I though this story made it worth bumping the thread. I know the story concerns stills photography, but it clearly applies to videographers too.

Guardian (UK) story:

The war on street photography | Henry Porter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Photographer's blog (story in his own words):

monaxle : blog

This is something I have said before on other occasions in other forums:

"Terrorists I can handle. What really scares me is an attack of the stupids."

Andrew

This is quite shocking.

It makes me wonder where we are heading in the UK.

I know this is an old thread, but I thought it was worth posting these recent developments.

This issue finally got some mainstream attention when a BBC photographer was challenged for taking pictures of St Paul's Cathedral in London. The BBC, the Independent newspaper and the Daily Telegraph newspaper took up the cudgels, with this results:

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws - Home News, UK - The Independent

There's a comment here from the head of the Association of Chief Police Offices in the UK:

Andy Trotter: The threat is real, but police must show common sense - Commentators, Opinion - The Independent

For anyone interest, here are yesterdays stories from the Independent:

Warning: Do not take this picture - Home News, UK - The Independent

and the Telegraph

Police 'misusing anti-terrorism powers to stop tourists taking photos' - Telegraph

Hope this is useful to anyone who comes up against the problem

Thanks Nick. More "ammunition" (to print off and put in the camera bag and potentially pull out) for the next time I get challenged...

Student arrested and jailed for filming
 

Unfortunately, it seems the guidance from the UK top brass isn't being put into practice
Italian student tells of arrest while filming for fun | UK news | The Guardian

Seems to me she may have been a bit "mouthy" told contradicting stories and generally came across as a bit suspicious. I'm not defending police brutality but there's often two sides to any story.

Maybe I've had too many years of dealing with cheeky youngsters, but after watching her film of the event, I have to say I would have arrested her too. Here we have a fine example of how NOT to deal with authority.

The only bit she forgot to say was "You people should be out catching criminals and not harassing innocent citizens." I don't think it was worth an £80 fine though - that seems a bit much.

The fine is an abuse, unless we think fining kids for cheek is acceptable.

I just don't get the view that says that, if I'm stopped and challenged for *no sensible reason*, it's up to me to kowtow to the police and their auxiliaries. The legislation is supposedly there to protect people like me (and this cheeky kid) from terrorists , not as a pretext for unwarranted stop and search, with punishment if you don't grovel.

When I was a kid we wouldn't have dreamed of being cheeky to any adult, let alone a policeman. Our ears would be ringing for a week. It makes me cringe when I hear the verbal abuse that the police have to take from very young kids. Good manners and respect seem to be fast disappearing from our planet. How far away are we from total anarchy?

I can't speak for UK law but in all of the various jurisdictions where I have lived in North America, you are required to provide identification on demand to any law enforcment officer who requests it. It is not "kowtowing" to be cooperative and not furtive or confrontational. The men and women who daily put their lives on the line to protect the community from chaos are not the enemy.

In Britain, the police are required to have reasonable grounds for what they call "challenge and account". In other words, they have to be able to show that, in the circumstances, a reasonable person might have grounds to believe that a crime was being committed or that there was an imminent likelihood thereof. As stated by the head of our Association of Chief Police Officers in the letter I linked to earlier, taking pictures does not constitute reasonable grounds.

Some of the police (and their auxiliaries) are using the powers of Section 44 of the anti-terrorism legislation as a pretext for ignoring the requirement above. That's why this issue is arising in the first place. Numerous documented examples include

- 2 cases of photographers being arrested for photographing Christmas lights in their home towns,
- one of a BBC photographer being cautioned by armed police for photographing a sunset of the River Thames,
- a wedding photographer arrested and her pictures confiscated for photographing a wedding (I kid you not)

and many others.

This is a serious issue in Britain and needs urgent attention. The head of ACPO, speaking for the most senior figures in the Police Force, has stated quite clearly that this behaviour on the part of the police is not acceptable, nor intended, nor appropriate use of police time and resources.

Balanced against that, a bit of lip from a kid doesn't signify - not to me, anyway. I mean, if the police can't take a bit of backchat in their stride, how are they going to deal with a real threat?

Yes, the police have a tough time; yes, it's a tough job. But that's not licence to play free and easy with the law.

I would be willing to bet if her response to their question would have been "I'm an art student at XXX school photographing these buildings for an architecture project" and had produced student ID that corroborated her statement that she was a student, nothing further would have happened. The cop's enquiry wasn't out of line, her response was.

And she had been cycling down a one-way street the wrong way! What's a typical fine in New York for jaywalking? It would probably a mandatory death penalty for such a cycling offence. :)

You might be right, but the case of the wedding photographer and the BBC photographer seem to suggest differently.