Anti-terrorism police twice stopped painter near airport

Guardian goes painting after learning how officers confronted Liam O'Farrell while watercolouring scene near City airport

• Peter Walker and Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 17.40 GMT
• Article history

A watercolour by Liam O'Farrell, the artist who came under police suspicion for painting outdoors Photograph: Liam O'Farrell

Taking a photograph in a public place has become the quickest way to attract police attention, as increasing numbers of photographers can verify. But now it has emerged that anti-terrorism officers are uneasy about a far less sophisticated piece of surveillance technology: the watercolour brush and canvas.

Liam O'Farrell, an artist who exhibited at this year's Royal Academy summer show, has described how he had been questioned and searched by police twice inside a week while painting a scene close to City airport in east London.

The artist contacted the Guardian following a series of incidents in Britain in which photographers, tourists and students were stopped under anti-terrorism laws.

The situation was highlighted in last Saturday's Guardian when a reporter, Paul Lewis, described being questioned within two minutes of taking photographs of the Gherkin building in the City of London.

In a similar spirit of inquiry, Lewis went to the London Eye, central London, today armed with an easel, canvas and acrylic paints.

What O'Farrell called, perhaps inevitably, his "brush with the police", began when he set up his equipment on a grass bank adjoining a public road just south of City airport. With his back to the complex he set about painting a composite scene of terrace houses and the Tate & Lyle sugar factory a few streets away.

Inside half an hour two Metropolitan police officers from the specialist unit based at the airport arrived in a patrol car and demanded to know what he was doing, saying he had been spotted on a CCTV camera.

"I told them, 'I'm hardly a terrorist, I'm watercolouring'. One policeman said, 'you're not painting the airport, are you?' I told him I was painting the sugar factory. He said 'no one paints factories'. I told him Lowry painted loads of factories and made a mint. He got a bit touchy then."

For 15 minutes, O'Farrell said, one officer checked his identification on a radio while another searched his bag. "They said I had 'weird paraphernalia' with me. I said 'it's a flask of coffee and an iPod'."

O'Farrell said he had returned to the same spot a week later to complete the work and was interrogated again, by two other officers.

"I told them I was just doing a watercolour of the sugar factory. One of them said 'no one does watercolours of factories'. I told them about Lowry – it was groundhog day. It was extraordinary.

"Then one said 'I can see what you're doing now, I'd be a bit more concerned if you were painting the airport'. I remember from my art history that centuries ago in China artists were murdered in case they [painted] maps and roads. But in the days of digital photography I hardly think a watercolourist painting an airport would be some sort of international threat." The experience left him baffled. "I've been painting in Moscow, in Vietnam, Ukraine, and all I get round me are bunches of kids. If the police come by they're just curious about the painting. It's extraordinary what happened to me."

The incident took place in the summer of 2007, O'Farrell said, and he was prompted to write after hearing about recent events.

A spokesman said the Met's assistant commissioner, John Yates, had reminded officers last week that they should not stop photographers without reason. "Anyone could imagine why an airport is seen as a sensitive site, but we are aware that there are issues of communication with officers about what they can and can't do, which is why John Yates has taken these measures," he said.

Today the advice was seemingly being heeded. The Guardian's reporter spent a couple of hours creating his rendition of the London Eye on a winter afternoon, and, barring a polite request from a security guard to move to a different section of the riverside thoroughfare, received no official attention whatsoever. The only other interest came from tourists keen to see the work's progress.

Zoran sez, "Earlier this week (12th Dec), a massive, peaceful protest of 100,000 people -- the largest demonstration for climate justice in world history -- was met with a heavy-handed response by the Danish police. Thousands of riot police swarmed the march route, blocked off streets surrounding large groups of protestors, and arrested almost 1,000 people. Arrestees were cuffed and forced to sit in rows for hours, as the temperatures dipped below freezing; numerous people urinated on themselves after being denied use of toilets."

