Harry Shepherd:

tortoise:

Where can I find a pdf or something that outlines the laws regarding photography in public places ? I would like a document that I can carry with me and show to people who ask questions.

Halfway down the page is alink tp a PDF which wil print out ontyo an A4 http://stirlyn.co.uk/photography-laws-copyright-and-trespass/

That's brilliant, thank you

---

please view my pics
I'm driving to Mongolia for charity<-- click to find out more

JohnBaker1:

matty6380:

We do it often with many other types of jobs such as noise complaints (call the council),

but isn't breach of the peace a police matter?

matty6380:

playground bullying (tell the school)

threatening behaviour? assault? Police matters surely?

matty6380:

i want my property back from my ex-partner (tell your solicitor to tell their solicitor)

theft?

matty6380:

Not meaning to be flippant but we do get some rubbish phoned in - you'd be gobsmacked at some of it!

I believe you that you get some rubbish phoned in, but for most people, the sort of thing mentioned in your examples are far from "rubbish" to the people involved.

Your attitude is typical of what I've found from most police officers: If there isn't an easy collar involved, they're not interested. I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as uncaring and I'm sure you actually do as good a job as you can under difficult circumstances, but it is depressing that not even the police are interested in these "everyday" crimes which cause daily misery to an awful lot of people.

Hi John, just for your info in reply to your comments.....

Noise complaints from inside dwellings often come under Environmental Health legislation which is enforced by the Council, not the Police. It often does not fall within the definition of a breach of the peace. Hence people should phone the council.

Playground bullying - the public order act is often ruled out as it is not in public place, if no physical assault taken place then essentially what you have is kids falling out. Are we meant to Police squabbles now? No, let's leave that to the people who have responsibility for the kids - parents and teachers.

Getting property back from ex-partners - if there is no dishonesty element to the person having the property in their posession - if it is still in the home they lived in together for example - then the offence of theft is not made out. Hence call a solicitor.

Oh and please remember - the Police don't make the laws, they just enforce them. That also means that we have to work within them as well. If we don't have a power afforded to us in law, how can we be expected to take action??

I'm not going to resort to personal comments on here however I will say this. I was trying to be of some assistance and a source of advice to the forum members and also DCM in the hope that they may be looking at doing something positive for us all for our hobby/profession of photography, however it's people like you that make me wonder whether it's worth posting at all.

Matt

---

My DCM Gallery

The thing is Matt, before joining the police service i didnt know and wasnt aware of all the things not crime related that the police have to deal with. Casting your mind back, you werent aware either. Most members of the public think the same way.

As you said before, if there is a fire, call the fire brigade, if you hurt yourself, call for an ambulance, for everything else, call the police.

It would be interesting if the public could sit in and listen to calls that the police get. Some times they are just from people who want someone to talk to. The call i mentioned earlier about the lady complaining her budgie wouldnt go in its cage was a real call, and a good example of the time wasters we get.

In the police force you have to show sympathy, empathy, diplomacy and take physical and verbal abuse without any sort of emotions showing. You also have to be a mediator, a councilor, a doctor, a doorman, a decision maker (because some cant make their own mind up), work to a strict time scale, take crap off the public, the press, solicitors, CPS, CMO (case management officer), your bosses, judges, and be under the public eye no matter what you do, even in your own private life.

Having said that, its a great career.

As you know, i have taken personal verbal abuse off 1 or 2 on here, simply because my views didnt agree with theirs. However, i have also received emails off members here, who didnt want to post on the thread, congratulating me on my posts, telling me i do a great job. Its these people and their thanks that make the job worth while for me.

I joined the police force for the simple fact that i get pleasure out of helping others. I get a good feeling inside. Before i joined the police force i was the manager of a shop that performed really well, on good wage with a great team, and very little hassle. I took a £5,000 pay cut to join, and had to change my life style quite a bit to afford to be a police officer, and take the crap i take. 

