UK Terror Law To Make Photographing Police Illegal

And with laws like these you will begin hearing about police officers being murdered while they sit in their police cars in parking lots and in their homes and everywhere else they are vulnerable. Despite the calmness of the people with the passing of big brother laws I will stand firm on the idea that people will eventually retaliate against the law enforcers, then the law interpreters, then the law makers. Revolution is only a matter of time and circumstances. The people that have lived their whole live in the shining light of democracy will not go quietly into the darkness of oppresion and ignorance.

I know there are departments of pigs in the government that are reading what I am typing and I want them to know that I have no plans on keeping quiet and being idle and go marching about however the scum at the top want me to so they can be amused.

This in no way means that I am planning violence to futher my views, unlike the governments of the world.

A NeWorlDisorder

[edit on 29-1-2009 by A NeWorlDisorder]

“allows for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone who takes pictures of officers ‘likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism’.”

And how in hell does taking pictures of officers aid on acts of terrorism? Yet again, a law passed in the name of 'counter terrorism' which does nothing tangeable to actually COUNTER TERRORISM.

This reminds me of an anti-globalisation rally I attended in 2001 where I was constantly photographed, non-stop. Then, myself and 3000 others were detained at Oxford Circus for 7 hours for no reason at all, other than 'preventative measures'. No toilet facilities, no food, no explanations, nothing!

Recent news indicates that the police have been absolved of any wrongdoing, despite the fact that it was clearly illegal:

Police did not act unlawfully when they detained a 3,000-strong crowd for more than seven hours during a May Day protest march in central London, the Law Lords have ruled. The House of Lords dismissed a test case appeal in an action brought against the Metropolitan Police by a woman who was among the thousands corralled in Oxford Circus without food, drink or toilet facilities on May 1 2001. Peaceful demonstrator Lo ADVERTISEMENT is Austin complained that the police breached Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights which states that no-one shall be deprived of their liberty except for the purposes of lawful arrest or detention. But Lord Hope held that crowd control measures, so long as they were not arbitrary and were proportionate, resorted to in good faith and enforced for no longer than necessary, fell outside Article 5.

Source

[edit on 29/1/2009 by Cythraul]

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
I do know that the woman I talked about could use a little more protection, but I also know that this law is just too much. I look forward to more feedback from members on this.

Protection from what?

Police work is one of the safest professions anyone can enter: go look it up at DOL. A truly dangerous job is being a taxi driver, pizza delivery person, roofer, fisherman, soldier, hooker. police work is pretty safe in comparison.

Cops keep confusing stressful and boring, which I'll grant, with dangerous, which I won't.

They carry and frequently use lethal weapons with impunity, can immediately have backup if they truly need it, and generally behave as if the law doesn't apply to them. I've known quite a few cops over my lifetime, most of them were arrogant, insecure, paranoid pricks who saw enemies everywhere they looked, and treated the public as such. I will say, though, that I owe my life to one cop: he protected me and a friend from his partner, who apparently killed hitchhikers to relieve his stress. I was more scared then than when I was in 'Nam. Cops are vastly more dangerous to the public than the public is to them.

this law is not at all about anti-terrorism, it's about protecting the power structure's goon squads from liability for their criminal behavior.

Clearly some people just want to be outraged.

Read the thread, the OP is RUBBISH. There is no law allowing police to arrest you for taking pictures nor can it be interpreted to allow that.

reply to post by apacheman


While i would agree with you about most cops being arrogant etc i wouldnt say all are, there are a few good ones.What you get in the uk are a lot of bullies joining the police which isnt good for us.

Just a thought, and I'm mid-food so bear with my train of thought.

Say you see the police committing a crime.

You take photos of them committing said crime.

You are arrested for taking photos.

You are charged and sent for trial.

Evidence of taking the photos will be required, otherwise there is no proof of the offence.

Police are then charged with offences based on your evidence.

I'm certain there are myriad flaws with this. Feel free to blow it out the water. Like I said I'm eating, but had to get this out while I remembered.

The main points of this law have been covered and it has been shown quite conclusively that the OP is not only out of context, but is also plain wrong.

