PHNAT Pamphlet Launch AOP Gallery Tuesday 14 June
Over 100 people attended the party to launch the PHNAT pamphlet, many of whom were press photographers directly affected by the misuse of section 44. A slide show of images of police and private security guard showing harassment and detention of working photographers provided the visual background to the event. The images were bookended by Jason Parkinson film’s ‘Hostile Reconnaissance’ and ‘Collateral Damage’.
The AOP provided use of the gallery and Ing Media supplied drinks. Larry Herman talked about the importance of the CPBF and why they supported the pamphlet. Marc Vallee gave a brief history of PHNAT and why it came into existence, starting with the lone campaign of Jeremy Dear outside Scotland Yard and culminating in the massive turnout of over 2,00 people in Trafalgar Square in early 2010, and the subsequent removal of section 44. His message of celebration was tempered by the as yet unknown usage of section 47a against photographers.
It was a great gathering that had a positive outcome, and gave everyone who attended a reason to celebrate the achievements of PHNAT. Over 500 pamphlets were distributed amongst the guests. The pamphlet was produced with the assistance of the NUJ and the Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, kindly supported by the British Press Photographers Association and the London Photographers’ Branch.
A week later I was part of the London Street Photography Festival Stand Your Ground. This event followed 6 photographers, including David Hoffman, Philip Wolmuth, Pennie Quinton, Michael Grieve, Toby Smith. We were photographing parts of the City from public spaces. At least 6 different locations were photographed and filmed by a dedicated videographer. All the photographers were stopped and questioned by security guards, who saw it within their remit to prevent photographers from photographing the building they were looking after. 3 of the photographers received police attention after the security guards contacted police. In all cases the security guards were incorrectly making statements about the legality of photographing a building without permission. One photographer was told that ‘…it was against company law.’ I was informed that a permit was required from the City of London Police and the building owner (in this case Heron). After I made enquiries as to how I might obtain this permission, the guard backtracked and confirmed that I didn’t need permission from City of London. He did suggest that I may apply for one at Heron, but that would depend on the type of photographs I intended to take. This is part of the initiative known as Project Argus, a companion to Project Griffin. The inconsistency of approach by the security guards and their lack of understanding of the law is alarming. Given that approaches made by security to photographers are usually hostile and affirmative, it is no wonder that many photographers feel intimidated by their presence and look to shoot elsewhere. In my instance, two security guards crossed Bishopsgate and stood by me until the police arrived. This was antagonistic, unsettling and unnecessary. I didn’t provide the building security team a reason for photographing the newest and tallest building in the City, nor did I provide any identification, as I was well within my right to photograph from the public footpath.
The arrival of the police was welcome, as it was quickly established that I was within my rights, and was doing nothing wrong, to photograph the building. It was re-assuring for the police officer to immediately identify himself and ask if the security personnel had been physically heavy handed or had tried to grab my camera. I provided the officer with my details and the reason for photography and he indicated that the security personnel had acted irrationally in contacting police.
He bid me a polite farewell and could continue to do what I had been perceived as a suspicious activity by the security team.
The reception at Heron Tower on Bishopsgate contains the largest privately owned aquarium, home to more than 1200 tropical marine fish. Just don’t try and photograph it – nor push your nose up against the glass to look at life in the goldfish bowl.
© Grant Smith
June 21, 2011 at 6:55 pm |
After doing quite a bit of research into both the Project Argus (not Argos, thats a shop) and Project Griffin, I find it quite comforting that you were approached by Security at the various buildings you went to.
Prior to the July Bombings in London (and several subsequent plots), hostile recon was undertaken of all the potential targets. It is likely that if these terrorists had been approached by vigilant security, that they may not have gone through with it.
I am sure the security team would rather report something to the police who may make an informed decision if you had been a threat rather than leave you to it and regretted not taking action if you had turned out to be a bomb plotter.
Security and the Police do a difficult job, I understand it can be frustrating to be bombarded (I get frustrated myself), but give them a break, they are doing what they have been trained to do!
June 21, 2011 at 8:41 pm |
Andrew – you write “Prior to the July Bombings in London (and several subsequent plots), hostile recon was undertaken of all the potential targets.” but I have yet to hear of any case of photographers working openly (or, indeed, covertly) ever being involved in HR anywhere in the UK.
Stopping photographers at their lawful work and telling them that photography is not allowed is a distraction from genuine, professional countermeasures. It weakens the respect that good security should enjoy and it plays into the hands of extremists by fostering a paranoia that undermines the freedoms so hard won over centuries.
June 22, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
funny it should be heron i shot a magazine cover of gerald ronson (HEnryRONson was his father) before he went to jail -sentenced to one year. and i also photographed his brother lawrence who was a wheeler dealer..(and father to musician mark). Quite a robust family ..i would suggest writing to them and see what response you could garner it would be an interesting story and publicity is what it needs to stop the knuckle draggers from finger wagging..
July 1, 2011 at 9:16 am |
@Andrew
Andrew, do you really believe in this snake-oil kind of security? Even before the bombings, London was one of the most CCTV controlled cities on earth and yet that didn’t stop fanatics from blowing up other people. Nothing will. Private security guards stopping everybody with a camera will NOT stop terrorism.
The point is that private security guards are out of their jurisdiction when they try to stop lawful behaviour. “Company law” does not apply in public space. Standing our ground as photographers is important in that regard, as we’re actually defending public law against the unlawful interests of private organizations.
July 1, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
I work for a City Firm and attended a project Argus seminar more than a year ago. I brought up the issue of street photography with the senior detective running the programme. He said that he himself was a keen photographer of architecture and agreed that it was a civil freedom to be able to photograph anywhere outside and that the police had no right to stop or question anyone purely because they were taking photos. He noted that one might draw attention to oneself by photographing security cameras, car parks entrances or other “sensitive” areas etc. but that would have to be exceptional activity. I believe that the police have moved on from the worrying position that was developing 4 or 5 years ago. The problem now lies with a breed of security guard who seem to act as though they are mercenaries in a civil war and who are either wilfully or ignorantly misinterpreting sensible guidance given to them in their training in order to exercise their “power” as hard men. A depressing mindset, I think, that seems to exist in many private security firms across the country.
October 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
I support the move to remove restrictions on photographers except for sensitive areas like military camps.