South-East History Boards
May 27, 2017, 07:04:22 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
Welcome to the South-East History Boards, covering Kent, Sussex, Hants, IoW and Surrey
 
   Home   Help Forum Guidelines Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Photography restrictions  (Read 242 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« on: March 05, 2017, 09:13:25 AM »

Chichester Observer - Saturday 21 September 1940

BOMBARDIER BRINGS DOWN PLANE BUT GETS SUMMONED FOR TAKING PHOTOS
Justifiably proud of the fact that he had shot down a German raiding plane, somewhere in the South-Eastern area, Bombardier Ernest Bridgeman wanted to have a photograph of the machine as a memento of his feat. He took some snapshots, with the result that he appeared before the Chichester county justices, on Tuesday, charged with having photographed the wreckage of the aircraft without having a permit to do so. He admitted that he took snaps, and copies of the result (developed by the police), together with the Bombardier's camera, were produced in court.

P.C Reynolds stated that on August 13th he saw defendant with a camera in his possession near the wrecked plane, and asked him what he had been doing with it. His reply was "We shot this fellow down and want a photograph." Witness told him it was an offence, and would be reported. Defendant said "My commanding officer knows about it." The camera and films were taken from him.

P.C. Brown said he received the camera on August 17th, and removed the films, from which he developed the pictures produced, which were slightly enlarged. Defendant told the bench that he had permission from an R.A.F. officer to take the photographs, and asserted that he told the constable so at the time.

P.C. Reynolds (recalled) agreed that defendant told him he had permission. The constable also said there was a pilot-officer on the wreckage at the time who really had no right to be there. This officer admitted that he had given defendant permission, but he had no authority whatever for doing so.

The clerk (Mr. G. H. Howard Tripp) pointed out that defendant presumably thought he had all the permission that was necessary.

The bench decided to dismiss the case, and the chairman (Mr. J. A. Greenwood) told defendant he could have his camera back, but he was afraid that the photographs would have to be retained.

An officer of defendant's unit remarked "This Bombardier actually shot the German plane down himself, and would much appreciate it if he could have the photographs."

The chairman: "Under the circumstances you can have the photographs; they are very good ones."

The Bombardier did not get the actual pictures, but he got the negatives back, as well as the camera.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2017, 09:19:49 AM »

Dover Express - Friday 13 September 1940

PHOTOGRAPHING AIR RAID DAMAGE. MAN SUMMONED AT DEAL.
At the Deal Police Court, on Thursday last week, William Henry Grant, 114, College Road, Deal, was charged with unlawfully taking photographs of property that had been damaged by enemy aircraft on August 19th without a written permit from the Secretary of State for War or on his behalf. Defendant pleaded guilty.

P.C. M. D. Bushell stated that he was on duty on August 19th when defendant told him he had taken photographs of damaged buildings and also that he had taken a photograph of a German bomber coming over the sea towards land, with a cinecamera, which he produced. When told he would be reported, he said he was sorry; he did not know it was an offence to take photographs of damaged buildings. Defendant said he knew that he was not permitted to take photographs of a military character, but as to damaged buildings, well, he did not think about the matter. He just took the photographs. He was perfectly, honest about it. He did not try to conceal the facts in any way.

Mr. H. S. Brown (Acting Magistrates' Clerk) said the Order was quite clear, though there were many thigs that were perhaps not widely known.

Defendant said he liked to take a photograph now and then for the kiddies. He did not make hobby of it.

Mr. Brown: Well, you will be less enthusiastic still now.

Inspector Gomar said the Ministry of Information issued permits to accredited photographers. Before photographs could be published they had to be submitted to the Censor. Defendant had been straightforward about the matter.

The Mayor said the fact that photographs must not be taken had been very widely advertised by the trade.

The defendant said he had not read anything about damaged buildings.

The Mayor said the magistrates would impose a nominal fine of 5s, partly because the defendant had been very straight about the matter. On the other hand, defendant had committed an offence against the regulations. He could have found out from the suppliers the ruling of the law in the matter. The film, or what was left of it, would be handed to the Police.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #2 on: March 05, 2017, 09:26:17 AM »

Chichester Observer - Saturday 19 October 1940

PHOTOGRAPHING WRECKAGE. PILOT OFFICER'S WIFE FINED.
A letter of apology was read at the sitting of Chichester County Bench on Tuesday from Mrs. Noreen Dilliway, who admitted having taken a photograph of the wreckage of an aircraft at a spot on the South-east Coast, without having a permit to do so. "I did not realise the seriousness of the situation," she wrote. Adding that her husband was a pilot officer, she said: "You can quite realise that we are British and do not wish to do anything to cause trouble."

Evidence was given by Pte. R. H. Hayes to the effect that when he was on sentry duty on September 8th, he saw a young lady with a camera, who took a photograph of an enemy aircraft which was lying on the beach. She was there for ten or fifteen minutes and when he told her it was not allowed, she said: "I am sorry. I didn't know." He took her name and address and reported the matter to his sergeant-major. Witness recognised photos produced as pictures of the plane.

