Video also available on YouTube here.
A young man was detained by police for allegedly causing a breach of the peace, while photographing an Armed Forces Day parade in Romford on Saturday.
Part-time photojournalist Jules Mattsson, 16, from Hackney writes on his blog:
The incident started when I took an image (not a very good one it seems) of a Police Cadet unit forming up to take part in an Armed Forces Day parade. I was quickly and aggressively stopped by one of their adult officers asking me who I worked for. I responded that I was a freelance and upon being told I needed parental permission to photograph them, I explained this was a public event in a public place and that I didn’t for editorial use.
She then demanded my details and when I declined, I was quickly pulled aside by police officers. Then started recording, see below for the rest.
I had my lens covered while trying to photograph my harassment , then told ‘I consider you a threat under the terrorism act’ for photographing a police officer, had my camera taken from around my neck, was detained and frog marched away before being pushed down some stairs and told they were concerned for my safety.
Jules repeatedly asked police which law police were detaining him under, to which the officer replied, “We don’t have to have a law.” Another officer told him he was considered a threat under the Terrorism Act.
Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act raised serious concerns among photographers when it came into force last year.
Other onlookers at the parade in Romford were taking photos and videos unchallenged. Indeed, by taking part in such a parade, cadets would have given permission to be photographed.
The Metropolitan Police have now issued this statement:
It is clearly not the intention of the MPS to prevent people from taking photographs, although, as the public would expect, officers will remain vigilant, particularly in crowded public places.
Any allegations or complaints about police treatment of photographers are taken very seriously by the MPS. Anyone who is unhappy with the actions of individual police officers can make a formal complaint, which will be thoroughly investigated.
Although at this time we have not received a complaint about this incident and no allegations of crime have been made, we will investigate the circumstances.
Our officers do receive guidance around the issue of photography through briefings and internal communications and we continue to drive this work forward.
You can also read the Independent’s report here.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Is Trump set to get his revenge on Labour?
Meeting the new locality coordinator
Peterborough Cathedral launches £300,000 appeal to allow it to stay open daily
The Government needs its growth *explanation*
The surprising similarity between Tony Blair and Nigel Farage
Daniel Stylianou
Alex Macfie
Mark Pack
David Blake
David Evans
30 Comments
What a bunch of holes. I hope that this parliament give thuggish Neanderthals within the Met a severely heavy boot. As it is, the police have clearly lied several times within this 9 minutes of nonsense. They have also restricted movement and trade and abused the Counter Terrorism Act. There should be disciplinary consequences.
Appalling and utterly unacceptable.
And it is not enough for the MPS to talk about their complaints process after the fact. It is no good receiving an apology months later if the deprivation of freedom has already been suffered – particularly if as in this case the victim relies on photography for his living.
Met Police officers should never be allowed to believe that they have the right or the power to break the law in this way in the first place. There is too much reliance on the appeals process as if it were a substitute for the fair application of the law in the first place.
Some one should DO SOMETHING about Labours stormtroopers – The Met!
They can find time to harass teenagers but can’t manage to arrest obvious sex offenders when the evidence is staring them in the face.
The Metropolitan Police are bloody useless! They still think their political masters – the Corrupt Labour Party – are still in charge and so they can trample on the rights of the people of this country. . . well the coalition government should call time on them and severely curb their powers.
I agree that there should be disciplinary action taken against these police officers – for a serving police officer to say “We don’t have to have a law” is completely unacceptable and should be punished.
I wish I kept as cool as this ‘young man’ under such provocation! Good for him. I hope he makes good use of that policeman’s number.
Publishing the story is one thing, but it is very important that he and anybody else who experiences similar things files a complaint with the IPCC and demands a full investigation (they’ll ask you whether you want one, and try to encourage you to let it be handled “internally” with promises of quick resolution, but they do have to investigate properly if you say so).
