UK Photo Journalists: List of Areas Subject to Section 44 Unknown
by Irma Arkus
Photographers in UK are facing what many describe as a catch 22. According to Section 44 of the newly introduced Terrorism Act, photographers can be detained, and any police officer is authorised to search, and seize equipment. The tricky part is that the act “allows Chief Constables to request authorisation from the Home Secretary to define an area” in which police officers have the authority to enact such searches.
The question is then, which areas are off limits?
After British Journal of Photography submitted their request to Home Office requesting information on these areas under the Freedom of Information Act, the office refused: “The Home Office has rejected a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the BJP regarding the disclosure of the list of all areas where police officers are authorised to stop-and-search photographers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.”
According to the British Journal of Photography, the common knowledge is that the entire city of London is covered under the legislation, but which other areas of London are affected is unknown.
This places photography journalists under a disadvantage. Because of the lack of tranparency and information disclosure, they can be detained anywhere, without being certain of their legal rights.
This, on the other hand, gives an unprecedented freedom to the police. They can technically, detain journalists, search and seize them based on this idea of “safeguarding National Security.”
We’ve experienced in recent years, stories of many journalists who, upon entry to various dictatorial regimes, experienced such inexplicable treatment by authorities who violated their rights and freedoms.
Their questioning, detention, seizure of equipment and property, seemed unthinkable to our civilized, western world counterparts. We, unlike them, were assured that certain freedoms were to be had for all. Now, it seems, not only are we no better than those we pointed fingers at, but the freedoms our predecessors fought for, were discareded, exchanged for a measly, meaningless term: security. [BJP]
About Hi-Sci-Fi
Friday is all right for nerding
The Official Site for the Ultimate Geek Radio Show
User login
Recent comments
- dude, you just blew my mind
1 week 2 days ago - Hi rubyoxy,
1 week 3 days ago - soybeans are grown pretty
1 week 3 days ago - ...
2 weeks 2 hours ago - great show. interesting
2 weeks 3 days ago - I guess this is why Bush
2 weeks 3 days ago - wow. this is absolutely
2 weeks 3 days ago - Timothy O'Fallon jousts with delusion of grandeur
2 weeks 5 days ago - very cool. Synthetic
2 weeks 5 days ago - I have been learning a lot
2 weeks 5 days ago
ITUNES
Photographers in US are not having any better time
we still don’t have a legislation that would curtail our rights directly, but security officers have been arresting people even though it is LEGAL to take photos, especially of the public spaces.
Tourism surprises me the most. We’ve heard about people being arrested for taking photos of airports and railway lines and the tourism information detailed as maps has been made available by same companies. I remember a jolly case of a photo contest by an airline, which turned into an illegal arrest.
This is schadenfreude.
Sat, 06/13/2009 - 19:08 Posted by jenney (not verified)
This is a major viiolation
the amount of police misuse of power has reached epic proportions these days. Every day we hear some crazy stuff about police protecting their own and at the same time beating the shit out of some unsuspecting man caught at a wrong time in a wrong place. this one takes the cake though
Sat, 06/13/2009 - 19:10 Posted by johnjohn2 (not verified)
This is very troubling
in Montreal we had quite a lot of problems with police harasing some young people and I cannot imagine how terrible it is to walk in UK without knowing if you could be arrested for no reason. I know that security is something we are told but I do not feel safer. Still glad to know that Canada is at least not having this kind of law.
Sat, 06/13/2009 - 21:56 Posted by genevieve (not verified)
i think this is a great
i think this is a great idea. There are too many photographers taking to many pictures that is private. These laws need to be in place in U.S.
Mon, 07/06/2009 - 19:02 Posted by Beverly Hills Homes (not verified)
re:i think this is a great
when you have your head bashed in by copy or military Homie - we’ll see who will want to have picture. you have to be an idiot to think that it’s ok to take cameras away from innocent standbyers.
Sat, 07/11/2009 - 18:28 Posted by cherice23 (not verified)
re: this is great
WTF? This isn’t about paparazzi you dumbass. The paparazzi will still take photos. This is about journalists who are percecived by authorities to do “wrong” - any wrong. You probably don’t remember how movement for civil rights got started in America but lemme give you a primer - images of cops beating the shit out of black protesters finally reached your average TV viewer. If these laws are brought to your hole in Beverly Hills there is noone who wouold ever get to see your broken face after getting bashed.
And also kiss goodbye the very essence of journalism - all relevant photos, video footage can be entirely forgotten about. You know those shows you like: 60 minutes, 2020 and all the other shit pretending to be as relevant - those will not exist any more.
Sat, 07/11/2009 - 19:17 Posted by rogerdud33 (not verified)
RE: Beverly Hills Dude
We just had here a case of a cell phone user being kicked almost to death by police because she was recording them kicking the shit out of some homeless guy. All I’m sayin’ is - you could be that cell phone guy, or that homeless guy…and noone will ever get to see your pretty face again if your rights mean NOTHING.
Fri, 08/21/2009 - 23:35 Posted by m333r (not verified)
Post new comment