With regard to confiscation of the camera, Supt. Savage said the military had dealt with the matter.

The Bench ordered the destruction of the pictures and fined defendant £1 and 5s. costs.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2017, 09:39:35 AM »

Dover Express - Friday 11 October 1940

PICTURES OF AIR RAID DAMAGE. PHOTOGRAPHER HEAVILY FINED.
A fine of £10 was imposed at Chatham on Friday last week on Harold Ennis, of Bellview, Holborough, Snodland, a photographer, who took photographs, without a permit, of buildings damaged by enemy action.

Inspector H. Baddeley said that Ennis was seen taking photographs of a building damaged in a raid of the previous night. Witness was on duty, and asked if defendant had a permit to take the pictures. Ennis replied that he had not, and added that he was taking the photographs for the Medway Studios, by whom he was employed. He also stated that he had taken other pictures of damage caused in the same district.

Mr. M. V. Mackey, for the defence, said that Ennis's employers, the Medway Studios, were instructed by an evening newspaper to take photographs of the damage. The whole case was due to a misunderstanding between the firm and the newspaper. The latter thought the Studios had a permit, and the firm thought the newspaper held a permit, and that, as agents of the paper, they had a right to take the pictures.

The Chairman said that the case might have been a very serious one indeed, and the least the Bench could do was to impose a fine of £10, plus 9s. 6d. costs. They ordered the confiscation of the plates and photographs, but allowed the return of the camera.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2017, 09:42:52 AM »

Surrey Advertiser - Saturday 29 June 1940

EMPLOYEE FINED £5. TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF FACTORY.
Summoned at Epsom Police Court, on Monday, for taking photographs of a factory engaged on Government work, Austin Rylton Fitzpatrick, of 9, Gosfleld-road, Epsom, was told by the Chairman (Mr. E. G. Pullinger) that the Bench were satisfied he had no ulterior motives.

"But," continued Mr. Pullinger, "you and others must understand that these regulations are very serious and must be obeyed. You have put yourself in jeopardy, and might have been sent to prison for three months. As it is the first case brought in this district, and in all the circumstances, you will be fined £5."

Detective Constable Storr said Fitzpatrick was employed at the factory as an automatic tool setter. When questioned, he admitted having taken the photographs, and that he was fully aware of the work carried on at the factory. Witness produced the photographs, which were examined by the Bench.

Defendant, who pleaded guilty, said he had no idea it was an offence until he was told by the chemist who developed the photographs. Two-thirds of the photographs were of persons at the works and not of the buildings.

Inspector Russell stated Fitzpatrick was 26, and had been employed at the works for about eight months. He was a very skilled workman, and the firm did not wish to lose him. The police were satisfied he had no ulterior motives, and their main object in bringing the proceedings was to warn the public they could not take photographs indiscriminately.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2017, 09:46:13 AM »

Kent & Sussex Courier - Friday 01 November 1940

TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS OF ELECTRICITY WORKS. MAGISTRATES IMPOSE A FINE OF £2.
Photographs of the Tunbridge Wells Electricity Works taken by a 26-year-old employee resulted In the appearance at the Tunbridge Wells Police Court on Monday of Reginald Victor Davies, of 11, Monson-road, on a charge of taking certain photographs of the works without permission, contrary to the Control of Photography Order. Defendant pleaded guilty.

Detective Inspector Siggers said that on October 6 he went to a local chemist shop and took possession of a packet of negatives. When examined at the Police Station some were found to be photographs of the Electricity Works and the grid station. When seen Davies admitted taking the photographs, which he said were of interest to show friends where he worked. Others related to views of Monson-road.

In a letter which Davies handed to the Bench defendant said he had taken other pictures of local interest, such as the swimming pool and flower gardens, and did not know that he was doing anything wrong. He took the photographs of the Electricity Works as he was employed there. He asked that the photographs in dispute should be returned to him at the end of the war.

Replying to the Chairman (Mr. H. Elwig), defendant said he had been engaged at the local Electricity Works as a turbine driver since August last.

In imposing a fine of £2, the Chairman, with whom was Mrs. Hammond and Mr. A. E. Hobbs, said the Bench accepted the defendant's explanation that he had no ulterior motive in taking the photographs.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2017, 09:47:50 AM »

Kent & Sussex Courier - Friday 09 August 1940

FINED FOR TAKING A PHOTOGRAPH
Charles Edward Stokes, of Heathfield, was summoned at a South-East Police Court on Monday for having taken a photograph of property damaged by enemy action on July 10. He said he was a trustee of the property and took the photograph quite openly from the middle of the road, not knowing he was committing an offence. He was fined 10s. and cautioned.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #7 on: March 05, 2017, 09:56:20 AM »

Sevenoaks Chronicle and Kentish Advertiser - Friday 20 September 1940

PHOTOGRAPHED WRECKED GERMAN PLANE. LINGFIELD MAN FINED.
A fine of £2 was imposed by Oxted magistrates on Monday on John Trevor Hankey, of Billhurst, Lingfield. for taking a photograph of the wreckage of a Heinkel 111.

