Jail for photographing police

metman

Jail for photographing police?
Date: 28 January 2009

The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer. The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine. The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week. Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers. According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP. The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'

The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places. 'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations,' Downing Street says.

'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of the relevant force.'

However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James Welch, said the powers were used too widely.

In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of a couple married in Docklands. She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.

'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.'

The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited to the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the country's parliament building.

Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he was targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic police systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying them,' he says. The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial system collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of foreign debts incurred by its banks.

Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted by the Icelandic Police.

Check bjp-online.com for updates.

Source.
****************

This should make for some interesting incidents

Satan Polaroid

I never let my picture be taken.

Not very PR friendly I know, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.

Random

Satan Polaroid wrote: »

I never let my picture be taken.

Not very PR friendly I know, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.

So what do you do if someone takes it from across the street?

Satan Polaroid

Random wrote: »

So what do you do if someone takes it from across the street?

What can I do?

If I'm asked, I usually refuse.

Random

Just the way you phrased it ... if someone is standing near you and taking your photo what do you do? Do you mean that you just refuse if someone asks?

Satan Polaroid

Random wrote: »

Just the way you phrased it ... if someone is standing near you and taking your photo what do you do? Do you mean that you just refuse if someone asks?

I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.

And yes, I refuse if someone asks.

If you're trying to get me to say something so you can criticise me, then forget it. It ain't going to happen.

Random

If you're trying to get me to say something so you can criticise me, then forget it. It ain't going to happen.

Not at all. I'm just interested in your position. I'm a civilian and I've been known to take photos is just why I'm interested.

TommyMartin

Satan Polaroid wrote: »

I never let my picture be taken.

Not very PR friendly I know, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.

I took a picture of you yesterday. Now i have it under my pillow

Satan Polaroid

Random wrote: »

Not at all. I'm just interested in your position. I'm a civilian and I've been known to take photos is just why I'm interested.

Just the way you phrase it.... :rolleyes:

I suppose it comes down to personal preference. I have my reasons for not wanting my picture taken, both personal and professional.

Why would you take pictures of Gardaí?

Fajitas!

Why wouldn't you?

There's plenty of reasons from topical interests to aesthetic.

Satan Polaroid

TommyMartin wrote: »

I took a picture of you yesterday. Now i have it under my pillow

Make sure you get it laminated, or it'll never last

Random

"I never let my picture be taken." just sounded so definite to me. I clearly read too much into it. Just ignore me.

As for why I'd take photos from time to time .. just out of interest generally .. is that so strange?

metman

Personally I'm glad this legislation is being introduced. During the events of 7/7 the independent photo-journalists really got on my tits, so much so I went hands-on with a few and came close to making arrests once or twice. I got my picture taken a number of times, but it wasn't this that bothered me, it was photos being taken of grieving people, who had stated they did not want to be photographed but despite their wishes the parasites still stuck cameras in their faces, or on account of my intervention, tried their best to.

kelle

I feel guilty After reading this, as during my travels as a young one I was fascinated by police uniforms in different countries so I always liked to take a photo to add to my collection! I always asked permission and was never refused, even got a kiss from one on Barbados! We're living in different times now and I can understand why officers would not wish to be photographed.

Satan Polaroid

Random wrote: »

"I never let my picture be taken." just sounded so definite to me. I clearly read too much into it. Just ignore me.

As for why I'd take photos from time to time .. just out of interest generally .. is that so strange?

Not from some one with a name like Random

I think it is a little strange tbh. Usually there is some reason behind it. Do you keep all the photos you take? Do you have an album of Gardaí at home?

I understand some people have a fascination with the Police, and it is an interesting subject area, no doubt.

But at the end of the day, we're just ordinary humans doing super human jobs :cool:

(too cheesy? )

Random

too cheesy indeed lol... but it is true in a strange way

I guess it's a general interest and facination with the police. I have a couple of photos I keep if they're good ones .. a couple I don't if they're not too exciting.

I have some photos of some armed police outside Downing St, a snow covered NYPD cruiser from New York and a sweet looking Garda TC jeep that happened to be parked nearby me one day.

I'm certainly not one to go up and stick a camera in the face of a Garda / Police / etc but at the same time I've never really seen any harm in a couple of photos if I'm not getting in the way of their work etc?

metman

Random wrote: »

I'm certainly not one to go up and stick a camera in the face of a Garda / Police / etc but at the same time I've never really seen any harm in a couple of photos if I'm not getting in the way of their work etc?

