Amateur photographer arrested and de-arrested … then gets questioned again for taking photographs in the same place

 

Questions in the High Street. Photo: Alex Turner

An amateur photographer who has made local headlines after being stopped and arrested by police for taking photographs has been quizzed again.

Alex Turner, who runs the popular blog monaxle.com, was arrested on 8 July under s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 after taking photographs in Chatham High Street.

11 days later, Mr Turner was quizzed again in Chatham High Street, taking photographs on his way home from the pub. This time he was not arrested, but he still faced questions from police about his hobby.

Mr Turner said on his blog ‘should someone with a camera taking pictures openly in a public place be considered a threat? How far should preventative measures be taken? Is this far enough?

‘Perhaps cameras should be treated like guns and you have to have a licence to own one with tight restrictions on where and how you use it. Perhaps mobile phones with cameras should be banned. Perhaps video?s made in public should all be vetted. Perhaps compulsory ID cards should be introduced.

‘What price are you willing to pay to be reassured against a supposed threat to your safety?’

Mr Turner’s arrest has appeared in all three of the local papers – making the front page of the News last Thursday.

The Search Record. Photo: Alex TurnerIn a letter to the Proffesional Standards Department regarding his arrest, Mr Turner said ‘I was initially stopped by two men in the High Street close to Snappy Snaps. The men did not identify themselves though stated that they worked for Medway Council.

‘I was made to sit in a police van for around 20 minutes, after which the outer back doors were opened and I was spoken to through the locked inner cage by two officers, both of whom were in plain clothes and neither of which produced their warrant cards.

‘I was asked if I would provide details regarding my identity. I asked, taking into account I was now under arrest, handcuffed and detained, if I was obliged to do so. They stated that I was and said that if I did not I would be taken to the police station.

‘I indicated I could not physically provide any proof of my identity whilst handcuffed and locked in the van. I asked to be unhandcuffed. The request was refused.

‘One of the officers placed his hand inside my jacket pocket and removed my wallet upon which he opened it and could see my photo card driving license. He passed the wallet to one of his colleagues who took it away. He then proceeded to search my pockets and pat me down.

‘For a further 5-10 minutes I stood in the street in full view of passers by handcuffed. One of the officers stated she had felt threatened by me when I took her picture. I cannot recall exactly what she said but I do recall her referring to my size and inferring she found it intimidating at the time (I am 5ft 11in and weigh about 12 stone).

‘The other officer returned and released the handcuffs. He put his hand out for me to shake, apologised for the inconvenience, stated that he hoped I understood given the ?strange? times we are in and left in an unmarked car.

‘I asked the female officer if I was free to go and continue to take pictures in the High Street, she informed me that I was; the PCSO added as long as you don?t take any pictures of us. At this point I walked away feeling upset, embarrassed and traumatised by the events.’

 

Related Posts

  • No Related Posts
 
 

1 Comment

  1. Paul Tring says:

    Unbelievable I know but I remember reading a newspaper article about a resident of a block of flats who (along with his neighbours) were being plagued by antisocial behaviour. The resident could get no assistance from the Police so took photographs of the offending youths and was promptly arrested by the Police(I believe he was charged with assault for taking photographs). It always amazes me how the Police are never available to deal with the yobs but can always find the time to arrest the victim.
    It’s a bit like a group of local residents being required to participate in a crime profile of the local area to prove that claims of crime and anti-social behaviour are true only for the local authority (Medway Council) to ignore the crime profile when it proves residents are correct.

 
 

Leave a Comment