I went down to Chatham High Street today to take some pictures of the flyover being demolished (that’s another post to come) and to use up a film I’ve had in a camera for over a year. Doing so had some unexpected consequences…
This photo…
Suspect behaviour
led to this photo…
Questions in the High Street
which led to this form…
Unjustified
which led to this letter…
To the Professional Standards Department
RE: Complaint relating to the behaviour of police officer xxxxx, police officer xxxxx and PCSO xxxxx.
At around 11.45am on the 08/07/09 police Officer xxxxx placed me under arrest in Chatham High Street. Officer xxxxx stated I was being arrested under section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000 and read me my rights. As I was arrested I was handcuffed. I asked why she had arrested me. She stated because I had taken a photograph of her and that she considered this to be an unlawful obstruction. After a short time I was led up the High Street and detained in a police van for around 20 minutes. It is my view officer xxxxx had no reasonable grounds to arrest and detain me under section 44 of the Act. The arrest was made immediately after I photographed xxxxx whilst voluntarily waiting as she spoke to a colleague on the phone in relation to me being requested to stop by PCSO xxxxx and officer xxxxx’s subsequent involvement.
The relevant events leading to the arrest are as follows: I was initially stopped by two men in the High Street close to Snappy Snaps. The men did not identify themselves though stated that they worked for Medway Council. I saw a badge attached to one of the men’s waistband and saw the logo of Kent Police. The men asked me why I was taking pictures in the High Street. I told them photography was a hobby and explained what and who I had taken pictures of and why. The camera was an Olympus OM1 which is an analogue film camera so I was therefore unable to show them a preview of the pictures I had taken. The men asked me to provide them with details about my identity. I asked them under what authority they were making their request. They did not provide a clear answer to this question in that they failed to state the legal authority under which they were making their enquiries. I stated it was my belief that I was not legally obliged to provide them with any further information and was choosing not to do so. They said that if I did provide the details they requested then they would contact the police. I did not argue the point or move away. One of the men then used his phone as the other flagged down PCSO xxxxx who was walking down the High Street from the Rochester end. The same line of questioning and responses followed. We were then joined by officer xxxxx who again came from the Rochester end of the High Street. Once again the same line of questioning followed until such time I was arrested. At no time did I refuse to give an account for myself and my activities in the High Street.
After sitting in the police van for around 20 minutes the outer back doors were opened and I was spoken to through the locked inner cage by officers xxxxx and xxxxx, both of whom were in plain clothes and neither of which produced their warrant cards. They spoke about the threat of terrorism. They were keen to seek my agreement with regards to the views they expressed, both about the threat of terrorism and the suspicious nature of people with cameras and especially those who chose not to provide identifying details about themselves when requested to do so. I was asked if I would now provide details regarding my identity. I asked, taking into account I was now under arrest, handcuffed and detained, if I was obliged to do so. They stated that I was and said that if I did not I would be taken to the police station. I indicated I could not physically provide any proof of my identity whilst handcuffed and locked in the van. They let me out. I asked to be unhandcuffed. The request was refused. I informed officer xxxxx details of my identity were in my wallet which was in my inside jacket pocket. Officer xxxxx placed his hand inside my jacket pocket and removed my wallet upon which he opened it and could see my photo card driving license. He passed the wallet to one of his colleagues who took it away. Officer xxxxx then proceeded to search my pockets and pat me down. It is my assertion the refusal to remove the handcuffs was unjustified and perpetuated the use of unreasonable force. At no time had I made any physical resistance or attempts to move away whilst being questioned by any of the police officers, the PCSO or the two unidentified men claiming to work for Medway Council. I was not informed by officer xxxxx the object of his search nor the grounds or authorisation for it. It is my understanding that as officer xxxxx was in plain clothes he was also obliged to produce his warrant card prior to conducting his pat down and search of my pockets which he did not. Furthermore it is my understanding that as the search was in public the officer is only authorised to require me to take of an outer jacket, jacket and gloves. Officer xxxxx required me to take of my trainers and patted down the undersides of both feet.
For a further 5-10 minutes I stood in the street in full view of passers by handcuffed and accompanied and intermittently spoken to by officers xxxxx and xxxxx. Whilst sharing their views about the threat of terrorism officer xxxxx stated she had felt threatened by me when I took her picture. I cannot recall exactly what she said but I do recall her referring to my size and inferring she found it intimidating at the time (I am 5ft 11in and weigh about 12 stone). Presently officer xxxxx returned and released the handcuffs. Officer xxxxx stated he was satisfied with the results of checks which his colleague(s) had made. He put his hand out for me to shake, apologised for the inconvenience, stated that he hoped I understood given the ‘strange’ times we are in and left in an unmarked car with officer xxxxx.
Officer xxxxx then presented herself to me and asked if I had been informed that I had been dearrested; I stated that I had not at which point she proceeded to do so. She also offered a verbal apology and her hand for me to shake. I asked if I was free to go and continue to take pictures in the High Street, she informed me that I was; PCSO xxxxx added as long as you don’t take any pictures of us. At this point I walked away feeling upset, embarrassed and traumatised by the events.