See my previous posts - if there was any real truth to this, I would be the first to be up in arms about it.
But the truth is, this has been misunderstood and blown out of proportion by that doyen of sensationalism Alex Jones.



[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]

Most officer's of the "law" are weak minded individuals who have been trained to believe they are above the general populus and sometimes the law itself. I respect them for protecting and serving the public when it actually occurs and for putting there life in danger frequently, but the sad thing is they themsleves don't fully know the law and most of the time presume to. Also the arrogant nature of law enforcement tends to lead to treating the public as if they are guilty suspects until proven otherwise(contrary to what the Judicial system actually dictates).

Before I piss off every cop out there let me say I know some are in the force for the right reasons, but most are not. This is due to the low pay officer's have to take despite the apparent dangers. I believe there are two type's of people who become Law Enforcement officer's. The first are strong willed, good hearted indviduals only out to do what is right. The second have the need to feel in charge and above others. I suspect most officers fall into the latter category and I hope I'm wrong because with the building atmosphere of martial law/anti-terrorism, we could be in a lot of trouble given the inability of this latter category to think and rationalize for themselves which "transgressions" constitute police enforcement and to what degree. I would hate to see them being used as puppets for a larger more malevolent agenda, but it seems that is exactly where we are headed.

reply to post by budski

But the truth is, this has been misunderstood and blown out of proportion

Agree 100%.

That is not to say that they wouldn't try to pass such a law in the future. However, I don't see something like this passing. That means every personal business surveillance camera would have to be taken out, especially at the doughnut shops.

This will pass serenely into the statute books at least in the UK.

The people there would be in uproar if this law was being passed in Tibet or Gaza, but in their own country, there'll be no reaction.

It really is like watching a train wreck.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Retseh]

Originally posted by Retseh
This will pass serenely into the statutue books at least in the UK.

Absolutely. It's vital that we be ruthless in our vigilance. We're better off being overly cautious and questioning than being overly rational - though I'm glad of just rationality. The UK government have a habit of advertising laws as 'proposals', and once we talk ourselves our of our outrage, turning those 'proposals' into laws the moment we turn our backs. It's been going on for years. Let's watch this one and make sure it doesn't develop.

Originally posted by budski
The main points of this law have been covered and it has been shown quite conclusively that the OP is not only out of context, but is also plain wrong.

See my previous posts - if there was any real truth to this, I would be the first to be up in arms about it.
But the truth is, this has been misunderstood and blown out of proportion by that doyen of sensationalism Alex Jones.

[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]

Thanks for that, I did. I take on board what you are saying and frankly, the judicial system has better things to do than run around after photographers...

wait for it...

but, the wording is so ambiguous that anything stretched far enough can fit,

"likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

Even an AA road atlas would fit this description.

As far as Alex Jones is concerned, I take everything he says with the proverbial pinch, and where possible check the facts for myself. I even visited St. Pancras when they broke the "websites" story, and frankly anyone who thinks Environment Minister ranks number three in U.K. government needs constant sub-ed.-ing.

Originally posted by budski
The main points of this law have been covered and it has been shown quite conclusively that the OP is not only out of context, but is also plain wrong.

See my previous posts - if there was any real truth to this, I would be the first to be up in arms about it.
But the truth is, this has been misunderstood and blown out of proportion by that doyen of sensationalism Alex Jones.

[edit on 29/1/2009 by budski]

Okay, I have been taking what you said and have been reading and trying to make sense of the actual bill, they have so much in it, saying refer to this or that, lots of it does not make sense to me.

link:www.opsi.gov.uk...-pt5

What have found are things, that seem to imply what this thread is about.

Also I want to state, I did not make this thread up out of the air, I used an article I found. I care about things that are wacko and against our civil rights, no matter where anyone lives.