Of course, these protests are being motivated by frustration at the incredibly weak results of the COP-15 negotiations. Last week, a closed-room group of delegates from Global North countries shocked Global South delegates and climate justice activists by pushing for a secretly-negotiated "deal" that would allow global temperatures to be allowed to rise by another 2 degrees Celsius - over the vehement protests of delegates from Africa and small island countries, argue that any increase larger than 1 degree will devastate and - in some instances - literally flood them. Then, in the past two days, the negotiations on a deal on REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) - which are being touted as the "success" of Copenhagen - have degenerated into an incredibly weak potential deal, in which immediate targets for deforestation limits would be dropped and no financial commitments from Global North countries would be made. These failings on the part of negotiators from the Global North have been met with protests - both planned and spontaneous - by youth activists as well as delegates from the Global South.

Crackdown in Copenhagen (Thanks, Zoran!)

Assistant commissioner John Yates issues reminder that no laws prevent people from photographing buildings

• Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 15 December 2009 20.38 GMT
• Article history

John Yates, the Metropolitan police assistant commissioner. Photograph: Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images

Scotland Yard has told police officers there is "an enormous amount of concern" about the use of anti-terror laws against people taking photographs in the street.

In a circular to all Metropolitan borough commanders, John Yates, the assistant commissioner for specialist operations, advocated a "commonsense" approach and reminded officers there were no laws to stop people photographing buildings.

"Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped," wrote Yates, who is Britain's senior counter-terrorism officer.

He noted complaints from members of the public, many of whom had been stopped under the Terrorism Act. Section 44 says police do not need suspicion to stop and search people within certain designated areas.

"The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or police community support officers, and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious," Yates said. "An enormous amount of concern has been generated about these matters."

"These are important yet intrusive powers. They form a vital part of our overall tactics in deterring and detecting terrorist attacks. We must use these powers wisely. Public confidence in our ability to do so rightly depends upon your common sense."

There has been criticsm of alleged harassment of photographers. Last week the Guardian was stopped by police under section 44, after photographing the Gherkin building in the City to test how the law was being applied.

Much of the criticism has been directed at City of London police, which has jurisdication over the Square Mile. It responded today with a publicity drive to remind the public that terrorist reconnaissance poses a real threat.

In an unprecedented step, the force released footage that senior officers said might have been "hostile reconnaissance" for a terrorist attack. Footage shot on an Algerian's Nokia N95 mobile phone showed he had recorded railway and tube stations and shopping centres.

The Algerian was stopped by an officer at Liverpool Street station in July last year. He had appeared furtive, holding the camera at chest height and using his hand to obscure the red recording light.

Counter-terrorism police and MI5 discovered that the man and his brother, in their 40s, entered Britain on false passports and had spent years committing credit card fraud. Material supporting al-Qaida in the Maghreb was found at one property in the inquiry, police said. The men were charged with fraud, sentenced to up to two years' jail and deported.

Police sources said they were not charged with terrorism offences because the law was being challenged in the Lords and fraud carried similar penalties. But the CPS said there was "insufficient evidence to charge the suspect in relation to terrorism offences".

Assistant commissioner Frank Armstrong said: "The Square Mile is still very much a target. One of our main priorities is clearly counter-terrorism. We train our officers and encourage them to do a lot of stop and search. I would argue we have got the politest police force in the country."

In this video, two British police officers come up to a young woman who is filming a building and harass her, imply that she is a terrorist, intimidate her, demand to see her footage. The policeman says that he's harassing her for being "cocky" -- punishing her for failing to cringe sufficiently. England's police chiefs have ordered policemen to stop harassing photographers, but this officer called for backup and 7 more officers converged on the photographer. The photographer was brutally detained -- she is covered in bruises -- and fined but she had the presence of mind to return to the scene and interview the witnesses to the assault.

i'm not a terrorist (Thanks, DavidB!)

