Photography Ban? No Thanks!

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

I note that someone on UKAR had a difficult day at Lyneham. An RAF Policeman told him that he could stay to watch the planes (very gracious of him) but that photography was forbidden.

This kind of activity seems to be on the increase again after a long, long period of relaxed relations between both sides of the perimeter fences. I think it's an important issue and one which we should all be concerned about. Now, I don't think there's any value in any joint action or response from enthusiast sites such as this one or UKAR, as far too many people are potentially involved, and of course whilst some/most of us are fairly sensible and intelligent people (hopefully!), there are way too many idiots and fools out there who do ridiculous things and make life difficult for the rest of us. So I think this is a subject where we can only act as individuals.

Basically, my advice is that should any military policeman put you in a similar position, then don't get into a fix; simply agree with whatever he says, but question him on his comments. If he says you can't take photographs then ask him why! When he's given you some silly reason, question him about that too! Ultimately, he will have no valid reason for stopping you taking photographs, and it will simply be a case of him saying so - simple as that. Then, based on this response, all you need to do is ask for his name, rank and number. Write it down and inform him that you will be writing to the relevant base CRO/PRO/MCO to issue a complaint and to seek an apology. Go home, write to the base, give details of what the guy said and demand an explanation and an apology. Don't simply walk away and encourage this kind of silliness.

Once the guy has gone, of course you can resume your activity as it's unlikely that he'll come back. If he does, then the choice is yours. Either wait until he's left again, or cut your losses and head for the nearest Police station to complain to them. If you're feeling particularly patient and defiant then simply stand your ground and tell the guy to mind his own business. His only course of action (other than driving off in a sulk) will be to call out the local Police. If they come, they will either ask you to move, or (more likely) invite you to the nearest Police station to question you and feed you with all manner of rubbish regarding security, terrorism and the like. If this does happen, then again my advice is to stand your ground. The worst they can do is inconvenience you by wasting your time, but if they have to keep inconveniencing people, they'll get fed-up long before we do!

I know this means making a lot of effort and in many respects it's easier to walk away. But if we do that, then the situation will probably get worse. On the other hand, if we make a proper effort to complain (and properly, through the right channels) then there will eventually be enough hassle to ensure that all policemen are specifically told to stop this silly practise once and for all.

Basically, the key is to ensure that you stick to public roads, do not trespass, do not block any access/exits or crash gates, and do not make physical contact with any fences or installations. Under those circumstances there is nothing that can be done if you stand your ground and you are willing to endure a bit of trouble. On balance - for all our sakes - it's worth it.

And before anyone says that I'm all talk and no action, I should add that I've had similar encounters over the years and I have always stood my ground. The "security" folks inevitably back-off once they realise that they're not impressing you. My last encounter was with the local constabulary at Waddington during the show arrivals day. I had to endure three policemen telling me that I "had to move" from the end of the runway on the A15. When I asked why, they came-out with all the usual rubbish about safety. I replied that I'd been standing there at various times for over 30 years so I was in a far better position to judge what was safe than they were. Their reply was that they didn't care about that, there was a safety issue because the planes could crash, blah, blah. I replied that I was happy to take that risk. This was enough to finally convince them that I wasn't impressed by their rubbish and they finally walked-off to their cars, muttering that I was staying at my own risk... As ever, if you don't roll-over and play their silly games, they get bored and head-off to try it on with another mug. The interesting point here is that about half a dozen other blokes simply walked away when the coppers told them to. Nobody bothered to question them or stand their ground other than me. It's ridiculous how people are so willing to simply roll-over and accept anything that someone in a uniform tells them.

So, if something like this happens to you, please don't back off. Stand your ground. If we allow military and civilian policemen to treat us like school kids then they will continue to do this until we're back to the "bad old days" when taking pictures outside bases was like a continual race between you and the security. I'm sure none of us want to end-up back in that kind of silly situation?!

