New British Law Will Ban Photography

Well, i don't understand why some terrorists whatsoever would prefer to target someone in particular rather than (for example) a police station. I think that what they want to do is to protect the identity of their policemen, in general (for example from personal revenges), then evaluate from case to case: i just wonder why this happens there, while in Italy THIS is what you see whenever some mafia boss gets arrested:
Notice that the bad guy is the one in the middle.

Since there is no such a law protecting their identities, this is what they have to do: to camo as some criminals. But you can bet they would do the same even in presence of such a law


[edit on 11/2/2009 by internos]

As usual, this has nothing to do with "terrorism".

No real terrorist attack will be called off because there is a law against taking pictures. You could send someone with a good memory to observe, and make sketches afterwards and achieve the same thing. Their excuses for their control measures are starting to seem more pathetic, which means things are speeding up.

People better wake up to what is really going on...

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
If I were a Brit I'd be starting gang warfare with the cops and teaching them not to tell me what I can or cannot do.

That's one of the penalties you get when you're in a nanny state like Britain I suppose.

Huh?

In fairness, this is a pretty stupid comment.

US police are renowned for being one of the most brutal and rough of any developed country and are you honestly saying that you don't have laws in the USA that are enforced by the police?

So, if you do, by your reasoning, you should be in the middle of a gang war with your police. Are you?

Originally posted by budski
This was posted a couple of weeks ago and thoroughly debunked.

Read the legislation - it applies to people already under terrorist surveillance, and gives the police limited powers to view and copy material - NOT to arrest any photographer for taking a pic.

Yea, I had heard about that in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Its unlikely they would have gotten rid of that law at all... so why has it come back up recently?

reply to post by budski


I've read the relevant parts. So why are the british press associations on an uproar about this? You'd figure that they know what they're talking about.

Fascist pig scum.

That's all.

what a totally disengenuous headline FFS talk about quote mining out of context

hey let me try it :

" driving a car is illegal in america "

...................................while drunk

see

Originally posted by DermoYea, I had heard about that in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Its unlikely they would have gotten rid of that law at all... so why has it come back up recently?

To be honest its been in operation for many many years. Its one of those laws thats not down on paper as Fact however, we havent been allowed to photograph the police, army or politician type people at all.

I was photographing a fruit stall in a Belfast market for a local food magazine who had freelance'd me to get colorful and vivid colors of healthy food, the next thing i know is im being pulled to the side and questioned - what you taken pics of, who's it for, are there people in the pics, did you snap us as we walked passed.........? They kept me under scrutiny for around 15 mins questioning everything and checking every single picture on my DSLR. What annoyed me was the fact my camera wasnt even pointing towards people standing or walking by, it was pointed in the direction of the stall, albiet close to the fruit so as to illiminate unwanted distractions, so close infact that i was nearly on top of the dam fruit. Needless to say they went on there way and left me alone after that.

Ive had a good few run-ins with the police, piticulary when the troubles flare's up. The youths from both sides of the community [ Catholic and Prodestants ] just love getting into a rukas with the police. Every other weekend has a battle goin on with petrol bombs and what not being thrown as well as stones, fireworks and any other house hold goods they can rummage together. The only way for us photographers to get the shots we wanted was to be on the side of the youths, the police had there own photographers, and for obvious reasons ie: to photograph the ones that are causing the most rukas lol. I must say tho, from my point of view and perspective, it was dam good craic at times and some very funny moments. Now, if they showed the craic and funny moments on the news then everyone would not think Belfast was a bad place lol. Which its not, its just that small minority of people that cause wide spread paranoia for people entering the city.

My point here is, as far back as i can remember you have not been allowed to photograph police et cetera

Still, it never stopped me..........mwaaaahhhhaaaaaa

IP

edit for spelling

[edit on 11-2-2009 by InfoProvider]

Originally posted by Britguy
At any organised demonstration you'll see the Police intelligence units with the vans video taping the event and other police officers taking photos of those demonstrating. Now, under this new legislation, they can arrest a photographer for taking photos of the police, under anti-terrorism laws, and subsequently let them go again after spending a few hours in the cells and being fingerprinted and a DNA swab taken.
They don't actually have to prove you are a terrorism suspect to arrest you under ant- terrorism laws, something which has already seen widespread abuse by the police.

