Section 44 (Stop and Search) Suspended

BillyPilgrim · #1 (**permalink**) 08-07-2010, 06:07 PM

Good news for photographers!

Photographers claim victory as Home Secretary suspends Section 44 search powers

In case you're new to WAB and wondering what I'm on about, this issue was discussed at length here - If you take photos in London...

pressld2 · #2 (**permalink**) 08-07-2010, 07:57 PM

Yep, I heard this on the news this evening. They said there were 150,000 searches under section 44 last year but not one searched person was ever charged. So I really don't think that suspension of section 44 will have any impact on the fight against terrorists.

Dave P.

Ukwildlifeo · #3 (**permalink**) 08-07-2010, 10:46 PM

Marvellous news

GTH · #4 (**permalink**) 09-07-2010, 08:14 AM

Common sense has prevailed at last. How obvious did it have to be? ...but not for the last government !!

Lancashire Lad · #5 (**permalink**) 09-07-2010, 10:46 AM

Section 44 suspension is all well and good, but it seems that Section 43 is in need of urgent overhaul as well, and common sense still needs to prevail.

If I'm photographing in the street, chances are I'm just an amateur photographer. If I were skulking around the perimeter of a restricted building, poking a telephoto lens through the fencing, it would then be reasonable to assume that I had some unlawful motive.

This quote from the story linked in original post suggests that the police will still be able to act without any real evidence of unlawful behaviour: -
QUOTE
The announcement comes as teenage photographer Jules Mattsson, whose detention by police last month under Section 44 while photographing a local cadet parade has sparked widespread debate online, was reportedly restricted from photographing a cadet parade again this week on Tuesday (6 July).

According to a tweet by Marc Vallée, co-founder of the I'm a Photographer Not a Terrorist! group, which has campaigned against the use of S44 measures against photographers, Mattsson was this time asked to stop photographing using the Section 43 powers.
UNQUOTE

Section 43 requires the police to reasonably suspect that the person is a terrorist. I wonder exactly what the reasonable suspicions of being a terrorist were, that led to the curtailment of this photographer's activities?

Is merely taking a photograph in a public place still to be classed as being so suspicious that it might put law abiding people in the same category as terrorists?

I am a staunch supporter of our police forces. They do a sterling job, sometimes under very dangerous and unsociable circumstances.

However, I still firmly believe that laws such as section 43, (where "reasonable suspicion of being a terrorist" can apparently be fulfilled by the mere action of taking a photograph in a public place), allow certain individual officers the somewhat dubious right to harass ordinary members of the public, and do nothing to enhance public perception of the police in general.

Regards,
Mike.

BillyPilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 09-07-2010, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

Section 44 suspension is all well and good, but it seems that Section 43 is in need of urgent overhaul as well, and common sense still needs to prevail.

Regards,
Mike.

After listening to the sound clip of the young lad being bullied and harrassed I became convinced that no matter what the law says (or doesn't say) it will not make any difference to some members of the police force.

YouTube - Photographer detained in Romford

The officers in this clip are no better than the playground bully. They simply don't like the fact that the lad knows the law (and he knows it far better than they do!) and isn't going to be pushed around or intimidated. Instead of bowing out gracefully and leaving him to go about his lawful business, they keep on and on, inventing different reasons for detaining him. I hope that the lad makes a complaint and the officers are disciplined.

GTH · #7 (**permalink**) 09-07-2010, 06:15 PM

Well, well...That takes the biscuit...talk about waffle and make it up as you go along. Out and out bullying does not gain any respect, and that`s at a very low ebb and has been for a number of years now. These are the kind of circumstances where the people involved should be sacked for abusing their powers in a public office...but they won`t....and it will happen again, because those kind of people think they are above the law and can make it up as they go along !! How ridiculous do they look.....not the brightest on the block eh ?
The world of the internet is here, and it`s a good thing that these kind of situations can be highlighted, as we can now have our say and they are not hidden behind closed doors

Caroline B · #8 (**permalink**) 10-07-2010, 08:05 PM

I am certainly not trying to defend the actions of the officers but it must be bourne on mind that only part of this incident has been recorded it is obvious there had been an earlier interaction between him and the officers which is not disclosed, I would be interested in knowing what that entailed as only a fool rushes in to make a judgement with only half the information.

GTH · #9 (**permalink**) 10-07-2010, 08:57 PM

The trouble is that this is not an isolated case.....and nothing can justify that load of waffle, no matter how hard any one tries....just because the guy knew his rights....and surprise, surprise, the Police didn`t....again, despite ACPO officially informing them that they were totally wrong in their actions over a year ago !!

....and only fools ignore the obvious !!

pressld2 · #10 (**permalink**) 10-07-2010, 09:13 PM

Okay, there are strong feelings around this issue but let's keep it civil please!

Caroline, I wasn't there but it's my understanding that the police approached the young man and told him to stop taking photos. When he refused, as he was perfectly within his rights and within the law to do, he got abused and man-handled.

He was told that it's an offence to take photos of minors without their parents' permission - it isn't.

He was told it's illegal to photograph members of the military - it isn't.

He was told that he's not allowed to photograph the police - wrong again. Three out of three.

I have my suspicions (based on no evidence whatsoever, just a gut feeling) that the whole thing kicked off because a parent objected to their son or daughter being photographed and reported it to a policeman. But there have been enough cases by now, and enough publicity, that the police really ought to know that the correct response is "I'm very sorry sir/madam but everyone is entitled to take photographs in a public place. If you don't want your child to be photgraphed then you need to withdraw him/her from the parade".

I agree with Mike that section 43 needs looking at too. But at least with that one they need to have "reasonable cause" to suspect you of terrorism before any stop and search or detainment. This means they'll have to be very careful how they use it or they'll find themselves in the dock being asked to present the evidence that led to their "reasonable cause" for suspicion.

Dave P.