Moderator Location : In a layby

I havent seen said post on Ukar, however I suspect this has alot to do with

a) Repatriation flights

b) The recent bomb scare

Rick (Batman3) also had problems recently when the Kuwaiti crew reported them as suspious http://fightercontrol.forumotion.com/raf-lyneham-f39/take-note-t15731.htm If they think the Lyneham locals look dodgy, wait till they come to Brize Photography Ban? No Thanks! 333264

Location : Edinburgh Spotter Watch Member : No

My understanding is that under the Official Secrets Act they can stop you taking photographs looking into the base? I've heard of several people over the years getting grief for shooting the Wittering gate guard for this reason.
So, asking on what grounds you are prevented, will surely only trigger him quoting the OS which is a catch all?

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Well yes, that's probably the kind of response you'll get. But the point is to seek a reason (even if it's not a very plausible one) and then you have all the relevant information at your disposal to make a formal complaint. Just asking why someone is asking you to move can sometimes be enough to convince them that they're wasting their time - as I explained in the previous post.

Technically it is true that photography is often taken to be part of the Official Secrets Act but it's a very grey area. As a signatory to the Act myself I've studied what I've signed-up to before, and there's nothing in it which specifically states that taking photos of anything on MoD land, if taken from a public place, is illegal. The confusion comes from the whole business of conveying information to a third party, be it in the form of written, electronic, photographic or model form, etc. Technically it could be argued that if your photo was given to someone else, or published (ie posted on FC), then it would be breaking the terms of the OS Act. Problem is that in order to prosecute, the MoD would then have to prove that the aircraft you photographed was in any way secret - which of course it isn't. So the whole saga is a farce and it doesn't bear scrutiny.

Okay, I can fully understand why some of these encounters occur. It must be very worrying for any security guard to see someone taking a picture of the entrance to Wittering. It smacks of terrorism, and if anyone wanted a picture of the gate guard then surely they would seek permission to go and photograph it, rather than lurk on the road? Likewise, repatriation flights might well be the cause of Lyneham's sensitivity (although it doesn't explain similar encounters at other bases), but the root cause shouldn't be the issue. The problem is that this kind of saga is on the increase again so surely we have some responsibility to prevent it getting worse?

I can fully appreciate that few people would want the hassle of an argument, an encounter with the police, being arrested, or anything else like this. But please look at the wider picture. We all know what happens if people's actions are not challenged. It will encourage even more of this kind of nonsense and before we know it we'll be back to the days where every perimeter fence is guarded by snarling cops, demanding that they confiscate your camera. Surely, nobody wants us to go back to those dark days?

Location : Edinburgh Spotter Watch Member : No

Quote :: Surely, nobody wants us to go back to those dark days?

I agree, but the OS seems to be such an all embracing umbrella that it catches all. My impression is that often it is not so much the aircraft in the picture that is the cause for concern, but the base infrastructure (though this does not appear to be an issue at airshows etc!), so may be prudent to pont cameras away from the base as much as possible?

I noticed from other posts elsewhere that one of the DA42s(?) dropped in having regained its civil marks after being in sandy places. As there seems to be some secrecy around these aircarft and their role ( could be wrong but my impression) perhaps this engendered the RAFP activity?

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

True, it does, but this is typical of the old "smoke and mirrors" attitude. In actual fact the OS Act isn't that specific. Technically-speaking (not that I'm a lawyer!) there's nothing illegal about photographing a MoD building, it's more a question of what you do with the photograph. In essence, the Act is all about the conveyance of information to a third party. But regardless of the detail, the problem is - as you say - that the OS Act is used as an all-embracing security blanket, chiefly because people don't actually know their rights. Essentially, it's all a load of bluff and the MoD obviously isn't going to prosecute anyone for taking a photo of a building or an aircraft - that would be ludicrous and legally unsupportable in any case.