The Chairman (Mr. F. Kimber Bull) announced that as they were both acquaintances of Mr. Hankey, neither he nor the Deputy Chairman, Mr, F. H. Elliott, would adjudicate, and instead Mr. T. H. Lloyd presided during the hearing of the case.

Defendant pleaded guilty, and evidence was given by P.C. A. E. Beale that he was proceeding towards the scene of the crash and when about 150 yards away saw Hankey who had a camera and appeared be taking photos. When witness spoke to him he said "I was not aware of the regulations."

Defendant said his intentions were perfectly innocent.

The magistrates were examining prints of the photographs when the clerk said to defendant "Have you seen them?" When defendant replied "No," the prints were handed to him for inspection.

Mr. Lloyd said the court thought the intentions of defendant were perfectly innocent, but felt he should have known of the regulations. He would be fined £2.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2017, 09:58:48 AM »

Kent & Sussex Courier - Friday 27 September 1940

PHOTOGRAPHED PLANE WRECKAGE. EDENBRIDGE A.R.P. WORKER FINED.
At Oxted Police Court on Monday Miss Jane Orde, Sprode House, Edenbrldge, an A.R.P. ambulance driver, was fined £1 for taking photograph of aircraft wreckage.

A police officer said was keeping observation on a wrecked enemy 'plane and saw her go across the field to where men were at work on the wreck. She was told not to photograph it, but did so later when the men had ceased work.

Supt. King said that when the film was developed it was found that a photograph had also been taken of another wrecked machine, apparently some miles from the other.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2017, 10:03:18 AM »

Portsmouth Evening News - Friday 20 September 1940

Photographed Plane.
"I saw the enemy plane being brought down, and was anxious to have a picture of it. You can see from the negative that people were allowed close to it and that they could examine any part of it."

This was the defence of Gregory Fry, poultry farmer, of Woodlands Farm, Bramdean, who was fined 10s. at Alresford yesterday for taking a picture of an enemy plane brought down in the area.

Supt. Fielder said the negative was handed to Portsmouth police by Boots's, Portsmouth, to whom Fry had sent it to be developed.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2017, 10:16:06 AM »

Sussex Agricultural Express - Friday 26 July 1940

UNAUTHORISED PHOTOGRAPHS. FINES AT LEWES.
A coloured clergyman, the Rev. Evensight Ejesa-Osora, of Russell-square W.C.1, was fined 10s. at the Lewes Police Court on Tuesday for taking a photograph of a gasometer without authority. Sergeant Woodall said defendant was brought into the police station, and when the films were developed there were two views of the town taken from Cliffe Hill. Defendant said he was not photographing  the gasometer, but was merely taking a view of the town to show his people at home one of the places he had visited. He did not know he was "breaking the rules." It was stated that he had that day taken services at Southover and Cliffe Churches.

Robert Charles Bashford of Ousedale House, Lewes, was fined £1 for taking an unauthorised picture of the place where he was employed.
Superintendent Holloway said defendant took a film to a chemist for processing. When the chemist saw what was on the negatives he informed the police. The pictures were of the place where defendant was employed. He did not suggest that Bashford had any ulterior motive in taking the photographs.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
John
Editor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17073



« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2017, 10:29:40 AM »

Chichester Observer - Saturday 10 August 1940

SELSEY LADY AND WRECKED PLANE. CAMERA AND PHOTOS ALSO WRECKED.
A lady amateur photographer, whose home is at Selsey, found herself in a police court last Tuesday, somewhere in the south-eastern area, because she was recently found indulging her hobby under interesting but forbidden circumstances. The accused. Teresa Pollock Vasey, was summoned for having photographed, without a permit, the wreckage of an enemy aircraft brought down on the coast, to which she pleaded guilty.

The local superintendent of police said the accused was among a number of enthusiastic people who went to see the plane, and she was noticed by the military to be in possession of a camera. This was taken possession of and a film which it contained, when developed, was found to be a picture of the wrecked plane. Defendant had no authority to take photographs, and the authorities looked upon it as serious matter.

Evidence was given by an army officer and a constable as to the seizure of the camera and the development of the film. Copies of the photographs, slightly enlarged, were produced to the Bench.

Defendant said she had heard on the wireless that photographs must not be taken of any defence measures or anything likely to give information to the enemy. This being a wrecked plane, she did not think it mattered. She spoke to three soldiers on a lorry about it, and they raised no objection.

The chairman said this being the first case of the kind to come before them, there would be a fine of £1, but the Bench were obliged to order the camera and the photographs to be destroyed.

"It is a very good photograph, but it is illegal," added the chairman.

Defendant pleaded to be allowed to have a copy of the picture. She said "You have all been looking at them, and it is the first time I have ever taken a decent photograph." She was told that her request could not be granted.
Logged

I voted to leave the European Union..
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!