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: 7
50
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



If you look at legislation - you will find that it normally encompasses many things, that people did not initially think it did, but found out, after it went into law - which was too late.

Also, before it takes affect - do you really think England's PTB - really want people to realize this is part of it and demonstrate against it, ahead of time?

I think not, so the fact, that someone whose profession is involved - stating this law is coming down, I would think they know what they are talking about.

So you may do well to remember - laws are obscured - so what they may completely encompass - is not immediately obvious - which past history has shown - when new laws have been put in place.




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I can only come to the conclusion that some people in this thread are either stupid or genuinely giddy about the prospect of another excuse to rail against “the police state”, fictional or not.

If you’re going to jump into the thread at least have the courtesy to read the entire thing which obviously some still aren’t doing, if they did they could see that this IS NOT TRUE. Or perhaps, they may even think about reading the actual legislation itself. But no it seems most people would rather jump to wild conclusions based on nothing but the topic title.

reply to post by questioningall
 


You have ALREADY posted that section and have ALREADY had it explained to you that it only applies to business and the officer referred to is not a law enforcement officer and that they also must be able to demonstrate good cause for suspicion. It’s to do with inspecting premises for undeclared business activities; it has nothing to do with seizing someone’s camera because they’re taking pictures.

You keep looking for excuses to make this true. Why?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


Sorry, but I have actually read and understood the legislation and what you are saying is completely untrue.

The legislation and who it applies to are very clear, and nowhere does it say, infer or imply that someone can be arrested for taking a picture of a policeman except under very special circumstances - these circumstances dictate that a person arrested for this would already have to be a suspect in terrorist operations.

If you want to try and argue semantics with me, that's fine - but I won't have a problem picking things to shreds.

You need to read all of this, understand how it applies to the 2000 act and then make a judgement - something you obviously haven't done.

Perhaps if you read the Explanatory Notes it will become clear to you.

Read VERY carefully - nowhere in there does it say that a "normal" person can be arrested for taking a photo of a police officer.

In other words, the piece by Alex Jones, and the magazine blog are complete and utter rubbish.



[edit on 30/1/2009 by budski]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I have had a look at those proposals they are bringing in agree they dont specifically mention about photographing the police etc.

I dont however share the opinion of my fellow brits on this one though ( sorry guys ) and have a sneaky suspicion that before long this thread will become relevent.
Dont forget, they are using anti-terrorism laws to fine people for putting there rubbish bins out the night before collection.
Take care.

[edit on 30/1/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


Would you be able to provide evidence of this that is not sourced by any Alex Jones sponsored sites or The Daily Mail?

This is not an attempt to ridicule your statement, just a way of establishing whether this is an urban myth; over-zealous council employee; or something more sinister.



[edit: due to brain-fart]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by Nirgal]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Sure, no probs as theres hundreds of them.

Anti terror laws in uk used against....

householders - note the cameras fitted inside tin cans or on lamposts - www.telegraph.co.uk...

General public - business.timesonline.co.uk...

If you refuse to allow official to go through your rubbish - www.express.co.uk...

Noisy children & dogs - www.telegraph.co.uk...

Fisherman - www.telegraph.co.uk...

Paper boys - www.thesun.co.uk...

On a family - www.metro.co.uk...

Need i go on.
Like i said earlier the legislation that the op states is coming in is already being wrongly used anyway. This is going to come in one way or another for sure.





[edit on 30/1/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


And the councils that have used these laws have been reprimanded by the government and told that they are out of line.

they have also been told not to use these laws inappropriately, and that they have no power to act as they have.

But of course the rags you quoted won't say anything about that, now will they.

Story here

And that merely escaped everyones attention because it isn't fearmongering or divisive enough



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I will be accused of pedantry but this isn't an anti-terrorist bill.

RIPA is designed to be exactly what is says on the tin, The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.

I was checking the stories out, hence the delayed reply. It strikes me that, as Budski points out, council officials have behaved inappropriately and as such been reprimanded accordingly.

As I thought, over-zealous council officials.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Funnily enough one of the "rags" i was going to use was the gaurdian as they too ran the same stories but i thought i had given enough examples.

Just for the record i dont buy papers & got those just from google searches, there all rags in their own way.
Anyhow i will consider myself reprimanded & will go & sulk in the corner

Have a good night bud.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Its already the case and has been for many years, in some parts of the UK.

In Northern Ireland you cannot take a photo or video of a members of the security force, his house, car or family members.

And it was a damn good idea!

Another thing, if you were found with a photo of a cops car number, it was cause to break your door down at 3am and raid your house.

Which I also agreed with, but with that said, it was strange about there for many years.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
Sure, no probs as theres hundreds of them.

Anti terror laws in uk used against....

householders - note the cameras fitted inside tin cans or on lamposts - www.telegraph.co.uk...

General public - business.timesonline.co.uk...

