# Heading to London, mate? Better keep your lens cap on!



## JerryBruck (Mar 19, 2012)

Sign of the times:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/19/police-payout-student-arrested-filming


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 23, 2012)

I wonder with the olympics coming up if the authorities are going to put these power tripping lunatics on leashes otherwise it could put a serious dent in the UK international reputation


----------



## nikkito (Mar 23, 2012)

Maybe she was using a Nikon or a Pentax? In that case the police did what they had to do


----------



## nikkito (Mar 23, 2012)

Or maybe they don't want any competition since you are being filmed with this small annoying cameras even in the bathroom. I love London, is my favorite city along with Buenos Aires, but the whole big brother thing is uncomfortable.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 23, 2012)

I imagine the terrorist handbook says *do not be conspicuous* probly even in bold letters.

I will use tact. I will respect people's privacy. I will not be bullied though and that's what it amounts to even here in the states.

Harassing photographers accomplishes nothing. How many terrorist have they actually found masquerading as photographers?


----------



## kdsand (Mar 23, 2012)

nikkito said:


> Or maybe they don't want any competition since you are being filmed with this small annoying cameras even in the bathroom. I love London, is my favorite city along with Buenos Aires, but the whole big brother thing is uncomfortable.



I'm starting to feel it's less like big brother watching & more like pervert uncle.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

kdsand said:


> nikkito said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe they don't want any competition since you are being filmed with this small annoying cameras even in the bathroom. I love London, is my favorite city along with Buenos Aires, but the whole big brother thing is uncomfortable.
> ...



The incident happened in 2009 and things have very much moved on since then! I do a lot of street shooting - I wear a hi-viz and take the 400 on tripod. I often have very friendly discussions with the police - never had a problem with them.

I am planning to use the 600 for some street pictures this year  I find that the people I take pictures of regularly apologise for walking in front of me


----------



## kdsand (Mar 23, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > nikkito said:
> ...



Ah So if people are apologizing to you - does that mean you're using the I'm not looking at you I'm looking past you technique.
Its amazing how well it works.


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

kdsand said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > kdsand said:
> ...



Several techniques - mostly positioning. With the big lens they are so far away they haven't a clue where it is pointing - even if they see it. If you take candid portraits with a 50mm they are in no doubt that you are taking pictures of them. From 100 yards with a 400 they have no idea.

With a large white they assume you are a pro - so why would you be taking a picture of them?

I originally used the Cartier Bresson style of shooting but that created too many issues - with the long lens they just let me get on with it.


----------



## bornshooter (Mar 23, 2012)

being i uk resident for 31years i can tell you that this country has gone mad if you have a camera you are a pervert or a terrorist its total bullshit!


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

bornshooter said:


> being i uk resident for 31years i can tell you that this country has gone mad if you have a camera you are a pervert or a terrorist its total bullS___!



That is hogwash fuelled by media sensationalism and hysteria. The one or two cases that happen are so much the exception that they hit the front pages.

After Easter I will go and take all the major London tourist attractions and see if I get arrested. Watch for the headlines 'pensioner arrested for taking photo of Tower Bridge' - yep me and the 10,000 Japanese touists, wont happen!!


----------



## bycostello (Mar 23, 2012)

i think the police were right to ask her, but it did get out of hand in the end...


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 23, 2012)

bycostello said:


> i think the police were right to ask her, but it did get out of hand in the end...



Should be fun taking pictures of Downing Street


----------



## mark_m (Mar 23, 2012)

My first post here, and I agree with the poster who says that things have changed hugely since the incident referred to at the beginning of this thread.

I am a London based photographer, who travels through the City daily on my way from home to studio, photographing whatever catches my eye. I have had no hassle in the last couple of years, but was subject to several polite and not-so-polite questionings by police before 2010.

After that incident, and several other similar ones, the Association of Chief Police Officers have told the police that they have no right to stop people taking photos in public.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=45956
and they have re-issued this advice to police forces several times.

