Police free to take whatever they want, whenever they want to
Written by Matt B · first published 23/01/2008
In case you harbored any dreams that human rights and things like basic freedom existed in Kent as they no longer do in the country as a whole I have some bad news for you. This simply is not the case, as this story illustrates.
For as long as there have been camera people have used them to take pictures of other people. We seem to like looking at each other, especially when we know each other. One example of this is crowds.
Some of the best and most usful documentary evidence of a particular event in terms of history comes from photographs of crowds. Indeed much of the cannon of "art" produced by photographers is of crowds of strangers doing whatever they do. It is generally accepted that if you are out in public then you can be seen by other people and that includes other people taking photographs.
To be honest no one taking pictures of crowds is interested in you particularly but only in the crowd you are part of. We are past the stage where we are worried that photographs steel you soul and so long as we don't have to see the photograph, on the whole, we are not worried about the content. The average street photographer is unlikely to do much more than store the photograph in his portfolio to "show what he can do".
If the image does make it to an art gallery you can be sure that it is because you presence in the image makes it look good.
We are photographed all the time. CCTV takes unflattering pictures of us that might be shown on TV if "there was a crime" while photo ID means that most agencies of law, order and taxation have or have access to a photograph of you.
On top of that newspapers take pictures of crowds where ever something news worth is happening and in a sporting event that you attend you might be the dot next to the other dots that make up the crowd. People with cameras in their phones take surreptitious images of each other and strangers all the time and then send them to each other: "look at this fatty" or "check out this chic".
If you are in public then you are in the public eye. Especially with you-know-who and his plane taking "covert" images of us. That, on the other hand, is "okay" because he is a councilor (unlike the man in our story today). As we all know laws do not apply to those with money.
However, despite the "covert nature" of much of the above nothing is ever done about it. This is because we are unaware and it is "no big deal" according to the average man on the street.
When Steve Carroll was in Hull recently he did what any photographer with some time on his hands would do. He took photographs in the city's Prospect Centre. But the police ...took his film because he seemed to be operating in "a covert manner" [source].
Now let's just backtrack a moment. This would be in a "covert" CCTV area, right? Who exactly was being secretive.
Rightfully the man complained but, according to the police, the letter of law says: "Officers have common law powers of seizure".
Now forgive me if I am being dense but are we talking about the Video Recordings Act 1984 which only allows for seizure if there might be evidence on the footage of a crime already under investigation? Or maybe the Criminal Justice Act 1988 "The power of seizure conferred by section 93I(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (seizure of material relevant to investigation of whether a person has benefited from criminal conduct)."
It could not be the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as that would require an arrest and materials must be released if no charges are made.
I think to be honest this is the "Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along and Harass-Anyone-You-Don't-Like Act of whenever". Which is part of the "do what we say or else you will be hurt" approach to community policing.
Of course being critical of the utterly unless police force of this area is probably a crime under the Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along rules so I'll see you when I'm old and gray and only have one eye and some of my limbs.
Yes of course they did, love. The police can do no wrong with vague rules like "cease whatever you want, say whatever you want and arrest whoever you want" to. Just so long as you get you quota...
For as long as there have been camera people have used them to take pictures of other people. We seem to like looking at each other, especially when we know each other. One example of this is crowds.
Some of the best and most usful documentary evidence of a particular event in terms of history comes from photographs of crowds. Indeed much of the cannon of "art" produced by photographers is of crowds of strangers doing whatever they do. It is generally accepted that if you are out in public then you can be seen by other people and that includes other people taking photographs.
To be honest no one taking pictures of crowds is interested in you particularly but only in the crowd you are part of. We are past the stage where we are worried that photographs steel you soul and so long as we don't have to see the photograph, on the whole, we are not worried about the content. The average street photographer is unlikely to do much more than store the photograph in his portfolio to "show what he can do".
If the image does make it to an art gallery you can be sure that it is because you presence in the image makes it look good.
We are photographed all the time. CCTV takes unflattering pictures of us that might be shown on TV if "there was a crime" while photo ID means that most agencies of law, order and taxation have or have access to a photograph of you.
On top of that newspapers take pictures of crowds where ever something news worth is happening and in a sporting event that you attend you might be the dot next to the other dots that make up the crowd. People with cameras in their phones take surreptitious images of each other and strangers all the time and then send them to each other: "look at this fatty" or "check out this chic".
If you are in public then you are in the public eye. Especially with you-know-who and his plane taking "covert" images of us. That, on the other hand, is "okay" because he is a councilor (unlike the man in our story today). As we all know laws do not apply to those with money.
However, despite the "covert nature" of much of the above nothing is ever done about it. This is because we are unaware and it is "no big deal" according to the average man on the street.
When Steve Carroll was in Hull recently he did what any photographer with some time on his hands would do. He took photographs in the city's Prospect Centre. But the police ...took his film because he seemed to be operating in "a covert manner" [source].
Now let's just backtrack a moment. This would be in a "covert" CCTV area, right? Who exactly was being secretive.
Rightfully the man complained but, according to the police, the letter of law says: "Officers have common law powers of seizure".
Now forgive me if I am being dense but are we talking about the Video Recordings Act 1984 which only allows for seizure if there might be evidence on the footage of a crime already under investigation? Or maybe the Criminal Justice Act 1988 "The power of seizure conferred by section 93I(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (seizure of material relevant to investigation of whether a person has benefited from criminal conduct)."
It could not be the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as that would require an arrest and materials must be released if no charges are made.
I think to be honest this is the "Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along and Harass-Anyone-You-Don't-Like Act of whenever". Which is part of the "do what we say or else you will be hurt" approach to community policing.
Of course being critical of the utterly unless police force of this area is probably a crime under the Make-It-Up-As-You-Go-Along rules so I'll see you when I'm old and gray and only have one eye and some of my limbs.
"Mr Carroll lodged a complaint against Humberside Police but an investigation concluded its officers acted correctly."
BBC NEWS | England | Humber | Police seize photographer
Yes of course they did, love. The police can do no wrong with vague rules like "cease whatever you want, say whatever you want and arrest whoever you want" to. Just so long as you get you quota...
Have your say (there are ) · read more items categorised Thanet · Don't miss a thing: Subscribe Today · Help: what's a feed? · This site is operated on set principles of policy and disclosure read them here
Michael Child wrote:
I am trying to write a page to link it all together http://www.thanetonline.com... what amazed me after reading your post and looking at some of my own pictures is how soon they become of historical significance.