UK Police Threaten Teenage Photojournalist

IonOtter writes "In what seems to be a common occurrence, and now a costly one, Metropolitan Police in the UK still don't seem to be getting the message that assaulting photographers is a bad idea. UK press photographer Jules Matteson details the event in his blog, titled The Romford Incident. The incident has already been picked up by The Register, The Independent, and the British Journal of Photography, which contains an official statement from the Metropolitan Police."

Comments

Transparency

[spqr0a1]

This journalist will be alright. Nothing gets the government scared like a big steam of bad press (which the internet is more than willing to provide).
Now is a great time to be living. Despite all of the bad news about orwellian government in the UK, not even they can get away with harassing citizens in the age of the internet.

Yup, can't stop the signal and all that.

Anti-Terror laws abused? Really??

[cc1984_]

It's not just photographers who are at the receiving end of this absolute abomination of a law. Does anyone remember Damien Green whose house was raided by Anti-Terror police for basically selling tittle-tattle to the press?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damian_Green

Makes me sick.

Re:Anti-Terror laws abused? Really??

[BasilBrush]

Damien Green was arrested by members of SO15. What used to be called Special Branch. Special Branch has always been the department concerned with political matters. They are the police department that play a part in the protection of VIPs - politicans, and foreign dignitaries. They are the group that arrest spies. etc.

If there was a Watergate Affair in Britain, then Special Branch would be the department that would arrest those involved and investigate. That was true back in the 1970s, it's still true now.

The Damien Green affair most certainly comes into that remit, and always would have done. It's the arrest of a politician for misconduct in public office, and involves a spy in goverment offices. It's very clearly Special Branch business, and would have been so had it happened at any time over the past 40 years and more.

But the bigger question is why does it matter which particular officers were used for the arrest? It's an irelevent operational matter. What's important is what law is the basis of the arrest. And that was not terror law. He was arrested for misconduct in public office.

The real scandal here is that he should have been prosecuted. There was ample evidence. But MPs stuck together rather than let one of their own face prosecution. One law for MPs another for everyone else. A bit like the way the smoking ban law and British licensing hours for serving alcohol don't apply in the palace of Westminster. MPs believe they are special and inconvenient laws that they create shouldn't apply to them.

Re:Anti-Terror laws abused? Really??

[Xest]

Or Iceland whose major banks had their assets frozen using anti-terror laws.

I'm British and even I think that move was absolutely shocking. It's not that I disagree with freezing the assets of the banks necessarily although I do believe it was a rushed decision that wasn't thought through in the slightest, it's the fact we were willing to effectively brand an entire nation as terrorists just because we didn't want their banks to take our cash with them when they went under.

Local councils under the last government were also using anti-terror legislation to spy on families who registered their kids outside their catchment areas, to perform surveillance on people whose dogs had fouled on public property and not been picked up.

Anti-terror legislation has a long history of abuse under the old government, I just sincerely hope that under our new government this is merely a remaining trace element that will be delt with, but we'll see I guess.

Still, Damian Green's party hold the majority of power in the coalition government right now, so hopefully having been victims first hand they know the importance of fixing bad anti-terror legislation.

Re:Anti-Terror laws abused? Really??

[Xest]

That's a horrendously biased account that misses some extremely important facts, and you are outright incorrect in most areas.

Starting with SO15, it's not just a rebadged special branch at all, and your suggestion of special branches role is rather narrow so as to be utterly misleading. No, SO15's official name is "Counter Terrorism Command", see here for a list of their roles:

http://www.met.police.uk/so/counter_terrorism.htm

Note how they're entirely terrorism focussed nowadays, and have been since well before Damien Green's arrest?

Moving on from the role of SO15, the issue isn't the branch of police involved, the issue is the way they were involved, and to some degree, the fact they were involved at all.

If you agree that they should have been involved, then the question arises as to why due process wasn't followed, why despite initial denial that there appeared to have been contact between the police and the opposing (then ruling) party or at least some members of it, and why the police investigation involved searching for things clearly unrelated to the leaks but which are extremely suggestive of political motivation.

