It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by welivefortheson

I aggree, though a few appear to be arguing this isnt real or is perhaps exaggerated though it cannot be argued this whole planet wether it be UK, Canada or the US appears to be going down the toilet.

When are people going to realise where the art of true power stands?? thats in standing together and that is definately in knowledge and if enough of the population stand together and contest there isnt a damn thing the Government can do to prevent it.

Of course this is a simplistic view the main problem is getting enough of the sheep to tune out of their Big Brother, Soap Operas or other crap thats being spoon fed to them and wake up.

I wonder if its true that the people deserve what governments(s) they get?


posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:35 PM
[edit on 29-1-2009 by morg9000]

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by cropmuncher
Thats shocking news! As it stands now you have no powers to stop a cop taking your camera from you wether its legeal or not, i mean what can you do? They will do you for assault if you try to stop them and your beloved & potentially expensive camera/vid camera is gone for good, your word against his.

Its the way things have gone and i have seen videos/read accounts of this happening.

Its blatently so you cannot record them doing anything wrong!

All the more reason I would not consent to the law. The Court defines Consent or Ascent to Law when the Citizen's comply without resistance. if you do not resist and get out of dodge, you are as complicit as your law makers and enforcers in the injustice. Enough resistance and the Law will have no choice but to overturn it. Those who cannot prove history are doomed to be rewritten by it. I don't care if the photo was harmless, take it and run. If they try to stop you. remember, First and Foremost they are just people with guns, they have no mystical powers. I hate to advocate violence, and, I would never. But, I do advocate self preservation and defense. Bully the Bully or be a punk forevermore. And all the focus on love and light and peace in the world won't stop what they have coming next once they get you to roll over on recording them. They'll beat and torture you senseless, and your neighbor and friends, like the non recording Law Abiders they are will just watch as publically it will be held how you resisted or met with an unfortuanate accident. all me crazy all you like for that, I am, but, it won't make me any less right. People are Barbarians at heart and in nature. If you don't get barbaric back, you lose already before it even starts.

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 10:45 PM
I just don't see what almost everyone in this thread is getting so ruffled about. There is no law that I can find that will allow the police to confiscate anyones camera. They would be doing this illegally. As long as you don't give them some other reason for arresting you they can not take anything from you. The police and the security guards in the videos are overstepping their duties.
Let's not forget that the police are SERVANTS of the people. Our tax dollars pay their salaries. They are servants, not gods. And they need to be reminded as such.

The post by DimensionalDetective puts this idea in a good perspective.
There will be dozens of events where police will be all over the place and hundreds or thousands of people will have cameras. How in the F**k will the police be able to arrest or confiscate everyones cameras? Absurd if you ask me.

If I lived in England I would get as many friends and their friends to buy one of those cheap disposable cameras and have one take pictures of the police. when they try to take that persons camera have another come over and take pictures of this. Then a third and fourth...and so on. I think John Cleese (sp) would love to do a sketch like this. It would be hilarious.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Muundoggie]

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 11:18 PM

Originally posted by DimensionIntrusion
This New Law is unenforceable absurd and easily beaten in the same manner as the 1990 Poll Tax.

When 100,000 people are watching Soldiers escorting the Queen up the Mall in London Tens of thousands will be taking photographs. The entire route of the parade is lined by Police.They will be photographed.

If we are allowed to photograph Soldiers , The Queen & The Royal Family how can we not photograph the police escorting them?

When the Police five a press conference the Police will be photographed.

When 100,000 are attending a Music Festival like Glastonbury Tens of Thousands of people will be taking photographs and the police will be Photographed.

When 100,000 people are attending a football match Tens of Thousands of people will be taking photographs and the police will be Photographed.

The Olympic Games 2012 are in London lets say a million people watch the Games maybe 500,000 people will be taking photographs the Police are always in attendence they will be photographed.

The same is true for The Wimbledon Tennis Tornemant , Film Premiers , Weekends at the Beach etc etc. We are talking about millions of people.

The only reason this Law is being introduced is because the NWO are plannning to use the Police to inflict violence upon the people a and the NWO doesnt want any Rodney King type videos turning up on the net.

It is simple to stop this Law. Get Ten thousand people to march through London with cameras and get them to stop outside Parliament & Scotland Yard and get the m all to tske photgraphs at the same time.

