This is just overkill and cannot be justified.

  6. >I doesn't matter what the judge said – Emily and Val are secure in their convictions – they know they are right!
    Set against such certainty what price your piffling obstruction convictions?

  7. >There would always be casualties in this post G20 world – these two brave ladies are just the latest.

    Perhaps it's time to change focus back to what we are protesing about and not who is watching us do so.

  8. >Don't worry, Delroy Smellie will be going down soon, as will the G20 murderer.
    You know what they do to police inside – cut their balls off and flush them.
    Reading this, Palfrey? Smellie? Murderer?

  9. >When will we get an update on the convictions and their implications for the future of Fitwatching?

    There are still demo's going and people need to know what can and can't be done!

  10. >There will be an article on the blog later on today about the trial.

    However, for the record, this trial makes no difference as to the legality of either the FIT or Fitwatchers – this case will be appealed and it will be down to a higher court to rule on the legality.

  11. >Don't worry, Delroy Smellie will be going down soon, as will the G20 murderer.
    You know what they do to police inside – cut their balls off and flush them.
    Reading this, Palfrey? Smellie? Murderer?

    I doubt it very much.
    Comments liek ths do absolutley nothing for sensible debate.
    Fro a start Smellie as repugnent as soem may find is charge with a very minor offence and the most he can expect if found guilty is a max of six months, hardly likely to happen to be honest.
    G20 murderer, no again as repulsive as the officers actions appear, no reasonable person will say it was mnurder, he wont be charged with murder adn will never be convicted of murder.
    Dont get me worng, i'm not in anyway shape of fashion condoning he actiosn fo police in the cases of Tomlinson or Smellie, they appear to be absolutely unacceptable but they need to be seen in proper context.

  12. >This is simple – don't do 1 or 6 at the momment but 2 – 5 are OK and should be attempted:-

    1 Holding large banners in front of photographers. This is particularly effective with double sheets on sticks which can block a camera from a distance. This is the least confrontational way of blocking photography.

    2.Taking photos of them. They really don’t like this but it isn’t illegal. With any photos it’s always good to either try and get the cop’s number in the shot, or note it down.

    3.Following the FIT. Pick a team and tail them. Turn their tactics onto them – everything time they send a text message look over their shoulder, listen to their phone conversations, look at what they’re writing in their notebooks.

    4.Watch out for group huddles, especially with senior officers and go and unobtrusively stand by them. This disrupts their briefings and there’s always the possibility you might learn some useful information.

    5.Upload any information gathered about the FIT to http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com or email to defycops@yahoo.co.uk

    6.Put yourself physically in the way of the camera men by standing constantly in front of the camera and constantly shadow them. This has been the most confrontational tactic used so far and has therefore been the one people have been arrested for. However it has also been possible to do this without arrest, especially if there are larger numbers doings this.

  13. >Not Fair!

    Both of them have suffered for their cause – the have spent days in cells and weeks in courts.

    They were always going to loose but at least the TRIED – who's up next?

  14. >Sorry the lack of posts, folks, just been a bit busy. Not the end of FItwatch, of course not!

    We were convicted of obstructing police cameras. We maintain that we had every right to do that because what FIT are doing is unlawful, unethical and unacceptable. The judge saw things differently, but we will see what the law makes of it in a higher court than a magistrates.

    It would help if certain FIT cops would tell the truth about what information they hold and what databases they operate. Information is pulled from them on the witness stand like pulling teeth.

  15. >as a concerned citizen, I hope that FIt-Watch's efforts (and public support) will bring these guys to account. And where they've perjured themselves, let's see them pay the full price before the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *