Incident at station....

[1920]

This is my second attempt at posting this, I don't know where the first one went. I apologise in advance for the double posting.

This afternoon, I was involved in an incident with the police at a busy mainline railway station. I was in a video call with my friend from another country and walking around the escalators and concourses as they have requested to see what it is like inside a railway station in the UK. It's a Saturday afternoon in the summer, so there are loads of people around.

Suddenly I am quite literally jumped from behind by officers of British Transport Police. My arms are grabbed by two officers without any warning whatsoever, and the officer gripping my left arm says that I am behaving strangely and wants to know what am I filming. I tell him that I'm in a video call with my friend from abroad, who is at that point horrified by the police state that I appear to be living in, and he mumbles something about having had a complaint from someone about me filming them. At this point I am completely surrounded with another officer having arrived and standing in front of me.

I repeat that I am in a video call, and show them the screen which shows the other person's face and the officers release me and leave, I managed to get the collar numbers of two of them before they left.

Two questions...

1, I'm fairly sure that's not an appropriate way of stopping someone, when an 'excuse me sir...' would have done. I wasn't exactly running away from officers shouting 'Stop, Police!'
2, Is it not a reasonable expectation that people, tourists etc will be filming inside a railway station and the correct response to someone making a complaint of this nature is to tell them they have no expectation of privacy where they are?

Thanks

 

[John R]

The way you’ve described it, it does seem a somewhat unusual thing to do, so I can understand why you attracted the BTP’s attention. Easy to say in hindsight that they were heavy handed, but busy railway stations are potential terrorist targets, so your treatment is maybe not completely surprising.

 

[John Webb]

There was at one time a leaflet about photography at stations produced either by BTP or Network Rail (or both?) but I can't see it on the present BTP website. But it is on the NR site at https://www.networkrail.co.uk/commu...sts/guidelines-for-taking-photos-at-stations/ and may be of use to you to avoid any future problem.

 

[dakta]

I was in a video call with my friend from another country and walking around the escalators and concourses as they have requested to see what it is like inside a railway station in the UK

Above indicates that you were recording, taking photography, filming entrances and exits of public places - not just recording yourself as per normal video calls, and filming/doing recon in public places where people move in mass (and thus is a clear obvious choice of target by some nefarious groups) is obviously going to get some attention, even in a railway context it's going to stand out from say, taking a photo of the 11:34 class 150 cattlebus express to said station as it pulls in.

It's not like googling 'train station UK escalator' leaves you wondering what a escalator in a UK train station looks like. If you add 'train station __ location' you can typically find loads without having to visit any station or marking you out as suspicious.

Whilst I'm sure your intents weren't malicious, from how you've described it, it absolutely sounds suspicious and I am rather glad the authorities are switched on to this sort of thing.

Apart from being challenged, I presume nothing else was done or will come of it?

With regards to how you were handled, I'm going to blindly guess the heavy-handedness was probably somewhat in proportion with the degree of suspiciousness and risk you were assessed that you could pose, for example even when people have been challenged photographing trains it's rarely physical - you must have really looked suspish.

 

[matt_world2004]

Maybe make a subject access request tp the police and get all the information on while you were stopped in an encounter.

There is a big anti sexual harassment drive in both the btp and met at the moment. What I suspect happened is someone felt uncomfortable with you filming (Even though you weren't filming them) and made a complaint to thr police. And they were duty bound to investigate it

People walking around on videp calls isn't exactly unusual in a train station or people taking pictures. But you get some jobsworth toc staff or public trying to challenge it

 

[Llanigraham]

As the OP is in London I suspect this occured at one of the major stations, and considering that armed Police can frequently be seen at them, and that the current security level has recently been raised (*), frankly I'm not surprised he was "pounced" on. I'm sure that if he had first found a member of staff and enquired of them whether he could film, and they had pointed him towards someone more senior, this situation would not have happened.

(*) Last weekend at the Shrewsbury Flower Festival a bomb threat was recieved, complete with the relevant code word, and that was treated very seriously and the grounds evacuated quickly!)

