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: it is illegal to photograph the police

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I do see your point 23432


I have just done some digging and have found this little gem...


I just had a huge debate about this on a student forum. In the end I gave up as the twerps were not listening to me. In fact most ignored my points and forced their own to everyone else.
Do you think this is a legit arguement;
I was for the law as it does the following
-protects an officer if s/he is on duty on a high profile case (drugs/gun related)
-allows for an officer to do their job without annoyance
-prevents images getting into the wrong hand
-intevenes in terror activity

Those against were as follows;
-police will abuse these powers and use it against the public (you won't believe how much hostility I got for saying minority spoil for majority)


It is an police inspector on a police officers forum.

Note he calls students twerps (
suppose hes not far wrong there ) which isnt a very professional statement!

It is where he says "I WAS FOR THE LAW AS IT DOES THE FOLLOWING"

Sorry for the caps but it was important. Now that says to me that they have all had their instructions about these changes in policy but they are not publically commenting, yet here we have a police inspector openly stating that it is indeed now possible to be done for it.

source = www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk...






[edit on 21/2/09 by cropmuncher]




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Only " I " can make me accept the PERSON status ; there is no LAW on the land which says that a HMAN BEING is a PERSON .


That is just not true.

The presumed definition of “person” is inclusive of “human being” and nothing in UK law states that person means anything else except to say that it includes “a body of persons”.

The legal fiction of personhood only exists because previous to this it was impossible to sue a body of persons since only a natural person (a human being) had the legal right to do this. To remedy this the term person was taken to include corporations and the like (the latest statement of such in UK law is in the interpretations act 1978). Thus in UK statutes the term person, unless otherwise stated, refers to both natural persons and corporations. It is implicit in UK law that person refers to a human being.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by CavemanDD
 

Nice find mate, star for you.

Thats not bad for an unscripted rant & he knows his stuff.

I always wondered what he looked like and he looks totally different to what i thought.

Also nice artwork there my friend, very nice!



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike_A



So what can you cite from Common Law?



hmmm , Innocent until proven guilty would be the one to cite I guess .




I’m looking for something within British law that sets this out. You can cite multiple sources if you like if it is multi threaded but you must be able to cite something. For example where does it say that person only refers to a corporate identity?





It does not say who the ACT doesn't apply .

I am afraid it ( LEGALITY ) does not work that way .

Instead it will tell WHO the ACT will apply and leave it at that .

Now if a HUMAN BEING comes along and does not dispute the ASSUMPTION / PRESUMPTION ;
then by virtue of silence ,
the said HUMAN BEING has accepted the PERSON status .

When trying to differentiate , one has to ask ; does this apply to my PERSON or HUMAN BEING ?






In the UK a corporation is referred to as a person (interpretations act 1978) but there is nothing that precludes the term person from being a natural person as well as a legal person.



Again , HUMAN BEING is nowhere to be found in these definitons .

Despite the fact that this act does not say anything about HUMAN BEING ; then why we ASSUME that it is talking about a HUMAN BEING ?

We also operate under ASSUMPTION and / or PRESUMPTION too .

Natural Person , Legal Person or any other type of PERSON is not a HUMAN BEING , they are all fiction i.e make believe .




The closest I’ve seen someone come to contradicting this is the citation of an outdated definition found in an American legal dictionary; which in addition to being outdated and I believe misconstrued anyway is also not a legal document nor of any relevance to the United Kingdom.



For Anglo Saxon Maxim ; check this link please Sir Francis BAcon and ANGLO SAXON MAXIMS

1. Common law may be used to describe a legal system which has developed from the English legal system, for example, in Australia or America.

2. Common law may be used to distinguish a legal system from a civil law system. Civil law developed from the Romano-Germanic legal system and is the dominant system in much of continental Europe. France has a civil law system.

3. Common law may be used to mean case law, i.e. where law has been developed through cases using a system of precedent.

4. Common law may be used to distinguish it from statutory law, for example, murder is a common law offence but the defence of provocation and diminished responsibility are statutory under sections 2 and 3 of the 1957 Homicide Act.