Casual shots of London's Gherkin attract stop and search just days after police were reminded street photography is no offence

• Paul Lewis
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 December 2009 17.54 GMT
• Article history

Watch the footage taken by Paul Lewis during his standoff with City of London police
Link to this video

It felt like a minor terror alert. Four security guards were watching me, whispering into microphones on their collars. A plainclothes police officer had just covered my camera lens, mentioned the words "hostile reconnaissance" and told me I would be followed around the city if I moved.

Two uniformed officers were on their way to stop and search me under section 44 of the Terrorism Act, he said. Special Branch, the police counter-terrorism unit linked to the secret services, had been informed.

It had taken less than two minutes from the first click of my camera. My subject was the Gherkin, an iconic London landmark photographed hundreds of times a day and, as it turned out, the ideal venue to test claims from a growing number of photographers claiming they cannot take a picture in public without being harassed under anti-terrorist laws.

This was the first week in which police had been ordered to take a more sensible approach to street photography. By Monday morning all 43 police forces in England and Wales had received a memorandum warning them that officers were "confused" over stop and search powers.

"Officers should be reminded that it is not an offence for a member of the public or journalist to take photographs of a public building and use of cameras by the public does not ordinarily permit use of stop and search powers," the circular said.

Andy Trotter, chief constable of the British transport police, who drafted the guidance for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said photographers should be "should be left alone to get on with what they are doing".

The shift in policy was a direct response to weeks of negative media reports surrounding photographers, amateur and professional, who said they were being unfairly stopped, usually under section 44, a law allowing officers to stop and search without need for "suspicion" within designated areas in the UK.

While the use of anti-terrorist stop and search powers has fallen in recent months, a succession of high-profile incidents involving the use of the legislation against photographers has embarrassed senior officers, who privately concede that the rank and file are misusing their powers on the ground.

Recent examples include Jeff Overs, a BBC photographer who told the Andrew Marr Show he was stopped under suspicion of terrorism reconnaissance while photographing St Paul's Cathedral, and Andrew White, an amateur photographer questioned by two police community support officers for photographing Christmas lights in Brighton.

In April two Austrian tourists were forced to delete their shots after being stopped by police in Walthamstow; and Alex Turner, an amateur photographer, was arrested under section 44 after taking images of a fish and chip shop in Kent.

Earlier this week Grant Smith, an architecture photographer, was apprehended under section 44 by City of London police while photographing Sir Christopher Wren's Christ Church, around the corner from the Gherkin.

Smith, a critic of the stop and search policy, had been wearing a badge that read "I am a photographer not a terrorist" when police approached him. To top it off, when an ITN London Tonight crew arrived in the area to cover the story they reportedly found themselves subject to similar treatment.

When I arrived at the Gherkin at 11am yesterday I was stopped by a security guard as I walked around the side of the building. When he told me I had strayed on to private land, I returned to the pavement, but declined his repeated requests to show him the images on my camera.

Back on the pavement, a second security guard informed me that under "anti-terrorism" I was permitted to photograph or film the top end of the building, but the lower half, which included the reception area, fire exits and security cameras, was off-bounds.

Seconds later the City of London plainclothes police officer appeared on my left. Clearly he was not keen on my filming him, but he did not suggest there was any law that could stop that. I said that while I did not want to be difficult I was aware that I did not have to disclose my identity or tell him what I was doing.

After a brief dispute over his ID, the officer asked what I was filming and I replied that – while I did not want to be difficult – I did not have to tell him who I was or what I was doing. I felt adolescent saying it, but I told him that was my "right".

Looking a bit bewildered, the officer called Special Branch on his mobile phone. They sent two other City of London police to come and search me under section 44 and, while we were waiting for them, the plainclothes officers indicated that I was not the only person to be questioned in this way.

"People are very sensitive," he said. "People will take tourist photographs but other people have a conduct, or manner, which raises the [security] guys' suspicions."