Random, most officers I work with don't mind the type of thing you're talking about. As you know from firsthand experience, UK cops get their pics taken a lot (for me its a full-time job :cool:)

What this legislation is being introduced to deal with are these types (who ideally would put your home address and wives mobile number on the internet if they could) as well as extremist groups; i.e threats to officers safety from national security risk groups.....but as suggested I'm inclined to agree that it will have various lesser applications in time.

Random

I've read through the news article a second time. I do agree with it to an extent when I read this paragraph

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'

Like all things I guess once it's dealt with by officiers using common sense it should be ok.

+ edit
Also glancing at http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/ which you linked to without going into the website in detail would lead me toward disliking their way of going about things. Will have to look into them more though before I could really give an informed opinion on it.

metman

Random wrote: »

I've read through the news article a second time. I do agree with it to an extent when I read this paragraph


Like all things I guess once it's dealt with by officiers using common sense it should be ok.

Guess which part of that sentence means it'll go tits-up once or twice

Random

It's true I guess .. but aren't their gob****es in every walk of life? The problems arise when the gob****e with the camera meets the gob****e in the uniform and both act like gob****es

And looking more at that other website you linked me too ... I can see why that sort of thing is something the police might want to clamp down on. While I might agree with some of their sentiments like I'm sure a lot of people would .. their general goal seems to be "try and p!ss the police off as best you can and stop them doing their job". Still though, further reading required!

santosubito

metman wrote: »

Jail for photographing police?
Date: 28 January 2009

The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer. The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine. The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week. Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers. According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP. The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'

The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places. 'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations,' Downing Street says.

'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of the relevant force.'

However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James Welch, said the powers were used too widely.

In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of a couple married in Docklands. She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.

'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.'

The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited to the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the country's parliament building.

Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he was targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic police systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying them,' he says. The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial system collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of foreign debts incurred by its banks.

Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted by the Icelandic Police.

Check bjp-online.com for updates.

Source.
****************

This should make for some interesting incidents

Excellent. First crime scenes are getting wider and wider and now UK cops have the right to detain a snapper for taking pics.

That's it. I'm off to North Korea.

metman

santosubito wrote: »

First crime scenes are getting wider and wider....

Damn inconsiderate the whole preservation of evidence thing...getting in the way of good copy :rolleyes:

pa990

santosubito wrote: »

Excellent. First crime scenes are getting wider and wider and now UK cops have the right to detain a snapper for taking pics.

That's it. I'm off to North Korea.

bon voyage

eroo

pa990 wrote: »

bon voyage

He said North Korea!

Annyeonghi gaseyo

:P

Gavin

Random wrote: »

It's true I guess .. but aren't their gob****es in every walk of life? The problems arise when the gob****e with the camera meets the gob****e in the uniform and both act like gob****es

The problem with the scenario you describe though is that now one of the participants has the law on his side. A law which is not for dealing with annoying idiots, but for dealing with terrorists. I suspect that it will be applied more often to deal with those idiots rather than as it's meant to be used, and not by idiot police, but simply police who don't want to be annoyed.

Eru

Gavin wrote: »

The problem with the scenario you describe though is that now one of the participants has the law on his side. A law which is not for dealing with annoying idiots, but for dealing with terrorists. I suspect that it will be applied more often to deal with those idiots rather than as it's meant to be used, and not by idiot police, but simply police who don't want to be annoyed.

Why would you be getting in the way of the police to begin with????

This already falls under our Offences against the state Act but its very rarely used.

My personal opinion? If Im working and your standing back not in my way then I dont really care if you take pictures but if its of me struggling with a prisoner I would rather you put down the camera and helped me, called my station to let them know I may need back up or at least willing to provide a copy for evidence. If your sticking it in my face or getting in my way then yes, we have a problem.

If you are simple someone who likes having their pic taken with police or es staff I will usually have no problem posing for a pic now and again (especially if you happen to be good looking) but its my right as a person to say yes or no. Having said that the only time I have taken issue is on the odd occasion where people have stood beside me and had their friends try and take a sneaky pic or walked up and rammed a camera in my face while Im working.

You would not like people doing that to you regardless of being in public or not.

Gavin

Eru wrote: »

Why would you be getting in the way of the police to begin with????

I didn't say that. Please don't twist my words. One does not need to be in anyone's way to annoy them. As already stated on the thread, some police don't like their photo being taken. It's fair to say that some people/police will get annoyed by the mere act of being photographed, even from a distance as a photographer could be with a zoom lens.

If your sticking it in my face or getting in my way then yes, we have a problem.