The photo's described here are allowed. It is the one's they deem arbitrarily to be "suspect" that are illegal and taken from you. That's where documenting police abuses and brutality and crimes become impossible. And it's not a no photographing Police Law. It's a no photographing a Law Enforcement official or agent of every kind of Law Enforcement Branch and type imaginable Law.

It will also give them more Authority to patrol you're communications and Internet use. As bad words can be construed to mean any negative statement, comment, fact, or opinion. Not just vulgarities and inuendo's. hyperbola, or, not.

The rest of the 14+ other reciprical Countries, like the US, will use it's success as aplatform to make their own reciprical Laws. In the US it will be tendered under a Block grants to the States program, so, in order to recieve money, they will surrender more rights and make it State Law everywhere. It's funny, at one time in America, one used to be able to travel freely to the city, county, district, region, State, or whatever which had Laws they could agree to live with. Now, they have become so Uniform, there really is becoming no need for an individual State. It is becoming a Unified State Government.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by PhyberDragon]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:00 AM
So let me get this straight... due to a BS excuse, we can no longer have evidence to show inappropriate officer behavior because, god forbid you should... GASP... actually be held accountable for your actions?

To any of you officers that think we're "hurting your feelings" by video taping you and keeping you accountable... GROW A PAIR!

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:53 AM

Originally posted by jam321
I can't find anything about Canada wanting to pass this law. Maybe I am goggling in the wrong words. Is any Canadian or UK member aware of this? I know cops sometimes get out of hand and take away cameras and films, especially if they just finish kicking the hell out of some guy, but to pass a law like this would only invite brutality.

It seems to be the U.K. only. It Montreal Canada that will not be able to swear at the police.

This is NWO horrible. I was thinking about the guy they shot on the train several years ago, the one they thought of as a terrorist, or the man who was shot on New Year, while handcuffed in the back, think about these senarios, and if people have video, they will be arrested for their evidence. This is just horrible. Take away freedom of the press, or the individual to take pictures of the police state that's in affect and you silence the people that much further.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by DataWraith

It doesn't say video taping is against the law.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:04 AM

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:13 AM
This is insane! what about when a security camera from stores or whatnot records the police? will they then seize the property of the owners? I hope people stand up for their rights, cos if they don't, no one will and this for sure will spread to the US...

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:55 AM
After reading through this thread it sounds like this may not be a reality. None the less i shall link my two videos, becasue they show how ignorant these police are in Canada.

The law here about taking pictures / video of police officers is : It is not against to film them doing there job, unless you are interfearing with an investigation, or with a witness. Otherwise its open game.

Video # 1

Video #2

Sure we are being a little stupid in these videos, but non the less the police are wrong about telling me its against the law to film them. The local paper did a story about my videos some time after i had them posted which clarified that i was not in the wrong. Here is a link to the news paper article.

News Article

Now, i know i asked this one already, but does anyone think that i can get in trouble for these videos, if and when they would pass this new law in canada??? (p.s. i hope i posted this right)

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:17 AM
To those saying this legislation is going to be passed in Canada. No it will not. Canada is the exact opposite. Canada is a very liberal country in which rather than give police greater powers, we take away their powers.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:49 AM

They got to make sure of that.
So when they use their mass media to tell people the "news", there will be no other story.

This must not happen again, watch here :

Google Video Link

[edit on 30-1-2009 by pai mei]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:58 AM
I live in Scotland.

My grandfather is 76 and was filming our local galaday parade. A galaday is like a funfair tradition where there is a town walk with a parade etc.

Our full family was with him as he filmed the parade and a police officer came over and told him to stop filming under terrorism. We argued then he called my grandfather a pedophile as there were kids in the parade, i mean cmon.

The camera was smashed when the officer miss judged grabbing it with force and one of my family members was arrested for trying to grab it back. An assault on a police officer!!??

I have absolutely no respect for officers like that.

I have also experienced being hit over the head with a bat and forced to the ground. Let go because I was the wrong person but then later told I cannot complain as I never got the officers badge number.

They are full of it.

On the flip side which I still try to see despite my lack of faith for many but not all police officers in the UK. A member of the force who I know in my area was filmed and it led to a gangster somehow seeing the footage of where he lived. His home was torched, car, family beaten and he has had to assume another identity. They do have a point but I worry it will be taken too far as usual.

It was not in the media therefore I have no links.