This organisation of which I am a member
http://photographernotaterrorist.org/ 
has been campaigning for police (and security guard) recognition of photographers' rights, and has been pretty successful in doing so. There are some interesting videos on the site where photographers have gone out shooting, specifically to test the change in police awareness. They've found that, by and large, the police recognise photographers' rights to take photos in public, though security guards are less aware. When the private security guards have summoned the police, the police have backed the photographer.

One thing that one must recognise is that there is a difference between "public" and "private" land. For example, Trafalgar Square is not actually a "public" space, and the "heritage wardens" who patrol the space may take exception to people using it for "professional" shoots without prior arrangement and a licence.

But in general you have nothing to fear from taking photos of anything and anyone with any equipment you choose in a public place in the UK. NB this may not apply around the Olympic sites! We're just about to find out what all that's about....


----------



## UltraReef (Mar 28, 2012)

Great posts, a real eye opener for me. I want to go take photos of our refineries in the area, but am hesitant cause I don't want to get hassled if I pick the wrong spot. Things have surely changed.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 31, 2012)

Cops in London were always a bunch of twats in my experience.
You are lucky the SUS law is still not in effect.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s they could stop and search you on suspicion of anything they could think of?

Try doing that in the US...

ET


----------



## kdsand (Mar 31, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> Cops in London were always a bunch of twats in my experience.
> You are lucky the SUS law is still not in effect.
> Back in the late 70s and early 80s they could stop and search you on suspicion of anything they could think of?
> 
> ...



Never say never! :-\

I tend to be a bit cynical - especially lately.


----------



## JerryBruck (Mar 31, 2012)

Perhaps EvilTed was exercising his dry wit.


----------



## kdsand (Mar 31, 2012)

JerryBruck said:


> Perhaps EvilTed was exercising his dry wit.



Ah yes that does make sense. :-[ :-[


----------



## briansquibb (Mar 31, 2012)

The incident happened in 2009 - the laws have been sorted since then

If you like I will go street shooting with the 600 and see if I get arrested


----------



## JerryBruck (Apr 1, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> The incident happened in 2009 - the laws have been sorted since then
> 
> If you like I will go street shooting with the 600 and see if I get arrested



You've pointed this out already. Alas there has been a slow but steady increase in the hassling of "unofficial" video and still photographers around the US and in New York as well as London, which had at one point actual laws against pointing DSLRs at a range of public buildings; then someone must have remembered the Olympics were coming. (I think there's a thread about it in CR somewhere, and there is plenty in the Nikon Rumors forum.) I don't doubt that you, Brian, with your confidence and resourcefulness will get around any such obstacles -- indeed in your special costume and 800 lb lens you might even become a tourist attraction here in New York and as such a boon to the hotel industry and qualifying for police protection. But I can tell you on information and belief, that most people are far more easily intimidated. It's also nice to see the manufacturers begin to fight back, professional associations (as per that post from London) &c. None of this cancels the general trend. 

The entrenchment of the security culture over the past twenty years has really been something, at least it has been here. It was underway by the early '90s when the effects of the new economic dispensation began to kick in. The response to 9/11 clothed it with a loud and hard-to-talk-back-to rhetoric. This is especially true when you want to photograph police presence. Photographers can learn how to answer preposterous claims and attempted hindrances here: 

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/you-have-every-right-photograph-cop

I too have a 60D, though I don't doubt that your 60D is bigger and better. It wasn't till I bought this camera and started to use it out of doors, that I became aware of the Security Attitude, security both private and public. Generally the cops are easier to deal with than the former, who are themselves very often retired cops with more aggressive orders. It's amazing the scope of what these have been and are trying to stop -- like taking photos of the facades of immense and famous buildings. The commanding irony of course is that the prevalence of pocket and cell-phone cams makes their hugger-mugger entirely pointless. It's as if the Wizards of Oz over here credit DSLRs with some sort of voodoo power. The only other group that seems to share this view is a scattering of ... photographers, amateur and professional. 