I agree and that's what the law is for and rightly so. The law as it stands is, I believe, that when in public, anyone is pretty much fair game to be photographed, including Gardai. If someone is shoving a camera in a Garda's face when they are trying to work, actively hampering them, then arrest them. But the police should not be able to arrest photographers because they merely don't like being photographed, which is what this english law effectively results in. The police surely should welcome being photographed as they effect arrests, all the more evidence.

metman

Gavin wrote: »

The police surely should welcome being photographed as they effect arrests, all the more evidence.

Until it winds up on YouTube under the heading of 'police brutality'.

Picture the scene, you and your oppo turn up to assist ambulance with an aggressive male. Said male kicks off on your arrival, is possessed of super-human strength thanks to the cocktail of drugs and alcohol he has consumed over a day's binging, male headbutts your colleague, kicks you a number of times, male is then taken to the floor and fights violently with you and injured colleague (while nearby door staff look on) ye struggle with the guy on the ground for ages and put up for urgent assistance....its at this point you are aware a crowd has formed around you and some numpties are filming it on their phones saying 'police brutality that is!'

Thank you citizens for your kind assistance in support of the forces of law and order.....you couldn't make it up! :P

PCPhoto

Metman - in Ireland if you try to assist a Garda if you see them struggling with a person they will do you for obstruction of justice .....too damn proud to accept help from Joe Public.

I do photograph gardai if I see them in a different situation - ie. horseback, Jeep, helicopter, bicycle etc ....I do this for file pics, who knows when a member of the forces will arrest someone using a bicycle or if a garda bicycle is stolen (file pic of Garda bike or garda on bike could be used) ..... if a mounted garda is attacked or if the horse goes crazy ....file pics would prob be used - unless I'm there when it happens).... or worse...if a member of the garda was assaulted or knocked down while on his bike/horse - files of a garda on a horse/bike.

I'd also like to point out that if one of them asks me to delete the pic I do ...at the end of the day they are just trying to do their job, I might ask/try to photograph them from behind if they dont like being photographed.

Personally I do think that the English police are trying to remove the "common sense" approach and give the police the right to do what they want - the police are simply trying to stop any chance of bad publicity or false publicity (like the "police brutality" you mentioned above) ..... photographers are trying to do their job in the same way that Emergency services, police and reporters are - EVERYONE goes over the line on occasions.

I have encountered many protests in Ireland and have spotted several "professional protestors" - I believe that these people are also in England and could be the main reason for this new "Law" ...... "professional protestors" are usually not really interested in the protest but more interested in stopping the police from monitoring the crowd - they are the people who use the "tactics" from the www.fitwatch.blogspot.com website you mentioned - however with most governmental changes they dont take the time to fully assess the ramifications of their actions ...both governments in England and Ireland consider themselves to be pro-active but they seem to have the blinkers on and are quite simply tunnel visioned - their way must be the best course of action because they came up with the idea !!!

I do find it disgraceful that gardai/police cant do their job properly - but its not the photographers at fault (sometimes - but not all the time) ..... in Ireland they are missing corrective training and common sense.

Admittedly if someone is taking a pic of an area - its hard to assess if they are doing so with any hidden agenda simply by looking at them ...so lets just round everyone up and cause them so much hassle so they wont do it again....possibly a big mistake !!! only time will tell.

Eru

PCphoto,
This already exists in Ireland. How often have you seen it being used?

CLADA

PCPhoto wrote: »

Metman - in Ireland if you try to assist a Garda if you see them struggling with a person they will do you for obstruction of justice .....too damn proud to accept help from Joe Public.

Just did a search through PULSE and any of the "obstruction" charges I've come across so far don't seem to have any of the above details in the narratives.

Can you elaborate and give details of the case or cases you are aware of where such charges have been preferred when a member of the public was simply trying to assist.

PCPhoto

Clada - you wont find any report in the Pulse system - why would a garda report that they almost wrongfully arrested someone.

what I had said was "IF" you try to help the gardai, ...... I have seen on a Fri/Sat night Gardai dealing with Agressive drunks.

What happened on one occasion was that two gardai were dealing with an aggressive drunk- who was involved in a fight - on O'Connell Street a while back and my friend (He's a BIG guy - Rugby head) while sober went over to help - he grabbed the drunks legs to stop him kicking out, minutes later a Paddywagon and several cars arrived - drunk was shipped into paddywagon - my friend was cuffed and taken in a squad car - protesting his innocence - didnt matter to the gardai - they assumed he was part of the problem - after about 20mins he was released from the car after it was pointed out by the gardai involved that he didnt have any part......common sense prevailed on this occasion.

