http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7050481.ece

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1254175/Father-stopped-taking-picture-son-4-childrens-train-ride-case-paedophile.html

We must send people to Parliament who will put a stop to this ludicrous policing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

The man was arrested.

While full details might not be available on the video it does appear that the police officer lies to the man who has been stopped and tells him he is required to give her his “details”. This appears to me to be an abuse of section 50 of the Police Reform Act which gives police the power to demand the name and address of those they believe are or have been acting antisocially (the relevent definition of ant-social being causing harassment, alarm or distress). No reasons for believing any harassment, alarm or distress had been caused were given, and even if they had been I think this law is far to broad and as seen in this case open to abuse by the police.

The acting sergeant appears to claim section two of the Violent Crime Reduction Act requires the photographer to give his name and address. That piece of law relates to the “Duration of drinking banning orders” and is completely irrelevant.

I have personally experienced the problem then faced by the individual - the police are saying they can demand your name and address; you are almost completely sure you don’t have to give it, but you don’t have immediate access to the law to check and you know the consequence will be arrest if you don’t comply. Arrest, even if innocent, prevents one from travelling visa-free to the USA and results in DNA being taken (forcibly if necessary) and a permanent entry being made on the national DNA database.

I have made an FOI request for information relating to any complaints about the incident and asked for details of any outcomes.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/arrest_of_photographer_in_accrin

Latest in this thread - Italian Student arrested for photographing London building:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming

With respect to viewing films and searching phones It’s important that people who’re not criminals, or suspects, ought be able to keep things secret from the state.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/11/snapshot-special-branch-terror-suspect

An ITN film crew have also been stopped filming by the City of London police:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/ITN_film_crew_stopped_while_covering_photographer_story_news_292827.html

http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=871742

The police appear to have threatened to search him if he did not identify himself.

I think the police attitude is awful; we need put a stop to this kind of behaviour by the police as its seriously damaging the relationship between the public and police.

If this incident had happened in Cambridge, the photographer would not have been given a Stop and Account form and there may have been no official trace the events took place.

The guidance is available online at:
http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

I think Cambridgeshire Police need to do something similar.

The photographer was aware of the fact the officers had no power to demand his name and address; but arrested him because they thought him not giving it was suspicious.

The Chief Constable of Kent police is being reported as having said:

When challenged by the police officer the man refused to give any personal details which it was thought was suspicious.