 

[bramling]

As the OP is in London I suspect this occured at one of the major stations, and considering that armed Police can frequently be seen at them, and that the current security level has recently been raised (*), frankly I'm not surprised he was "pounced" on. I'm sure that if he had first found a member of staff and enquired of them whether he could film, and they had pointed him towards someone more senior, this situation would not have happened.

(*) Last weekend at the Shrewsbury Flower Festival a bomb threat was recieved, complete with the relevant code word, and that was treated very seriously and the grounds evacuated quickly!)

I get utterly sick of this notion that photography is somehow wrong or suspicious. Personally in such a situation I would be - grudgingly - prepared to quietly explain what I might be doing, but only to keep the peace, and only if asked in a polite manner, unlike what the OP describes, and even then because somewhere like a railway station is private property. In a proper public space, forget it, the powers that be can mind their own business - as per Ken Livingstone, “has a crime been committed, yes or no?”. If yes then arrest me, if not then do one.

(For those unaware, the infamous Ken Livingstone incident at Westfield Stratford can be found on You Tube. He handled it exceptionally well).

 

[matt_world2004]

As the OP is in London I suspect this occured at one of the major stations, and considering that armed Police can frequently be seen at them, and that the current security level has recently been raised (*), frankly I'm not surprised he was "pounced" on. I'm sure that if he had first found a member of staff and enquired of them whether he could film, and they had pointed him towards someone more senior, this situation would not have happened.

(*) Last weekend at the Shrewsbury Flower Festival a bomb threat was recieved, complete with the relevant code word, and that was treated very seriously and the grounds evacuated quickly!)

Millions of people taking photos in London stations because of the amount of tourists in the area. And with railways and the tube being strongly associated with the heritage and culture of London.

 

[dakta]

as per Ken Livingstone, “has a crime been committed, yes or no?”. If yes then arrest me, if not then do one.

I'm sure if, after speaking to you, that in the case they ascertain you to be a threat, they will!

They first have to get through that step of ascertaining it though, and railway stations, as well as other places are targets, hence the caution.

I get utterly sick of this notion that photography is somehow wrong or suspicious.

I'm going to assume that given we don't see much in the way of other posters being manhandled with regularity for photographing in a station (even though we get the odd jobsworth who doesn't appreciate NR's own guidance on photography), this is an activity which many do with success, and we know from Matt's post that there are a lot of keen tourist photographers in london, that it's not strictly the photography that is suspicious. There's going to be a context element which is going to be the driver the nature of the response seen by the OP.

As much as I personally think photographers should have the right to take pics in public places, and even where it's on private land (such as railways) used by the public, there is a reasonable element, where knowing the world situation, taking photographs in a certain manner, of certain things, would raise eyebrows and would get you questioned, and depending on the perceived seriousness may require a swift response. The real question of reasonability for me would be what happens once it's ascertained you are not a threat.

 

[bramling]

I'm sure if, after speaking to you, that in the case they ascertain you to be a threat, they will!

Which is where accountability comes in. It is very dodgy ground indeed to be arresting people without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Taking a photograph isn’t an offence.

I'm going to assume that given we don't see much in the way of other posters being manhandled with regularity for photographing in a station (even though we get the odd jobsworth who doesn't appreciate NR's own guidance on photography), this is an activity which many do with success, and we know from Matt's post that there are a lot of keen tourist photographers in london, that it's not strictly the photography that is suspicious. There's going to be a context element which is going to be the driver the nature of the response seen by the OP.

As much as I personally think photographers should have the right to take pics in public places, and even where it's on private land (such as railways) used by the public, there is a reasonable element, where knowing the world situation, taking photographs in a certain manner, of certain things, would raise eyebrows and would get you questioned, and depending on the perceived seriousness may require a swift response. The real question of reasonability for me would be what happens once it's ascertained you are not a threat.

