Filed under: Journalism, NUJ | Tags: Anti-BBC, Assault, BBC, BPPA, British Broadcasting Corporation, Forward Intelligence Team, Free Press, Gaza Protest, Justin Tallis, Law, Media Restriction, Media Worker, Metropolitan Police, National Union of Journalists, NUJ, Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Police Surveillance, Press, Press Freedom, Press Photographer, Special Procedure Material, Surveillance, Violence
LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM – 24.01.09. A Metropolitan Police Forward Intelligence Team sergeant grabs hold of a press photographer’s camera on a Gaza protest against the BBC on Saturday 24th January 2009 in London, England. Justin Tallis, a London based freelance photographer and NUJ and BPPA member, was photographing the anti-BBC protest. The BBC had refused to broadcast a charity appeal to raise emergency funds for people in the Gaza Strip. (Photo by Marc Vallée/marcvallee.co.uk) (c) Marc Vallée, 2009.
“Another press photographer threatened by police” - British Journal of Photography.
Images: “Surveillance Police grab Press Photographers Camera on Gaza anti-BBC Protest – 24.01.09″
Justin Tallis tells us what happened in his own words,
The police officer said “let me have a look at that picture.” I said, “No”. The police officer then said, “You’re not allowed to take photos of police officers”. I then said, “Don’t be ridiculous of course I can take pictures of police officers”. The police officer then tried to take my camera from me. After a bit of time I think the police officer realised he was in the wrong trying to forcibly take my equipment from me. He then got very close to me, way into my personal space, and said again “you shouldn’t have taken that photo you were intimidating me”. I think that if Marc had not been there taking these photos the situation could have ended very differently.
20 Comments so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Don’t tell me, he was acting “suspiciously”, so therefore the treatment was warranted and just.
Comment by Daniel January 25, 2009 @ 12:50 pmIrony’s not their strong point is it?
Comment by Andy January 25, 2009 @ 1:29 pmThis policeman’s reaction may not be ridiculous anymore come Feb 16.
That’s the date when Commencement Order No 2 brings into force several sections of the Counter Terrorism Act 2009 including Section 76 ‘Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc’. There’s a “reasonable excuse” defence and it would make sense for this to apply in the case of photojournalists, but is common sense enough? And what about non-professional photographers?
br -d
Comment by David Mery January 25, 2009 @ 3:36 pmThank you for the pointing out the enforcement date for that David.
Comment by marcvallee January 25, 2009 @ 3:52 pmAmazing that this keeps happening… Can someone please run a “photographers rights” session for the entire UK Police force? Please…
Comment by Sime January 26, 2009 @ 9:46 amIf the officer in question was truely ‘intimidated’ then I suggest he needs to consider a different career. lol
Comment by Richard Nicholls January 26, 2009 @ 12:15 pmTo be fair a policeman or anybody for that matter should be allowed to see the image. Justin should have just showed him rather than be an obstacle, what gives him the right to say no? If I’m caught on CCTV in a city center I have a right to see what they have recorded of me and I can make such a request to view it, so if we are going to go down that road of whose rights are being affected it is only fair for the plod in this case as well to see what he got on camera.
Removing it from the camera is a different matter however. I have built up a decent relationship with the Police in Swansea and while I’m on the street I have been able to get to know them and them know me but when we have the chance we also talk casually about photography and photographing them. It is a reminder they are also human and are liable to make mistakes. Though as time goes by I wonder how many of them are listening to these kinds of incidents.
I wish we had a first amendment right like those in the US have.
Comment by jonathanjk January 26, 2009 @ 8:48 pm[...] members of armed forces etc The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2009 SOURCE No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI [...]
Pingback by Commencement ORder Number 2 « Jonathanjk’s Weblog January 26, 2009 @ 8:57 pm@jonathanjk
“what gives him the right to say no?”
Comment by Jason Sands January 27, 2009 @ 11:49 pmThe law?
I’ve set up a pledgebank for people to take an appropriate picture of somebody that they are not supposed to, and ideally post it to an open Flickr group for that purpose:
http://www.pledgebank.com/s76photo
Comment by fridgemagnet January 27, 2009 @ 11:50 pm[...] the rot is already setting in if Justin Tallis’ experience is anything to go by. Covering a demo in London this month, Justin, who is an accredited [...]
Pingback by Police Powers extended even further under new Counter-Terrorism legislation | Gavin Gough: Travel Photographer January 29, 2009 @ 1:04 pm[...] mois. Voir ce qui s’est passé avec un journaliste pendant une manifestation contre la BBC, avec des photos de l’incident. Je me demande comment ça aurait fini si d’autres photographes n’avaient pas couvert [...]
Pingback by Droit de la presse en Angleterre | Blog them all January 31, 2009 @ 1:17 am@Jason, there is no law barring somebody from simply LOOKING at images… which was my point.
If there is then please correct me.
Comment by jonathanjk February 1, 2009 @ 1:39 amSorry for not getting back to you before Jonathan.
“Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, material such as a journalist’s notes, photographs, computer files or tapes are classified as Special Procedure Material, which have a higher level of protection than ordinary possessions.”
Which means if the police want to look at such material then they would have to go in front of a judge and explain why.
So Justin was right to say “No” as I would have done and have done many times. You can read a bit more about this here and here.
Hope that helps.
Comment by marcvallee February 1, 2009 @ 10:32 am“Can someone please run a “photographers rights” session for the entire UK Police force? Please…”
Good point Sime, from Jeremy Dear’s blog
“This morning I went to New Scotland Yard to speak to around 50 senior police officers as part of their Advanced Public Order Officers training course. This was one of the initiatives to come out of our meetings with the Home Office to try to ensure the media guidelines are better undertstood and enforced. I ran through a number of examples of the types of complaints we’d had, tackled some of the thorny topics raised by questions about cordons, media pens, the papparazi, who should make moral decisions about what pictures can and can’t be taken (i’ll give you a clue – not the police), how journalists identify themselves, how we enforce our code of conduct (this gave me the chance to have a rant about Thatcher’s anti-union laws) and many other topics. It was a useful, if gruelling exercise.”
Comment by marcvallee February 1, 2009 @ 10:47 amHey, thanks for the reply. Further to this, “London Calling Photographers” is meeting this wednesday, the 4th, and we have the chairman of the BPPA, the editor of the British Journal of Photography and a member of the MET police officially attending. Please email me for details (I’d cut and paste, but I’m on the bus on the way to a shoot) simon@gtvone.com – this wednesday… Its in WC1
Thanks again,
Sime
Comment by sime February 1, 2009 @ 10:54 amDigital Photography School.
Thanks Marc. I didn’t know about a different law for journalists. I stand corrected.
Comment by jonathanjk February 2, 2009 @ 8:01 pmthis is so worrying, after the 16th the police will all be saying ‘ you cant take a photo of me’ and grabbing cameras and arresting people all the time for anything.
ive been to demos and seen them grab at cameras and even one officer destroy someones camera! then lying about it and saying the camera owner did it. Luckliy that was caught on tape, but really
once this law is in force they will jsut be ripping everyones cameras out and then getting away with lord knows what.
Comment by b February 2, 2009 @ 8:20 pmMarc, great pic, I would have thought that a Met Police Sergeant from 3 Area Territorial Support Group (TSG) would have had more common sense, known better and acted in a professional responsible way, instead, he has clearly acted like a complete fool!
Comment by nigel howard February 4, 2009 @ 1:57 am@Richard Nicholls
That knuckle-brained plod should be seeking another career whether or not he felt “intimidated”.
Comment by Paulus February 14, 2009 @ 1:20 pm