Exclusive: UK police forces unaware of agreed press guidelines
A survey of all UK chief constables has revealed that previously agreed guidelines to improve relations between the police and press photographers have been ignored, BJP can reveal
Following the Home Secretary's announcement that local police forces have the right to restrict photography in public places, BJP published a sample letter for photographers to send to their local chief constables requesting clarification on whether local restrictions were in effect in their constituencies.
Freelance press photographer and BJP reader Alan Lodge used the letter in 48 Freedom of Information Act requests sent to the country's chief constables as well as the British Transport Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
The wide range of responses has shown that previously agreed guidelines negotiated between the ACPO and key press organisations have not been rolled out across the country or are being ignored by police forces.
The guidelines were first set out in a landmark agreement between the British Press Photographers Association, the Chartered Institute of Journalists, the National Union of Journalists and the press bureau at New Scotland Yard in early 2006. After months of negotiations, the Metropolitan Police Force adopted a nine-point 'best practice' guide to working with media personnel, though it stopped short of making them part of the force's operational orders. However, after further negotiations, the ACPO agreed in May 2007 that the guidelines would be rolled out across the country.
It now appears not to be the case. While the majority of chief constables have confirmed that photography in public places is not the subject of restrictions, some counties such as Devon and Cornwall, Dorset or Hampshire were unable to answer Lodge's request. For example, in its reply, the Freedom of Information officer for Cheshire's constabulary says: 'There is no information held.'
In another example, Humberside Police's information compliance assistant writes that 'Humberside Police do not hold any records relating to restrictions that have been imposed on photography in public places and as such it has been determined that this information is not held by our force.
'In the past police officers have challenged people who were taking photographs in public after receiving reports that they were acting suspiciously,' it continues. 'But this is not the same sort of circumstances that you describe.'
'It's a shame to see that police forces react differently,' Lodge tells BJP in an exclusive interview. 'It shows that there is a lack of knowledge regarding the guidelines the ACPO issued nationally a year ago.'
In fact, some counties, such as Cambridgeshire, have confirmed that 'decisions can be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation'.
Other counties have been clearer in their responses. Surrey Police confirms that 'there are no long-term restrictions which have been placed on photography in public places by police in Surrey. However, a decision may be made to restrict or monitor photography in certain circumstances where operational or where National Security may be potentially at risk.' It goes on to cite a specific example of a situation where press photographers were asked to leave a scene: 'Photographers were asked to move when a man was threatening to commit suicide in a public place. While attempts were being made by police to resolve the situation, press photographers arrived at the scene and there were concerns that their presence would aggravate the situation.'
Some police forces have also justified restrictions on photography when someone has been seen taking pictures of children. Derbyshire's constabulary writes that officers are asked to use their discretion when someone is 'taking photographs of children which may be subject to some consideration of concern in relation to being inappropriate.'
Lodge participated in the drafting of the guidelines two years ago. He also found himself on the wrong end of the law after he was found guilty of wilfully obstructing a policeman after an 18-month fight to clear his name. Lodge was originally arrested in March 2006 while attempting to photography an incident in Nottingham. In bizarre circumstances, he was first arrested for assault on a police officer, then de-arrested, and finally was charged with breach of peace. This charge was later altered to obstruction of a police officer. To read more about Lodge's ordeal, check our full article here.
For a full report of the state of relations between photographers and police forces, check next week's issue of BJP.
dfsfs
