UK: it is illegal to photograph the police

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by 23432

 

Where does it say this?

HERE


This may sound like a " Little Englander " a bit , but it ain't really .

I believe this act does amend some previous acts but does include new sections as well.

Edit -

23432,

You may have missed my edit. I'm asking which law sets this concept out. I've read that site a number of times and it's rubbish. They're even using parts of the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights that have long since been repealed.

There is nothing in UK law defining the principle that you are describing.


[edit on 21-2-2009 by Mike_A]

reply to post by CavemanDD


This is really horrible news for the people of the UK.

It now protects police abuse and deafens the victims. If this isn't a sign of total fascism taking over, I don't know what else is.

Now police are able to engage fearlessly in abusive, violent acts against the common people without fear of answering for their crimes because they are protected from the laws prohibiting the citizenry to expose police abuse.

It is a sad day for freedom on prison planet.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I believe this act does amend some previous acts but does include new sections as well.

The Acts & Statues are only applicable to those who volunteer for it .

Have you heard about Free man on the land movement ?

if not , I would strongly suggest to google it .

Few keywords ; Robert Arthur Menard , John Harris , Winston Shrout .

If an individual wants it , these acts & statues can be made powerless and not applicable .

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
reply to post by CavemanDD

 

Now police are able to engage fearlessly in abusive, violent acts against the common people

No they aren't. I've just said the law also states that it is a defence to have a reasonable excuse.

Originally posted by 23432

Originally posted by Mike_A
I believe this act does amend some previous acts but does include new sections as well.

The Acts & Statues are only applicable to those who volunteer for it .

Have you heard about Free man on the land movement ?

if not , I would strongly suggest to google it .

Few keywords ; Robert Arthur Menard , John Harris , Winston Shrout .

If an individual wants it , these acts & statues can be made powerless and not applicable .

As I said there is nothing in law stating this. I've read that site numerous times and talked to people who claim this but none can come up with any hard legal facts.

It’s a sham based around a convoluted argument about the definition of the word person that uses an American legal dictionary as its primary source.

Originally posted by Mike_A

23432,

You may have missed my edit. I'm asking which law sets this concept out. I've read that site a number of times and it's rubbish. They're even using parts of the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights that have long since been repealed.

There is nothing in UK law defining the principle that you are describing.


[edit on 21-2-2009 by Mike_A]

Mike_A

Indeed i have missed your edit .

There is nothing in the UK LAW which describes what's being done( ban on filming coppers ) as LAW .

Here is the crunch of the matter ; If human beings are accepting the PERSON status then they are treated as such and are bound by all the acts and statues .

I am not a PERSON .
I have a PERSON which operates under commercial liability .

Legal & Lawfull are not the same .

Legal Frame work can not break the LAW therefore a remedy for all performance or obligations generated by acts & status , do have to have a remedy built in too.

Otherwise , it's ( Legality) is acting against the LAW .

For example , the Driver's Licence is not required for exercising Freedom of Travel .

But if you define your own activity as " Driving " then you need to have it ( a licence ) too .

The subject matter is rather large and to the uninitiated , it's hogwash .

I would strongly recommend Robert Arthur Menards video ; Magnificent Deception .

It would answer all your questions about the LAW & LEGALITY much better then I can .

Plus , I am betting that it would make you chukcle too .

peace

Originally posted by Anti - Government
Also what is goig to happen to such popular police programs like road wars or street wars.

I assume they will be stopped

Dont you just know that they will allow those because they are not seen as terrorists yet anyone not a police officer will be seen as a potentail terrorist, esp if they are filming them going about there job - badly!

It sickens me to think that they can now arrest people for filming them, & not just them but whatever your filming if they deem it a possible terror threat, they did it before it was law so its definatly gonna happen now.

UN Charter ;


ARTICLE 1
"
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

OR if it was written like this below ;


ARTICLE 1

All PERSONS are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."


PERSON can not be BORN because it is only a fiction .



[edit on 21-2-2009 by 23432]

reply to post by 23432


You see this is the same argument I’ve had many times on this issue. There is nothing in UK law that corresponds to what you are saying. I’ve watched these videos and read the sites and talked to those adhering to the argument and no one can produce any corroborating evidence found in UK law.

I have no idea why you posted that but using it as a defence is going to come to nothing. The changes in policy are to do with the collection of data deemed a terror threat and this is where the police will use it to arrest people for collecting data ( photos/film ) against the police. Whether you are a terrorist or not this is how it will be done so that you can be stopped filming them being crap at their job.

reply to post by Mike_A

There is mike, its an amendment to do with the collection of data. I will find it & post it for you.

reply to post by cropmuncher


I think you’ve skipped a post Crop, 23432 was claiming that acts of parliament aren’t law which is what my last couple of posts have addressed; we’ve sort of gone of topic him and I. Apologies.