I believe the way I was treated was unjustified and wholly disproportionate. I assert that officer xxxxx misused her powers of arrest and demonstrated a poor understanding of the law in relation to arrest, the use of force, the use of detention, photography in public places, obstruction and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2000. Furthermore I assert that officer xxxxx is unsuitable to act as a police officer or at the very least requires further training if she is intimidated by a male of an unremarkable stature taking a single picture with a camera pointed in her direction. I assert that officer xxxxx failed to follow the correct procedures when conducting his search of me and perpetuated the use of unreasonable force by refusing to release me from handcuffs. I assert that PCSO xxxxx demonstrated an unacceptable attitude by making a veiled threat towards me in relation to my future activities as an amateur photographer. I seek for these matters to be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me. With regards to redress I seek a written apology in relation to any shortfalls identified with regards to the involved officer’s conduct and consideration of compensation to be made to me for the upset, embarrassment and psychological trauma caused. I would also like Kent and Medway Police to liaise with Medway Council in order to identify the two unidentified men that initially stopped and questioned me. I seek for their conduct to also be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me.
Yours sincerely
Cc – The independent monitor of the implementation of anti-terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, The House of Lords London SW1A 0AA.
————————————————————
I know a fair few people may say serves you right for a number of reasons. My reponse to that is it will serve you right when you wake up one day and realise you don’t live in a free country anymore. I’ve been stopped nearly a dozen time under section 44. Up until now I’ve always provided my details. Today I decided not to. Seems that when I choose to exercise my rights I get arrested, cuffed and detained for doing so. Yossarian would appreciate the logic in that.
————————————————————
@ anna – nothing in writing from Kent Police yet. They’ve verbally informed me that they’re seeking to wrap up their preliminary investigation early next week. The IPCC wrote to me to confirm the complaint had been referred to them and that they had decided it was a matter for Kent to investigate. Once I get Kent’s reponse I’ll make a decision whether or not to lodge an appeal with the IPCC. Either way I’ll do another post to follow up.
@ gus. A version of the photo without their faces obscured has been published in various places online and in the printed press.
Most posters are sympathetic with you and quite rightly so. I can only think that those who seem to believe that you got what you deserved are not photographers. I am a photographer (amateur) and have been stopped by police and had films seized in the past – for no good reason. I made a lot of fuss about it. It really has got to the point at which you can expect to be harrassed by police if you take photos in public. That is appalling. As I say, those who are not sympathetic are probably not photographers. They would probably have a different view if they got harrassed by police – or Council workers – when engaging in whatever leisure pursuits they follow. A minority of people have, sadly, said that you should have been more compliant. I think you were excessively compliant. If two blokes from the Council started asking me why I was taking photos they would get a very short answer – the second and final word would be “OFF!”
The stupidity and dishonesty of all these officials is astounding and rightly self defeating. The authorities need to wake up quickly before the good people of these isles lose confidence in the policing system. Please remember that the LABOUR party and GORDON BROWN are ultimately responsible for these despicable infringements on our civil liberties. Get out and vote at the next election and don’t let them off the hook!
Good on you. In 11 years Labour Govt has managed to create the same kind of climate of fear of police that existed in East Germany, The sooner we get a competent Govt into power the sooner we can start to unwind the police state we now all live in. As for the Police, they lost my respect long ago, but I cannot say anymore because I am not allowed to, seriously !!!!
[...] in Blighty, an intrepid blooger/photog has joined this decreasingly exclusive group. The officer felt intimidated by the [...]
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/police-to-target-the-hippies-with-video-cameras-200904151702/
and
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/very-big-terror-plot-not-very-big-or-terrifying-or-a-plot%2c-admit-police-200904221718/
and
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/terror-raids-unearth-huge-amount-of-bullshit-200904101694/
and
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/fears-grow-over-vampire-policemen-200907011867/
an
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/police-looking-forward-to-%91summer-of-truncheons%92-200902241600/
The plain facts are that the police have acted unlawfully. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 section 3, subsection 3 states that a constable may only stop and search a person if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence is being committed or you are in possession of drugs, stolen property or offensive weapons. A constable must ask your name but you are not obliged to provide it unless being arrested for an offence. That offence must exist and ‘acting suspiciously’ or ‘suspected of committing offences of taking photos of children (me)’ or ‘poss obtaining photos of sensitive buildings (Steve Carroll)’ do not amount to any offence known to law. It is important when venturing out with a camera to ensure that you have nothing on you with your name and address on. You should refuse to supply same and allow a search. If you supply your details, a report is made on the Police National Computer that will be very harmful to you in the event of an enhanced criminal records check. A report that you were stopped by police suspected of taking photos of children will even prevent you from working as a volunteer in a charity shop!
[...] reading a couple of the latest stories (here and here), as well as numerous blogs (e.g. here), I find it hard to understand what is going on if it’s not turning into a police [...]
Take to the top and get that apology and compensation..money is the only language the cops understand otherwise they just ignore and carry on like over bearing fools
[...] photographers blog entries can be found here and here. July 22nd, 2009 | Tags: | Category: Blog, Blogging, Human Rights, Law, News, Opinion, [...]
[...] A photographer was arrested for taking photographs in Kent – and apparently also for being tallish in a public place (according the Register, although this bit of the story may be apocryphal). Well, being tallish seems safer than looking a bit Brazilian. [...]
Those individuals who have commented that it’s ‘all your own fault’ should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps they should think hard about the conduct exhibited here by the police, and what this says about the future. Those purporting to be concerned about protecting their kids should perhaps wonder whether in 5, 10 or 15 years it will be their little bundle of joy who is being routinely harassed because of their name, hair or skin colour, size or because they are enganged in some innocuous activity the intellectually limited coppers of the day ‘just don’t get’. Knowing your rights and protecting them is the basis of a free society. The police fan club members who seem to see no wrong done here clearly believe that any rights are merely what the police decide give you. That this country is in such a poor state is largely down to them and their embarrassing, craven attitudes and blind obedience to whatever the guy in home office is the right thing to think. I am frankly ashamed to hold the same passport.
