Section 5 Public Order Act 1986

[securespark]

I have been watching a few YT videos where members of the public are filming in public and the police try (and in some cases suceed in) stopping them from doing so by citing the above.

Consider the proliferation of CCTV in public, and the fact that there is no expectation of privacy in public (indeed the media film in public all the time and nobody complains about that, or at least, the police do not stop it).

Consider the fact that there is no law against filming in public.

Now consider the afore-mentioned act:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/5

Disorderly behaviour is defined as:

disorderly behavior - any act of molesting, interrupting, hindering, agitating, or arousing from a state of repose or otherwise depriving inhabitants of the peace and quiet to which they are
entitled.

How can filming in public constitute a section 5 POA offence?


I don't believe that filming in a public place is a section 5 offence, otherwise surely organisations who install and use cameras in public places would also be guilty.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are you assuming that the Police Officers in question knows what he is doing?

 

[motorbiking]

There is no law to prevent you from filming them. They can seize the camera as evidence, but only if they suspect you will tamper with it. If they delete the footage/photos it could amount to criminal damage. You don't have to be particularly well educated to work as a police officer and their legal training is adapted to suit.

Do remember people sometimes edit the footage, so the public order offence might relate to earlier conduct or even being mr Agry pants when told to clear off.

Officer would be better to use http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/section/35/enacted

 

[mattylad]

There are a great many videos on YT about this, basically the police have taken a dislike to being filmed and pull out any old crap they can.
Police against Powers, Davy Human Rights, Pinachi News, Current Climate are just a few of the YT channels that show how much of this happens.
They get arrested for doing what they are legally allowed to do, Davy recently got assaulted. Lots of it - so much I have given up watching it as it's too distressing.

But wait - there is more - its not just here in the UK - this is happening all over the US too - IN the past week a blind man (yes - cannot see at all) was assaulted and ended up in hospital for doing nothing legally wrong but because the thugs in uniform wanted to assert their supposed powers.

Lots of the police know the law but choose to ignore it or they don't know the law and are ignorant.

Some are pretty decent - but this is rare to see on YT.

 

[festive]

Taking this one a bit further somebody i know of had an incident with one of his siblings entirely not his fault, whole thing was taken out of context filmed by some local kids edited and branded him with some unpleasant tags on SM. Those kids deserve to have their phones permanently destroyed, and proven not to be responsible to be permitted to film in public. He asked them at the time to stop filming.. they just carried on knowing there's nothing he could do.

I do feel for our Police force when idiots like this are doing it when it's not necessary, and could affect important decisions in heightened issues, its a distraction and it's not required.

 

[IT Minion]

He asked them at the time to stop filming.. they just carried on knowing there's nothing he could do.

If you are in public then you can ask other people not to film you but you don't have any right to demand that they stop. Not unless you think that they way they are doing it means that they are causing a breach of the peace under Section 5 of the public order act 1986.

This topic is a common complaint in photography circles. There a load of guidance from the ACPO about it but it's fairly common for the bobbies on the beat to not know what they should and shouldn't be allowing in terms of photography.

 

[mattylad]

A typical example here:

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Another anti-police thread! It cannot be right for the police to be hounded by people filming them - so many people at once usually - whilst they are trying to do their job. These people filming are obviously doing it to provoke and cause trouble for the police, seeing as they are always well-versed in the minutiae of police procedure.

The police should have more of a free hand and the public should help them more; they are our police after all. In an arrest, I'd sooner see the public helping to apprehend the villains rather than standing there filming and taking the side of the arrestee. This type of filming is interfering with police business, and I'd fully support the police taking direct action against people filming. The police are called out to incidents for a reason; the filmers are not; they are there opportunistically to cause trouble.

 

[securespark]

Yes, you're right. Some do it to gauge reaction from the police. But really, there should be no reaction. And when there is, the cammers are justified in filming to create a record of the situation as the police can and do lie. They also often say "Don't worry, I'm filming too", but then the footage mysteriously goes missing or is deleted.

I think "hounded" is too strong a word.

When you say the police should have more of a free hand, what do you mean?

As for helping the police, I would be wary of doing that. The police have protections when arresting a citizen. Bystanders do not and could be sued by the arrestee.

