Ann
As a keen amateur photographer I am very concerned about this news item which comes from the British Journal of Photography.
"Local
restrictions on photography in public places are legitimate the Home
Secretary has stated in a letter to the National Union of Journalists.
While Jacqui Smith reaffirmed that there are no legal restrictions,
she added that local Chief Constables were allowed to restrict or
monitor photography in certain circumstances.
The letter dated 26 June, which BJP has seen a copy of, is in
response to correspondence sent by the Union secretary general, Jeremy
Dear, who expressed concern at police surveillance of journalists, in
particular photographers.
'First of all, may I take this opportunity to state that the
Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press,
and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public
places,' Smith writes. 'Also, as you will be aware, there is no
presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.'
However, the Home Secretary adds that local restrictions might
be enforced. 'Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor
photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational
decision for the officers involved based on the individual
circumstances of each situation.
'It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your
letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how
his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to
freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public
protection.'
The Home Office does not produce any guidance on photography
in public places, and has not produced any specific guidance to
[Forward Intelligence Team] officers, the Home Secretary says. 'I
recommend, therefore, that the questions in your letter are best put to
the Commissioner.'
The NUJ is expected to meet with MP Tony McNulty – Minister of
State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing – to discuss
the issue, the Home Secretary confirmed.
In May, Dear had written to the Home Office after press
photographers noticed that the Metropolitan Police's FIT was monitoring
them."
It
is difficult to know where to begin with my comments but as a football
supporter I have been subject to the local discretion of officers
acting without restraint. Unlike friends who were at Hillsborough I
survived with a bruise or two.
Where the power of the state can
be exercised without needing to show and defend probable cause a
further line has been crossed, beyond internment for 42 days and
the draconian control orders. It has never occurred to me that I
would have to defend my rights to pursue a peaceful and legitimate
hobby against State power exercised by a Labour Government.
Yet
I am faced with the possibility that, for an arbitrary reason, I can be
criminalised for pursuing a legitimate hobby. This concern has been
growing amongst photographers for several months, the blogs abound with
stories of everyday people taking very normal pictures are being
treated with hostility and contempt by police officers.
Such restrictions, even if
one accepted their necessity, and I am very sceptical of either wisdom
or necessity, can only be legitmated if subject to judicial oversight
and challenge.
Tony Hutchinson