Monday, 28 June 2010

The Great Repeal Bill is getting urgent

Hat tip @paulwaugh, citing the British Journal of Photography:
A photojournalist, Jules Mattsson was detained under anti-terrorism laws after he took images of an Armed Forces Day parade in Romford's city centre
Yes, that will help the armed forces' PR efforts bear fruit. What a wonderful sideshow that must have made to the parade. [/sarcasm]

I really must get out with my camera more often. This rubbish has to be challenged.


  1. I have it on good authority that Met officers have been told in no uncertain terms to stop using their perceived "powers" in instances like this. Even the most draconian iteration of the legislation does not, as far as I know, encourage this kind of police action...

  2. Time, then, for someone to confront an officer and take it to a judgement. I hope this guy does - he seems inclined.

  3. Didn't know Romford had a "City Centre" !

  4. Another disturbing film. I'm beginning to wonder just who is free in this country now.

    The clue that there's something wrong is the way in which the police changed the offence every time he asked which law he was breaking. My favourite was when the policeman complained first that he couldn't be photographed because it would prevent him doing covert work in the future, and then when this fell flat, that it violated what appeared to be called "My public privacy law".

    What a fight young Jules put up though!

  5. Albert has hit the nail on the head. The policeman changed his story continuously, and was unwilling to be nailed down on what law he was using.

    I'm all in favour of the repeal of section 44, but one gets the impression that even if section 44 didn't exist, the policeman concerned would have behaved exactly the same way.

    Looks like parliament is going to need to repeal an awful lot of laws!

    In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what happens if Jules Mattsson pursue the case. But not nearly as interesting as it will be watching a video of Patently having a confrontation with the constabulary.

  6. Ah, have just blogged the same incident.

    the BJP says, quoting the Met "... Although at this time we have not received a complaint about this incident and no allegations of crime have been made"...

    So the Police didn't record a crime?

    I know where I'd be if this happened to a teenager of mine!

  7. I just don't understand why the officers bothered intervening in the first place. Once they had, they were obviously too embarrassed just to say "terribly sorry, on your way". Understandable in a weird way. But why interfere with someone taking bloody photos in the first place???

  8. Because he wanted to show how "Big" he was to his bunch of "cadets"?

  9. I find it ridiculous for someone who is just taking pictures to be detained by the Armed Forces. I don't understand what is that for. Is taking pictures already an act of terrorism now? Where's freedom in this country now?