It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK Terror Law To Make Photographing Police Illegal

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
I think the most imortant thing to remember here is the difference between a 'law' and 'statute'. Stick with me here it might sound long-winded but it's devastatingly simple.

A law means anything to do with the law of the land. This means you can do ANYTHING as long as it doesn't infringe upon another's rights, and is known as COMMON LAW.

A statute is applied to CONTRACT LAW, or commercial law, and that can only be applied to corporations, not living flesh-and-blood humans. Contract law is basically what the uninformed refer to as 'the law'. For example, when you get a phone bill it is sent to 'JOHN DOE' (all caps) which in legal terms is a corporation. The human would be called John of the Doe family, or John: Doe as it would be written. A statute can only be applied with your CONSENT.

Now here's the trick: By giving your name you are implying consent. By signing the parking ticket you are giving your consent. Without your consent you are in a COMMON LAW JURISDICTION and they have no power over you, unless they witness you breach the peace, which would fall into common law too. When you give your name etc. you put yourself in their COMMERCIAL LAW JURISDICTION and they have you by the short-and-curlies.

In short, no matter what crazy 'laws' they say they'll bring out, they are really talking about statutes, and statutes only apply to corporate entities. Are you a corporate entity or a human being? Stop worrying about all this smoke and mirrors, it does not apply to you if you know your rights.

Research:

Winston Shrout.
Mary Croft. (Search for 'How I clobbered' for her life-changing book*)
Rob Menard.
The Anti-terrorist (on YouTube)
www.tpuc.org
www.thinkfree.ca
www.thinkfreeforums.org
www.spiritualeconomicsnow.net
*www.hackcanada.com/canadian/freedom/mary_croft.pdf (mary's book)

Pax maxima

EDIT to add link to Mary's book, in case you were wondering


[edit on 29-1-2009 by TRAVELS]




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
This shocked me more than any other news I saw on ATS.

This means that police actions such as interrogations cannot be taped?

If a gang of white policemen decides to beat up a black guy, that cannot be taped?


This is the worst thing that can happen, if this goes through in Canada and England then it might soon be passed here in the U.S.

Government does not serve us, they propagate to get power and then they "forget" all their promises to the people.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I have been trying to read the 2008 Terrorist bill - it contains a lot and as I mentioned in a previous post, it will refer back to other paragraphs and in my small opinon it is convoluted, as I also mentioned earlier.

Here is a little more from it:


(3) The second set of conditions is—
(a) that a person on whom a requirement has been imposed under paragraph 19(1)(b) has failed (wholly or in part) to comply with it, and
(b) that there is on the premises specified in the warrant a document that has been required to be produced.

(4) The third set of conditions is—

(a) that an enforcement officer has been obstructed in the exercise of a power under paragraph 20, and
(b) that there is on the premises specified in the warrant a document that could be inspected under paragraph 20(1)(d).
(5) A justice may issue a warrant under this paragraph if satisfied on information on oath given by an officer that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that—
(a) an offence under this Schedule has been, is being or is about to be committed by a relevant person, and
(b) there is on the premises specified in the warrant a document relevant to whether that offence has been, or is being or is about to be committed.


I want to mention, some say, since it came from Alex Jones website, it is not trustworthy, my answer, is he did not make it up either, this information source has come from a "Professional photojournalist".

I would think they would be on top of their knowledge of what they can and can not do in their profession.


edit: again here is the link to the Counter Terrorist bill: www.opsi.gov.uk...-pt5

[edit on 29-1-2009 by questioningall]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The UK and Canada prevent the photographing of police so that no one can find out what they did to me. But they will.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A
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.


Agreed.

I'm a serving police officer in England and I'm shocked by some of the replies on this thread. I'm getting pretty sick and tired of being made a scapegoat because of the actions of government, we just enforce laws, we don't make them.

Secondly, try treating police with a bit of respect, you'll get it back. Granted, you'll have your power abusers and officers with a general bad attitude but hey, it's not like everyone else is perfect, right?

Thirdly, there's no law now, or coming into force regarding taking pictures of law enforcement officers and I doubt there ever will be. The OP has either got a grudge against the police, trying to up his points or just generally trolling. And that goes for some other people in this thread too, if you generally think police are part of a government scheme to be "out to get you" or "part of the NWO" or what ever such rubbish then I'm deadly serious when I implore you to seek professional help.

Oh and it's an offence to swear at a police officer? DURRRR? How would you like it if I came up to you (as a member of the public) and started screaming abuse in your face?

Unbelivable...


CX

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
*off-topic comment snipped*

[edit on 1/29/2009 by Badge01]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
FFS some people really need to read the damn thread!!

Police arresting people for taking photos of them is NOT TRUE. Nowhere in the legislation does it say they can. Stop getting worked up over nothing.


@questioningall

With regards to the first paragraph you quoted that seems to only apply to business and the officer mentioned is not a law enforcement officer. They also must be able to demonstrate good cause for suspicion.

The second paragraph, being under the same section, still does not apply the police. It also only applies to entries made into premises with a warrant. I’m not sure what you’re objecting to in that quote.

As for the original article; my and I believe Budski’s point is that it claims that it will be against the law to photograph a police officers. It doesn’t matter who is saying this, both myself and Budski have read the Act and neither of us can find anything that would create such an offence and no one else seems to be able to come up with the relevant section. Therefore the claim is not true.


@Travels,

Granted I’m no lawyer and if you are I’ll bow out gracefully but I’m fairly certain that common law and statutory law are just different methods of creating new laws. The former being based on past decisions of the courts and the latter coming from the legislature. As I understand it statutory laws can equally be applied to individuals as they can to corporations.

