Last week I linked to the story of “too-tall” photographer Alex Turner, who was arrested by Kent Police after taking some photos in Chatham High Street.
Turner was stopped by police again on Sunday, and asked to show his ID.
The Register reports:
Turner, perhaps foolishly, returned to the scene of his earlier crime (Chatham High St) late on Sunday to see whether the local community “would be… equally protected from suspected terrorism by night as it would be by day”. The answer is yes. CCTV operators spotted him taking photos. A police car arrived and officers asked him to explain what he was doing and demanded sight of his ID.
On this occasion, fearful that he might be arrested again, he complied. In subsequent conversation with local police, he says they have unanimously expressed the view that failure to provide ID is likely to lead to his arrest.
Read the full story here, including the opinion of a legal expert from Liberty:
This feels like it could well be an unlawful arrest. It also appears to be yet another example of the police misunderstanding and misusing over-broad terrorism powers.
As has already happened with s44 searches, the misuse of anti-terror laws makes us less safe, because it creates an atmosphere of hostility and non-cooperation by the general public towards the police.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Big swing to Lib Dems in South Oxfordshire
West End Christmas Afternoon Concert tomorrow #dundeewestend
Raking in the cash
Could the wilderness years be over for Coventry Rugby?
John Rogers meets the dinosaurs of Crystal Palace Park
eFocus on NE16 no. 190
Graham Jeffs
Jenny Barnes
John Reed
David Garlick
7 Comments
It is dreadful to read that an activity like this can automatically lead to police demanding to know what you are doing followed by “almost certain” arrest upon failure to produce ID.
This is the consequence of years of authoritarian politicians legislating. Sure, they’ll stand up in the Commons and claim that “this is not what it was intended to be used for” but they leave it on the statute books sloppily drafted and open to exactly this sort of interpretation.
Absolutely disgraceful. The increasing occurrence of citizens being harassed by the police for taking photos should be rammed down the throats of Labour politicians every time they say concerns about the erosion of civil liberties are “unfounded”.
I’m interested to find out what it is in Chatham High St that could be so useful to terrorists?
“I’m interested to find out what it is in Chatham High St that could be so useful to terrorists?”
I hope you realise what a risky thing that is to say …
I was on a photography course last weekend. The photographer leading the seminar told me that she has given up using a tripod in London. It’s just not worth it. Every time she erects it she is interrogated by police.
Apparently, photographing the Houses of Parliament is now a suspicious activity. Run, Japanese tourists, run!
Police intimidation tactics like this are outright criminal behaviour (it’s “creating a public nuisance” at least, and probably also common assault; on the civil side, it’s tortious fraud), even with today’s draconian laws. What I want to know is, what can we do to get this enforced against the officers involved? We need to get people like this off our streets.
>I’m interested to find out what it is in Chatham High St that could be so useful to terrorists?
My feeling is that it was the more usual “using a Terrorism Power to do a general “sus” or “we’re watching you sonny” type search.
Also, it is the Kent Constabulary, who have been known to be quite .. er .. pro-active.