Whilst being manhandled is unusual, it isn’t particularly uncommon for people with cameras to be subject to unpleasant experiences. To be fair, as you say this is more likely to be “security” types or even the general public rather than police officers, who we normally expect, and should expect, to be more clued up and professional. Nonetheless there are exceptions, such as the daft encounter at Westfield.

Dare one mention that London has a massive problem with street crime at the moment, and an increasing problem with robbery on parts of the transport network. Personally I would prefer police resources to be directed in these directions rather than people with cameras. It’s actually quite surprising this is still an issue given how photography has gone from being a niche activity to being mainstream due to the proliferation of camera phones.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Of course, YouTube is full of examples of people claiming they were “arrested for filming” when there is usually more to it and they were invariably trying to start a confrontation. They call themselves “auditors” and they play the victim in search of clicks and views.

I’m not saying the OP was doing this (I’ve never seen any of them claim they were video calling), even if their post uses one or two phrases reminiscent of such types. Indeed, the “jumping” the OP allegedly got from police is a more serious initial response than those people tend to get.

All a bit strange.

 

[dakta]

I helped with a gala today at a small narrow gauge railway which had a couple of people from a photography society attend to film and record (so think cameras, tripods and drones) and I got chatting to them and we covered the topic of negative experiences, and I'd agree most of us do have some, but most of it literally is jobsworth sort of thing, and whilst unpleasant is more of an admin problem.

Being grabbed from behind by actual policeis quite severe, but it's fairly obvious why in this scenario, from the info here the OP presented as a potential threat, got treat as a potential threat, and let go once confirmed as not a threat.

'specifically shooting around the train station' as opposed to a clear subject probably has more to do with the response' than the fact photos were taken, it would raise eyebrows, be considered potential recon and there's a lot of reasons for authorities to want to act.
Might be worth looking at if there was actually anything wrong with this police response. Are they allowed to do this to people acting suspiciously? How are they supposed to act towards people acting suspiciously in such vulnerable public areas where attacks are not just possible, but at a national level are somewhat expected?

Slight deviation but

the correct response to someone making a complaint of this nature is to tell them they have no expectation of privacy where they are?

That, despite being a public place isn't *always absolute so they'd probably not be able to say that

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Given how many train stations have streetview in them (especially in a busy area) at this point someone recording should be the least of anyone's concern.

 

[gray1404]

I would definitely be submitting a formal complaint and perhaps a letter before action for a private prosecution to the chief constable. It sounds like you were assaulted without any grounds and the use of force use was disproportionate and unreasonable

 

[dakta]

I actually thought the same, but then thought it's as valid in the inverse.

With so much street view available, with almost every station i can think of on google images, to actually visit a station to walk around on a video call to show someone what a UK station looked like is actually pretty darn odd way to go about achieving that. It's not impossible, but it's unusual. Its possible it just cropped up in conversation but who knows.

 

[bramling]

I actually thought the same, but then thought it's as valid in the inverse.

With so much street view available, with almost every station i can think of on google images, to actually visit a station to walk around on a video call to show someone what a UK station looked like is actually pretty darn odd way to go about achieving that. It's not impossible, but it's unusual. Its possible it just cropped up in conversation but who knows.

Unusual or otherwise, people absolutely shouldn’t be being forced to explain themselves when they aren’t committing a crime. They may choose to do so out of the goodness of their heart, but should not be pressurised into doing so.

It’s also worth remembering that arresting someone is actually a fairly big deal, not least because it takes up a fair amount of police resource, and will certainly be diverting that resource away from other police work.

 

[dakta]

I totally agree, which is probably why when they see something suspicious they may ask some questions before they arrest. Grabbing someone is a big deal, and I'm not on the legalities of this when someone is behaving suspiciously - I think the devils probably in that detail. I don't think its a target on photographers per se though.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I managed to get the collar numbers of two of them before they left.

Maybe make a subject access request tp the police and get all the information on while you were stopped in an encounter.

Would also suggest a subject access request to the station operator to obtain CCTV footage of the incident. This will shed some light on what happened. Don't delay as the footage will probably be wiped after 2 weeks or so.

