An investigation is under way after police seized a photographer's camera and images were later deleted from it.OK, it's not as outrageous as the case of the 16 year old detained for taking pictures of a public parade, but it's wrong nonetheless, and considering the police promptly returned the pictures, I reckon they've come to the same conclusion.
"The officer came after me in a police car, grabbed hold of me and told me he was going to arrest me," he said. "He took my equipment but when it was brought back I had a look at the images and they were not there. [...] My role is to photograph news so the general public can see what's going on."
Thames Valley Police confirmed the camera had been seized and a complaint had been made. "A roads policing inspector immediately called the photographer and his camera and images were returned to his home address," they said.
So how does one solve this?
Well, suspending policemen who invent non-existent laws to persecute photographers - or anyone else for that matter - without pay pending investigation, should see this particular problem vanish pretty sharpish, I reckon. The unions might have something to say about that, but surely it's not too outlandish to classify making laws up on the fly as 'bringing the police force into disrepute'.
Of course, the above solution relies on the government exhibiting some kind of will to do the right thing. Their apparent reticence to treat this as a matter of urgency (the last lot even went to court to extend their right to harass) suggests they don't give too much of a shit, or perhaps even quite like things the way they are.
H/T My friend in the north
6 comments:
I guess the chap can think himself lucky to have got off so lightly....
He should be pushing for charges against the officer of theft. It was an illegal act to take the camera in the first place. Returning it is of no consequence regarding the initial act. As he did not use any law to take it, there is no defence in law to charges of theft.
It won't take many charges brought against the individual officers concerned to stop this sort of thing happening.
"suspending policemen who invent non-existent laws to persecute photographers - or anyone else for that matter - without pay pending investigation, should see this particular problem vanish pretty sharpish, I reckon."
It would probably vanish quicker if some of the braid-bedecked supervisors and managers of the culprits were penalised by also being suspended without pay pending demotion for failing to exercise sufficient control over those supposed to be in their charge. Of course that presupposes the present shower in power actually do have the will and have the bottle to stand up to ACPO and put them firmly back in their box before they are organising a "management buy out of law and order services in the UK". The shower in power could make a start by telling ACPO "we are removing your privileges and your public funding, and would you mind going back to just concentrating on running police forces efficiently and with due regard to the laws they are supposed to enforce, having just a touch of "protect and serve" in evidence ..."
Both Anons: Agree entirely.
It sounds as if they hadn't just deleted them, but copied them first. Which is worrying, too!
I guess he was lucky he wasn't shot seven times in the face, or beaten around the legs with a metal bar before being pushed to the ground so forcefully that he died of internal bleeding (not a heart attack).
Post a Comment