Ps. I do take objection to the fact that you accessed the PULSE System - but if you have the resource at your fingertips ...why not use it, its not as if my privacy is important ...... while you are at it can you clear some tickets for me

Whitewater-AGS

PCPhoto wrote: »

Metman - in Ireland if you try to assist a Garda if you see them struggling with a person they will do you for obstruction of justice .....too damn proud to accept help from Joe Public.

Very strong statement to make without anything to back it up! I'd have to disagree with you here as any Garda would be more than thankful for assistance if they are having trouble with a prisoner, and infact the law actually then see's such person aiding the garda as a "peace officer" themselves, and any assault on this person while helping the garda is dealt with the same as if it was a member being assaulted.

The fact is that I can only think of one occasion where I was helped, on the other occasions there was either nobody else around or there where too busy recording it on there phones.

PCPhoto

Eru wrote: »

PCphoto,
This already exists in Ireland. How often have you seen it being used?

What exactly is it that exists in Ireland ?

I'd also like to point out that I respect Gardai - they have a tough job and its getting worse with the courts not giving proper punishments as deterrants ......but there are a number out there that abuse their job - maybe its the training or maybe its the knowledge of the law.... but for me whenever a gardai doesnt want to talk he/she quotes sections of the law and asks you to leave - if you dont you will be in breach of the law - if you leave you cant ask your question.
(I'm speaking mainly about protests marches with that last comment)

this thread is supposed to be about the change in the English law enabling Police to arrest photographers (professional or amateur) on suspicion of terrorism when they take photos of police or areas of interest to terrorists ..... on a side note does this mean that everyone who takes pics of touristy places like buckingham palace or houses of parliament could now be arrested on suspicion of terrorism ? People photographing buckingham palace could in theory be planning to steal the crown jewels (was that made into a movie).....assuming the jewels are in Buckingham palace (I dont know - apologies for my ignorance and unwillingness to google it)

PCPhoto

Whitewater-AGS wrote: »

Very strong statement to make without anything to back it up! I'd have to disagree with you here as any Garda would be more than thankful for assistance if they are having trouble with a prisoner, and infact the law actually then see's such person aiding the garda as a "peace officer" themselves, and any assault on this person while helping the garda is dealt with the same as if it was a member being assaulted.

The fact is that I can only think of one occasion where I was helped, on the other occasions there was either nobody else around or there where too busy recording it on there phones.

Whitewater .... would it be better to say that there is a high chance that IF you attempt to help a garda or gardai in trouble then there is a high chance that WHEN reinforcements arrive you could face yourself in trouble (the guys arriving only see their colleagues and joe public)

When gardai arrive to assist they dont have time to ask questions they just react and ask questions afterwards - which is what happened to my friend...... because he wasnt a garda in uniform he "must" have been part of the problem - I know I wont be assisting gardai (unless I know them) ...... my friend still tells the story of how he was almost arrested. (never been in trouble before or after that event - although he doesnt get involved in other peoples battles anymore)

Whitewater-AGS

But he didn't get into trouble, he was arrested because as you said it could have looked to other members responding to the scene that he was involved, once it was pointed out that he wasn't i'm sure he was thanked and sent on his way, so no charge no summons no trouble for him!

PCPhoto

it still took approx 20mins for that to happen - all that time he was in a car and was handcuffed (prob due to his size) ...... the original statement was stightly wrong - I should have added "you risk" getting arrested... instead of saying that "they would do you" .

My apologies for all the Gardai that I have offended.

CLADA

PCPhoto wrote: »

Ps. I do take objection to the fact that you accessed the PULSE System - but if you have the resource at your fingertips ...why not use it, its not as if my privacy is important ...... while you are at it can you clear some tickets for me

Nah! didn't really access the system just said so to draw you out, knew it was going to be a case of "IF".

Anyway can't sort those tickets there's no PCPhoto on pulse, seems your privacy is safe.

Eru

PCPhoto wrote: »

What exactly is it that exists in Ireland ?

There are various sections of law which COULD cover photographing Gardai and or / Garda stations, etc. Section 7, Offences against the state Act 1939. Section 9, Offences against the state Act 1939. Section 8, Offences against the state (Amendment) Act 1998.

There is more of course but these are the ones I was thinking of. Now Im not saying taking a picture of a Garda is an offence, what im saying is that it could be depending on where, when, etc.

The same will apply in the UK. A tourist taking a pic of a bobby isnt going to cause any problems but theres plenty of occasions where someone will and should be arrested.