5. Common law could refer to a system which is common to the whole of the country.

Source





Correct me if I’m wrong but this whole idea hinges on the supposed fact that a human being is not the same as a person as referred to in British legislature. If that is correct it must say this somewhere. But where?





Unfortunately , no one can be told what the matrix is .



There is a 38 page discussion going on about what you are asking :

HERE

Peace out




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Man, Them brits just bend over every time. It seems like every single week the British Government creates some new law to better enslave their people. I guess their government didn't learn the first time they pissed people off. I wonder however, Do the british people like these new enslavement laws or are they just too afraid and unarmed to do anything about it. Who knows.. Could be that all the brave ones left to start America.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by tac109
Man, Them brits just bend over every time. It seems like every single week the British Government creates some new law to better enslave their people. I guess their government didn't learn the first time they pissed people off. I wonder however, Do the british people like these new enslavement laws or are they just too afraid and unarmed to do anything about it. Who knows.. Could be that all the brave ones left to start America.

You could be right there, trouble is there are plenty of brave people here ( esp in any town on a fri & sat night ) but they are so brainwashed they end up fighting eachother instead of for there rights. In truth what can we do?

If you organise a demonstration or peacefull protest your photos are taken by police & put on file labelled troubklemaker/terrorist, possibly arrested & charged with some public order offence, fined etc and thats only to protest aagainst laws which realistically would take a generation to change.

We are a weak country when it comes to standing up for our rights.

I dont think that many people care anyway.

Sad situation really im afraid. You guys in the US should fight every attempt to strip your freedom from you cos the way the Uk is now will soon be coming your way.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   



Mike_A said ;


That is just not true.




Surely , only YOU can act as your PERSON not anyone else .

How could they ? ( Whoever " they " might be )

HUMAN BEING has RIGHTS , INALIENABLE RIGHTS ; whereus a PERSON will have BENEFITS & PRIVILEDGES but NO RIGHTS .

No one can dictate to a HUMAN BEING to accept LESSER STATUS i.e RIGHTS vs BENEFITS & PRIVILEDGES .

It would be TYRANNY .








The presumed definition of “person” is inclusive of “human being” and nothing in UK law states that person means anything else except to say that it includes “a body of persons”.





Again , it is the PRESUMED definition untill it is rebutted . IF one stands up and be able to say that one is a HUMAN BEING with inalienable RIGHTS ; then who is to say one is not ?

Key words ; OPERATING UNDER PRESUMPTION .

How can a fiction encapsulates the living being ?

Only if living being agrees to be encapsulated .







The legal fiction of personhood only exists because previous to this it was impossible to sue a body of persons since only a natural person (a human being) had the legal right to do this.

To remedy this the term person was taken to include corporations and the like (the latest statement of such in UK law is in the interpretations act 1978).

Thus in UK statutes the term person, unless otherwise stated, refers to both natural persons and corporations. It is implicit in UK law that person refers to a human being.





Unless otherwise stated by WHOM ?

The HUMAN BEING of course ,who else .

Anyhow , I know that I am a HUMAN BEING and my PERSON is a FICTION .
At no time have I gave permission to anyone to state otherwise .

This did not stop the powers to pass a legislation to say that I am a PERSON unless if I state that I am not .


Phewww , mirros & smoke , that's all .


[edit on 21-2-2009 by 23432]

[edit on 21-2-2009 by 23432]

[edit on 21-2-2009 by 23432]

[edit on 21-2-2009 by 23432]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

hmmm , Innocent until proven guilty would be the one to cite I guess .


I don’t see the relevance. Statutes still apply to you, your guilt is just not automatically assumed. What you are saying is guilty or not they don’t apply.


It does not say who the ACT doesn't apply .


You’ll have to clarify that sentence I’m not sure it makes sense.