It is worth posting still Matt, becuase as you know, people are more willing to complain than they are to praise. I can guarentee that for every moan you hear, there will be more people thankful of your participation.

 

MATT

Just out of interest. Define playground bullying?

 

I understand that "squabbling" is for the kids to sort out among themselves. but once you get into a rather testosterome fuelled highschool, where you end up with the "physically superior" students with little mental capacity harrassing some other students, where the other students end up getting pretty badly hurt (Noses broken, heavy bruising etc) then surely that kind of thing comes under as assault and harrassment, which as far as I know is a police matter?

 

Just interested.

 

Ta

---

TBPITW 13-14th Sept 08

Hi there ade,

No doubt about it - broken noses, bruising etc in the example you give is an assault which the Police would deal with. The point I was trying to make was that if it amounts to no more than the verbal teasing etc that can go on then that, although it is bullying, is not something for the Police to deal with.

PCThug - I can relate to most of what you posted and after seven years of it I still love the job. In fact I'm currently sitting on a Part 1 pass wondering whether trying to get my stripes is making a wrong decision. I just felt that the spirit of the poster was not one of out genuine curiosity or lack of knowledge but one that was geared up to slate the cops and stir up a hornet's nest.

Cheers

Matt

---

My DCM Gallery

matty6380:

it's people like you that make me wonder whether it's worth posting at all.

I think you're being a tad sensitive. As a police officer I'm sure you've heard worse :-) If I had attacked you I would understand your distress but I was actually very nice! My post was just my contribution to the debate, although admittedly it was off topic. Anyway I disagree with many of the points in your reply but I'll avoid biting here because it will lead us even further off topic. I'd be happy to continue the debate on the off topic thread or via PM.

I assume "disagreeing with a police officer" is not yet a crime? :-)*

* yes that was a joke ;-)

I posted this question a week ago on this thread, a deafening silence since then apart from reams of what the police do, what the posters think and on and on and on......

Can you answer this question. Has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted for taking pictures in a public place?  If so under what section of the law was the charge brought and what was the sentence/outcome? 

Could this mean that there has been no such prosecution, because there is no such offence, and therefore what are we all worrying about?

Have you investigated this Rachael?

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

ABERS:

I posted this question a week ago on this thread, a deafening silence since then apart from reams of what the police do, what the posters think and on and on and on......

Can you answer this question. Has anyone ever been successfully prosecuted for taking pictures in a public place?  If so under what section of the law was the charge brought and what was the sentence/outcome? 

Could this mean that there has been no such prosecution, because there is no such offence, and therefore what are we all worrying about?

Have you investigated this Rachael?

Trying to think of a scenario to fit your question, as i dont know of anyone who may have been prosecuted. That doesnt mean that there hasnt been anyone, although the act of taking photos in public is not necessarily illegal in itself, it could be either the way that they have been taken (up skirt), or what the photos have been used for (peadophilia, terrorism, blackmail, harassment). There is usually some other offence/law that has been broken in the taking of these photos.

For instance... Your child is getting ready on the beach behind a towel/wind breaker. Someone takes their photo. This photo is in public, and therefor not illegal, however it is expected that this child should have a certain amount of privacy behind this screen. The police may be called, and it is upto us to work out what offence could fit. One could be of making indecent images of children, which is an offence against the childrens act, and is arrestable. They could also be charged with distributing indecent images of children.

Ah, just thought of one that i dealt with.... A job i went to last year was in a bus depot. A driver had picked up some drunken school girls in his bus. They all sat at the back of the bus, and during the journey decided to relieve themselves on the bus. This was all caught on the bus CCTV. This guy made copies of these tapes and give them to friends and colleagues (one of which told on him to his bosses, who contacted police). Bear in mind that this was in a public place (a bus), he was arrested and charged with distributing indecent images of children. I was not told what the outcome was by the courts though (although he did lose his job).

