It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Combine this, with an over zealous unit commanders (or whatever they're called) forming lines, boxing people in, kettling as it's called, preventing people from receiving medical aid, or allowing parents to leave and collect children. Injuring innocent passers by, attacking people for swearing at them, throwing young women to the floor, trampling all over a peaceful sit down protests and injuring more....
Originally posted by antar
As we move closer to a totalitarian regime world wide, individuals will become more fear based in their thinking and apply for these types of jobs to secure their own hides, when you become an Officer for fear based reasons you are not there for the safety of the civilian population.
Originally posted by ZindoDoone
reply to post by MBF
You might just want to read what the police actualy have as a mandate to do. Its to protect the law and to protect those that make the law. NOT to "Protect and Serve" the populace.
Originally posted by RE2505
People are not stupid. They are not jumping on an anti police bandwagon for no good reason. They are watching the youtube clips of innocent protesters being assaulted by robocops. They can see for themselves what really went on and how eager a lot of officers were to "lay some smack down". They should fear the backlash. You reap what you sow.
’Ello, ’ello, ’ello, what’s all this then? Something strange is afoot in the furore about the policing of G20 protests in London. There has been a riot of attacks on the Metropolitan Police in the mainstream media, as major newspapers and broadcasters race to get the latest bit of video of police officers hitting or shoving protesters while the victims compete for publicity; one of them is reportedly represented by Max Clifford. Senior politicians have joined in the complaints about police brutality. The chairman of the Police Federation has warned that a dangerous anti-police bandwagon is gathering speed.
Originally posted by Extralien
And why are the police 'worried' about being photographed if it is currently illegal to do so? Maybe it's because of the use of these two words 'citizen journalist' that can get anyone off the hook from this new law.
by me from another post
It's a common misconception (and actively promoted by the Police) that you canot take pictures of them on duty.
The law that this relates to prohibits the taking of photographs of service personnel, installations and law enforcement if the purpose of those photographs is for terrorism. The onus is on the Police to prove a link to teorrist activites.
However, as stated, the Police will often intimidate people into not taking pictures or giving up their camera's/deleting images because of ignorance of the law, particularly section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism 2008 Act and section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000:
"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'."
Bottom line is, if an Officer asks to see, or try to delete your images, you should be able to refuse as long as you're not a terrorist. You have the right to take images as long as your not up to anything "terroristy".
From this ATS thread...
Originally posted by stumason
I've said it before and I'll say it again.....
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL TO FILM THE POLICE