Now then, what if someone sees a police officer or officers acting unlawfully or heavy handedly and fils it or takes photos? Yep, they'll find themselves arrested and any images taken will probably disappear from the camera before it is returned.

I understand that in the shooting of the young man in Oakland by the BART officer, one of the first things the police did was round up anyone at the scene who had taken photos or video and none of that has seen the light of day. The only images or video that did get out was taken by people who got out of there before the police started confiscating cameras and cell phones, as evidence of course.

As a keen photographer I'll continue carrying my cameras as I always do and photograph whatever the hell I like in a public place. This is one thing I just will not back down on.

I think if I ever saw a copper being heavy handed with someone I would take a picture and then let them take me to court. I'd also tell the story to the papers and then demand that the Government STOP taping me as its breaching my 'Human rights' to privacy. That would mean ALL CCTV and traffic cams and then the police carrying cameras just incase their terrorists posing as policemen taking pictures readying for an attack against me.
see how they argue that one.

19 Pages of government pure government hogwash that is there to cover the governments backside no matter what happens, so that they can get out of all kinds of trouble when government people step out of line, and do illegal acts. Its nothing but pure loop holes for the government that the people need to stop now.

The UK needs to have its own form of the "Boston Tea Party" like the Americans had a couple centuries back. But... instead of throwing Tea in Boston Harbor that was being overly taxed as well as everything else; the UK people need to get together and secretly have a UK no more "Government Public Camera Day" where "ALL the UK PEOPLE" and I mean "ALL of THE UK PEOPLE" go out and take down all of the Government Public Cameras in a "Single Day" and Destroy them. The government cannot arrest everyone in the UK, it would be the end of TIRRANY IN THE UK.

If the people can't have cameras for their pursuit of LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS like the Americans, then the UK government doesn't need them either; and if that isn't enough, then they need to step up to having guns next; if the people of the UK can't have them, then neither should anyone in the government.

The people in the UK are loosing all of their RIGHTS and they have no one to protect their rights; and that is wrong. They are all slowly but surely being turned into sheep and will soon be led to slaughter, and unfortunately it will be no ones fault but their own for letting their government get out of hand.

reply to post by RussianScientists


Oh please - come back when you know what you're talking about.

The Human Rights Act gives us all the rights we need, and more, and takes precedence.

The Human Rights Act protects the following rights from the European Convention of Human Rights:

Article 2 - the right to life

Article 3 - the right not to be tortured or inhumanly or degradingly treated or punished

Article 4 - the right not to be required to perform forced labour

Article 5 - the right to liberty and security of the person

Article 6 - the right to a fair trial (and to a range of other associated things, such as the free assistance of an interpreter if one cannot understand the language in a trial situation)

Article 7 - the right not to be punished for something which was not a crime at the time it was done

Article 8 - the right to respect for one's private and family life, correspondence and home

Article 9 - the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Article 10 - the right to freedom of expression, freedom to hold opinions and freedom to receive and impart information

Article 11 - the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association with others

Article 12 - the right to marry and found a family

Article 14 - the right not to have Convention rights secured in a discriminatory way

Protocol 1, Article 1- the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions

Protocol 1, Article 2- the right to education

Protocol 1, Article 3- the right to free and secret elections at reasonable intervals.

There's much more to this - these are just the basics, and more than one of these could be used as a defense should ANY police officer try to arrest someone for taking a photo, providing it is not for the purpose of a terrorist act - and even then, there are protections in law, because this is overseen by the EU court, not UK courts.

So when all is said and done, anyone who finds that this law has been abused has recourse in law, and then the right to sue the force and the arresting officer.