“These times” are no different to any other times; the issues to be dealt with will not be made easier by simply handing over the dictation of right and wrong to people in uniforms, whatever the apparent good of their intentions. Without the fair application of real laws, this country is no better than the other supposedly repressive regimes the government so frequently criticises.
I thought we had it bad in the states. Best of luck to you!
[...] Section 44 in Chatham High Street. [...]
[...] Section 44 in Chatham High Street. [...]
I’m not a photographer, and I think you were treated unfairly. I don’t get where this intense fear of photography has come from, considering that nearly everything can be found online, and if a terrorist wished to photograph something, all they would have to do is be more circumspect. Harassing photographers will in no way prevent terrorism. It actually promotes it.
*sigh* I was planning my summer-vacation to Britain (and I was seriously considering Kent) this year. When I read about this treatment of photographers i will have to reconsider. I am a hobby-photographer and don´t want to spend my vacation-time with fending of paranoid policepersons.
I hope you get your apology
Greetings
Rogér
Dave,
It it is also possible (as I have learnt the hard way) for the police to search you under the Terrorism Act, which has a quite different set of rules to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act.
Either way, this shows the importance of knowing your rights as best you can. I would also encourage anybody who was been harassed in similar manner to write to their MP, as they made the wretched laws in the first place.
Vaci
[...] http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/ [...]
Referring to Steve Carrolls comment: “I can only think that those who seem to believe that you got what you deserved are not photographers.”. I can only think that they are not true Britons, with a keen sense of justice.
[...] when it comes to photography Filed under: Arts, Photography — Korenwolf @ 8:08 am http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/ Leave a [...]
As I remember the High St Chavham has a number of cctv installations. These will most likely have recorded the interaction. Did the officer feel threatened by being recorded on these – obviously not as she would have taken action against the operators. So, why the concern at having her image on a digital camera where the cctv would record a longer and more comprehensive view of the interaction?
[...] at least be viewed as suspicious (especially as in the current terrorist driven paranoid mindset photographers are getting arrested purely for taking pictures in a public place! Contrary to the opinion of our boy and girls in blue, [...]
[...] I doubt I would spend as much time as I have on this and the previous entry on this topic (you can see what merits “suspicious behaviour” in the eyes of Kent Police here) However, last year Kent Police arrested someone who had the temerity to ask a Police officer to [...]
This happens too often in the UK for it to just be an issue of stupid and arrogant cops. I just has to be a policy, or training, or something. Cops often have policies that aren’t policies, such as giving extra harassment to political people the interact with. That’s not written down anywhere; but you can bet 8/10 times that if you interact with cops at anything at all political they will be much more violent and intimidating than if it’s a rowdy baseball game or a crowded rock concert.
Cowardly swine. They all will tell say they just want to enforce the law, but they don’t. They often go beyond what the law allows, which shows that they don’t actually believe in it, and that they are comfortable being criminals. Just being a cop you have more opportunity and peer pressure to commit crimes than 95% of the populace outside of high school.
This in not a matter of individual bad cops for the most part. I’m sure their disgusting cop culture, and subtle messages about what laws to enforce and how to treat different kinds of people, intimidate lots of nice people who happen to be cops into acting as bad as they are told.
I’m Canadian by the way, and here we get less of this crazy, paranoid photograph nonsense, but enough of other cop crime like assaults, unjustified taserings, intimidation, racist violence, etc. etc. Everyone should carry a videocamera at all times. It’s the only thing that makes them tell the truth in court.
A year or two ago some of our federal cops killed a guy in an airport who was acting strange and was holding a stapler. He spoke Polish, so instead of finding someone to speak to him in Polish, they zapped him multiple times, and were caught on video doing it. At court they lied through their teeth in front of the entire country, then were contradicted by the video, and then changed their stories. Then recordings of them talking on their way to investigate this Polish guy revealed that they were talking about tasering him before even seeing the situation, let alone trying to resolve it without violence. They just lied to the entire country, in court, and no one apologized, nothing. If anyone else did that, they would be in jail for manslaughter, if not second degree murder, because they talked about it beforehand, and they’d have had the book thrown at them for blatantly lying on the stand. But these are cops, so it’s somehow ok.
Rant over. I’m really sorry you were harassed by police. You are very brave to stand up to them. Hopefully with cell phone cameras and youtube fascist police overreach eventually be beaten back and they will obey the laws they enforce.
Alex,
I don’t think you’re going to get much satisfaction from the police. The fact that the Area Commander for Medway, the officer in charge of the police investigating the complaint against their colleagues, has issued a public statement saying they did nothing wrong, doesn’t bode well! Personally I think it’s unprofessional for him to pre-empt the results of an investigation by his subordinates. I suspect you’ll end up appealing to the IPCC. Have you got yourself a lawyer (preferably a member of the police actions lawyers group)?
[...] To follow on from this post… [...]