The police are called out to incidents for a reason

Police are often called out by an "official" (a security guard or similar) who don't like what the cammer is doing, even though it is perfectly legal. The police then bend the law and try intimidation tactics to stop the filming.

The thing I hate most about the police's perverse attitude to filming in public is that if there were a crime caught on camera, they'd be the first to ask for footage of the incident.

The other thing I hate is that the police might not like filming in public (and it's not always just them being filmed that they don't like), but it is a lawful activity and the police don't make the laws, they are only there to uphold them. However, they often don't see it this way.

This letter does not even seem to help the situation:

https://www.theiac.org.uk/resourcesnew/filming-in-public/ACPO_Guidance_PhotographsPublicPlaces.pdf

 

[Bargain Bucket]

So if I filmed you going about your daily job, you'd have no issue with that? How about if i follow you around the supermarket and filmed you shopping? No harm in that eh?

 

[mattylad]

BB Your confusing what can be done in public and in private.
A supermarket is private property and filming can only be done with permission of the landowner, out in public you can film what you can see (with very few exceptions).
These people are already filming, they are not specifically filming people, they generally just take a few photographs of a building - they have a camera running because the police will turn up and bend the law so they need to record their interaction for their own protection - just like knowing the law is for their own protection.

If a copper turned up at your door and told you that you had broken some law he just made up, would you research that law and find out the facts? I know I would.

 

[motorbiking]

Not quite - A land owner can make a condition of your licence to occupy, that you do not film. That is not the same as requiring permission.
I don't have a problem with people filming the police provided it is not provoking crime. I don't have a problem with the police filming people. Neither has any right to prevent it.

With regard to following someone around filming them, it would be a form of harassment or even stalking (new offence).

In the above clip, they had report of someone being aggressive, we don't see that footage. The police had reasonable grounds.

The only time you cannot film someone is where they are doing something or are somewhere, where there is an expectation of privacy.

 

[johnny2007]

In an arrest, I'd sooner see the public helping to apprehend the villains rather than standing there filming and taking the side of the arrestee. This type of filming is interfering with police business, and I'd fully support the police taking direct action against people filming. The police are called out to incidents for a reason; the filmers are not; they are there opportunistically to cause trouble.

The voice of reason.
Bravo!

 

[securespark]

So if I filmed you going about your daily job, you'd have no issue with that? How about if i follow you around the supermarket and filmed you shopping? No harm in that eh?

Actually, both have happened to me. I was filmed while in a customer's property & someone took pictures of me in Sainsbury's a few years ago. I did think it was odd, but I had no issue with it. In both cases, I could not stop the filming.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

Yes, you're right. Some do it to gauge reaction from the police. But really, there should be no reaction.

No reaction my arse! The filmers are only there to cause trouble and hinder the police; the police should move everybody back away from the arrest or take people's phones off them. I don’t think for one fraction of a nanosecond that the filmers are filming the police for altruistic reasons; they are not concerned with upholding law and order. If they were, they would be filming and trying to nab drug dealers, “gangsters”, shoplifters, gangs of youths terrorising shops and estates etc. Crime today is a far bigger problem than police misbehaviour. Filming of this nature is against public order.

As for helping the police, I would be wary of doing that. The police have protections when arresting a citizen. Bystanders do not and could be sued by the arrestee.
​

That's a selfish and anti-social attitude; not to mention cowardly. Shame on you. I repeat; if you see a police incident is your duty to help the police in any way you can.
And... just how many bystanders have been sued in reality?
​

When you say the police should have more of a free hand, what do you mean?

Police today are too constrained; they should be allowed to use their own judgement more – they know who the villains are. In the old days, mysterious things happened at the police station; convictions and justice resulted. No decent, innocent person need be concerned with police methods; sometimes unpeaceful things are necessary to keep the peace.

​

The thing I hate most about the police's perverse attitude to filming in public is that if there were a crime caught on camera, they'd be the first to ask for footage of the incident.

Quite right they should ask for footage of a crime! There is no equivalence between police crime-fighting and detection and everyday civilian behaviour. They are responding to emergencies and protecting the public.

The restrictions on the police are ridiculous. A murderer can be released Scot-free if an arresting officer has not read the police caution properly, or asked the murderer questions without a solicitor present; and that police officer can then lose his job. How can that be right?