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.


SHOCKING VID - Lancashire police arrest Amateur Photographer UK

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by JakiusFogg
reply to post by grantbeed

Look up a guy called John Harris and the TPUC.

Thanks for that. I have found some good stuff on youtube. will watch later.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:07 PM

Originally posted by DangerDeath
All over the place in USSR and similar countries, taking pictures was strictly forbidden in most public places. Even today, this habit persists. And, obviously, as the states feel more and more insecure, it is spreading worldwide.

That's just not true. In Russia you're probably better off taking photos in public than you're in modern western countries. I know tons of photographers who do regularly go to ex-soviets block to shoot stuff.
The way it is now in US and UK specifically is pure facism.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:26 PM
So all they had to do is say "the way he held his camera was suspicious" in order to be allowed to force him to give them his name and adress and arrest him under a terrorist act.

So far the patrioct act seemed dormant but I cant wait to see how the patriot act empowers authorities once used.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:30 PM
It's used all the time. Especially guards who are not police like to throw in the terrorist card. Also places like metro stations who by policy allow photography still like to use the patriot act to harass photographers. New in this field is the wiretapping laws which they like to throw in these days. Most photographers are aware of the thread and keep a video camera handy which then is turned against them.

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:31 PM
reply to post by Rafe_

What rights to the British Public really have if they are forced to give their personal details over something such as this?

What a joke. this guy should be able to sue their asses after spending 8hrs at a Police Station against his will.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 12:54 AM
reply to post by grantbeed

What makes it more compelling is that they manipulated the man into a situation for them to make a arrest and enforcing that with a comment on how he held his camera,

He was aproached 3 times by the police who claimed they had the right to ask for his personal information and in all 3 instances he asked if he was being detained.To wich the anwser was either "no" or ignored completly.The 3e time the just kept asking for his personals when he asked if they had any reason to detain him.They simply avoided the question altogether in the end,remarkably.

By now they could say that this man was suspicious and :sarcasm incomming: it ofcourse all started with "the way he held his camera.
(what if he was writing on a notepad?)

Now everyone should have to wonder, how can anyone not be suspicious and be arrested at a whim under these laws ?

Cant i now be arrested for "The suspicious way i was sitting on a bench in a park"? Or for "The suspicious way i was window shopping" ?

[edit on 21-6-2010 by Rafe_]

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:00 AM
Think about this...

Why would a terrorist NEED to photograph a public place, when today anyone with a computer can pull up Google Earth and get all the surveillance imagery, maps, and data they could possibly need?

Harassing a photographer because he "might" use the pictures as part of some terror plot is so ridiculous. A real terrorist wouldn't need to do that anyway.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 02:24 AM
The trouble these days is that once you question the authority of the police to stop you and refuse to provide details, as is your right (especially when they try the section 44 BS), they'll then change tack and stick you with a public order offence, just to make a point.
Stick you in a cell for a few hours then let you go without charge, even when they know you have done nothing wrong.

See, it's not about innocence or guilt, it's about questioning their perceived authority over you. Many of these bozos in uniform see themselves as being above the rest of us, and must be obeyed.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 04:21 AM
This is BS and the police are acting worse than Hittlers SS Guards

if they want to stop 'Agressive' use of videos then they had better have a word with the BBC who could be helping terrorist also.

Big Bro realy does not want the news getting out and will try any trick in the book to keep a lid on things.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:21 AM

Originally posted by LieBuster
This is BS and the police are acting worse than Hittlers SS Guards

There certainly are elements within our Police Forces that act like complete twats and think they are a law unto themselves etc, but they haven't sent anyone to the gas chambers or attempted any ethnic cleansing, so I think comparisons to the SS are little bit over the top and an insult to the genuine police officers, there are some you know.

If I was approached in such circumstances I would never give them my personal details and suspect that I eventually get arrested and possibly even deliberately commit a minor public order offence to ensure I would have my day in court.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 07:41 AM
reply to post by grantbeed

Ok, lets clear this one up first..

You DO NOT have to give your details to any Police person (be they plastic, hobby-bobby or real) unless they have reasonable cause, ie you are suspected of committing an offence.