So in the final analysis the MoD (RAF Police, etc.) have no legal right to demand that you erase photos, hand-over cameras, move your car or your person, providing that you're not blocking an exit or causing a safety hazard. In all other respect, their only course of action is to call the local constabulary and it would be down to them to decide what action to take. The Police obviously have lots of convenient laws which can be used to move anyone from any place and even if you're standing on a public road without a car, they can still use laws to move you if they want to. But this goes back to my earlier point about making a fuss. If something like that happens to you, make sure that you make an official complaint. The only way we can stop this kind of nonsense is to ensure that we don't simply accept it, and make life as inconvenient as possible in return. These incidents only happen because most people are willing to simply accept whatever any random idiot tells them, providing that they're wearing a uniform.

Location : United Kingdom Spotter Watch Member : No

Is this not one of the reasons that groups like Spotterwatch are being set up?

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Dunno, I've heard the subject mentioned before but frankly I think it's a non-starter. There's no way that any national scheme could be set-up to incorporate the interests and actions of every enthusiast, or create anything that would have any legal basis. Just wouldn't work. You know as well as I do how many idiots lurk around outside airfields so you're better off simply being responsible for your own actions. This really shouldn't be about making arrangements or allowances for enthusiasts - it's about legal rights that we all have as British citizens and our freedom to go where we like and photograph what we like. The anti-terror laws are being used not just to counter terrorism but also as a convenient excuse to restrict people's liberties - it's a dangerous game.

Admin Location : East Midlands Spotter Watch Member : Yes

I think a couple of people would disagree with that/

As Spotterwatch has had approval by the RAF, even made RAF News.

And a couple of the larger bases have contacted Steve in terms of taking it further including one that has come as a complete surprise.

It is with the co-operation of Fighter Control and the RAF Police at Coningsby that has started this scheme off and it is working. Afterall it is purely the dedication of Steve and a few others at Coningsby who have put in alot of their own non work time to get the scheme up and running.

Admin Location : Bristol, UK

I've just returned from RAF Lyneham, right before we were about to leave we had a RAF Police Car drive up to us (at 06) with a bloke driving a woman in the passenger seat (same ones as yesterday maybe?). Conversation went...

Officer: "What are the ladders for?"
Me: "To see over the fence"
Officer: *Mumble*"Your taking the piss"
Officer: "Are those big lenses?"
Me: "Yup"
Officer: "You do know that big lenses are banned from here..."
Me: "Nope"
Officer: "You need to put your big lenses away" (we did).
Officer: "Are you here for the Vulcan?"
Me: "No, the Phantom"
Officer: "Don't you have anything better to do with your time?"
Me: "Not really"
Seems it's gone from photography being banned, to big lenses banned... Photography Ban? No Thanks! 345990

Subject: Re: Photography Ban? No Thanks! 2009-09-23, 12:26

Sounds like he was showing off to the girl to me Mike.

I'd report him for swearing at you as well!

Location : Ipswich, Suffolk Spotter Watch Member : No

well done for being so calm mike, i would of flipped!!

Location : Bristol

Where has this idiot suddenly turned up from???

Somewhat ironic that he should ask Mike didn't he have anything better to do... Photography Ban? No Thanks! 294955

Location : yeovil Spotter Watch Member : no

Just to add the kuwaiti isnt the 1st herc crew to report People Hanging off the fence as they put it to me and Mr O a few Years back.
Also had the same problem at Wittering

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

Absurd isn't it? Must be some special law about big lenses now then! These guys just say whatever comes into their heads and this is why we need to challenge them, or it'll just get out of control.

