The Braehead Photography Story

I thought today I'd write a blog post about something quite topical, and that can affect both professional photographers and non-professional photographers alike: anti terrorism laws.

On Saturday, I became aware of a small story on Facebook, about a man who had been stopped by Braehead Shopping Centre security staff, and Strathclyde police, over him photographing his daughter in the shopping centre. He started a group, called Boycott Braehead, that has attracted a lot of social media and press attention in the last few days.

The initial reaction from people on the group was absolute horror and disgust. User comments asked why he was being stopped in a public place, why he wasn't allowed, and why anti-terror laws were being used in this way.

The situation is that this isn't as uncommon as you might think. Professional photographers have, in recent years, faced increasing situations of being stopped by security and police in different parts across the country, with regards to photographing in a public area, including public landmarks and buildings.

One of the most amusing aspects of this, is that almost every public building, and landmark, can currently be found on Google Maps Streetview anyway.

There's been so much growing tension between pro photographers and the police, that a group, I'm a Photographer, Not a Terrorist has been established online, which helps photographers to understand their rights.

A quick search on The Independent and Guardian websites will throw up countless stories of police harrassing photographers. Here's a film on the Guardian website of a man being stopped under the anti-terror legislation for filming. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/11/photographs-police-anti-terrorism-laws
Oh, and here's another example... this time involving an amateur photographer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/feb/21/police-arrest-photographer

I don't know about you, but watching those videos, if that was me, in that situation? I'd be feeling a bit nervous. Imagine then how it must have felt to Chris White when he was being questioned while with his little girl. Imagine how it must have felt for him, as a parent, to witness his young daughter getting increasingly distressed, and the police telling him off for trying to comfort her. Also imagine how it must have felt with other shoppers passing by, wondering why he was being questioned.

So what is the law exactly?
First of all, there was "section 44". However, this was suspended by the European Courts of Human Rights. This was a section of the anti-terror law, which was being abused, misused, and mostly misunderstood and misquoted. However, since then a new amendment, 47a has been introduced.

What should be noted though is a few facts:
1. the law states that police must be aware and understand the code of practice in relation to using section 47a.
2. The code of practice states:
"members of the public and media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places;
(b)it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs/film of a public building;
(c) the police have no power to stop the filming or photographing of incidents or police personnel"

Furthermore the code of practice states: it is important that police officers do not automatically consider photography/filming as suspicious behaviour."
and
"officers do not have a legal power to delete images or destroy film."

In addition:
"Officers must also be able to explain their actions to the member of the public searched. The misuse of these powers can lead to disciplinary action." 

So why should you be concerned? Well, because as this incident in Braehead shows, it's not just professional photographers with huge DSLRs and lenses who are falling under suspicion by the police and security staff.

I understand the need to remain vigilant for potential terror threats. However, last winter, I was approached while photographing buildings in London, by a uniformed community officer. So what happened? He was lovely, that's what happened. He approached me with a smile, he was chatty, polite, and I was more than happy to stop and talk to him. I explained I was working with permission from the building owners, and he was content with that. I explained what I was doing. We chatted about stuff, and then I went back to work. All he did was ask, and sound genuinely pleasant and naturally curious. End of story. He used his common sense, he approached me in a friendly manner, and nothing bad happened. By being friendly and approachable, he used positive communication and interpersonal skills to find out everything he wanted to know about what I was doing and why. He didn't take notes, he just asked, listened, and then we carried on with our work. That's how it ought to be, and that shouldn't be such an isolated incident of security friendliness. 

I also understand and appreciate that Braehead is not a public place. It's owned by a private company, in the same way airports, railway stations, and many other areas are private property. A couple of years ago, as a student, I was taking photographs in Central Station because I liked the interior architecture. I was asked to stop, and I complied as the security guard was reasonable and just explained it was private property. No mention of anti-terror laws, no instance on deleting images, no police were called in, and no problems arose from it.

If photography is a problem, then I think there ought to be a no photography sign, in the same way there's a no smoking, or no dogs sign on the doors. You already find them in airports. If it's a genuine policy, then ensure that people are aware. What Braehead Shopping Centre forget, is that while professionals might be aware of the rules and law because we deal with it so often, it's not the sort of thing that the average member of the public thinks about when they're out for a trip with their kids.

Furthermore, the statement from Braehead Shopping Centre left this remark:

"However, it is not our intention to - and we do not - stop innocent family members taking pictures. Discretion is used at all times."

In this instance, the question is: What does Braehead Shopping Centre believe Mr White was guilty of?

Until recently, a lot of these stories involving over-zealous police and security guards have been mostly in the South of England, and in London in particular, where the Metropolitan Police perhaps have a slightly different reputation than Scottish police forces. This was the scene last year in Trafalgar Square, of photographers protesting against the police use of anti-terror laws. Obviously, I'm sure most of us would prefer that things didn't reach this state in Scotland.

The key here, would be to ensure that police and security are trained to have positive interpersonal and communication skills when dealing with the public as well as understanding exactly what the law entails and respecting and understanding the rights that individuals have under the law. Examples such as these ought to instantly flag up a need for assessment of the police to ensure that they have those skills and understandings, and whether there is a need for further job-related development, or, if it is a case of abuse of power, then it ought to be dealt with as a disciplinary action.


My advice to everyone, is be aware of your rights. If you have a complaint, follow it up with the management of the property, the police station (if they were involved) but I'd also recommend flagging it up with your local MP or (in Scotland) MSP. How can the police uphold the law if they have officers who don't understand it?