Sceptics who dismissed the fuss we made about forthcoming powers of seizure of flash cards have not had to wait long before having their faith in police judgement shown to be misplaced. They argued that a s43 search requires a 'reasonable suspicion that a person is a terrorist', and this was so serious a matter that it was unlikely to be abused.
A mere 3 weeks later we have Superintendent Neil Sherrington, deputy commander for Portsmouth police telling the Press Association that his officers acted 'reasonably' in stopping and questioning a man under the 2000 Terrorism Act who had photographed their police car. Sherrington said they had been suspicious as to why the photograph of the vehicle had been taken. Being illegally parked in a bus lane at a bus stop might have been an obvious clue. How the photo could pose the 'security risk' claimed by officers is not explained, but no doubt if Sherrington told us, he would have to kill us.
On this occasion, the non-terrorist with the seditious optical equipment was questioned, but apparently not searched. David Gates, a 42 year old accounts manager had his details checked and not being on any CIA special rendition manifests, was told a record would be kept for a year then allowed to remain at liberty.
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the likely real explanation of this nonsense is that Gates grumpily thought as any UK citizen would : 'bloody cheek, I'd get ticketed, fined, and clamped within 3.5seconds for parking there, I'll take a photograph of these blimmin' hypocrites', and the officers thought 'now we're going to teach you a lesson for taking the michael sonny'. The photographer had caught the police breaking the law, so had to be punished.
In a saner world the officers would simply have explained their parking as a necessity on an emergency call, as claimed by Sherington. Why this didn't happen probably cannot be disclosed for reasons of operational security, or blatant cover-up as it used to be known. Worse : the senior officer called to account chose to robustly defend this petty vindictiveness rather than apologise to Gates and chastise his men. Well if it works for the Met, why not for Portsmouth?
Had this occurred after the 2008 Act passes, Gates would likely have left without his flash card too.
yes hear you admin, but I kind of feel now mass civil disobedience applies to this, and I kind of feel that way regardless of the consequences. many people died for these rights, people seem to be forgetting it now.
maybe worth punting around the idea, I think if thousands start saying rubbish people may back down, next time to bump into the home secretary I will push the point, which I do from time to time.
brummie
There's a difference between s44 stop and search and s43. s44 applies to designated areas for defined periods, and permits stop and search for no reason whatsoever. s44 is the excuse for the vast majority of police stop and search of photographers.
s43 applies anywhere and all of the time, but only allows stop and search if there is a 'reasonable suspicion' of terrorist- related activity. s43 is relatively seldom used.
It appears photographing an apparently illegally parked police car is the sort of thing terrorists would do. According to Portsmouth police, 'reasonable suspicion' was justified here.
We gloomily predict s43 will be used more often after the 2008 Counter Terrorism Bill passes, because the new law will allow seizure and retention of any documents, specifically including digital media such as flash cards, laptops and mobile phones, during an s43 search. Police will be able to keep these for up to 96 hours, just to see what is on them. If snapping a police car doing what we all get ticketed for is 'reasonable suspicion', 'reasonable' is clearly going to mean anything that suits the police.
Arguing or being non-cooperative might not be the best idea, as they'll be able to detain you for up to 42 days without charge, under the same Counter Terrorism Act, if you make them suspicious enough.
Photorights admin
me personally as soon as the terrorism act was mentioned would have asked when they were allowed to use it, which senior police officer sanctioned the use of the terrorism act and which areas it covered and ask for the paperwork, if it was not forthcoming I would have walked and told them to stick it.
cheers
brummie
Post new comment