I had some sympathy for the PC, who it turned out had been at the Gherkin by coincidence. He seemed to have been as much a victim of overzealous security guards as me. He was, he said, only doing his job.

But while both of us were at their whim, I pointed out that it was he, not security, who had notified Special Branch. When we spoke on the phone the next day the officer stressed that he was just doing his duty.

The two uniformed City of London police officers who arrived shortly after seemed determined, from the outset, to look at the images on my camera. Their insistence seemed to be stretching their powers to the limit. Section 44 does not specify that officers have the power to look at images, although it does empower them to search anything "carried" by the person they have stopped. Police have interpreted the law to mean that they can view images to establish whether they are "of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism".

To futher complicate the matter, police require a court order to view images captured by a journalist (in fairness, in my case it was not until the end that they knew I worked for the Guardian).

Anna Mazzola, a civil liberties lawyer who advises the National Union of Journalists and whom I consulted, told me that in general if police can view anyone's images, they can only do so in "very limited circumstances".

This hardly seemed an exceptional circumstance, and I thought there were no obvious grounds to suspect there could be terrorist material on my camera. They were good enough to call Special Branch – twice – to check the rules.

By the time they looked at my images, threatening me with arrest for obstruction if I didn't show them, the officers had stopped a second photographer. My colleague, Martin Godwin, had been spotted across the road, where he was using a long lens to take pictures of me. They also stopped him under section 44 and looked at his pictures.

City of London police have since defended the officers' actions in a statement: "Public safety is our first priority. We responded to legitimate concern from our community about the behaviour of an individual close to an iconic building and acted accordingly. According to legislation, digital images may be viewed as part of a search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provided viewing is to determine whether the images are of a kind which could be used in conjunction with terrorism.

"In this case, the individual refused to explain what he was doing, so officers had to carry out further investigation on the street."

(Washington, DC) - The US government should release in full the military investigative reports into the deaths of three prisoners at Guantanamo in June 2006, Human Rights Watch said today.  A Seton Hall University study issued today raises questions about the US military's findings that the deaths were suicides.

Seton Hall University School of Law's Center for Policy and Research concluded that the military's investigation into the deaths of Yassar Talal al-Zahrani, Mani Shaman Turki Al Habardi al-Tabi, and Ali Abdullah Ahmed, allegedly by suicide on June 10, 2006 at Guantanamo Bay, "failed to conform to minimum standards."  In each case, the military determined that the men died by hanging.

The Seton Hall researchers reviewed thousands of pages of documents, including official reports on the deaths from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), the Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF), US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), and the Staff Judge Advocate, as well as the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's autopsies of the three men.  Because the military reports are heavily redacted, the researchers found it impossible to get a clear picture of the events the night the men died.

"Whatever the cause, there should be no confusion about the deaths of prisoners in US custody," said Andrea Prasow, senior counsel with the Human Rights Watch's Terrorism and Counterterrorism Program.  "The military reports should be released in full so the public can be confident in the nature and scope of the investigations."

Human Rights Watch urged the US government to release versions of the reports in which redactions are kept to those absolutely necessary for privacy and security considerations so that there is sufficient factual information to allow the public to obtain a clear understanding of the relevant events.

In their current redacted form, the reports leave several key questions unanswered, including why guards did not check on the prisoners for more than two hours before the men were discovered hanging in their cells.

In the immediate wake of the deaths, US officials were not only quick to label them suicides, but also spoke of them in a provocative and inflammatory way.  Guantanamo's then-Commander, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, called the deaths an act of "asymmetric warfare," while Colleen Graffy, then-deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, described the deaths as a "good PR move."

Human Rights Watch also expressed concern that the Justice Department, in a brief filed last week, argued that a federal court lacked jurisdiction to hear a damages action filed by the families of al-Zahrani and Ahmed, and that the case should be dismissed.  According to the Justice Department brief, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 stripped the courts of jurisdiction to hear such cases.

The Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 rejected the government's theory that the Military Commissions Act strips courts of jurisdiction to hear claims by Guantanamo detainees when it ruled that detainees had the right to file habeas petitions, Human Rights Watch said. Whether or not courts have jurisdiction to hear other claims is still in dispute.

"If the three detainees at Guantanamo died as a result of mistreatment, their families have a right to a remedy," Prasow said. "The Military Commissions Act should not be used to hide government misconduct."

Police U-turn on photographers and anti-terror laws

Don’t use anti-terror laws to prevent pictures being taken, officers told

By Jerome Taylor and Mark Hughes

Saturday, 5 December 2009

Police forces across the country have been warned to stop using anti-terror laws to question and search innocent photographers after The Independent forced senior officers to admit that the controversial legislation is being widely misused.

The strongly worded warning was circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) last night. In an email sent to the chief constables of England and Wales's 43 police forces, officers were advised that Section 44 powers should not be used unnecessarily against photographers. The message says: "Officers and community support officers are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos. Unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional, is unacceptable."

Chief Constable Andy Trotter, chairman of Acpo's media advisory group, took the decision to send the warning after growing criticism of the police's treatment of photographers.

Writing in today's Independent, he says: "Everyone... has a right to take photographs and film in public places. Taking photographs... is not normally cause for suspicion and there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place."

He added: "We need to make sure that our officers and Police Community Support Officers [PCSOs] are not unnecessarily targeting photographers just because they are going about their business. The last thing in the world we want to do is give photographers a hard time or alienate the public. We need the public to help us.

"Photographers should be left alone to get on with what they are doing. If an officer is suspicious of them for some reason they can just go up to them and have a chat with them – use old-fashioned policing skills to be frank – rather than using these powers, which we don't want to over-use at all."

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act allows the police to stop and search anyone they want, without need for suspicion, in a designated area. The exact locations of many of these areas are kept secret from the public, but are thought to include every railway station in and well-known tourist landmarks thought to be at risk of terrorist attacks.

Many photographers have complained that officers are stopping them in the mistaken belief that the legislation prohibits photographs in those areas. Forces who use Section 44, most commonly London's Metropolitan Police, have repeatedly briefed and guided frontline officers on how to use the powers without offending the public.

But privately senior officers are "exasperated, depressed and embarrassed" by the actions of junior officers and, particularly, PCSOs who routinely misuse the legislation. One source said that an "internal urban myth" had built up around police officers who believe that photography in Section 44 areas is not allowed.

The aberrations have resulted in nearly 100 complaints to the police watchdog. Since April 2008 every complaint made by a member of the public about the use of Section 44 powers, unlike other complaints, must be forwarded to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In the past 18 months there have been 94 complaints. Eight of these specifically mentioned the fact that the issue arose around photography. Acpo's communiqué has been welcomed by rank-and-file police officers and photographers alike.

Simon Reed, the chairman of the Police Federation, which represents England and Wales's 140,000 rank-and-file officers, said: "I think some new guidance will be welcome."

New orders: The message to officers

This is the message circulated by Andy Trotter, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to police forces in England and Wales.

"Officers and PCSOs are reminded that we should not be stopping and searching people for taking photos.

"There are very clear rules around how stop-and-search powers can be used. However, there are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film or digital images in a public place. Therefore members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.

"We need to co-operate with the media and amateur photographers. They play a vital role as their images help us identify criminals.

"We must acknowledge that citizen journalism is a feature of modern life and police officers are now photographed and filmed more than ever.

"However, unnecessarily restricting photography, whether from the casual tourist or professional is unacceptable and worse still, it undermines public confidence in the police service."

A personal viewpoint: 'I was reminded why I left the police'

I spent 27 years as a PC in the Met, but it was during a trip to my old police station with a friend late last year that I was starkly reminded why I eventually decided to leave.

Since 2003 I have been living in France, where I coach a children's rugby team not far from Toulouse. But last December my sister needed to see a specialist in Harley Street so I went with her and a rugby friend of mine back to London for the week.