There will be no disciplinary action and no other action of any other kind taken unless that complaint is filed. If it is filed, then they’re quite good at correcting these things, although it takes a few months. The system more or less works, but it’s very bureaucratic and encourages victims to stay quiet and not make a fuss. You have to push past that. They can and will sack every officer who does this and rewrite policies to stop it happening again, but only if a complaint is properly filed. No action can or will be taken without a complaint.
there are so many news artcles of photographers being harrased by police that it must be happening very regularly. I doubt that 5% of the incidents gets reported, and peoples rights of freedom are constantly being eroded.
I think we should appreciate the efforts of libertarians in the Met to put into perspective the need for changes in police powers.
If a single one of the police officers on this is still, as of this evening a member of the Metropolitan Police, then every single one of the senior officers of the Metropolitan Police should be sacked. No payoffs, no pensions, no nothing. This has got to stop.
Surely Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act must be near the top of measures to be repealed in the Great Repeal Act (or whatever its called).
“It is clearly not the intention of the MPS to prevent people from taking photographs, although, as the public would expect, officers will remain vigilant, particularly in crowded public places.”
Vigilant for what?
(Completely off topic did protestors really demand a citizens arrest of Ed Balls for “voting for the Iraq war”? The trots must have got even madder in recent years!)
It’s reasonable to demand the forfeiture of photographs of an officer in the progress of making an arrest, as this could constitute evidence, but not in their day-to-day movements: otherwise we could object to their fly-on-wall docus following them down the street.
I hope this happens to me some day. I’ll sue, and buy and new lens.
That said, I wonder how many [rightly] objecting to this also oppose CCTVs cameras.
@Kehaar
I object strongly to the abuse of CCTVs as well. And I suspect that the overwhelming majority of LDs do to. And libertarian Conservatives in the coalition, too.
@Kehaar
If you look at https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-who-do-we-want-to-win-the-labour-leadership-election-19925.html you will see that I wrote:
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-who-do-we-want-to-win-the-labour-leadership-election-19925.html
Oh, great, not content with their own Party, LibDems are seen to seek to control who other Parties elect as their leaders.
The example you give is a very specific single example, and gives no insight beyond what the response is to viewing a couple bonking in their garden. It’s good that that the CCTV operator didn’t sit back to enjoy the show, as he would have face criminal prosecution. So much for there being no oversight on CCTV use.
We all relinquish some of our personal privacy when we venture out into the public zone. I could be stark bollock naked right now, but as I’m behind closed curtains, it’s alright… it would be a different matter if I were in an Internet cafe, or in front of an open window.
Most LibDems, I assume, hold with some form of benefit system for the less well-off funded through taxation. Even the ones getting in touch with their inner Tory and going all Chigwell Skinhead will support the NHS (in no mean part ‘cos it’s something they see themselves requiring); yet become curiously animated at another form of submitting personal freedom to maintaining the social order.
You are looked at by strangers hundreds of times a day. CCTV cameras are not juju magic which would steal your soul.
Kehaar, demonstrating the Scot’s Nats amazingly ability to hold two mutually contradictory positions at one time:
Or is it just Interrant contrarianism? Who cares? Go on, squackhawk, have a fight all on your own! I’m off now.
Yeah, that’s right, McKeown. Make declarative statements, and the moment opposition comes along… attempt to run your opponent into the ground with accusations of mental instability, and disengage.
It doesn’t bode well considering your Party now is in Government and you’ll have to discuss decisions which affect the country and not your pride in an abstract talking-shop.
This undoubtedly in the weirdest accusation which has been flung at me. At least when you were calling me a “naughty Labour troll” it sort-of made sense… but SNP? Because I’m Scottish?
The rightly bit referred to the title story. There is no dichotomy at work here.
This was an outrageous event, the Metropolitan Police are plainly out of control and are operating exactly like the police in a fascist state. The person who was being assaulted by the police clearly knew the law, the policemen who was responsible for this assault clearly did not and refused to answer. Finally quoting the ant-terrorism law, which was also used against a young woman reading aloud the names of soldiers killed in the Iraq war. It was also used against an 80 year old member of the Labour Party, when he shouted ‘Rubbish!’ at a speech made by Jack Straw. We are I’m afraid, becoming a fascist state.
