Seize and search the London tourist
 

My partner and I were celebrating our 50th anniversary with a five week trip to Europe. On the way back to the States, we stopped in London for a four day rest.
It was Sunday, May 22nd. and after visiting the National Gallery, we joined the crown in Trafalger Square, and took about 100 photographs. Photos of adults, children, men, women, gays and straights. A typical Sunday in the Square.
On the way to the bus, we were stopped by four police officers. It seems we were seen photographing children in Trafalger Square, and they wanted to see them. We were detained for 45 minutes while they deleted all the photos, took our passport and drivers license numbers, and searched our shoulder sack. The sack contained a Dorothy Sayers mystery, a Stephen King novel, a bottle of water and a Time Out guide to London.
We were invited to pick up a transcript of all this at the local police station the next day. Thank you very much officers, but the sooner we got out of London the better.
On a public street, we were accused, tried and convicted of pedophilia
I am an artist, and had an appointment to discuss the possibility of an exhibit of my work in the Spring. I did not keep that appointment, and we flew away two days later, never to return. We have been coming to London for 50 years, and photographed for 50 years, but never again.
GV
Honolulu Hawaii

I think they could have been more sensitive with you ..but I think that in England, as well as here in Spain, is absolutely forbidden to take photographs of children without the parents permission. And not knowing the law is not a legal excuse. And the problem is not pedophilia (obviously, because you were at the street)..it's children pornography. So I don't think you are been fair. It's not London's fault.

You are correct, but I was told by the officers that the proceedure is now on their records, so if I were ever to return and even get a speeding ticket, or a jay walking ticket, I am on their records as an elderly man photographing children ....and will never ever get that off the books. That is very destressing. There were dozens of people photographing children on that day.

What is about Fodor's that attracts these kind of posts?

Celebrating a 50th anniversary, been going to London for 50 years, yet this is your very first post here.

Couldn't register and think of anything positive? Venting? Never needed travel advice before? Just want to b*tch? What?

Sure it is destressing :(
I'm really sorry , it's very sad to think that just for a "stupid" moment you are labelled that way.

Well, you have the whole world to see, don't give up travelling and doing photographs ! :)

Obviously there was a complaint - "we were seen . . ." Probably the parents of one or more of the kids sought out the police.

I am not saying you were doing anything wrong - after all I wasn't there. But if a couple of men were taking a lot of photos of small children I can see how the parents might be very nervous.

indytravel: I also thought this might be a troll - but if true, I can definitely see why they might have been stopped.

It can be..but sometimes in this forum we see trolls everywhere and I don't feel it is necessary to begin a conversation attacking ..if it is a troll we will soon discover :)

To indytravel
I have been traveling the world for 50 years, and can think of many positive things, and will post themn in the future.
Computers are new to me, and this is a first post. Sorry to have offended. I really am a most positive person
GV

I am truly sorry for what happened to you. I'm truly sorry for all of us. The world has changed in my 50 years, and I'm sure even more so in your 70-some years.

I don't have the answers, I can only be guided by one of my maxims of life. My money is a spendable as anyone elses; I'll spend it where I'm welcomed and above suspicion, where I'm treated with dignity and respect.

No one has to tell you that the England (and the world) you have known and loved all these years has changed, and not necessarily for the better. I wish it wasn't so. Cherish your memories.

If you have been a photographer for so long it should have come to your attention before now that taking photos of people without their permission is an absolute no-no.

Not only is it incredibly rude - and in this case percevied as a possible crime - which it was - there are also significant legal issues.

Without a model release you cannot use anyone's photo for any commercial purposes (including exhibition in a gallery where the photos are for sale) or you leave youself open to litigation for commercial use without permission. You don;t own other people's lives.

This whole story is either phoney - or you have been living in some very strange world of your own.

traveling the world for 50 years and celebrating a 50th anniversary and you didn't have a clue that taking pictures of young children without permission was a no-no?

Well,I'm sorry you were treated badly, but you are one naive guy! You're lucky they let you out of the country.

The word is "distressing" by the way, not "destressing" - that is something that you need to do.

I live in Hawaii a kind and gentle place, and yes I am naive.
I lived in Manhattan for 35 years, and it's because of posts like yours and others I moved.
Do not respond further to this, because I'm out of here.
I wonder what a "troll' Basta!

St. Cirq and NYtrav-not being a good idea to take photos that happen to have young children in the shot and being a "no-no" as you both put it, (is "no no" a legal term?) or "a possible crime" as Nytrav puts it, is something else altogether. Cite me the criminal statute that says it is "against the law" to take photos out in public on the streets that happen to have a variety of people, including children, in the shots. I don't know of one. Expropriating such photos for commercial use is a different matter, but that's solely a civil action for damages, my friends, not criminal.