Now, I cannot watch the video as I am at work, but I imagine they tried the old "section 44" route? Either that or use the Terrorism Act to say taking pictures of police/public buildings etc is illegal.

Firstly, the Police have been told off for abusing section 44 powers as they only really apply to a designated area authorised by a Chief Constable for a defined period of time. I highly doubt this area was under such an order so any Section 44 attempt would be illegal.

Secondly, it is not illegal (no matter what the Police might say at the time) to take pictures of the Police, public buildings etc UNLESS there is REASONABLE grounds to assume the person is using said photo's for the prepartion of an act of terrorism. The Met had to issue a special guidance notice last year to inform their plod of this as they were interpretting the law themselves, which is not what they are supposed to do.

The problems arise when you get idot Police who don't know anything about the law encounter idiot Joe Publics who also know fudge all about their rights.

The only things that taking pictures of is slightly illegal is Military installations (the Police think they class as military, but they don't) and even then, as long as you are not calle Mohammed El Kaboom, then they can't really tell you off. You can happily snap from a hill overlooking Gosport of all the RN ships there and it isn't illegal.

The problem, like I said, arises from plain ignorance on both sides. Know your rights and this problem doesn't exist, so it's a bit OTT to declare the UK as a Police state when in actuallity it is down to morons interpreting the Law incorrectly.

EDIT: I have a feeling people will skim my post as it will interfere with their rants about the Uk being like Nazi Germany...

[edit on 21/6/10 by stumason]

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:05 AM
Loved this video, I have had a similar problem with the police however i was not arrested they took on my point. It was only a few months ago on a night out they randomly asked me and my friend for our details. I asked why and they just said you are acting suspiciously when we asked them to justify this they couldn’t and then said we don’t need it under section 44 of the anti-terrorist act. After this I pointed out this could only be used with authorisation and asked for proof of it and pointed out the legality then asked them to check if they could legally invoke the act. After this they called their control centre for advice and were told unless they had probable cause they had to let us walk, so we did. They were all very nice about it and genuinely seemed interested that people actually know about the last.

I think here, things may have been different, I thinks its just that the second PC is on a power trip and her sergeant is supporting her. I don’t know about the other piece of legislation that they used to arrest them but it seems to me that its just the police on a power run. Its quite interesting because i have read quite a bit about how section 44 has been abused in recent weeks. Don’t think we are heading to a Orwellian state, the Anti-terrorist act is a necessary tool in fighting terrorism however i do think that we need to amend with more safeguards.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:21 AM
reply to post by kevinunknown

The Act has safeguards which are routinely ignored by Police and the Public allow it owing to ignorance. It's nice to see you actually knew your rights!

The remedy is simple, better training for Police as to what they can and can't do. At the moment, it seems they are allowed some free reign when interpreting the meaning of these laws, which leads to abuses.

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 08:43 AM
These videos made me so angry. What the hell has happened to our world.

Here's how we deal with photo takers is Aus.

I needed something a little lighter after those videos, wow what's happened in the UK ?

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:04 AM
reply to post by ppk55

Brilliant and quite worrying at the same time. Very tempted to try this in London!

Edit: Second line

[edit on 21-6-2010 by LarryLove]

posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by stumason

I totally agree with what you are saying, but the problem is that the public SHOULD be able to trust that the Police know the law, and that the Police can help the public at all times. The Police should be enforcing the laws properly and should know them inside out.

It's at a stage now that the PUBLIC are going to have to study the law for themselves in order to teach the Police when they are pulled up as this photographer was.

Very few members of the public would even know what 'section 44' is and would therefore give in immediatly to the incompetent policeperson/s.

Unfortunatly we live in a society now where no-one is trusted, paranoia is rife, and terrorism rules the news.

posted on Jun, 24 2010 @ 03:47 PM
Its a stupid PCSO trying to impress her Police colleagues and gain recognition.

The PCSO role that was created several years ago has got to be the biggest waste of taxes ever? They do not have powers of arrest, they merely give advice. Might aswell be council workers!!!!!

Round the corner someone was probably getting mugged at knifepoint, but they were too busy dealing with terrorists.

F*ck the Police!!!

[edit on 24-6-2010 by KingDoey]

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in