Blog

Section 44: Some Pragmatism Please

A curious set of events have occurred in the last week.

The first was the Association of Chief Police Officers who reminded plod that "it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building".

No sooner had the letter been pinged into copper inboxes Graham Smith (an architectural photographer) got into a spot of bother for his 'suspicious activities' where he was photographing a church that happened to be next to the Merrill Lynch bank building.

A security guard from the bank asked him what he was doing, Smith replied (as quoted in the British Journal of Photography), : "I just told him that I was taking pictures and didn't have to tell him anything at all". At this point it all escalated until three police cars and a van arrived with armed response in all tow. They eventually stood down after he told them what he was doing.

Everyone's time thoroughly wasted. But what strikes me about this one is this crucial detail: "I failed the police attitude test... I even showed one police officer the front page of The Independent".

Was Mr Smith looking for a fight? I can't help thinking that this situation could have easily been defused by him pointing at the church and just telling the security guards to not bother worrying. Now even if they were as unreasonable as security can be, telling police or security 'I don't have to tell you anything' will only escalate the situation.

Now, I've been detained by security, I've had police tell me I need permission at crime scenes, I've had coppers ask me to blur their face but 'allowed' the picture and various other incidents. In all of these cases where I've been reasonable to the police, I've had a reasonable response back. If you're polite to Lothian and Borders they relent and admit you don't need permission to be in public with a camera. If you look for a fight, you get one.

ACPO memo on Section 44: http://bit.ly/8sjv8M

Graham Smith arrest: http://bit.ly/6ILaZF