If you refuse to allow official to go through your rubbish - www.express.co.uk...

Noisy children & dogs - www.telegraph.co.uk...

Fisherman - www.telegraph.co.uk...

Paper boys - www.thesun.co.uk...

On a family - www.metro.co.uk...

Need i go on.
Like i said earlier the legislation that the op states is coming in is already being wrongly used anyway. This is going to come in one way or another for sure.





[edit on 30/1/09 by cropmuncher]


Great post there Cropmuncher!

Terror laws were always envisaged to be used on the general populace. Many have said the same and the proof is there.

NWO cronies take ways your liberties in the 'name of freedom' but for the persecution of -ALL-.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by InterWeb
Its already the case and has been for many years, in some parts of the UK.

In Northern Ireland you cannot take a photo or video of a members of the security force, his house, car or family members.

And it was a damn good idea!

Another thing, if you were found with a photo of a cops car number, it was cause to break your door down at 3am and raid your house.

Which I also agreed with, but with that said, it was strange about there for many years.


Oh, am I getting this straight.... you think all of the above and this new law is a good idea?

UUMMM .... if so, I don't know exactly what to say, except... living with basically no civil liberties left..... and in a continual "police state", has never been a thought of a "good idea", even in my nightmares.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by questioningall
 


I understand that you want to protect the integrity of your thread, but once again, this is:
a) not a new law, it's an add on piece of legislation to an existing law

b) totally incorrect in it's assertion that innocent people will be arrested for taking photo's of the police.

This has been proved to you time and again, and yet you still persist with this LIE.

It cannot even be interpretated in the way you are saying.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Not taking any sides on this, but think this has alot to do with intent, the purpose of take the picture of an officer on duty. If it where for a criminal act or terrorism then you wouldn't want to critisize for passing such law. If there is transparency and honesty in the members of the police force then don't see any reason why they should be worried if any member of the poblic takes their pictures or make a vid of them. As i said all has to do with Intension.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by questioningall

Originally posted by InterWeb
Its already the case and has been for many years, in some parts of the UK.

In Northern Ireland you cannot take a photo or video of a members of the security force, his house, car or family members.

And it was a damn good idea!

Another thing, if you were found with a photo of a cops car number, it was cause to break your door down at 3am and raid your house.

Which I also agreed with, but with that said, it was strange about there for many years.


Oh, am I getting this straight.... you think all of the above and this new law is a good idea?

UUMMM .... if so, I don't know exactly what to say, except... living with basically no civil liberties left..... and in a continual "police state", has never been a thought of a "good idea", even in my nightmares.


questioningall - those people in support of the law are NWO shills trying to present a biased representation that MOST people agree. This is FALSE.

The law would result is catastrophic loss of liberties and result in police being able to be anything without record. The purpose of this is nothing but a SINISTER one.

They have installed cameras in every nook and cranny to look at the public but we are not allowed to look at public servants! [sarcasm] I wonder why [\sarcasm].

These laws are designed to escalate the level of terrorism perpetrated on the public.

Americans are about to lose their guns and they are in uproar. We, in the UK lost that right A LONG TIME ago.

Is there any light at the end of the tunnel?



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I know im going to get flamed for this but its relevant....


Jail for photographing police?

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'.

Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.

The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.

A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.

The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.

Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.

According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.

Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.

The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.

A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'


Wait for it....


The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places.


Hmmmm




'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations,' Downing Street says.



so its not illegal unless a police officer decides it is.





'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of the relevant force.'


However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James Welch, said the powers were used too widely.


Once again i will say it IS happening now..



In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of a couple married in Docklands.

She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.

'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.'



It isnt just happening here, it will spread world wide this one!



The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited to the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the country's parliament building.

Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he was targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic police systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying them,' he says.

The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial system collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of foreign debts incurred by its banks.

Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted by the Icelandic Police.



Now i will be accused of fearmongering no doubt, but all i have done is provide examples of this already happening and with this post show you that actually - they are going to be using these editions to the terror laws to stop us filming the police etc

Wether or not it will be written in black & white is irrelevant as they can now spin it to get you to stop filming, take your equpment & if they want - arrest you.



source - www.bjp-online.com...

[edit on 31/1/09 by cropmuncher]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 



Good for you, I know - people attack the messengers - star for you too.

The problem is, those of us who are accused of "fear mongering" - when the fact is, things like this have to become public, someone has to yell and scream "this is NOT RIGHT".

People are going to refuse to believe it, but come Feb. things are going to get uglier with the new "anti-terrorist" law in England.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher
 


Oh please - every single one of those points has already been refuted.

or debunked if you will



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 

Debunked... what, by you - thats hardley going to get me of the hook if i get arressted for photographing a copper is it?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   
In other words if you covertly or otherwise film a police officer abusing his/power. even if shown in court the tape would have to be dismissed as it was illegally obtained.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join