The comment from Canadian Chiam James is most appropriate, given the events of 1 April concerning Ian Tomlinson. Here we saw the police and IPCC both state that Tomlinson simply collapsed and died on his way home. However, footage taking by concerned bystanders later comprehensively disproved this and showed what really happened. Despite what the police say, it has never been more important that we monitor their activities to provide incontrovertible evidence of their wrongdoing. As to how police interference with photographers actually started, I have long tried to work this out. I can only conclude that it is a mixture of child protection nonsense, wholly irrational fears of terrorism and a reluctance for people to film on digital and post onto websites that forms a type of broadcasting that the government is unable to control. I have certainly learnt a great deal more since getting broadband and am grateful to people like Alex Turner for providing such an informative account of his experiences in this field.
What the police did was against the law. All you have to do is prove they acted illegally, then prosecute them for doing so.
Good luck with that one.
As the old saying has it, an early arrest is not expected…
Welcome to Soviet Britain
Yes and no” yes” It could have been handled perhaps in a more tacful manner. Was it unwarranted or unreasonable to question given the way the World is today? No! Perhpas the women Officer should not have fished for a personal reason in the first place. It would have taken me by surprise also where i would ask myself why on Earth anyone such as a Plice Officer would want to provide some or any silly reason as to why a Photo should not have been taken? Nuts! I should have been arrested long ago.
Was it fair to ask for your Identity. Yes! considering the circumstances re terrorism. I would have given them the cooperation and i and done so. Because you choose not to and you acted defensivily because you may have felt offended more by the Female Officers reasoning for objecting to you having her Photograph taken got you in a more lenghtly strife. Your feelings obviously elevated even more and you became more uncooprative. Understandably so” Everyone handles things differently.
I too would have been very surprised by an Officer giving me such an explanation as to why she felt offended? In reality she should have been up front and said to you that they would like to question you as to why you are taking photos. From there on you should have been informed as to why it is they are asking; They should have then stated the truth and said because of terrorism ans security issues. I am sure most of us would have reacted more understandingly from tha point on. I think if it was handled in that way that you more than likely would have cooperated with them. I hope the Police have learned something from this too.
Cheers” Ray
[...] 44 of the Terrorism Act while taking photographs in his local High Street. He blogs about it here, and his story was picked up and spread by the power of the mighty [...]
[...] Take a picture of anything? You’re a terrorist! Take a picture of a police car? You most definitely are a terrorist! Waylett and Innis were stopped under the Terrorism Act in Lodge Road, St John’s Wood, west London, after the actor took a photograph of a police patrol. [...]
You sound like the worst kind of idiot to me. The initial officer was harsh and wrong I agree. You must realise that when one police officer starts something however silly or mistaken it may be, and let’s be honest the typical policeman is not the brightest, it must be followed up properly. Everyone makes mistake and has bad days etc and when you’re in a job with public responsibility your errors can cause disruption. Why could you not simply provide your details when asked initially? Have you something to hide or do you just have an attitude problem? It sounds to me like you could have avoided all of the disruption by providing your details, and everyone involved could have returned to real anti-terrorism work.
I’m not a photographer but I have heard of other cases where people have been asked to identify themselves or move on. Perhaps if this did not occur terrorists would be taking pictures of potential targets; I don’t know but if it only means providing ID then what’s the harm?
I think perhaps you should be arrested again for wasting police time, with your clear ambition of gaining personal publicity and/or financial gain. Stop playing the victim and wasting peoples time.
As to the worst kind of idiot; I reckon spouting off ill informed and poorly considered views are a characteristic feature. Cold comfort no doubt but you should know that you’re not alone.
@Jack: “…with your clear ambition of gaining personal publicity and/or financial gain…playing the victim”.
You don’t have to be photographer for something like this to happen to you (but it helps). Perhaps one day you will find ourself in a similar situation. Perhaps then you will develop an opinion that is actually intelligent, articulate and informed.
I was shocked to read this, but also not shocked at all. I prefer Germany, where at least in Berlin the police are still human beings with some sense of decency. Officer Pies and officer WPC Neurosis there had no right to do what they did, and having been stopped by the police before in the Medway towns I do understand. I too was doing nothing illegal, but they were quite threatening. Britain only ever had the illusion of being a free country. I say we cut off the head of the serpent and send the royals into a peaceful retirement somewhere else.
The Police, “The Council” and all their agents of oppression are looking to stop terror; do they not realise that they are working for ‘The State Terror Department’.
[...] Read the full report here… click here to read [...]
If it is now an occupational hazard for photographers to be stopped by the police, isn’t there some kind of organisation you belong to that can issue some kind of of recognised membership card that can be produced for the police, that they will also be aware of? Although, there’s always the possibility that terrorists could abuse that, so I’m talking myself out of that idea.
Got to be honest, as a member of the public, I’d rather you to be stopped than not, if it means they do prevent another 7/7. Sorry. Just ID yourself next time – like I say, if it’s happening to all of you, then you should be used to it. And surely, if you’re photographing the local area, the local police will get to know you, won’t they? Perhaps those of you embarking on this endeavour should pop along or put something in writing to Medway police, explaining who you are and what you do – maybe that will help avoid the situation in the future.
I personally have no problem with the police and I get a little pissed off with people making their job harder than it already is. I’m not saying there aren’t bad cops, but there are bad sorts in any batch of people – including photographers, I expect.
In my job, I have tons of red tape crap and processes I have to follow, which inconvenience some individuals – however, without those processes in place, many more people would be victims. It’s the ‘needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few’ I’m afraid.
You should be arrested for using such a cheap camera.
Oi! Chewin’gum! Shouldn’t you be gettin on with making some money for the economy?
Why on earth would a terrorist walk around with a camera taking photos when they’ve got Google Earth and Google Streets??