Network Rail only operate the busiest stations so it may be a TOC (you can look this up)

Government advice on how to make a SAR is linked below:

Request CCTV footage of yourself

You have the right to see CCTV footage of yourself under the Data Protection Act.

www.gov.uk

 

[AlterEgo]

None of us were there and therefore none of us are in a position to say that what happened was appropriate, as we don't have the full details.

 

[nap666]

Having been involved in Behaviour Detection roles and had to involve police in suspicious activities in the past, if the O P was also carrying a rucksack, the police would have wanted to ensure that there was nothing in there hands that could be used to harm anyone, hence the initial detention. Hostile recon done by previous terrorists has been done to look innocent, so police will always act to control initial interaction.
Had an incident in London few weeks after Manchester Arena, that started with a person filming and asking when gates open at a concert, they carried a rucksack, phone with wires going into the bag, what do you do?
Police were alerted and apprehended them similar to the OP, released a few hours later after checks. Same event person refused admission, drops a bag and claims there is a bomb in it, arrested face down by 3 armed officers, charged, convicted and deported, nothing in the bag but do assume joke or wine up dead when it's real!

 

[matt_world2004]

A rucksack and someone on their phone is hardly suspicious in London. If you suspected everyone was suspicious with a rucksack and phone there would be about 700 suspected terrorists on my train

Tourists in particular have large oversized irritating ones.

 

[dakta]

You make it sound like behaviour detection stops, and the person is lifted once the checkbox of 'has a rucksack' and 'has a camera' is ticked!

We have all dealt with 'you shouldnt be taking photos here!' jobsworth (even had it on the street) but has anyone been lifted? In the absence of *extra context or circumstance, does this happen?


*I suspect it is this which will pose the difficulty, it requires someone reasonable view of what looking suspicious would look like

I can't say I got into bother, but I raised some concerns once taking a timelapse photo and to do this I needed to set up a camera near a bridge so i could timelapse traffic passing through as the sun set (think light trails). As the timelapse would take ages i went some distance from the bridge and waited for it, so people wouldn't see me loitering on or near the bridge. That much was obvious, but what I didn't expect was that someone has clearly been watching me as I was near the bridge and despite me walking away from the gear (which was small, just a gopro to be fair) soon came over to ask if I was okay. I thanked them but told them i was doing photography and unfortunately setting up had been a necessary evil.
Now nowhere in the rules does it say I can't do this, and even with good intentions being challenged ruined it - but neither do I blame anyone for challenging it. Clearly to some it looked suspicious and it triggered a thread on a photography forum about how I could go about excercising my rights to take photos in the future, particularly in certain hotspots where your intentions should be misconstrued without causing concern to others. All sorts of novel ideas were suggested such as making yourself known in manned places, to wearing high vis, having a lanyard etc, even havinng barriers or a cone with a *photographer in vicinity* sign stuck to it. (though that could cause other complications with obstruction)

Technically I did nothing wrong but the person could have called the police or escalated it further depending on their level of panic - so trying to be mindful of your behaviour probably can save yourself hassle as a photographer.
I am sort of understanding of the BTP here, but I'm not trying to come across like I don't care about the right to take photographs either, it's a balance and I'm going to bet the OP must have tipped it with the context of the situation as even photographers getting stick rarely get the hands on treatment.

 

[matt_world2004]

You make it sound like behaviour detection stops, and the person is lifted once the checkbox of 'has a rucksack' and 'has a camera' is ticked!

We have all dealt with 'you shouldnt be taking photos here!' jobsworth (even had it on the street) but has anyone been lifted? In the absence of extra context or circumstance, does this happen?

A backpack and mobile phone particularly amongst tourists is so ubiquitous in London that using them as any kind of metric of if someone is a terrorist or not would be the equivalent of labelling someone a terrorist through random chance

A key part of behaviour detection is are they actively trying to conceal their activities. Are they photographing things which wouldn't normally be photographed. Are they actively avoiding police or staff

Terrorists also typically do not carry their bombs with them while on hostile reconnaissance

Now you can inadvertently do some of these things through regular day to day activities for example it might look like your concealing your phone when you are shielding it from bright sunlight or you may be photographing exits or escalators because you are showing someone what entrance to use at a station.