StreetHawk I see what you're saying and good luck to anyone who tries to improve the situation but I'm entirely sure that there's absolutely no chance of any proper set-up working - at least in terms of stopping the kind of nonsense outlined above. You just have to look at the practicalities. Even if every potential patrolling erk was briefed to check enthusiast's credentials you can be sure that some just wouldn't bother. Some would, but most wouldn't give a damn, it's human nature. Then you have the even bigger problem of the people on our side of the fence - it's not as if we're suddenly going to be lining-up to show a pass or something and anyone who hasn't got one has to drive away. Can you imagine?! It's just not practical at all. Public land is public and a citizen's rights are his rights - that's as simple as it is. It's fine if RAF News pick-up on a story and I'm sure some of the more enlightened PRO/CRO/MCO people might well support all sorts of ideas but in a wider sense (in terms of stopping this kind of situation) it's a non starter because there are far too many people potentially involved within the forces and an infinite number of people involved on the outside. Spotterwatch is a good idea for improving relations with the military of course, but it's never going to stop random fools claiming that "photography is forbidden" I'm afraid. Ultimately, this issue is down to each of us as individuals. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anyone who tries to do anything like this but you have to take a realistic view, and what a member of the public chooses to do has absolutely nothing to do with anyone on the other side of the fence, unless you're creating an obstruction, trespassing or causing a safety issue. As I've been saying, if anyone suggests anything to the contrary then it's up to each of us to stand our ground, challenge the person and make an official complaint until these few silly people grow-up and do something more worthwhile with taxpayer's money. I think the choice is very simple because if we choose to say nothing and accept this kind of rubbish every time it happens, then the situation will just deteriorate.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

That's a very interesting point, and one which cropped-up quite a bit last year. It seems that some spotter's tours are encountering problems with restrictions on what can be photographed and also questions as to what the photographs will be used for - personal use or publishing. It is a very grey area as legally-speaking, putting a picture on a site like this constitutes publishing, so you can see that it has potential for all matter of difficulties.

Strictly speaking, I believe the legal situation concerning Crown copyright is also a bit vague. If a photograph of any RAF aircraft was taken on Crown property then there's obviously every right to retain copyright. However, if the picture is taken from a public location it's not quite so clear. In essence it's rather like the paps taking pictures of celebrities - in theory the celeb has the right to retain copyright of a self image but in practical terms it's impossible to protect the copyright. As you say, it would be fascinating to see the MoD try to sue a photographer and I suspect that they'd lose in any case. The wider picture is actually not really about legalities - it's down to the brave new world of RAF PR which is commercially-driven now. With my sphere of work I've encountered all kinds of sagas surrounding this problem. If they could get-away with it, the RAF's "corporate branding" gurus would have us paying for everything. It's already reaching ludicrous proportions... Hornby having to pay for permission to print a transfer sheet for an Airfix kit just because it has RAF markings on it! It wouldn't be quite so insulting if someone pointed-out that RAF roundels don't even belong to the RAF in the first place!

Location : portsmouth Spotter Watch Member : no

Just be aware guys that if you take a photograph from outside looking in, the MOD Police can delete the image if they feel its necessary due to security reasons but they cannot confiscate your camera. The MOD Police as well as the Home Office Police can carry out a search of your bags, vehicles and person as well as carry out PNC checks on you under Section 44 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, you can be stopped at any time in any place, this act gives them the power to do it. It was brought in after the terror attacks of 2001. I was checked under this act outside Fairford in 2003 during the Iraq War, I'm sure there are many more of you who experienced it too. The MOD Police carry out these checks on the public roads outside Portsmouth Naval Base although there has been some bad publicity for the Hampshire Police as to the amount of these checks that had been carried out, they had done more than any other force in the country! So just be patience with any MOD/Home Office police you deal with as they could do a Section 44 on you.

Location : Sheffield Spotter Watch Member : no

The key point really is that you can photograph any aircraft - it's the airfield and installations that are the possible source of conflict. If ever in any doubt, just don't point your camera at the MoD's property!

Location : boswell lincs Spotter Watch Member : yes

Just to add a bit of a twist to to this, i do not know who they are or what they were up to,but two suits turned up at waddos wave on tuesday, with what looked like plans,they were acting in the manner suits do, pointing gesturing and talking in muffled tones. Most of the pointing was in the direction of us the unfortunate waiting for very little to happen,is this or hopefully not the first signs of a new security fence,that will be designed at great expense to stop them "nasty" spotter from looking over the fence.

Location : N E Jockistan Spotter Watch Member : No

Did no-one think to ask "The Suits", or better still those wearing them, what they were up to - I certainly would have done so. At worst they could have ignored you or said "none of your business".