Except that’s not what happened.
That didn’t happen like that either.
So what DID happen, Mr Seagull?
Walter Wolfgang was sitting in the public area of the Conference and heckling *anyone* on *any* subject. He had been asked – by volunteer stewards as old as he was – to pipe down or wait until summat relevent came up, but persisted. This was before the notorious video footage.
Far from having his freedom of speech denied, he was seeking to deny it to others.
Maya Evans was not convicted of “reading aloud the names of soldiers killed in the Iraq war”. She was convicted of a public order related offense for holding an unauthorized demo within a mile of Parliament. She could have held the publicity stunt anywhere else in the country, but chose to do for maximum coverage for herself.
This law had been instigated following major riots and security breaches led by Mailesque causes, such as the Countryside Alliance facing the Police rather than setting them onto oiks; Fathers4Justice demonstrating the immaturity which led to their spouses moving away; the spawn of Brian Ferry accosting the Prime Minister.
The area around Parliament is the premier public space in London and, perhaps, the country. It is not, I repeat *not* the personal fiefdom of individuals who wish to foist their narrow interests on the rest of the public, such as Camp Litterbug. That’s the snag about civil liberties… other people have them.
The dead soldiers were volunteers. Despite a handful of families which say their sons died for a lie, the majority don’t. Soldiers are not victims and Evans had no right to appropriate their names for her cause.
Never mind. She can dine out on this minor inconvenience in the years to come. Something more interesting than being a vegan chef, I suppose.
I spoke too soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/10443779.stm
Good.
Hilarious buffoons.
I fear Mr Kehaar is missing the point, we are becoming a fascist state with such draconian actions for obviously minor offences. It is a bullying misuse of the use of power.
The incident with the young photographer is clearly recorded, both visually and aurally. There is no mistake there, he was being bullied by a man in a uniform, who did not have a law to support him.
I always photograph policemen at demonstration, they have nothing to fear as long as they behave themselves. As for Jack Straw he deserved to be heckled.
Please do not refer to the law to condone official bullying.
Michael, if you think these examples are like a fascist state, you need to get out more. (And, yes, even the subject material which I have condemned.)
I can see the point perfectly clearly. You believe it would be justified to put a dog in the manger for the hundreds of other Conference goers who wanted to listen to the speakers, and that men who voluntarily went into a war zone to be used as cheap political stunts.
I worry about you, I think you are missing the point. If you support these restrictions without question you are moving in a dangerously right wing area. I think you have not thought these things through.
But why did Walter Wolfgang need to be (wrongly) arrested under the the terrorism act? Why did they simply not eject him from the Conference in the same way some football fans are ejected by stewards from football grounds?
~*sigh*~
Michael, I have stated explicitly that I consider the conduct of the above Po-Po to have been reprehensible, both out of principle and within their own code of conduct. I have emphasized that my disdain at Wolfgang’s conduct was because he attempted to hijack the stage which was provided for all attendees (many of whom also opposed the invasion of Iraq) at the Conference and specifically nowt to do with Straw.
You persist in claiming I did the opposite. Given that you’re willing to misrepresent my comments to this degree, is there really any point in taking you seriously?
Peter, that’s a fair point. It was very crassly handled. But the insistence of some to portray it as a 15 second clip of footage *right* *at* *the* *end* of his prolonged disruption has been my objection.
Not really I think you are right, we should not continue this discussion, life’s too short.
Rather conveniently, Master Mattsson’s video begins after the incident for which police intervened. He initiated this reaction by holding his camera very closely to the faces of the cadets who were formally lined up. Unsure of his intentions, police quite rightly removed him from the situation. Mattsson should have been arrested under the Public Order Act. Causing harassment/alarm/distress… I wonder if Master Mattsson would react with such dignity should he be approached in a similar manner. Screaming for police, I imagine.