With regards to the law, I’ve posted the act earlier and pointed out the reasonable excuse clause which negates most, if not all the concerns about this act.

Can we not all agree that how it is conducted, and the mere intent are cause enough for alarm?

I can recall several times where cops have contradicting understandings of how certain laws work. Some say its this way, others, another way.

A cop will arrest you for any reason, he could say you were mouthing off, or that you're drunk, at which they don't really need to prove. It depends on the honesty of police force and how they conduct theirselves.

A cop could see you taking pictures of him, misinterpret this law, act etc.. and just decide to confiscate your camera.. either way the picture doesn't get seen.

Now courts have to follow the proper procedures but cops will bend the rules and if they want to take your camera, or give you a hard time, they won't hesitate in my experience.

If anything this just makes it slightly easier for them, no matter the conditions of the law or act.

It would be nice to see the hard text of this law/act, combined with related UK law.. but I mean.. there could always be loop holes, like this "person" thing.. I've heard the states has something similar.. on how your name is spelled in court, if in all capital letters and you agree to it, then its like giving up your rights.. some william cooper thing he was saying.

Anyways. Tis not good guys, either way.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by 23432

 

You see this is the same argument I’ve had many times on this issue. There is nothing in UK law that corresponds to what you are saying. I’ve watched these videos and read the sites and talked to those adhering to the argument and no one can produce any corroborating evidence found in UK law.

Indeed these arguments will make anyone's head spin in the wrong direction .

What type of evidence are you looking for ?

Common LAW gives you all the evidence you need .

You see , the coppers are acting as a CORPORATE ENTITY and a PERSON is also a CORPORATE ENTITY .

If an individual claims Soverignty then Corporate Entity is powerless to proceed , as per Legal Requirements of the said Act .

It's all under COMMERCIAL LAW Jurisdiction not COMMON LAW Jurisdiction .

The remedy is built in , otherwise , whole thing would be UNLAWFULL and obviously no government can act UNLAWFULLY .

Anyhow , if you are looking for a solid piece of evidence which is not confusing to a HUMAN BEING , I am afraid you are not going to find it .

It is ( the evidencing of it ) a multi threaded task and it is not writtten as one piece .

Suffice to say that the LAW is SIMPLE ; Legal Frame Work is not .

There are only 3 ways to break the LAW and there are many ways to ACT ILLEGALLY.

It's all IN THE WORDS and Definitions ; that's how LEGALITY works.

reply to post by CavemanDD


You are right mate, it is down to the individual officers & the circumstances but i think we are going to see a lot less of these videos hitting the net because the filmers are going to be arressted for sure.



I love the bit at the end where he offers to send them a copy of the law.

Still all thats changed now

[edit on 21/2/09 by cropmuncher]

Heres some info

Section 76 provides that:

(1) A person commits an offence who -
(a) elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been -
(i) a member of Her Majesty's forces, (ii) a member of any of the intelligence services, or (iii) a constable,which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) publishes or communicates any such information.
(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable -
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or a fine, or to both;
(b) on summary conviction -
(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both; (ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

current.com...

reply to post by CavemanDD


The police can misinterpret the law (as they can with any law) but if they charge someone over this offence they MUST go to court and unless you’ve been spending all day taking snaps of everyone coming and going from Scotland Yard you’re unlikely to be found guilty. This would take up a huge amount of police resources and officers charging people on such frivolous interpretations would not do well in their career. There was nothing stopping them two weeks ago from taking your camera claiming some false law. That is except of course the existing complaints procedure (or potentially harassment laws); the same thing is in place now if they decide to confiscate your camera and not charge you.

Here is the act and the explanatory notes;

www.opsi.gov.uk...

www.opsi.gov.uk...

I think you’re looking for section 76



reply to post by 23432


So what can you cite from Common Law?

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?

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. 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.

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?

Cropmuncher

Thank you for posting the Act .

I can not help but notice that it does not say anywhere HUMAN BEING .

Now , as a HUMAN BEING an individual ACTS as A PERSON , then , obviously this ACT is APPLICABLE otherwise it is NOT .

See , it's also about assumptions and presumptions .

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 .

Why would we think that we a PERSON ?

Because we all are operating under assumptions and presumptions , it's the done thing .

reply to post by cropmuncher


I was diggin' this guys little follow up video. lol