Another one that i have already touched on, was a guy stood outside a swimming baths videoing the people inside through the windows. This isnt an offence in itself, but raised suspicions from members of the public, who called police. We spoke to this guy, and discovered that he was a peado, and had court conditions to not have in his possession video or still recording equipment. He was arrested and charged for being in breach of this.

Matt & PCThug,

I stopped posting on this site last year because of the biggotry of a few people against the police but I still read the threads from time to time.

For those interested, rather than just slagging off 'the police' & 'the security industry' as many are only too happy to jump in at every opportunity to do, I actually took some action to address the matter & wrote to my MP expressing my concern about both the feeling of restrictions on photographers & at a lack of police training in the matter.

He has taken this up with the Home Office & is also contacting my local Chief Constable.

My MP kindly forwarded a letter from the Home Office in reply to my contact which I have made available as a download on my photography blog.

Some people might want to download it, print it out & stick it in their photography bag.


blog.glnphotography.com

---

Gallery

Blog

Thanks Gary, your letter makes it perfectly clear there is no law against taking a picture in a public place.

However as PCThug points out, if I was in a public place and took pictures up a woman's skirt I would expect to be prosecuted, just as if I was a bystander in a public place a tried to look up a woman's skirt. It's all a matter of common sense surely?

We can go on ad-infinitum with "what if" hypothetical questions until we all become paranoid about going out with a camera.

As a matter of interest a bus provides transport for the public, but surely the bus is the property of the bus company, and within the confines of the bus you are on their property.

---

FACES,STREET,PROTEST & CANDID
A BLOG
My Flickr

I think we were always aware that there was no specific law against taking pics in a public place. The concern was raised that, despite this, a small number of people started reporting that they were being stopped and prevented from doing so.

However there are any number of laws that its possible to break when using a camers, PCThug has listed a few, that example of the photojournalist being nicked for obstruction is another, he thought that all he was doing was 'taking photos in a public place' and was vigourously defended by the NUJ, unfortunately the Magistrates didn't agree with him. If you constantly follow someone in the street and repeatedly take photos of them this could constitute harassment, the list goes on. These laws are often very wide ranging, harassment laws were originally introduced to stop stalkers but are now being adapted to stop peaceful dempnstrations for instance and pretty much anything can get dressed up as obstruction.

The only law I can think of that specifically mentions photography is the one that stops you taking pictures of strategic locations 'that may be of use to the enemy'. This latter requirement means its not likely to catch many of us out, although I do wonder how Google Earth has managed to avoid prosecution under this one.

But again, it doesn't happen very often to us. I watched that film 'Taking Liberties' the other day and believe me, photographers are not the ones with the most to worry about. I get a bit frustrated by the extreme point of view on both sides, those that claim that a couple of photographers being questioned is proof of a police state as well as those who justify being randomly searched because you 'might' be a paedophile.

---

BPitW 9-10 June 2007.
My website My flickr

To me your letter is probably a great tool.

As you say - maybe we should all write to our MPs'. Apart from having our own individual letter to brandish in the event, if enough people done so it would cause the government to make sure the rights and etiquettes of photography were clarified for all parties to save on the time taken up answering lots of queries.

As it happens - i wrote to my MP following another thread earlier in the week - will be interseting to see what reply i get.

Andrew

---

My Gallery

ABERS:

As a matter of interest a bus provides transport for the public, but surely the bus is the property of the bus company, and within the confines of the bus you are on their property.

You are correct, you are on their property. However, a public place is somewhere where the public have right of access either by payment or free of charge. A shopping mall is a public place but is owned by someone. A night club is a public place, but is owned my someone. The same as a cinema. the list goes on and on.

It then starts to get more complicated. It is only a public place during the hours of trading. So, if you go in a shop when its open and take something without payment, it is theft, as it is in a public place. If you go into the same shop and take the same thing, but during the hours of closure, it is burglary, because it is now not a public place.

Going off topic a little now. 