Take my word like your told to with the police.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by XXXN3O]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:42 AM
The problem is, if they try to take a video camera or any other kind of camera.
Then its theft.
Its not there property the Police do not have governance over everyone's property.
Several people have had Police charged with theft and subsequently fired and fined for taking or damaging there cameras.
It could even kind of be be robbery.
But most people don't pursue it, which is why they keep doing it.
The Police are not allowed to take peoples property for no reason.
There has to be a lawful reason, not just "I don't like it".
If they make this law, then yes they will be allowed to take the camera as it was used in the commission of a crime.
If you look to most video footage of Police, they know they aren't allowed to touch the camera.
And just either say nothing hide there face or laugh and be nice.
But there is the 10% of corrupt unprofessional police who think they are the law and can do whatever they like.
And that's the ones you see on video on youtube doing the wrong thing.
Most Police don't care if you film them, only the bad ones who think they will get caught for doing something wrong make an issue of it.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:25 AM

Originally posted by karl 12
As the proponents of the millions of close circuit cameras around Britain keep bleating:

"Why are you scared of your image being taken if you've got nothing to hide?"

Oh yes mate, the cry of those who wish to be subjugated, people who say that should have cameras installed in their bathrooms and bedrooms if they are so friggin blase

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Enigma Publius
I don't knowthe best solution. 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.

Going the way of the Nazi's are they....hmmmm? I guess it's true that what goes around comes around. I just never thought I would hear it from a country that was bombed to Hell 65 years ago by people who would agree with this type of oppressive law.

Your concerns are really not worth even mentioning. There are numerous laws on the books that officers can use to protect themselves from what you describe.

The real danger here, is taking a very rare, if not hypothetical situation, and using it to rape the public of their freedoms, because something might happen. It's as stupid as banning automobiles because someone might get run over, or banning swimming because someone might drown or get eaten by a shark.

The scary thing is that there are people who actually gobble this kind of logic up, and we don't need any more of them on the planet.....thank you!

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. We need to keep civil rights and freedoms alive.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:09 AM

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

Ok, something that could correspond with this law is right here:
It does not say specifically "photos/camera", but it is vague enough, that those could be implied.

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.

I say that due to the fact, other laws that are on the books are vague and broad, inwhich encompasses almost everything:
Case in point, our new "lead" law, which takes affect Feb 10th, it is so broad that it includes no resales of kids clothing etc. - though now, they are saying, clothes can be resold from thrift stores, garage sales and so on, but the liability of lead in them, now will lay with the seller.

I point that out, because - knowing how things are put in laws - vaguely and obscurely - yet they are still in - the law can actually include "photographing police" yet, it is made to not be pronounced, due to knowing people will be alarmed over it.

So, for all those who are saying "it is just not true", I would say, think back on some laws......where they completely spelled out, where WE could understand them? Or have they been vague and convoluted - where we don't see it, but it is still there?

So, why not - someone from England, call up a journalist and ask about this?

Edit: The way I read the above, is the Police can take away your camera, if they deem it neccessary, maybe that is where the photojournalist are coming from. Thus, any pictures taken of police, they then take your camera at will, "due to terrorist" possiblities.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by questioningall]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by questioningall]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:16 AM
reply to post by questioningall

I think you misunderstand the legislation - again, this is to do with terrorist suspects and other persons of note who have evidence against them linking them to terrorist activities.

If you trawl through ANY legislation and take parts out of context then you can imagine it to be anything - the whole piece of legislation is about terrorists or potential terrorists, and everything in it relates to those persons, including warrants for homes and places of business, powers of detention, seizure of documents (elctronic or other), powers of arrest etc etc

You would do well to remember this.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:36 AM
What makes me laugh about this kind of law is the following.

When someone is taking a picture , what constitutes taking a picture for 'terrorist activities' actually mean?
How is the average bluetit supposed to know wether or not the person taking the picture is taking it for 'terrorist activities' is actually a terrorist or a sightseer/tourist.

What does a terrorist actually look like?

If they are worried about terrorists , sorry people, taking pictures in case they are used for 'terrorist activities' need to get their blue jackboots down to Westminster and around the Houses of Parliament as there are ALWAYS lots of people , sorry terrorists, taking pictures.

It's just another ruse to make the people either fear or hate anyone not like them, for example me being a white British male , because these pictures are supposed be being taken by terorists , then terrorists are supposed to Arab looking , for example Olive skinned, bearded and with a back pack or reading from the Qu'ran.
Hence dividing the people from forming up against the real enemy and terrorists, The Government.

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in