Lets be honest with advances like google maps etc why would terrorists even need to go out and take photos! I guess police have targets to stop X amount of people per day.
[...] to his blog, our over-tall photographer Alex Turner was taking snaps in Chatham High St last Thursday, when he [...]
These stories are getting more and more common. It puts me off the idea of photography, Its like I am being made to feel guilty of taking photos in public places, like I am going to use a picture to co-ordinate a terrorist attack? Get real – where is the target of importance in that particlar high street? If you were wanting to use photography to plan an attack, you would want to be subtle and probably use a cameraphone or hidden camera not a DSLR. Also how would you lot who are saying things like “Got to be honest, as a member of the public, I’d rather you to be stopped than not, if it means they do prevent another 7/7.” like to be stoppped every time you get your mobile phone out? You could be talking to a member of your “cell” planning details of your attacks, or photographing targets. When something starts to affect you personally maybe you will feel different.
I dont see why I should have to report to a police station every time I plan on going out to enjoy my hobby, do you? Are you also pro ID card by any chance?
Welcome to 1984.
Jane
I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you on this, as you seem to be saying that if unwarranted police interference is commonplace, then you ought to just suck it up. (“if it’s happening to all of you, then you should be used to it”).
Photography is a perfectly legal and legitimate activity, undertaken by both amateurs and professionals. You don’t need to be a member of any professional body and issued with a membership card to snap away on a camera and mobile phone. I’m horrified that you think a perfectly acceptable solution is to have people apply to the police in writing giving all their personal details and explaining why they want to take photographs before snapping away. If you’re planning to behave legally you should not need to seek permission from the state. What other activities would you suggest also need prior approval from the police?
Alex was courteous enough to explain to the police why he was taking photographs, despite provocation by council officials. However he was arrested for failing to provide ID – which he was perfectly entitled to do so. Aside from the obvious point that identity does not prove intent, it’s not a good idea to give the police more information than you need to. Checks such as this are logged on to force criminal intelligence databases and can come back to haunt you later. Alex is actually lucky that he’s not one of those innocent people whose DNA and fingerprints are now retained on the national criminal database.
I completely agree that people should not make life hard for the police carrying out their job. That’s not the same as allowing officers to do exactly as they want, regardless of the law. When that’s the case we need to object strongly. Police officers have a huge amount of power, and if you allow them to abuse it with a small group of people (although I’d argue that a lot of people take photos!), then they’ll quickly move on to abusing it with the wider population. The only reason the Terrorism Act was used in this case it that it’s the piece of legislation that gives the police the most power over the population (Section 44 allowing them to search anyone, anytime, without any suspicion.) Even the government’s own appointee to oversee this Act, Lord Carlisle, has said the police are misusing it on a massive scale.
@ Jane – If someone uses their position of authority to request information then they ought to know what powers they have to do so. I said to the council officers, the PCSO and the WPC that it was my belief there was no law applicable under the circumstances at the time that obliged me to provide my details to them however if they were able to tell me otherwise then I would give my details as requested. They either could not or would not so I didn’t. Seems fair enough to me.
@ Daniel – Don’t let it put you off. In the grand scheme of things incidents like mine are comparitivly rare given the number of people that use cameras in public. Having said that I still think it’s important to follow up on percieved misuses of authority and police powers. The bottom line is I was wrongly (if not unlawfully) arrested and detained. Whether the circumstances were do to with photography or not the police should be able to account for their actions or formally apologise for any shortfalls. I’m still waiting for either of these things to happen.
@ Catkins. Thanks again. You views and comment are helpful as ever.
[...] The photowalk was inspired by the actions of Medway Council and Kent Police when they arrested me on the 8th July, for what I’m still not sure. The only offical line I’ve seen on it seems to be so that they could establish my identity. I’m not so sure about that. I don’t think they are either. I suppose that’s why I’ve still had nothing in writing from Kent Police in response to my complaint. [...]
I am in full support of you to exercise your freedoms but reference
“Quote” I know a fair few people may say serves you right for a number of reasons. My response to that is it will serve you right when you wake up one day and realise you don’t live in a free country anymore.
I have to inform you that this is already the case since I have fallen foul of the “Law” many times even although I have never broken the law and don’t even drive a car, an option I decided upon after being stopped by the Police many times and even on one occasion arrested and charged with stealing my own car that had not been reported stolen.
I decided to stop driving because the Police threatened my personal safety forcing me off the road with their car even although I was not committing any offence, and were on each occasion extremely forceful and offensive not unlike the school boy bullies they always were.
In addition I was taken into custody on another occasion at my own bank where I had been taken by my father who was waiting nearby. I was taken handcuffed to the Kenley Police station whereupon I was heavily coerced (fill in the blanks) and finally signed a confession to using the alleged stolen chequebook which was in fact my own property. I had on this occasion been discharged that very day from hospital after a major injury and without my father I could not easily find my way home. When the Police released me they refused to allow me to use their phone or give me cash for the phone. I could access no cash since they left the evidence my cheque book at the bank. I asked the how I should get home and they just laughed. That was in 1978 but more recently on 10th August 2005 which you may remember was soon after the unfortunate Jean Charles Demenez execution at Stockwell I fell foul of the Police again.
On this occasion I was interrogated naked against a wall by a five strong armed Police SWAT team after they let themselves in and dragged me out of my own bed at gunpoint. My only crime against society is that I have a disability. The case was put into the hands of the IPPC who it is my belief are in the pockets of the Police who themselves eventually investigated the assault on me and finally warned me not to put in a claim against them.