But there's a valid question as to whether the police should've been involved at all, because there was a clear public interest defence and the CPS would've hence never been able to pursue a case anyway, this adds further evidence towards the idea that the raid was entirely politically motivated- clearly no real prospect of a conviction, searches for and through unrelated data, then why bother? This is ultimately why the case was dropped, your theory about MPs standing together makes no sense, because the vast majority of Labour were very much interested in a prosecution and they held the majority of seats in parliament.

Realistically it was almost certainly another one of Jacqui Smiths grossly authoritarian moves, and it failed miserably. It's not a case of one rule for them, one rule for everyone else- the public interest defence which would've defeated any charges with ease in this particular case (you're right there was plenty of evidence he did it, that wasn't in dispute, there was just no evidence is wasn't in the public interest) applies to anyone. In fact, to prove this point this is also why the people involved in the MP expenses leak last year avoided any charges or prosecution too, because despite pressure from MPs to act, the police also dropped that investigation because there was no way they could defeat a public interest defence against that act of leaking those documents. The evidence they did it was there, the evidence it wasn't in public interest simply didn't exist. The people responsible for that leak weren't politicians or anything of the like, they were normal citizens yet contrary to your point, public interest prevailed in their favour.

Lucky it was not FIT

[AHuxley]

UK Police Forward Intelligence Team where asked about not wearing ID vid :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRgmn-n5ls

Re:I can't really afford a big camera

[MoonBuggy]

Really? From what I can see in the article, the officer made up several untrue 'laws' throughout the encounter.

Even if the photographer happened to be in technical breach of some all-encompassing terror law, it could easily be argued that the way the officer handled it shows a desire to arrest for any old 'crime' rather than an actual response to a threat, not to mention worrying ignorance of the law. The letter of the law is not the only thing that matters, in theory at least, intent comes into the matter too.

Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly

[Roger W Moore]

Remember: in any reasonable state, it's not the policeman's job to write or interpret the law

It is part of their job to interpret the law since you have to interpret it to apply it, but that interpretation can be challenged and corrected by the courts. The sad thing is that this has happened, more than once, and yet the message still does not seem to be getting through to them. While I can certainly understand that the journalist in question was being aggressive and extremely annoying he was within his rights and if you can't handle people like that you should not be a police officer.

A far better way to have handled this would have been to just stand in front of the guy blocking his pictures all the while asking him politely if he would please wait until the start of the parade. That way you achieve most of your aims, get your message across loud and clear and annoy the journalist.

Re:it's not a bad idea, and it's not costly

[commodore64_love]

Even when you're polite, it doesn't mean you'll get good treatment. I encountered Homeland Security while driving from California to Texas, and even though I smiled and submitted to the Armed Soldiers, they still made me stand-around in the hot sun for two hours. Why? I refused to pop my trunk. I politely told them if they get a search warrant from a judge, then I'll open the car, but I will not submit to an warrantless search. So they punished me.

And then there's the guy who was flying from St Louis to Washington DC (his home), and the TSA forced him to an interrogation. He too was polite but it didn't stop the Armed Idiots from harassing him and making him miss his flight. Oh yeah - his crime? He had about $5000 in his wallet. Oh noes! OMG! A fucking american who has money! He must be a criminal!

Fuckign a. Freedom? More like serfdom.

AUDIO OF TSA INTERROGATION of innocent traveler: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWcUFB92S2o#t=1m15s

Re:"antagonising the police" isn't a crime

[lightversusdark]

Absolutely right. Last week I returned to my hometown of London with my American wife, and within minutes of stepping off the Tube saw a guy waving his finger in the face of a policeman shouting words along the lines of "You're out of order. Do your f'ing job properly."
I turned to my wife and said "It's good to be home".
I have no idea what the situation was, and who was in the right, but we both agreed that in the US this kind of reprimanding of a public servant would be cut short with use of force.