Why does this matter? Because of the present atmosphere, and because photographers document the forms and pressures of the times, and serve too as canaries in the mine-shaft. It's very easy to understand why the cuffs get tighter. Imagine you were wearing the badge -- _I won't let anything happen on my watch!_. Without a lot more push-back than we're seeing at the moment it's inevitable that restrictions of every kind will just go on getting bigger and commoner and stupider, not just against Canon gear photography but speech, inquiry, research, distribution -- all in the name of saving liberty and freedom. The year 2009 was not the end of that process. I think it's significant -- from the video embedded in the Guardian link -- that the episode ended in physical violence against that female tourist, for that's what is was, put yourself in her shoes. And the new face of authority appeared for us to see clearly. That young cop didn't seem like a bad kid to me, but you could see that "Oh, yeah?!" attitude that had been instilled in him. For more than 200 years immunity from police violence was a seldom-challenged perk of being middle class. The security culture is breeding impunity.


----------



## squarebox (Apr 1, 2012)

I Didn't have a big white, but when i was in london back in february, I didn't get stopped once or eyed weirdly. 

Then again getting charge 35 pounds to go into the tower of london was a bigger insult and one of the reasons I will not be spending anymore time in London in the future.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 1, 2012)

JerryBruck said:


> Sign of the times:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/mar/19/police-payout-student-arrested-filming



Reminds me of an incident that my father related from when he was visiting East Germany in the 1950s (before the wall went up). He was taking a photo of a municipal building and was arrested and interrogated for nearly an entire day. Fortunately a relative was able to get him out of detention, but he landed up with East German agents following him for quite a while after that....

I have been fairly lucky since moving to Melbourne. In one instance, last August, I was waiting to take some photos of the gas brigades at Crown Casino, when I struck up a conversation with two rather bored looking policemen. They merely commented that I looked like I knew what I was doing because I had a rather big camera, but thought that I should rather take some photos of some of the girls walking by, as they looked more interesting than the plumes of gas flames that I was waiting for... ;D (Some other people have not been so lucky here.)


----------



## CanineCandidsByL (Apr 1, 2012)

Things like this really annoy me and I'm slowly working my way through the video.

I do wish she hadn't changed her story about her reason for shooting. First she says she has no reason and later says she an art student interested in buildings and doing a project.

But that's no excuse for the officers being so aggressive, and the language barrier probably wasn't helping.


----------



## EvilTed (Apr 1, 2012)

"Perhaps EvilTed was exercising his dry wit."

It's a British thing


----------



## danski0224 (Apr 1, 2012)

*Not Just There*

I recently attended a small class about thermal imaging. You could bring your own camera or use one that was provided. A thermal imaging camera looks way different from a DSLR and can cost more than a 1DX.

The field portion of the class was a short walk from the training facility. There were 5 of us.

A member of the Chicago police drove by slowly and then stopped and asked what we were doing. I had the distinct impression that they would not have been amused by any smart ass comments.

Not a good feeling.


----------



## Sparvar (Apr 1, 2012)

Official Police Photography Guidance :

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

It is worth printing out and keeping a copy with you when you're out and about, not every officer has seen it. I was spoken to by a couple of PCSO's in Camden a few weeks ago and showed them and had no problems. Remember to be polite to the Police if visiting London (even if they don't have a gun!), they are only human the same as all of us and if you start getting aggro don't expect a good response.

I have lived in London for 33 years and never had an issue with any Police officer - perhaps because I am very polite and try not to break the law - or when I do (eg. no right turn in my car) I am so reasonable I have always been let off.

The only place I would be wary of photography is Canary Wharf, unless you contact them prior to attending for a permit, as it is technically private property. I had a problem with a security guard there but after a couple of minutes of chat he was fine to let me continue.

I hope this doesn't come across as patronising, it's not meant to be. I do street photography in London regularly and the police are the last of my worries, getting shouted at by a market trader after I take his snap is a far more realistic problem!


----------



## kdsand (Apr 1, 2012)

*Re: Not Just There*



danski0224 said:


> I recently attended a small class about thermal imaging. You could bring your own camera or use one that was provided. A thermal imaging camera looks way different from a DSLR and can cost more than a 1DX.
> 
> The field portion of the class was a short walk from the training facility. There were 5 of us.
> 
> ...