Now if a HUMAN BEING comes along and does not dispute the ASSUMPTION / PRESUMPTION ;
then by virtue of silence ,
the said HUMAN BEING has accepted the PERSON status .


No, THAT is not how it works. If it did you could dispute anything at all. For example I do not accept the assumption that “the” refers to a definite article thus claim that anything with “the” in it is too vague and shouldn’t apply. It’s nonsense.

Can you cite any court case that has established what you are saying?

The term person already applies to you, why doesn’t it? You can claim what you like but that isn’t how the law works.


Despite the fact that this act does not say anything about HUMAN BEING ; then why we ASSUME that it is talking about a HUMAN BEING ?


Because the implicit and naturally presumed (i.e. in common usage) definition of person is a human being and previous to the legal fiction of corporate personhood this is what it was taken to refer to.


Natural Person , Legal Person or any other type of PERSON is not a HUMAN BEING , they are all fiction i.e make believe .


Again that is not true, a natural person is a human being. You can say it’s all make believe but only if you throw out all law.

I don’t see the relevance of Sir Francis Bacon or the definition of common law; I was talking about the use of the word person in British law.


Unfortunately , no one can be told what the matrix is .


Funny but it doesn’t address the question. Where is it set out in law that the word person does not refer to a human being?

You say that the law only applies to someone who assumes that person refers to a human being but you are only assuming that it doesn’t. How does that work?



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Cropmuncher



Nice to see another HUMAN BEING awake and questioning authority .

"Let he who would be deceived, be deceived."

That really ALL THERE IS TO IT .



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Mike_A


Thank you for your reply .


If you are taking a picture of a policeman then you are presumed to be ACTING in BREACH of the ACT which defines the ACTIVITY of TAKING PICTURES as ILLEGAL .

If you are a SOVERIGN in your own right , these ACTS & STATUES does not APPLY .

Just one look at the definiton of the ACT is enough to see that there is NO mention of a HUMAN BEING within the said ACT / STATUE .

So why you think it applies to a HUMAN BEING ?

Perhaps it is not clear but this is akin to accepting guilty untill proven innocent .


A human being needs to accept a person status ( knowingly or unknowingly ) for these ACTS & STATUES to be ENFORCED .

That really all there is to it .

And if for example someone spelled your user name as M!ke_A ; would this be the same as Mike_A ?

I think not .

But me thinking it not does not stop YOU assuming that IT IS your USER NAME .


Essentially it all boils down to a CONTRACT .


Francis Bacon and his Maxims are somewhat better then Roman Maxims for an English man to relate to ; which is the reason why I have put up the link.


As I said , it's all about the WORDS and how they are being used .



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Mike_A

you've said :


Funny but it doesn’t address the question. Where is it set out in law that the word person does not refer to a human being?

You say that the law only applies to someone who assumes that person refers to a human being but you are only assuming that it doesn’t.
How does that work ?





LAW will give the definiton of HUMAN BEING & PERSON separately .

If they are indeed one and the same , why ?

Anyhow , this subject has taken about , uhm , 30 hours of study time for me to comprehend the magnitute of the deception .

I am a HUMAN BEING with inalienable rights because the UN charter says so and UK is a signatoryto this charter .

I also operate my PERSON in COMMERCE which is a totally different thing .

I can see that you want answers and I wish I could sum it up for you but even if I did sum it up to best of my knowledge , it will still sound like a fantasy to those who have not carried out the due dilligence .

Hence the Matrix quote .

HUMAN BEING has INALIENABLE RIGHTS whereus a PERSON has BENEFITS & PRIVILEDGES .

Do ask yourself what's the difference between a right and a benefit and a priviledge.

If you think they are all the same , well , that is where the deception begins .

anyhow , peace out .







[edit on 21-2-2009 by 23432]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
This is total rubbish (as the brits would say). We were out tonight in the west end and took several pics of cops and even posed in front of their cars with no protests from them. Just goes to show that not everything you hear is true.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by atzmaz
 


If you see my post above it includes a police inspectors opinion on the new laws so it is true, just how individual officers want to enforce it. If it kicked off ( and they were being accused of being heavy handed ) and you started filming them they would have had a different opinion i bet.

