cops on cameras - again

[Brian L Johnson]

John Wilson <tugwilson at gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/7/22 Brian L Johnson <brian at thejohnsons.co.uk>:
>> Chris Edwards <chris-ukcrypto at lists.skipnote.org> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> That case (and this http://is.gd/1HAvT- ) illustrate Roland's earlier  
>> point
>> quite neatly in that the persons 'detained' were taking photos of
>> plain-clothes officers.
>
> The person in the second case took a photograph of a uniformed WPC. He
> had been stopped by two men who were not Police Officers or PCSOs (I
> presume they were Accredited Person under the Community Safety
> Accreditation Scheme, but it's not completely clear from the account).

The two people who initially accosted him said they worked for the  
council, but one had a tag on his belt with a 'Kent Police' logo on it.

> In this case the police did not claim that it was illegal to
> photograph police officers but that in this case taking a photograph
> was "unlawful obstruction". They claim they detained him under s44. It
> seems to me to be under trained and flustered police officers making
> it up as they go along. Kent and Medway Police have voluntarily
> referred the case to the IPCC.

Indeed.  Part of the problem is that the Met has issued guidance which  
seems to be at variance with the Act itself.  From memory, it's something  
to do with not attempting to view (or let suspect present to the officer)  
any pics on the camera 'cos that may ruin destroy evidence. Met say, Yeah,  
take a look at pics: the Act says no.

> The guy had a second encounter in the same place
> http://monaxle.com/2009/07/20/the-primary-concern-is-always-the-safety-of-the-public-do-you-find-that-reassuring/
>
> A mass photo walk is planned in the area on 15th August.

Would like to be there, but shan't be.

Sorry for the rushed post -- must dash. :)

-- 
-brianlj-