As I understand it, there are school policies in GB that require a parents' permission to have photos taken of their children up to a certain age-BUT, as far as being a violation of a criminal statute to not have such permission? on what basis? Where is the bad intent, if just taking photographs in public places? It would be pretty hard to go forward and criminally prosecute based on such a constitutionally vague statute, wouldn't it? (although I'm certainly not discounting that such may be the case over there).

Now, if you take a photo of a minor, or anyone else, and that photo ends up displayed somewhere in a way that is inappropriate, or that is not to their liking, without permission, you MAY have a valid cause of action in CIVIL damages based on the tort of invasion of privacy, either "false light" or commercial misappropriation, but a violation of a criminal statute for taking pictures of people in public areas? Nope.

I accept that in GB (which country never quite seems to have its priorities straight-Sheik Abu Hamza al-Mazri can preach for years first in the Finsbury Park mosque, then gets kicked out and preaches in the London parks about killing the "western infidels"-and not just killing them, mind you, but "bashing and crushing each of their heads"-and the bobbies stand around and smile, as such hate and murder-inciting speech is overlooked-but THAT'S okay in Londontown-just taking innocent pictures of street scenes that may have children in them, why, let's way overreact to THAT, and then convict the tourist/photographer of being a child pornographer on the spot-yeah, THAT makes sense, doesn't it?

Let's see what happens once someone so accused files a civil rights violation against the City, or takes it to the European Court of Human Rights, then we'll see how procedurally "correct" those gestapo tactics of the police really are.

And one more thing, I take it that all this sanctimony and opprobrium being directed to the OP here means none of you have EVER taken photos of young children, old people, and other people in YOUR travel photos without getting permission from each and every one of them? Please-how ridiculous!

I find this quite shocking - to me a total overreaction , but some things puzzle me. I am curious as to what right the police would have to delete photographs without the takers permission - under what rules.

I cannot see that taking pictures of Children outside a public building, along with numeroud photographs of other people could in any way constitute an offence, and certainly not lead to any reporting on an official list.

I presume tried and convicted is being used here as a metaphor. As far as I know, in this country only a court can convict. There appears to have been no arrest, no formal (written) warning.

I would make an offical complaint - It won't help you much, but may help someone else in future.

Spygirl, perhaps you can inform us which country does have its priorities straight. Not, presumably, a certain superpower that took its founding principles from British concepts of personal liberty, religious tolerance and intellectual freedom.

Clearly having one's priorities straight doesn't involve fighting Fascism (with others, like mine) for two years before yours was forced to join in after two years of hand-wringing and denial, after an attack on its own territory.

Maybe your role model is Putin's Russia, or Dubya's pals, the Saudi royal family, who certainly know how to handle dissenters? Please enlighten us.

It does seem strange that this has apaprently festered with the OP for two months. Anyone in this position ought to have been told exactly what was happening and why, and what to do if he had a complaint about it. No doubt this was in the transcript he didn't stay to pick up. Distressing it may have been, but if you fly off in a huff because something unexpected happened and you don't take up any avenues of legal redress available to you, you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

This is just the way the world is now. It may be news to some people, but in Britain parents are not allowed to take photographs of their *own* children's school play - as the pictures would include other people's children.

I have to say I don't understand why the OP would want 100 photographs of complete strangers, though...

To be fair, Caroline, I think that's more a matter of schools ensuring they're legally protected rather than statute law or regulations. A key point in this, as in the OP's original account, is whether or not people complain.

I'm not sure whether this is 'law' or not but a few months back I was doing some friends a favour, part of which involved taking photos of my (then) local leisure centre (the architecture etc). I took some exterior shots and was just going in the door to do some internal ones when the security guard came over and demanded that I delete the shots taken there and then (in case there were children in any of them), which I did without hesitation (though not without a sense of indignity). And this despite the fact that I had a letter of permission from the building's landlord.

Of course it's quite ridiculous to assume that anyone taking photos must be doing so for some perverted reason, but as I said to the security guy, I understand that you have to employ a blanket law and not debate every incident.

geowa - I'm sorry that you had an unpleasant experience but I'm sure you'll agree that it's nothing to what those poor abused children go through, and anything that can be done to stamp out such wicked and evil behaviour must be attempted. Perhaps we should inform visitors of this 'law' to a greater degree, but ultimately it's a case of 'When in Rome..'