Photographers targeted again

I’m not some sort of campaigning activist, but I have enjoyed photography as a hobby for years, and until recently was able to carry out that pastime without worrying about who or what I was photographing, or who or what was watching me. One reason I mention this subject is because the authorities can now always be seen photographing and videoing everyone, with little or no way to stop them, yet they are being given increasing powers to limits individuals returning the favour, and can even force them to hand over what they have photographed.

Thanks to the media, I now find myself looking over my shoulder in case there are children or a school somewhere nearby, lest some concerned citizen decides to take a swipe at the paedophile they have just caught. It seems that every Jobsworth is out to impress their boss if they can chase someone with a camera off “their private land”, or at least block the view if they somene taking a picture of their premises. In the good old days, the only time I ever exercised a little extra caution was when taking pictures in the less salubrious of Glasgow city, in the hidden corners of the Clyde, or found myself beside rather too may locals enjoying a bevvy at the nearby pub. At least discretion is still voluntary, and you can at least talk to ordinary people, and maybe get them interested.

I certainly didn’t worry if I saw the police, or if there was any sort of incident going on around me and I was carrying a camera, even if it tended to be an SLR with a reasonably long lens.

I don’t usually include articles in total, but this one falls in the category of being important, because what happens down south generally becomes the model for what follows up here, especially in terms of nationally relevant subject, so the following article from the Guardian appears complete: The Met’s attack on photographers | Marc Vallée | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Today the Metropolitan police service (MPS) issued advice to the public and the media on photography in public places. It details the Met’s interpretation of anti-terrorism legislation, and how these laws should be used against photographers. Professional photographers such as myself view it as part of an ongoing campaign to create a hostile environment for photography in the public sphere.

The advice covers section 44, section 43 and section 58a of the Terrorism Act 2000 (58a is more commonly known as section 76). On sections 44 and 43, the MPS say that “officers have the power to view digital images contained in mobile telephones or cameras carried by a person searched”.

Hickman & Rose’s Anna Mazzola argues this advice is highly questionable as it “does not take into account the fact that such images may be protected journalistic material – for example, special procedure material.”

Did the MPS seek legal guidance before they distributed this “advice”? Because rather than clarifying the Met’s position, it looks set to cause yet more confusion. As Mazzola says: “If the police truly want to convince journalists that they are committed to allowing freedom of expression and to enabling members of the press to do their jobs, then they should engage with these issues rather than issuing guidance which is likely to hamper them.”

A key issue for photographers is section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008, which came into force at the beginning of this year. It amends the Terrorism Act 2000 to make it an offence to elicit or attempt to elicit information about an individual who is or has been a member of the armed forces, intelligence services, or a police officer in Great Britain – this has been an offence in Northern Ireland since 2000.

The Home Office claimed that photographing police officers would only be deemed an offence in “very exceptional circumstances”, they added that “for the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists”.The MPS advice says that section 76 (58a) “should ordinarily be considered inappropriate to use… to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests”

Photographers will remain deeply concerned. On Tuesday I was on a panel at the Frontline Club to discuss the way anti-terrorism legislation affects the media. The question arose, has section 76 been used in a public order context to stop photographers documenting dissent? The answer is yes, I am aware of two occasions on which it has been.

On 21 March 2009, in Bedford – at a protest outside Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre – a Bedfordshire police sergeant questioned Justin Tallis, a press photographer and NUJ member, on why he was taking pictures of police officers. Tallis claims that the officer stopped him from working and claimed that under new counter-terrorism powers Tallis could not take pictures of the police. The sergeant later said via his constabulary’s press bureau that he had in fact had a “long discussion about the legislation” but at no point did he “use the legislation”. This is not how Tallis remembers the incident and either way Tallis was prevented from doing his job.

On 12 March 2009, a second press photographer and NUJ member – who does not want to be named – was stopped outside the RampArt community centre in east London under section 76. He was covering an attempt to evict squatters from the centre. Ten police officers – two of whom were plainclothes officers wearing reflective police jackets without identifying numbers – were assisting security guards hired by the owner to carry out the eviction.

“While photographing a scuffle between police officers and squatters one of the plainclothed police officers told me that I could not photograph him under section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act,” said the photographer. “He warned me that if I continued I could be arrested. I responded by saying that if he thought that my photographs of squatters in east London being evicted could aid a terrorist organisation then he was welcome to arrest me.” The police officer took no further action.

In February, I predicted that section 76 would fit nicely alongside other blunt instruments such as section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which has had a huge impact on photography in a public places.

This is why over 400 photographers took part in a protest outside New Scotland Yard on the day that section 76 came into force. Photographers don’t fear ending up in court, but they are deeply concerned that the threat of arrest will be used to prevent them doing their job. I wonder how many more photographers will find themselves having “long discussions about the legislation” on the street. The Met’s advice will do little to help them. Section 76 should be scrapped.