Please try and do a bit of research before spouting useless and ignorant knee jerk reactions.

reply to post by InfoProvider


what UTTER BOLLOCKS

you MAY have been harrassed at a belfast fruitiers stall - but there has NEVER been any law real or imaginary to prevent photography od the security services , the RUC

I , and many others from ATS served in the british army - and we were there at the height of the troubles - and irish , british and international press phototgraphers were EVERYWHERE

I am now in touch with current photographers in ulster - who are documenting the progession to peace - and urban photgraphers who chronicle the passing of places like the maze , crumlin road , moscow barraks etc - with ZERO haarasment

i have no idea how you form your opinions - but they do not reflect reality

thats the most polite way i can say - you are full of crap

reply to post by ignorant_ape


I think the key here is "which may be used for the planning or execution of a terrorist act"

There were many instances of people being arrested for taking photo's of barracks, police stations etc and the security services acted within the law at that time - the difference was, they were NOT accreditted journalists who were arrested and/or harrassed or otherwise subjected to the scrutiny of TPTB.

I appreciate your position, but mine was the original assertion about NI, so I feel I should point this out so that someone else doesn't take the flak for something I wrote


[edit on 11/2/2009 by budski]

Originally posted by budski

Please try and do a bit of research before spouting useless and ignorant knee jerk reactions.

Exactly, there is some amount of undereducated opinions flying around this site. Mainly from Americans about absolutely everything else.. its pretty annoying.

Well all i know i went to London with my kids a while back and we took pictures of the armed police (didn't get arrested)....stood at the gates of Buckingham Palace (no-one batted an eyelid)...if there was a terror target in the making, that would be it.

How are they going to curb sites like that one where you get millions of tourists a year taking pics of prime terrorist targets?

I think the key point is if your pics are going to be used for terrorist purposes. They would of course have to prove that, whether there and then or in court later....either way they are going to look pretty stupid when they are hopefully proved wrong.

I think that if you are intent on videoing police, and this law does indeed take a turn for the worse, i would start looking at some of the more discrete cameras there are on the market.

CX.

I hear more people in this thread stating that they are going to tuck their tails inbetween their legs and think that they can get a camera that hopefully no one will know that they have.

What in the world are you guys drinking at the pubs over there? Warm milk out of a baby bottle with a rubber nipple on the end? Stand up for your rights, you know your government is running over you in the UK.

What kind of world are you leaving behind for your kids to grow up in?

Is this the kind of world that you would want to grow up in as a child? Cameras watching every move you make.

All of that warm milk before you went to bed must have made you give up all of your guns in the past.

Now the government wants you to stop taking pictures of them so that some of them can commit criminal acts.... "they don't want any type of opposition", when are you getting it through your heads?

Stand up for your rights, and the rights of your children! Otherwise you might as well start digging that hole to bury them in now. Or you can hop on a plane and go to America, the USA, where people do stand up for their rights.

If anybody will survive bad odds, it is the Americans, you can't beat them, so you might as well join them!

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by InfoProvider

 

what UTTER BOLLOCKS

you MAY have been harrassed at a belfast fruitiers stall - but there has NEVER been any law real or imaginary to prevent photography od the security services , the RUC

I , and many others from ATS served in the british army - and we were there at the height of the troubles - and irish , british and international press phototgraphers were EVERYWHERE

I am now in touch with current photographers in ulster - who are documenting the progession to peace - and urban photgraphers who chronicle the passing of places like the maze , crumlin road , moscow barraks etc - with ZERO haarasment

i have no idea how you form your opinions - but they do not reflect reality

thats the most polite way i can say - you are full of crap

...erm, ok, you were there for how long? 25 years or more? I dont think so my friend. Were you with me all through the troubles, NO, were you with me when i was being harrassed, NO. were you with me when.........jees need i go on

You were on one side of the fence, i was on the other. My brother has served in RIR for coming on 30 years now so dont hit me with the British Army Buullshat stuff.

If i believe i was harrassed then thats all that matters.

British army, give me a break ffs You guys didnt see the half of what went on the whole 35 years - and still continuing - of the troubles.

Hectic my friend, just hectic.

I will openly admit i was not a press photographer.

Incidently, your forum name suits you attitude

IP

[edit on 12-2-2009 by InfoProvider]