Its gonna come down to the individual copper, his mood at the time & the situation he is being filmed in.

Get a twat of a copper having a bad day being filmed.
Then you will see arrests imo.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 23432
 



If you are taking a picture of a policeman then you are presumed to be ACTING in BREACH of the ACT which defines the ACTIVITY of TAKING PICTURES as ILLEGAL .

If you are a SOVERIGN in your own right , these ACTS & STATUES does not APPLY .


No the Act applies because you are within the territory that the Act applies to and the Acts of Union (along with subsequent Acts) established parliamentary sovereignty and its right to enact statutes.


Just one look at the definiton of the ACT is enough to see that there is NO mention of a HUMAN BEING within the said ACT / STATUE .


Again you are failing to provide any evidence for the notion that the term person in British Acts of Parliament does not refer to a human being.

That seems to be the crux of what you are saying. If you can’t legally prove this then what you say is meaningless.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
So now if you shoot them with a camera you can go to jail?

Heck you can go to jail/be electrotortured to death you if do not "comply" or if you have the gall to quote your rights.

Soon people will have attack the police on sight just to avoid prison...



[edit on 22-2-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   
It'll never stick. There are way more cameras than cops, while one person gets arrested for taking a picture there will be 10 across the street taking a picture of it. I find it ironically comical.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Avalon22
 



"...while one person gets arrested for taking a picture there will be 10 across the street taking a picture of it. "

I see a pattern here:

"If they put on of those cameras on my street, I'll tear it down"

"I'll not tolerate garbage bin inspectors, let them come..."

"A fee to use our own roads? I'll never pay it"

"Ban smoking in Pubs? What do you think this is, Hitler's Germany. As a people, we would never stand for such a thing. My Pub won't abide by this nonsense"

"Political Correctness - Bloody Communists... not in Britain! We're a free people here"

"Neighbourhood spies? Not in Britain, we'd never allow such a thing..."

"Free Speech Zones? Like in China? - People will Rebel against such totalitarianism"

"An Englishman's home will always be as his castle, I'll not let any bailiff into my home without a warrant!"

"Jut let any teacher try and teach that garbage to my children, there will be hell to pay!"

"The day I have to get a permit to protest, will be that day that [insert bravado here]"

"Britain would never join the European Union, there will be riots! I'll never spend their Euronotes either - not ever!"


*Do you see where I am going with this Avalon?

People will stop using their cameras in public soon enough... they will be cowed as always; they will submit.

I understand that it is now illegal to fart in elevators in many parts of England. Submission...

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   
UK is a Nazi, 1984 Orwellian state and it's going to get worse!

So what now?

Migrate from the UK to somewhere else? Anyone got any suggestions?



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Ahaha, the police in this country are already too far up themselves to need a law for this.

A cop followed us back from a protest in Birmingham back in May last year, and basically accosted us in a chip shop whilst we were eating. One of the guys got his phone out to send a text, and the cop absolutely raged at him, telling him if he recorded or took pictures he'd get the phone confiscated, when he was quite obviously doing neither of the two.

Then again, we do have reason to believe said cop has a vested interest that makes his actions highly suspect no matter what, but this stuck out in my mind when I saw this topic.

(Just to note, since then, we've managed to get this guy to get off our cases Re: megaphones, leaflets, and other, crazy things that we're apparently not allowed to use in a protest. The guy was making up legislation and terms to get us to stop. A quick visit to the police station and everything was cleared up and we've not seen him since.)

[edit on 22-2-2009 by srsrecords]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Like I said in my post last night, this is totally untrue. We took pictures of and even posed in front of a police car with two officers sitting in it. We also shot film and I can post it if anyone has any more doubts about it. There are many laws that are passed so that they can be used against people later as a way to compound charges or pick up suspicious characters, this may be one of those.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join