Section 76: Taking photos of Police to be a crime under terrorist legislation
- Thread starter noriise
- Start date
The theory above.
And here's the practice
"The police officer said “let me have a look at that picture.” I said, “No”. The police officer then said, “You’re not allowed to take photos of police officers”. I then said, “Don’t be ridiculous of course I can take pictures of police officers”. The police officer then tried to take my camera from me. "
From here: http://marcvallee.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/surveillance-police-grab-press-photographers-camera/
And here's the practice
"The police officer said “let me have a look at that picture.” I said, “No”. The police officer then said, “You’re not allowed to take photos of police officers”. I then said, “Don’t be ridiculous of course I can take pictures of police officers”. The police officer then tried to take my camera from me. "
From here: http://marcvallee.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/surveillance-police-grab-press-photographers-camera/
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
I have suspected that this would come about. The police have been given a massive weapon with the Terrorism Act. It is almost like a diluted form of Martial Law. The act is written in such a way that a lot of interpretation is possible. This is bad law.
If the police are afraid of being photographed while going about their work then this should make us worried about how they work when not being photographed. There are many stories of police violence against demonstrators. I know someone who was kicked and bruised by a policeman resulting in broken skin while being carried away by four policeman after sitting down on a demo at the DSEI. I hear that police in an underpass beat up some demonstrators at one of the Gaza demonstrations early this month. Dixon of Dock Green was a fictional character. They are not like that now.
What is interesting is that although Britain didn't have Twin Towers type incident in earlier years we did have terrorists planting bombs throughout the country when the IRA was active all through the '70s. It was a serious danger and it affected all parts of the country. There were no draconian laws enacted on the British mainland at that difficult time.
The aim of terrorists is to create fear. They certainly seem to have succeeded in this aim among our rulers. It suits our rulers to have us frightened though. It gives them freedom to take away our freedoms.
If the police are afraid of being photographed while going about their work then this should make us worried about how they work when not being photographed. There are many stories of police violence against demonstrators. I know someone who was kicked and bruised by a policeman resulting in broken skin while being carried away by four policeman after sitting down on a demo at the DSEI. I hear that police in an underpass beat up some demonstrators at one of the Gaza demonstrations early this month. Dixon of Dock Green was a fictional character. They are not like that now.
What is interesting is that although Britain didn't have Twin Towers type incident in earlier years we did have terrorists planting bombs throughout the country when the IRA was active all through the '70s. It was a serious danger and it affected all parts of the country. There were no draconian laws enacted on the British mainland at that difficult time.
The aim of terrorists is to create fear. They certainly seem to have succeeded in this aim among our rulers. It suits our rulers to have us frightened though. It gives them freedom to take away our freedoms.
untethered
For industry & decency
Martial. As in military.
Oops yes absolutely - will edit.
youtube is full of sad cunts with an inferiority complex that will be weeing themselves over this.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas&feature=related
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
If I take a picture of a police officer, he is quite free to request a copy if he sends me the proper paperwork.
This whole "let me see your camera" thing is more like kids saying "let's see your phone". In neither case would I expect to get it back.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Sounds good to me.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Sounds like one to start a Pledgebank on. I'd publicise that (and sign up to it too).
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Actually, let's start one. The bill's going to be law on Feb 16 apparently, so that's a good date for it. Something like "on February 16th I will take a photograph of a police officer or other person defined in section 76 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and post it to <Flickr group X>".
8ball
Decolonise colons!
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Right, I've set up both a pledge and a Flickr group to post pics to.
http://www.pledgebank.com/s76photo
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1011510@N21/
http://www.pledgebank.com/s76photo
http://www.flickr.com/groups/1011510@N21/
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
By using those [highlighted] words, I suspect the police officer was preparing to make an arrest under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
See it in action...
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lC7b9zLlK_4
teuchter
je suis teuchter
If this is true it's ridiculous.
I have some degree of sympathy for police officers who have cameras stuck in their face whilst trying to carry out their job, especially when the results are put up on youtube so that people can laugh at their every mistake or misjudgement. I don't think anyone would want this to happen to them whilst doing their job and making the mistakes anyone makes now and again.
But that's not a justification for this. They are after all public servants and are supposed to be acting on our behalf.
I'm increasingly inclined to agree that the Counter Terrorism Act(s) are being used beyond what should be their remit.
Apart from anything else, this is liable to be counter-productive for the police because it will just feed into the hands of those who want to portray them as routinely acting out of order.
I have some degree of sympathy for police officers who have cameras stuck in their face whilst trying to carry out their job, especially when the results are put up on youtube so that people can laugh at their every mistake or misjudgement. I don't think anyone would want this to happen to them whilst doing their job and making the mistakes anyone makes now and again.
But that's not a justification for this. They are after all public servants and are supposed to be acting on our behalf.
I'm increasingly inclined to agree that the Counter Terrorism Act(s) are being used beyond what should be their remit.
Apart from anything else, this is liable to be counter-productive for the police because it will just feed into the hands of those who want to portray them as routinely acting out of order.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
The act is here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9#pt7-pb3-l1g76
and the text is
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Hey, we have secret police now. Just like a proper totalitarian regime ...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
When you get arrested and banged up for 10 years.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
The big problem with this law, like Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which it amends, is that it's drawn so broadly.
There's no requirement for proof of intent, merely that the gathering or publication of information "which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
The only defence of a 'reasonable excuse' puts the onus on the defence to prove that they were not committing a crime, rather than on the prosecution to prove that a crime was committed. In practical terms, you have to prove your innocence.
We have an example of where this can lead with last year's case of a Nottingham University student, who was arrested for possession of dodgy material (relevant to his Thesis) and released after nearly a week.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/nott_uni_update/
Mere curiosity, political interest or even direct relevance to the topic of your research is not a reasonable excuse, according to Nottinghamshire Police, only a University sanctioned course requiring you to possess it suffices.
A couple more Guardian stories, with more background
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/24/highereducation.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/11/uksecurity.terrorism
Now this is at the higher legal level at the point where the CPS will be getting involved.
We've seen how s44 is used on a day-to-day basis and how little the police like being observed and recorded even in the absence of law prohibiting it.
It seems all too obvious how it's going to be used on the street
There's no requirement for proof of intent, merely that the gathering or publication of information "which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism"
The only defence of a 'reasonable excuse' puts the onus on the defence to prove that they were not committing a crime, rather than on the prosecution to prove that a crime was committed. In practical terms, you have to prove your innocence.
We have an example of where this can lead with last year's case of a Nottingham University student, who was arrested for possession of dodgy material (relevant to his Thesis) and released after nearly a week.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/nott_uni_update/
Mere curiosity, political interest or even direct relevance to the topic of your research is not a reasonable excuse, according to Nottinghamshire Police, only a University sanctioned course requiring you to possess it suffices.
A couple more Guardian stories, with more background
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/24/highereducation.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/11/uksecurity.terrorism
Now this is at the higher legal level at the point where the CPS will be getting involved.
We've seen how s44 is used on a day-to-day basis and how little the police like being observed and recorded even in the absence of law prohibiting it.
It seems all too obvious how it's going to be used on the street
Why before the 16th? No offense but would it not be a better idea to get a mass of people taking pictures on or after the 16th?
Similar threads
