The world's number one weekly photography magazine
Just before Christmas, my wife Frances Schultz and I were in Clacton, Essex, trying out the four new f/2.5 Leica Summarits. A seaside resort out of season can provide a useful range of subjects and lighting (parts of the pier are quite dark) and a unifying theme.
A few minutes after we had walked up from the pier to the town centre, a young policewoman came up to me and said, 'Excuse me. We have had a complaint about possible photographs you may have been taking of McDonald's.'
I replied with one word: 'Tough.' She looked nonplussed, so I added, 'It is no concern of theirs what I photograph from a public place.'
With perfect politeness and correctness, she then said, 'Fair enough, but purely out of personal curiosity, what are you photographing?'
Having no wish to be rude, I explained why I was taking pictures, making it clear that I was providing this explanation to her because she was polite and civil, not because it was any concern of a purveyor of alleged hamburgers.
She was entirely sympathetic, and seemed somewhat amused when I said that both her politeness and the ridiculousness of the complaint would be duly chronicled; I took particular care to confirm its source.
I had already noticed that there was no shortage of police around. On the way up from the pier, we had stopped to chat to a policeman in a 'mobile police station'. Never having seen such a thing before, I not only photographed it but asked its guardian what it was and how it worked, and we talked for two or three minutes before moving on. I can't remember whether we mentioned why we were taking pictures or not. Like the young woman, he could not have been more civil.
The conclusions to be drawn from this story seem to me to be clear.
First, don't blame the police. Yes, a few are officious and bumptious, but most are perfectly civil, and they are only allowed to do what the law tells them to do. A police officer is a civilian in uniform, not a member of the armed forces. Police powers may be excessive when compared with 100 years ago, but they are still gratifyingly limited.
Second, blame the public – or at least, certain sectors of the public. Whoever made that complaint was wasting police time. And mine. And their own, though I suppose that if you work in McDonald's, wasting your time in inventive ways may be unusually attractive.
Third, be merciless to jumped-up commercial enterprises. Remember how McDonald's tried to censor the dictionaries, by attempting to suppress the word 'McJob'? Or the recent rumpus over a 'family feast' served in a pub, when another chain claimed that these words could only be applied to a bucket of chicken?
Fourth, and above all, always take at least one picture of anyone who tries to restrict your legal right to do so. Do it legally, from public ground – owners of private land can impose any controls they like – though the only remedy normally open to them is requesting that you leave, and removing you with reasonable force if you refuse to go.
But if you're on public land, and there are no other restrictions (such as being a Prohibited Place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act), they have two choices. They can ignore you – the choice of any sane person – or they can complain to the police and be made to look fools. If the latter happens often enough, perhaps they will come to their senses.
There is of course one other possibility. The law will be changed to stop people taking pictures in public. Against that possibility, I will quote Abraham Lincoln:
'This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.' AP
Roger and Frances website
Got an opinion on this story? Why not post a comment on our message boards