Howdy neighbor  

I'm from merrillville Indiana area. The police in the chicago area have a long long history of abberant behavior. I have extended family that are cops in chicago. I have seen their attitude change to you better not screw with me or I'll blank you up. Don't get me wrong its not a slight change its drastic. Its almost the same as if they joined a gang, it's very thug I sh.

I have a dry and slightly twisted sense of humor that has a life of its own so my other half cringes when police officers comes up to me ( not that it happens all the time). :-X

My disclaimer-
I know all cops are not bad. I know they deal with pressures.


----------



## JerryBruck (Apr 16, 2012)

Does this sound familiar, brothers and sisters? Hot off the press:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/16/02-olympic-venues-row-security-photography


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

JerryBruck said:


> Does this sound familiar, brothers and sisters? Hot off the press:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/16/02-olympic-venues-row-security-photography



That is only 20 miles away - so it is the 1D4/600 on a tripod then


----------



## JerryBruck (Apr 16, 2012)

They're coming for you briansquibb, can you hear the footsteps yet? They're on the scent, their Attitude Detectors dialed up to ISO 125,000! -- hard maybe tell chalk from cheese in all the noise but who cares? It's Olympics, imagine! Drop that lens, raise those sneaky hands, turn slowly to the wall! We'll leave the light on for you.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 16, 2012)

JerryBruck said:


> They're coming for you briansquibb, can you hear the footsteps yet? They're on the scent, their Attitude Detectors dialed up to ISO 125,000! -- hard maybe tell chalk from cheese in all the noise but who cares? It's Olympics, imagine! Drop that lens, raise those sneaky hands, turn slowly to the wall! We'll leave the light on for you.



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

Cuddly police in the UK


----------



## Kernuak (May 28, 2012)

One other thing to bear in mind, the Guardian have a history of "having an agenda". For example, last year there was a serious accident on the M5 involving over 30 vehicles. Not long after the Guardian used it rather perversely to bang their drum about speed limits and how they should be reduced, even though there was no evidence that speed was a contributing factor in the accident.
While I'm not saying there haven't been issues in the past few years, we are only seeing one side of the story here. For all we know, the journalists/photographers could have deliberately been acting furtively to attract attention to themselves and provoke a reaction. Personally, I have a healthy dose of doubt when it comes to anything the media are reporting, I've seen too many cases of distorted facts and deliberately misleading reports that have elements of truth, but are missing the important aspects. It's like photographing a relaxing country scene, to promote peaceful walks, without informing the viewer that there is a busy and noisy motorway bridge above.


----------



## briansquibb (May 28, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> One other thing to bear in mind, the Guardian have a history of "having an agenda". For example, last year there was a serious accident on the M5 involving over 30 vehicles. Not long after the Guardian used it rather perversely to bang their drum about speed limits and how they should be reduced, even though there was no evidence that speed was a contributing factor in the accident.
> While I'm not saying there haven't been issues in the past few years, we are only seeing one side of the story here. For all we know, the journalists/photographers could have deliberately been acting furtively to attract attention to themselves and provoke a reaction. Personally, I have a healthy dose of doubt when it comes to anything the media are reporting, I've seen too many cases of distorted facts and deliberately misleading reports that have elements of truth, but are missing the important aspects. It's like photographing a relaxing country scene, to promote peaceful walks, without informing the viewer that there is a busy and noisy motorway bridge above.



Guardian is very left wing and definitely anti esablishment


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Cuddly police in the UK



i think you need to photoshop a setting donut in that bit of negative space on the right they are both looking right at it!


----------



## briansquibb (May 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Cuddly police in the UK
> ...



In the UK that would be a bacon sarnie

Click on this and smell the breakfast ....
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/IMG_6942x.JPG


----------



## wickidwombat (May 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > briansquibb said:
> ...



lol everything tastes better with bacon!


----------



## kdsand (May 29, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...




So now pork products.


----------