At no time would they tell me why I had been attacked by the Police who were extremely un-pleasant their demeanour that I was already convicted guilty and even today they will not tell me that I am no longer under investigation or surveillance. Last year I was leaving the country and because I am so afraid now of the Police I sought their permission to leave. They said they could not say that I was no longer being investigated and that it was up to me if I left the country. It did not surprise me when against my better judgement I travelled and at Detroit airport during a connection I was detained, my passport and all my possessions confiscated and then interrogated for two hours.
I am living in my own country in constant fear, I have not slept soundly since the attack by the Police on my home, and I live in fear because I know that we live in a Police state where the Police believe if you douse them in petrol they are so far above the law that they are FIREPROOF and get promoted when they themselves break the law as we saw with Jean Charles Demenezez.
My real concern is, if I become the victim of crime who do I call because the Law is not represented equitably by the Police and I am not availed protection either from crime or Police and the two are difficult to differentiate in my opinion.
Make no mistake the Gestapo jackboot is right here right now.
Blimey, so the police woman feels intimidated by a camerea!!
She would be a jibbering wreck if she had to face a hardened criminal with a baseball bat, sounds like she is it the wrong job.
[...] In particular, what’s so evil about tripods? It makes less than no sense. Still, people get arrested for taking apparently innocuous photographs here, which always makes me feel a bit nervous when I’m out running around with a camera. As [...]
Good on monaxle! It would appear that you can only join the police if you totally lack any form of common sense or, if you have any in the first place, agree to renounce it on joining. North Korea has arrived in the UK.
[...] to also be fully investigated, the process and outcomes of which I request to be shared with me. Section 44 in Chatham High Street. (Thanks, Mike!) 0 Comments [...]
Can you imagine the piss taking the WPC got from her collegues. ” Dont move I have a loaded camera” or ” are you posing for the police gazzette”
The woman is a disgrace to her uniform, she lacked courage and judgment.
Hi Alex,
I am the reporter for the BBC Politics Show South East and I would like to see if you are able to do a short interview for me please? If you could email me at helen.drew@junipertv.co.uk I will give you much more information.
Many thanks.
Helen
[...] monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/ [...]
Now if anyone remembers flashmobs, this strikes me as the perfect opportunity for one. Get as many people down in Chatham High Street with a camera to stand and take pictures for just 2 minutes. Wonder how they’d handle 2 or 300 people all taking pictures.
Probably send in the SAS.
jessica (IP: 195.138.195.241 , outbound1b.medway.gov.uk) says…
Your a funikng lmug
Not sure what your getting at Jessica though I have an idea. Is the misspelling a ploy to get around the councils filters? Why not comment again when you leave work and make it clear what you really mean. Thanks.
So the up shot is??
leme guess
If you have 10K spare you can push the matter to court but have been advised not to.
No further appollogy has been forth comming other than a rehash of the response sent to “the register” online blog.
You have been stopped ??? times since but have always provided id and an address if asked.
Have you filed for info (uner freedom of information) about searches enquiries made about you conducted by council staff or the constabulary?
And the shape shifting figures “from the council” ???
(An update please! or if you have done so an easy link to it from the top of the page )
@ Ru – Seeming as you ask: the upshot is that the police have yet to decide on their written response. They are aware that I will post the response here when it comes and that in all probability it will be subjected to close scrutiny by many others apart from me.
The inspector that’s got the job of dealing with it has told me that they (Kent Police) want to get it right. The inspector phoned me on Monday. I was told that the complaint investigation report has now been submitted and reviewed by other more senior officers.
The inspector described two ways that this could go now. One option was that he could make a recommendation that compensation is paid to me, that I have sight of a sanitised version of the report and that I receive a verbal account of the investigation, it’s findings and any recommendations made / action taken. The inspector indicated that by accepting this option would in effect draw a line under the complaint i.e. resolution. The other option is to continue to pursue the outcomes I set out in my letter of complaint. The inspector told me that if I chose the second option then it may take a bit longer to conclude as any written response would first need to be cleared by their legal advisors. The inspector did not seek to influence my response.
Though at a glance the first option may not seem that different from the second I’ve chosen to pursue the outcomes described in my letter.
Kent Police are still within their own time scales for responding formally. I have been kept up to speed with the process via unannounced visits to my door and telephone calls.
By my reckoning in order for Kent Police to to meet their aim of resolving complaints within 120 days they have until the 5th of November. That’s fine by me.
Thanks for asking and being interested.
Even the bits of Jessica’s post that weren’t deliberately mangled are grammatically incorrect…
Jessica @ medway.gov.uk, the correct contraction is “You’re”… Derived from “You are”.
E.g. You’re making a fool of yourself.
Perhaps Jessica’s employer should be informed about a possible misuse of council IT equipment, breach of council computer use policy, or misuse of employer’s time (as well as the obvious lack of drafting ability)?
You don’t think she deserves that really do you. After all she’s just a funikng lmug.
Alex
It’s up to you which of the options you’ll eventually settle upon, but a few issues to consider. I’d make sure you clarify how the first option is officially recorded should you choose that route. ‘Resolution’ sounds like ‘local resolution’ which I believe (although I’m not 100%) is not counted as an upheld complaint against the police. If you look at the IPCC’s reports you’ll see that they claim only 10% of complaints are upheld, but over 45% of complaints are ‘locally resolved’. Hmmmmm. If things don’t affect the stats, will things change?
