Poison

[Mike Farley]

I'm all too familiar with the last one you mention Mike, after years of taking street shots in and around Westminster !
Railway stations are the worst though.

In principle, provided that it is not for commercial purposes, photography is permitted on railway stations subject to sensible limitations such as not using flash or taking pictures of CCTV cameras.

http://www.southernrailway.com/your-journey/customer-services/photography-at-southern-stations/

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx#photography

Unfortunately that does not prevent uninformed railway staff making up their own spurious regulations. Last year I had an entertaining hour or so at Victoria Station due to one such person who told me that I should know his invented rule, even though he could not tell me what it was. He then compounded the situation by attempting to steal my camera from me. By the end I had 5 or 6 PCSOs, two British Transport Police and an assistant station manager at the scene. It must have been a slow day!

And the name of the menace who caused all the problems? Gabriel. Certainly no angel.

[Rose]

LOL... I had a run in with a station attendant at Charing Cross a couple of years ago. He told me I was contravening the Terrorist Act and he demanded I hand over my camera so he could delete my images... I explained quietly that he was wrong and had no right to do what he was threatening to do - he argued, got all het up and called a policeman over... who listened to both of us, then apologised to me and told the station chap in no uncertain terms that he was totally out of order ! Result

[Mike Farley]

Unfortunately, there is a lot of uninformed paranoia where photography is concerned, which was not helped by the previous administration's policies. Do you remember this particular gem from around 2008?

[davidc]

Funny poster - I definitely agree with the message though. I'd much rather a worried passerby point someone out to the police than get the hassle from them in person. A bit of grief/hassle and explaining what we're doing far outweighs the alternative.

[Mike Farley]

Funny poster - I definitely agree with the message though. I'd much rather a worried passerby point someone out to the police than get the hassle from them in person. A bit of grief/hassle and explaining what we're doing far outweighs the alternative.

It was less amusing in the context of the times. There were reports of innocent photographers being wrestled to the ground by teams of police, being lead away in handcuffs and incarcerated without charge for a number of hours. Some photographers who were subjected to such ill-treatment have since won payouts or apologies from the police. Even tourists were not exempt. One example is that some were told (mainly by PCSOs as I recall) that they could not take pictures of the MI6 building which is so secret that it is in a prominent position in central London and has an eye catching design. Such abuses lead to the "I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist" campaign being started and there was a large rally held in Trafalgar Square at the end of January 2010.

There was also the matter of many people, photographers included, being stopped and searched under section 44 of the Terrorism Act where the police officer involved did not need to have "reasonable suspicion" that the person involved was involved in terrorism. That particular item of legislation has since been ruled unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights and has been withdrawn.

When the present government came into power, one of its first acts was to pull back from the overarching policy for the state to control photography by individuals in public places, even though with the financial crisis there were plenty of other actions which it needed to take. Talks were held with organisations such as The Royal Photographic Society, as well as magazines which included Amateur Photographer and the British Journal of Photography. The Home Office also worked with the private security industry to produce a code of conduct for its operatives. As a result, although incidents continue to be reported, the overall climate is much improved.

[Rose]

I remember this well - I designed a T-shirt based on this poster which I sold to a few photographer friends

[Mike Farley]

I remember this well - I designed a T-shirt based on this poster which I sold to a few photographer friends

At least there were some positives to come out of it ....

The poster sparked a number of spoofs, some of which have been posted to flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/met_poster/pool/with/2311540111/#photo_2311540111

[Peter Boughton]

A bit of grief/hassle and explaining what we're doing far outweighs the alternative.

You mean the alternative of being able to get on taking photos without being hassled?

It can be easy to justify things with FUD, but how many times have the police arrested actual terrorists who were taking photographs?

The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.

Terrorists don't walk around with SLRs, especially not when you can buy discreet HD video cameras the size of a USB pen drive.

[Mike Farley]

It's my understanding that there has never been a terrorism trial anywhere in the world where the prosecution has produced in evidence photos which the defendants took of intended or actual targets. Apart from increasing the risk of conviction if caught with such images, I would have thought that it would alert the security services to potential attacks and compromise other operations by the terrorist organisation, which would not be good from their point of view.

I suspect that with the rapid increase of digital technology, governments panicked over the ease with which surveillance photos might be taken, hence the crackdown in the UK on photography in public places, especially those areas deemed sensitive.