More Police harrassment

I've detailed some of the many cases that show up with the police attempting to use powers granted under the Terrorism Act in incorrect circumstances or attempting to apply laws that simply don't exist and here we have another. At a time when the Met have already paid out compensation three times in court over harassing photographers it seems they decided to put the boot into a 16-year old freelance photographer; who unfortunately for them recorded the majority of his encounter and went on to post this and his account to his blog.

Now sadly from the many cases that gain publicity this isn't anything new, what is interesting is the way this recording shows how the officers shift the accusations and 'charges' around as the encounter progresses in what seems essentially a petty minded attempt to get their own way.




It starts with Jules Mattsson taking a photograph of police cadets and being told that he required permission to do so replied correctly "No I don't" and carried on. At this point he is taken to one side by an officer [or two] and the recording starts.

The accusation starts immediately in that he's taking photographs of "children" and that he failed to stop doing so when asked. So far no law has been broken and Jules states this.

Now the accusation shifts and it becomes taking photographs of "military personal" which he is told he has no "power to". Now s58 of the Terrorism Act covers "eliciting" information for terrorism purposes, but doesn't cover this at least not without some seriously reasonable suspicion behind it.

While recording this Jules takes photographs of the officer allegedly grabbing his arm, he has now technically been detained.

At some point prior to the recording Jules has given the officer some form of ID, which incidentally he needn't have done, nevertheless he is asked for his date of birth. Jules legally refuses to do so and asks under what law his details are being taken. The reply is astonishing "Don't have to have any law" um yes, yes you do.

Now the accusation shifts back to the original form that of Jules taking photographs of the police cadets he is told "You can't be doing that unless they've given you permission" which is clearly ludicrous as Jules points out when he asks if he is expected to obtain permission from every single person in the street who might just show up in his photo? The reply is "You do when they're uniformed". Yep putting on a uniform gives you extra civic protection that the common folk don't enjoy, oh wait no it doesn't.

After a break we're back to taking photographs of children and Jules is still detained despite being told he's not. He's told he is free to leave just not in the direction he wants to head in to do his job. Now the police do have some powers in clearing areas but this is under the aegis of public safety (stay away from the collapsing building) or a crime scene. Now if the parade had been ongoing they could argue public safety and keeping him out of the way (remember this), however the parade had not formed up and this argument didn't apply.

Now the tone shifts again, remember he's not being detained he's merely being prevented from leaving, um? Apparently because he was "acting the silly" "running around acting silly, being stupid and gay" yes that's in quote marks because it's an actual quote check 1:50; now there's no law against gayness in it's 'pejorative' sense nor in the sense of being happy so one wonders why an officer would pull in a boy for being it?

At this point the tone shifts to a general sense that the police are trying to keep this area clear so they can form up for the parade, so note that the parade still hasn't started and as such there's still no public safety problem and that the police have no right to prevent any access to this area. Nevertheless the accusations turn to obstruction. This seems to be a favourite of the police to charge photographers. They're standing still and therefore obstructing the route; of course this is rubbish. If the photographer was standing in a narrow alley and blocking all access and refused to move a case could be made, in a large public area it's rubbish.

Having given up on that it return to the law concerning "coming into contact with children and photographing children" which is really easy because there's no difference between children and adults in this regard. Just like minors drinking alcohol there's no problems with photographing children it's either what they're doing or what happens with the photograph afterwards. Despite this the police seem to think that consent forms are required. Handy hint - they're not.

Giving up on that he's now being moved to prevent a breach of the peace that's only come into being once the police have got involved. No wait I'm sorry it's as they're worried he'll be trampled by all the soldiers in the parade that still hasn't started yet. Yep we're back to public safety and it still doesn't apply yet.

Oh dear they don't like Jules taking photographs of his accusers. In a quiet voice the inspector tells him "We are concerned about terrorism at this event. Taking photographs of police officers and police staff is a criminal offence under these circumstances" Gosh oh wait no it's not because if it were the officer in question would be able to answer a question that Jules repeatedly asks in various forms which is "under what law?"with something other than "I am not answering", "I am not going to enter into a debate with you" or by simply ignoring it.

You see turns out that if you keep asking pesky little question along the lines of "Can you just tell me what law it's an offence under?" it means you're an "agitator". Yep Jules commits this by confirming that he's recording this encounter for reasons the officer describes as "You are recording what I'm saying for later reference" gathering evidence of what may well turn out to be illegality by police officers that's only what agitators do isn't it?

Back to detention and now Jules is accused of trying to push past the officers in the direction that he wants to travel and they they apparently without any just cause are trying to prevent. Jules is having none of this and tries to turn the subject back to why it's an offence to take photographs of police officers. The officers are having none of this and turn back to Jules 'trying' to push past them and even play the helpful Bobby in that they're trying to "facilitate" him in taking pictures [shiver] which is why at this point they take away his camera without permission. See nothing "facilitates" someone more in taking photographs than removing their ability to do so oh and then pushing them down some stairs. No pictures but you hear the echoes that indicate a change in space and a clatter.

Of course an officer didn't do it, we know this because when Jules states that he was the reply is "You haven't" I'm only surprised the officer refrained from adding 'you tripped on the way down to the cells' by reflex.

Forget why he's most definitely not being detained simply being forced to move in a direction he doesn't want to and let's get back to photographing children while in a "vocal and disordered state". Which is interesting because at the start of this recording he doesn't seem either it's only when the police intervened to stop him performing perfectly legal activities that such a state could be said to exist.

Wait no back to taking photographs of the police, you can't do that though this time an explanation is given "You will stop me doing covert operations in the future" yeah, no see the law in question is for officers who are already in covert operations not ones who might be possibly in the future could be. No wait it's not that law it's the "public privacy law" which doesn't exist. There's Article 8 of the Humans Rights, but strictly speaking that covers protection of privacy from the state not an individual. In fact strictly speaking there is no privacy law in the UK, although section 8 has been allowed to cover a wider remit in areas where there would be an "expectation of privacy" so on a public street definitely doesn't count.

But anyway who cares when the officers can pull out the old prevention of a breach of the peace. Yep now they're allege that Jules was purposefully disrupting the parade, you know the one that hadn't started. No wait sorry they changed their minds it was "because of the anxiety [he was] causing amongst members of the public back there" by taking pictures? No wait it was because he was "acting in an anti-social manner" yeah questioning authority like that in public, right little agitator he is.

Wait we're back to breach of the peace and they want to arrest and take him down to the station. At which point the recording ends and we turn to Jules' blog to discover the police, once again, changed their minds and didn't arrest him and let him go... once the parade had left.


So in short we have the police moving to arrest a person to prevent a breach of the peace whose sole cause would have been one of their officers trying to illegally prevent someone taking photographers and then illegally detaining them. Or to put it even more shortly the police moved to arrest someone for not unquestioningly accepting their authority and do what they're told.