Although you said the officer in charge was not trying to influence your decision, he seems to be indicating there’ll be money upfront if you go the police’s preferred route. Also, if you go for the informal resolution why are they only going to give you a “sanitised version” of the report, a verbal account and not address and pursue all the important issues raised in your complaint? Would accepting an early resolution result in no action being pursued against the council officials who kicked all this off?
You’ve been arrested, abused and assaulted in public. In your position I’d hang on for the complete investigation. The fact that they’re talking about compensation and resolution already would indicate they know there’s been a huge screw up.
I don’t know if you are aware of the case of David Mery, which has similarities with yours. His blog is http://gizmonaut.net/blog/
He’s finally pursued his case to the bitter end and as a result the police have agreed to delete his DNA (I know you avoided this) but also completely wipe his arrest from the PNC and other police records. This will obviously make matters such as security clearance, enhanced CRBs, visas etc easier in future. It’s important that you are put back in exactly the same position with officialdom and its databases you were before you were arrested. You don’t want to apply for a CRB to help out at your kids’ school in 5 years time and find their intelligence database has you down as Medway’s answer to Osama Bin Laden!
Good luck with whatever route you take.
Thanks for your word Catkins. I told the inspector I wanted to pursue the outcomes I set out in my letter i.e. the second option.
And sorry, I meant informally not locally resolved. Duh.
I applaude you Alex. You have made a stand against the bullying police State. Only today I filmed 3 PCSOs ouside a bank where there seemed to be some incident in progress. They descended on me quoting the anti terrorist law and and demanded my identity. basically I declined with the comment “No, do your worst” and they suddenly lost interest. I even have a portion of it on video. I made the point I am entitled to walk down the high street and film what I like without intervention from the Poliuce/PCSO. (For the moment at least)
Chris, Wembley
Good on you. Well done for standing your ground. The fact that the PCSOs backed down so quickly illustrates nicely the ridiculousness of their intervention.
[...] youngest members who interviewed me and a few other photographers and supporters about my arrest and the use of Section 44. The second is a podcast produced by a couple of guys from the [...]
Alex,
I’ve just read about this incident for the first time, and it’s made my blood boil. Unfortunately, it hasn’t actually surprised me.
It was for incidents like this that the “Terrorism” act was brought in.
It was nothing to do with protecting people from Terrorism.
These kind of incidents are going to occur more frequently, and get even worse. If you think we live in a police state now, it’s going to be far worse in years to come.
This incident happened because those officers had the power to carry it out. They infringed your rights because they wanted to. They used the Terrorism act as an excuse.
Now humour me for a second and try and go with this just for a moment – imagine if a small number of people wanted a lot of power over the masses. If they just came along and demanded it, there would be outrage. A much better way for them way to do it, would be to make everyone want to live under their control or even ask for it. Wouldnt it? So how could this group of people make this happen?
1. Create a problem.
2. Watch the reaction.
3. Provide the solution.
e.g.
1. Blow up the world trade center and tell everyone the terrorists are coming. ( Much like Hitler burning down the Reichstag in the 30s as an excuse to kick off witht he Polish).
2. Watch every become frigthened and start hating the “enemy”/
3. Offer the solution of protecting them by removing their freedom.
Its been done many times before. Governments of the world have done it throughout history. Its a documented fact.
Spend half an hour researching the 9/11 event and you’ll be staggered.
A police apology and and compensation might make you feel good, and I hope you get it. But its irrelevant and won’t change anything.
The real people who have screwed you over aren’t the police. It was a group of globalist elites. They run the banking system, the military, the corporations and the media.
You probably think I’m nuts. .. Before you say so though, how many buildings do you think collapsed at ground zero on 9/11? If you think it was 2, then look into the stuff I’ve listed below. You’re in for a shock.
Watch this:
http://monaxle.com/2009/07/08/section-44-in-chatham-high-street/
and this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
as a start. And then google these
9/11 thruth
Bilderberg Group
Council on Foreign Relations
Trilateral Commission
[...] requiring the same justification of judicial pre-eminence as harrassing blameless bystanders and photographers in the street; assaulting legitimate protestors, and retaining the very genetic code of the proven [...]
Section 44 has got to stop. It’s harassment.
[...] follow on from this. I had a another letter and a call last week to let me know Kent Police have concluded their [...]
Hi Alex
For a number of reasons I am growing increasingly concerned by the police’s apparent lack of knowledge of the law relating to their interaction with the public and the bullish way in which they exercise their perceived powers.
I am in the process of researching this and wondered if it would be possible to speak with you at some point.
Regards
Susan
Hi Susan. Click on the contact tab at the top of the page and send me an email.
[...] a potential terrorist. Nice to see that the Met Police circular is working effectively. Image (C) Alex Turner – read his full account at his [...]
[...] Kent Police. Well I was at work and they spoke to my wife. They were ringing to let me know that my complaint has been upheld. The only details I have right now is the phrase unlawful arrest and that that they [...]
I agree that the conduct of all concerned (except the photographer) is appalling, it would appear that the knowledge of our police force with regard to the law is going downhill rapidly.
I hope you persue your claim as stated and especially with regard to the two men who did not provide you with any id at all, yet expected you as a law abiding citizen to provide them with yours and answer their questions.
It was clearly wrongful arrest and they have used the anti terror laws as an excuse to stop you going about your lawful business.