Entry, inspection without a warrant etc20 (1) Where an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that any premises are being used by a relevant person in connection with the person’s business activities, the officer may on producing evidence of authority at any reasonable time—
(a) enter the premises;
(b) inspect the premises;
(c) observe the carrying on of business activities by the relevant person;
(d) inspect any document found on the premises;
(e) require any person on the premises to provide an explanation of any document or to state where it may be found.
(2) An enforcement officer may take copies of, or make extracts from, any document found under sub-paragraph (1).
(3) An officer may exercise powers under this paragraph only if the information or document sought to be obtained as a result is reasonably required in connection with the exercise by the enforcement authority for whom the officer acts of its functions under this Schedule.
(4) In this paragraph “premises” means any premises other than premises used only as a dwelling.

The above is from the bill itself, out of the above link. Also if you read the link I provied earlier, you will find, the photojournalist saying the police take their cameras etc. So, from what I can gather from the above info. is that the police will have more powers to take what they want, without warrants, etc. Now, I am not a legal scholar, so is this part, being interpreted to now allowing the police to take any cameras away, at their will?

I will continue searching, though if I find it, I may not even know I have found it, due to how it is so convoluted in language. The things someone can do wrong to be arrested, in it, refers back to many different segments and other bills, that I don't understand.




[edit on 29-1-2009 by questioningall]

[edit on 29-1-2009 by questioningall]

You people do realise that the term terrorist and terrorism are so vague that almost anything you say, do, buy, sell, dress, act in public (even just minding your business) can be deemed as being part of terrorist like activities dont you? Its all up to the people making the interpretations.

Taking a photo of a police man could be viewed as a breech of national secruity and that could be interpreted as you being a terrorist. I would also like to add that as a domestic terrorist you wont have rights. If you think that this is ridiculous and overboard, where have you been for the last eight years?


[edit on 29-1-2009 by A NeWorlDisorder]

Originally posted by heyo
Please don't tell me that americans think that if it's a law in britain it's a law in canada.

Please don't tell me this is one of the worst generalizations ever...

I always did wonder what the revolutionary life would be like!

Hmm.. I just asked a police mate who works in the London Met and she's said she's not heard that it would be "Illegal" to photograph them. She said if a bunch of people are taking pictures of them as they arrest someone that's not a bother to them. It was only if the taking of the pictures actually impeded them from doing their job, as in getting in the officer's way or putting themselves at risk for a few candid shots.

But she says she's been photgraphed loads of times by the mates of the people they nick on their mobiles. They never stop them... [shrug]

I might point out that as Individuals of Sentience, we must be accorded the right to our own perspective.

That includes all recounting and recording.

Laws like this are oppressive, hideously wrong, and counter to the concept that every life has value.

Canada? I just don't see it happening.

UK? Yeah I can see that. UK officials are all excited about the big brother ID systems so this would only help their big government causes.

Alex Jones is a tool, and I am not a debunker, either. Alex Jones and people like him just make our cause more difficult, because the debunkers just assume that everyone is like that crackpot. I mean we crap all over the people on the opposing side who lie and provide a crapload of disinformation to promote their cause...so shouldn't we hold our side accountable too?

The title of this thread seriously needs to have "Canada" removed. Why? Because Alex Jones says it's true, and provides no back up at all as to why this involves my country, it will be allowed to stay on ATS even though it's not true and has no sources? Can I make a website and lie about things, and then come on the Breaking Alternative News section posting a link to my lie? Does that count as a source?

This is the Breaking Alternative News section, not Skunkworks; and it's ATS, where we're supposed to Deny Ignorance. By keeping Canada in the title, we're not only encouraging ignorance but we're also fear mongering people into thinking that something like this is actually happening/going to happen in Canada. This thread is now on the main page of ATS, and do you think every Canadian is going to read all 3 pages of this thread to discover that it has nothing to do with Canada? No, they're going to read the article and maybe a couple of comments afterwards and believe it for fact...that's encouraging ignorance.

So moderators, respectfully, let's deny ignorance and change the title of this thread to not include Canada!

Sorry for ranting but I believe the bigger problem with this thread title is one that should be avoided so that we can continue on our individual and collective learning paths on this site without disinformation, or in this case, flat our lies with absolutely no sources.

reply to post by A NeWorlDisorder


Well yeah anyone from America who thinks this is scary should read the USA Patriot Act pronto. People coming into your home and searching your house without a warrant and never telling you they were there is pretty damn scary too.