@Caviar,

Of topic but I’m wondering, how the hell have you kept up with all the new laws that have come out recently. It’s like there’s a new one every week! Don’t envy you.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Caviar
 



Thirdly, there's no law now, or coming into force regarding taking pictures of law enforcement officers and I doubt there ever will be.


Just wanted to make this part a little bigger so that everybody can see what you said.

Thank you for your service.

I always believe in the 90% good and 10% bad. Unfortunately it is the 10% group that give a bad name to the 90% group.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
For all the people saying this isnt going to happen or the op is wrong then i would ask you to watch the videos posted.

This is already being wrongly enforced anyway & doubt very few actually get away with recording them without some hassle before hand.

There is several examples on youtube where the police or security gaurds are trying to stop people filming or threatening them with arrest, how many do you want me to post?

Caviar - you are out of touch mate if you think its not happening!

Wake up people!!!

[edit on 29/1/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Caviar
 


I have no grudge, and I am simply posting what was labeled as fact on another alternate news website.

If you noticed, I did not make this up out of "thin air" - so, do not accuse me of "having a grudge". I respect police officers and the job they do.

What I do not respect, is what has been going on, in all the departments of govt., including what TPTB have the police do and the laws they put in effect for the general population.

As for what has been going on, are you honestly going to say, there have been rules in the last few years that you agree with, that comprimises people's civil liberties in the name of "the war on terror"?

Are there not things, that are just not right - by having people detained over peaceful demonstrations? By having cameras on every street corner so people are watched in whatever they do?

Besides that, there are vids, of police not liking having their picture taken - not just in the UK, but also here in the U.S. There is documented proof, of people's civil liberties being taken away - over photographing police.

So once again - DO NOT accuse me - of "making this story up".

Please read how the ultimate source for this article was from a "photojournalist" - who said this law was coming down on Feb 16th.

In that respect, there are many people who do not realize, various laws that will be taking affect this coming month, including here in the U.S.

If you go to a toy or book store, those people have no idea, come Feb. 10th, the items they have on their shelves right now, will not be able to be sold come the 10th, due to the new "lead bill" passed by the Congress.

So, being unaware of a law that is a little over 2 weeks away - is not surprising.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Caviar
 


I'd actually given up on this thread because it is obvious that people just want something to sound off about, even when it's untrue..
And that's easily seen by virtue of the fact that nearly all posters in this thread have ignored the links to the legislation in favour of gobbing off about something they know nothing about.

Deny ignorance?

Yeah, way to go guys....

30-odd flags and stars for something that isn't even true?????

Either the worlds gone mad or I have.

Once again for the hard of reading - THE POLICE CANNOT ARREST YOU FOR TAKING PICTURES UNDER THIS LEGISLATIO. READ THE DAMN THING AND YOU'LL SEE FOR YOURSELVES.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 



Caviar - you are out of touch mate if you think its not happening!


I'm not saying it isn't happening. I am just saying that there is no law that is about to be passed saying that you can't photograph a cop.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


I dont know if you have heard about it but you should check out the totally awesome 100 mile Constitutional Free Zone.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


I know it contains a lot of information - that's because I have read it several times and actually understand it.


The story itself is misleading and patently untrue, and is little more than a scaremongering piece of sensationalistic journalism.

The burden of proof and the defense quoted IN THE LEGISLATION, are further proof.

The post that I am replying to regards people already under surveilance on suspicion of being involved in terrorist activites and is to do with warrants to search the premises of that person - as such it has nothing to do with journalists, unless the journalist is involved in terrorist activities.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
For all the people saying this isnt going to happen or the op is wrong then i would ask you to watch the videos posted.

This is already being wrongly enforced anyway & doubt very few actually get away with recording them without some hassle before hand.

There is several examples on youtube where the police or security gaurds are trying to stop people filming or threatening them with arrest, how many do you want me to post?
[edit on 29/1/09 by cropmuncher]


The people in those videos weren’t arrested or were compensated and the wrongful nature of the arrest acknowledged. That is a vast difference to saying that police are legally allowed to arrest people for filming/photographing them. Individual officers and sometimes entire forces will make incorrect decisions but that is not the same thing as what the OP’s article was claiming.

You’re just looking for a reason to get angry.


Originally posted by questioningall
reply to post by Caviar
 
Please read how the ultimate source for this article was from a "photojournalist" - who said this law was coming down on Feb 16th.


Who cares? He (or she) is wrong, demonstrably so. You’ve looked at the legislation, I’ve looked at the legislation and Budski has looked at the legislation; none of us can find the part of this act that makes taking pictures of the police illegal. Why should I trust the word of an unidentified photojournalist over my own eyes?



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
One more freedom that we are going to stand idly by and let be taken.

All the debate on ATS is not going to make one change in our lives or stop the lost of our freedoms.

If you really want to make a difference then do something. If nothing else make some noise. I know they aren’t listening. All I get from a handful is a nice letter on fancy government letter. but maybe if there are enough people making noise maybe just maybe……..



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 


OK, re-read my posts from this thread, then come back and tell me (after reading the legislation) exactly what freedoms you have lost.

If you like, I can save you the trouble - the answer is NONE.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I will admit that alex jones isnt the best source for such news but the sources prison planet show should have some credibility ie British Journal of Photographers.

Its all down to interpretaion of the law and you know its going to be used to its max potential if an officer wants to -
"The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow 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'.

You have to be more than a little niave to not see how this is going to work out.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


You also have to pretty naive to make a judgement before reading the legislation and to miss this whicj I have previously posted:



(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.


Read the legislation before making knee jerk judgements.




top topics



 
50
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join