Good luck for the future and well done for fighting for the people’s rights.
As a keen amateur photographer I have fallen foul of Section 44, but not to the extent you have. I found this blog when searching for info on Section 44 after looking at this on the BBC News website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8384972.stm?ls). Seems it effects amateurs and professionals alike. I’m surprised that photographers haven’t banded together to press their case against the application of this ignominious legislation or do you know better?
Hi Rebecca – There have and are a number of campaigns on the go to press the case against the misapplication / misinterpretation of current legislation. Check Amateur Photography magazine and the British Journal of Photography for two such examples.
[...] Photographer arrested under Section 44 in Chatham High Street. (July 2009) [...]
Just coming to this late on a link from the new story on reigning in the police abuses http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-told-stop-this-abuse-of-terror-law-1834626.html
Good on you Alex, I`m from Rainham but live in Tokyo. I went back home last year and walked around the old Medway towns for a bit of a photographic tour (urban decay and renewal and all that) Of course i had heard about the draconian laws and heavy-handedness of the police and it really made taking pictures no fun at all. I was constantly watching my back, worried when i would have to defend myself and, having brushed up on my rights before i went, standing up for them. Seems the police hold all the cards they can get you on obstruction when they find their initial reasoning pointed out as absurd.
It will take a while to get better me thinks.
Off to look at your pictures now.
Damon
[...] harassment of photographers on the streets of England. Particularly gratifying is reference to my arrest on Chatham High Street back in July. Mr Humphrys makes a pun about someone being battered. He offers a sheepish apology. [...]
Britain has always had more than its fair share of officious and entirely ignorant people who enjoy bossing others around. Previously our culture restrained these people. Now New Labour have given them uniforms and a title – PCSO.
You should publish the names, numbers and photographs (no blurring) of the police officers concerned: name them and shame them, that’s the least they deserve, the pigs.
What the police seem to forget as they victimise innocent citizens is that they (the police) need our cooperation to fight crime; by alienating us they are destroying the once fairly good relationship between police and public which is an entirely self-defeating and retrograde attitude and will harm both public and police.
[...] shots after being stopped by police in Walthamstow; and Alex Turner, an amateur photographer, was arrested under section 44 after taking images of a fish and chip shop in [...]
I’d just like to make a couple of small but important points. The officer who completed the search form gave the grounds as “Prevention of terrorism”. I’m fairly sure they should have to put something more specific than that, even if it was something as baseless as “Taking photographs of public buildings”
The other point is that the “Object” box is just crossed out. The Terrorism box should surely be ticked. Before conducting a search (at least a normal stop/search for stolen property etc; I’m not certain with s44), the officer has to tell you their grounds and the object of the search. Neither appear to have been done correctly, and I suspect these little points would be relevant in pursuing your complaint.
[...] existence obstructed by personnel in Walthamstow; and Alex Turner, an unskilled photographer, was arrested low country 44 after attractive images of a seek and defect class in [...]
[...] shots after being stopped by police in Walthamstow; and Alex Turner, an amateur photographer, was arrested under section 44 after taking images of a fish and chip shop in [...]
There are organized groups that support your stand and can inform you about your rights:
http://www.freedomrebels.co.uk/
http://www.tpuc.org/
All the best
See:
http://www.nuj.org.uk/innerPagenuj.html?docid=1454
Another similar case but involving a pro this time. Would have thought that the compensation would have been considerably more than £5,250! Seems peanuts for the aggro that plod caused and the distress involved.
I am a writer and photographer who has done a lot of street photography in the past. Happily I have not been subject to police harrassment when taking photographs, but I know that this kind of police behaviour has become oppressively prevalent in the last couple of years. I think you have been overly considerate by not naming and shaming the officers concerned, and publishing the photo with the police woman’s face unobscured. These people are a real threat to our freedoms and they should be exposed.
This may also be of interest from our friends across the pond:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/police_cellphone_videos/
Even more items. They seem to be coming in thick and fast these days!
http://feeds.boingboing.net/~r/boingboing/iBag/~3/jEQInS6E27o/uk-terrorism-stop-an.html
and
http://boingboing.net/2008/08/19/visitor-to-london-vi.html
Have these coppers been living on another planet? Don’t they realise the harm they are doing to themselves by these daft actions?
Mass photography session in Trafalgar Square, 23rd Jan:
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/2009/12/mass-photo-gathering/
and another interesting item re. a painter (of all people) being questioned by police whilst producing a charming watercolour of a factory near London City Airport. Decidedly low-tech way (and slow) of gathering terrorist information I would have thought:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/18/antiterrorism-police-stop-painter-airport
[...] have been used to stop, search and sometimes even arrest innocent photographers. For example, here is a not-unusual story about an amateur photographer’s experience of the police in London…, and here’s a video shot by someone experiencing the act in action. In both these cases, and [...]
An old American news item that has emerged and has a sort-of vaguely familiar ring to it. Can’t imagine why!
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/04/17/uk-man-hassled-by-co.html#previouspost
I have read your article with interest, one thing to ask the police was at the time you were stopped had Chatham High Street been designated by the Chief Constable of Kent as an “authorised area” for S44 of the Terrorist Act?
If Chatham High Street was not an authorised area, to my knowledge only the railway system in Kent is (policed by British Transport Police) then this is an unlawful arrest.
Under Freedom of Information Act, Kent Police should be able to advise you of this. If you haven’t already get a solicitor!
I have recently taken up photography, live in Medway and worried now!