Here and now at the end of 2009, despite assurances, could photographers be forgiven for thinking that there is some form of conspiracy causing them to be specifically targeted by the authorities? Have the security services thrown the UK public a curveball, using the threats of crime or terrorism to give the illusion that photographers are a subversive and dangerous collective who are a threat to our nation and its security?

Alternatively, are the plethora of confrontations and unlawful actions taken against photographers simply examples of jobsworths at ground level, whose approach and interpretation of the law is at the very least unprofessional if not downright illegal, doing a grave disservice to politicians, lawmakers, enforcement agencies and society? Surely the danger is that a culture of paranoia will emerge (if it hasn’t already) that assumes guilt, rather than innocent until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s almost impossible to gain a reliable understanding of what is really going on between photographers and the authorities. We will never read in the press or on the internet about instances when photographers are ignored by Police/PCSOs/private security and are able to capture images freely, or when a polite and friendly chat between the authorities and a photographer simply confirms innocent and honest motivations with no action taken. We only usually read or learn about incidents when something has gone badly wrong.

Having read complaints and media reports about unfair challenges, as well as seen footage posted on the internet, a pattern has started to emerge. Incidents typically involve an authoritative person demonstrating rudeness or sheer arrogance when challenging a photographer as well as a poor grasp of the law assuming that they haven’t simply invented a fictitious piece of legislation to justify their actions at the time. This is not to say that photographers cannot be equally guilty of rudeness, naivety regarding the law or demonstrate a lack of common sense, but many reported incidents start with a photographer being aggressively accused of something by someone.

If photographers are simply dealing with aggressive jobsworths with little or no knowledge of the law, might the whole issue be resolved by some proper legal training, manners and a liberal dose of common sense? If however photographers really do represent a liability and danger to society, surely the authorities would be negligent if they weren’t challenging their actions and motivations?

Assuming there is a conspiracy against photographers by the State, what might the motivation be? Perhaps the aim is to scare and intimidate amateur hobbyist photographers into giving up their chosen pastime so only those left wielding a camera would be:

• Professional/commercial photographers who may need permission/permits to photograph in certain locations

• Terrorists

• Paedophiles

Since 9/11 and 7/7, the number of complaints by photographers has undoubtedly risen. Confrontations and examples of unlawful actions by the authorities are reported with alarming regularity, prompting questions in both Houses of Parliament in 2008 and 2009. Concerns have also been raised about the interpretation of the law resulting in the Metropolitan Police, politicians and Government departments feeling it necessary to clarify or simply reiterate points of law.

In the past few weeks the issue of photography has suddenly become front page news and the subject has even been debated on BBC Breakfast, raising the profile of the problem. In response the Association of Chief Police Officers wrote to all Chief Constables/Met Police Commissioner reiterating police powers, yet can photographers afford to sit back congratulating themselves believing that they have won the high ground? Shouldn’t they instead be watching to see if the tide really has turned, confirming that the law will be correctly implemented from now on as lawmakers intended? Are we being told the truth by politicians, or do the actions of our political and legal system really speak louder than words, with every technological advance being used as a means of monitoring and controlling the population to maintain the status quo?

To test whether photographers really have nothing to fear, that conspiracy theorists are simply being hypersensitive and that the powers-that-be ALWAYS tell us the full and honest truth, I want to examine the focus of laws and their application in recent years by the authorities in the so-called fight against crime and terrorism. In Part 2 I will investigate whether the focus and application is fair and reasonable, or more indicative of surreptitious intent.

Tweet This Post Digg This Post Ping This Post Stumble This Post