Also you get people in stations complaining because they have misinterpreted the situation for example they may think they re the subject of someone's photograph and feel harassed

 

[spyinthesky]

I do hope that none of you are ever involved in a terrorist related incident and then with hindsight ask the question. Could the Police have prevented the incident?

 

[dakta]

I do hope that none of you are ever involved in a terrorist related incident and then with hindsight ask the question. Could the Police have prevented the incident?

Well, quite.

A backpack and mobile phone particularly amongst tourists is so ubiquitous in London that using them as any kind of metric ...

Again, this is pretty much my view. I hardly expect carrying a camera does count as a metric. Sticking the camera around, for a period of time, talking to someone whilst swinging the camera around to show escalators, concourses and things I'm sure we all agree aren't your typical railway photograpgy subjects probably does weight that bit more. Not so much camera, more behaviour with camera. That's kind of my point.

Regarding to avoid being seen doing recon, not entirely sure on that one. If I was to try and photo something without people really taking note in public I think trying to hide or shield a camera would probably raise interesting, what I'd probably try to do is actually do it quite bold and make the shot look purposeful, intentional. I'm taking this photo with intent, and you might get a second glance at best.

Also you get people in stations complaining because they have misinterpreted the situation for example they may think they re the subject of someone's photograph and feel harassed

That said the above is interesting discussion point in itself, because it's something quite understandable and whilst public photography is generally ok, it does carry caveats!

 

[357]

Sounds like typical bored BTP behavior. I've seen it myself many times whilst working on stations.

They could have started the encounter diplomatically as there were clearly enough officers to stop you if you tried to run away from them.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sounds like typical bored BTP behavior. I've seen it myself many times whilst working on stations.

They could have started the encounter diplomatically as there were clearly enough officers to stop you if you tried to run away from them.

It is possible they tried to call over to the OP but as they were on the phone or otherwise engrossed they didn’t hear. Again, none of us were there and not even the OP is privy to the whole story, so hard to call this one.

 

[spyinthesky]

We obviously are unaware how this incident was brought to the attention of BTP and with the current threat level hovering between substantial and severe, would their actions appear heavy handed if their suspicions were justified?

 

[1920]

Answers to some of the points made here:

- I deliberately left out the location as I do not see that it was relevant to how I was treated, but it was not in London. In any case, why should it matter?

- I'm disappointed that so many of the posts here are almost giving a free pass to the police and 'I don't see a problem that your rights were infringed because it makes me feel safer that the authorities are "doing something", after all, the police wouldn't have assaulted you if you weren't doing something suspicious, and who's to know you weren't a wrongun, it's just part and parcel of the world we live in, etc'...

- If I was up to no good, I could very easily walk around with a camera hidden in a cigarette lighter, watch or pen and get all the footage I wanted without drawing attention to myself.

- It's either perfectly legal to pan your mobile phone around in a railway station whilst in a video call with someone to show them your surroundings or it isn't.

- As already mentioned, it would have been perfectly fine if they'd walked over to me and politely asked what I was doing and I would have been happy to engage with them.

It's seems to be that for many people here to accept that despite not being obviously immediately threatening, the police can use force to stop you without announcing themselves so it's perfectly normal to be expected that from time to time despite going about their business can find yourself being having your arms seized by officers if you're walking through a railway station doing nothing more than having your phone out and demanded to account for yourself, and anyone you complain to for relief says 'Well, it's your own fault, you looked like you were probably up to no good'.

Unbelievable...

 

[matt_world2004]

I do hope that none of you are ever involved in a terrorist related incident and then with hindsight ask the question. Could the Police have prevented the incident?

I would rather not be shot in the head by the police in the head because they erroneously believed I was a terrorist.