PCthug:

... Your child is getting ready on the beach behind a towel/wind breaker. Someone takes their photo. This photo is in public, and therefor not illegal, however it is expected that this child should have a certain amount of privacy behind this screen. The police may be called, and it is upto us to work out what offence COULD fit...

Of all the comments I've read in this thread thus far, the sentence I've highlighted in red worries me the most.

To use the example quoted, the child is BEHIND the towel/windbreak and is therefore not exposed to all and sundry. To then attempt to fit an offence to what may well be an innocent incident is quite chilling... It's almost like saying that a person walking REALLY SLOWLY down a street is loitering with intent! Technically, a crime has been committed!

I'm not anti-police and I'm sure 'PCthug' (bad choice for a username btw) and Matty are exemplary officers and I certainly have no wish to get into a pi**ing contest but this attitude worries me and if it's prevalent amongst all officers, we're all in danger of getting our collars felt for something acting in an innocent manner.

It's sad that everyone's treated with suspicion... almost like being assumed to be guilty and having to constantly prove our innocence!

---

Si
DCM
spiritflier.com
My Flickr
BPITW x 4

Spiritflier:

PCthug:

... Your child is getting ready on the beach behind a towel/wind breaker. Someone takes their photo. This photo is in public, and therefor not illegal, however it is expected that this child should have a certain amount of privacy behind this screen. The police may be called, and it is upto us to work out what offence COULD fit...

Of all the comments I've read in this thread thus far, the sentence I've highlighted in red worries me the most.

To use the example quoted, the child is BEHIND the towel/windbreak and is therefore not exposed to all and sundry. To then attempt to fit an offence to what may well be an innocent incident is quite chilling... It's almost like saying that a person walking REALLY SLOWLY down a street is loitering with intent! Technically, a crime has been committed!

I'm not anti-police and I'm sure 'PCthug' (bad choice for a username btw) and Matty are exemplary officers and I certainly have no wish to get into a pi**ing contest but this attitude worries me and if it's prevalent amongst all officers, we're all in danger of getting our collars felt for something acting in an innocent manner.

It's sad that everyone's treated with suspicion... almost like being assumed to be guilty and having to constantly prove our innocence!

I think you may have read my post wrong.

I was talking about someone (not the parent) putting a camera behind this windbreaker and taking a photo of your nude child.

There is clearly an offence of making indecent photos of children here, so probably wasnt a good choice of scenarios.

Some offences arent as clear as this, and its upto the police to find one that they can use when its clear that an offence has taken place and they may not be 100% sure what offence it is. If its to effect an arrest, then it is only on suspicion of that offence. Its the charge that counts (if there is to be one) when the offence has been investigated.

Another example could be that someone has bought some items using a stolen credit card. We know that an offence has uccured and that the person needs arresting, but we may not know 100% what offence it is, so we pick theft as that is the only one we can think of at the time. In reality an offence of deception would have been more appropriate, but due to lack of experience we have to make one fit. Its still a legitimate arrest, and not some underhanded way of trying to frame someone. No matter what we arrest them for, does not necessarily depict what we charge them with. After investigating this crime, they might get charged with aggrevated burglary or robbery, when we eventually find out how they came by this card.

A lot of times, offences go hand in hand. For burglary, you need to have a theft/criminal damage/ assualt/rape. If you dont have these (or the intent of these), then its tresspass. You find someone in your house, and they havent done any of these things, its tresspass, and a civil matter. However the police will come and arrest this person, making burglary the offence that fits. You wouldnt be too happy, if they just said 'on your way son, its just tresspass, and we dont get involved with that'. We then need to find out their intentions.

Hope that makes a little more sense? I'm tired and have been drinking Stella, so may not be very clear in what i type. 

PCthug = politically correct. It was something i heard on the Simpsons once, where Lisa's teacher said to her "its pc thugs like you that stop decent women landing a husband". just thought it was funny.

 

MATT