While my sister went to the doctors I suggested to my friend, Will, that we should go and take a look at Albany Street police station near Regent's Park, which was where I spent my first eight years as a copper.

It's the kind of station that looks like something out of Dixon of Dock Green, it has a lovely little blue police light outside the entrance and I asked Will whether he'd take a picture of me standing underneath it. Within seconds we found ourselves approached by two PCSOs who told us that we were not allowed to take photographs of police stations.

I didn't want to be a sad old git by telling stories of my past and the nostalgia I felt for the place. So instead I said: "We're tourists. We want a picture of that Blue lamp, it's iconic and it represents London bobbies." But they didn't want any of it and ordered us to stop taking photographs. The second PCSO started asking Will for his details which he began to give before I informed him that he was under no obligation to do so.

I'd clearly failed what the police call "the attitude test" because they radioed for back-up from inside the police station and we were soon joined by a police constable. Often during my time as a policeman I would hear this policy. If someone was bolshy, argumentative or challenging in any manner, refusing to play by the police rules and not willing to show deference, then they had failed the "attitude test".

I guess I hoped the PC would show more common sense but he repeated the same line, that the police station was in a "sensitive zone" and that we had to stop taking photographs. Eventually we gave up and walked away.

Lawyer alleges collusion between Britain and US over ill-treatment of prisoners, including sexual humiliation

• Jenny Percival
• The Guardian, Saturday 14 November 2009
• Article history

The Ministry of Defence confirmed last night that it is investigating 33 cases of alleged abuse, including rape and torture of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers.

One claimant alleges that he was raped by two British soldiers, while others claim they were stripped naked, abused and photographed. Female soldiers are also alleged to have taken part in abuse.

A pre-action protocol letter was served on the Ministry of Defence last week by Phil Shiner, the lawyer representing the Iraqis, according to the Independent.

In the letter to the MoD, reported in the newspaper, Shiner said the allegations raised questions of collusion between Britain and the US over the ill-treatment of Iraqis. "Given the history of the UK's involvement in the development of these techniques alongside the US, it is deeply concerning that there appears to be strong similarities between instances of the use of sexual humiliation," said Shiner.

Responding to the allegations, Bill Rammell, the armed forces minister, said: "Over 120,000 British troops have served in Iraq and the vast majority have conducted themselves to the highest standards of behaviour, displaying integrity and selfless commitment. Only a tiny number of individuals have been shown to have fallen short of our high standards. Allegations of this nature are taken very seriously, however allegations must not be taken as fact and investigations must be allowed to take their course without judgments being made prematurely."

The Guardian reported in September that the Royal Military police had launched a criminal investigation into allegations that British soldiers repeatedly raped and mutilated an 18-year-old Iraqi civilian who was working as a labourer at Camp Breadbasket in Basra, the scene of other abuse allegations.

The man who wishes to remain unnamed alleged that two soldiers raped him, subjecting him to a 15-minute ordeal, then slashed him with a knife. He was treated in hospital for cuts and the military police are understood to have secured the medical records. The victim said he was so traumatised he tried to kill himself.

Shiner also represents Baha Mousa, 26, an Iraqi who died after being taken into UK military custody. Mousa and nine other civilians were arrested at a hotel in Basra in September 2003. The father-of-two died the following day, having suffered 93 separate injuries, including fractured ribs and a broken nose.

Corporal Donald Payne became the first member of the British armed forces to be convicted of a war crime when he pleaded guilty at a court martial in September 2006 to inhumanely treating civilians. He was dismissed from the army and sentenced to one year in a civilian jail.

At the ongoing public inquiry into Mousa's death, a former British soldier admitted for the first time that he saw Payne and Private Aaron Cooper kicking and hitting the Iraqi shortly before he died. Garry Reader told a hearing on Monday how he had tried to resuscitate Mousa.