Section 76: Taking photos of Police to be a crime under terrorist legislation

[taffboy gwyrdd]

This is horrifying. They say you cant "attempt to elicit information"...so you cant even ask an officer their name.

Sure there is a "reasonable" defence probably put in by the police statists to LOOK reasonable when the whole concept is unreasonable.

Plod can now nick you for asking their name and then give their account that you werent being reasonable.

They lie instinctively when they have to, and so they will with this legislation.

I hope Labour backers see the error of their authoritarian appeasing ways before rather than after a Conservative government gets hold of these powers.

 

[cat107]

Just come back from Scotland Yard - good turnout of about 300

 

[derf]

Of course, it is possible that native residents of Indonesia - a country which doesn't have a record of possessing the most enlightened and non-massacring-of-millions governments - might disagree with you there.

The new governments are much better than those of old.
Everyone just carries it all the time and no one much seems to care either way.
You poor sods seem to be going the other way.

I know it works in my favour as the cops can see I'm legal so never get hassled.
I've only ever seen the cops asking for KTP (Local ID card) when someone has done something wrong, in an accident and sweeping when prince Charles came here a couple of months back.

Sweeping is stopping all the motorbikes (and, in this case, cars) checking they have the correct docs for the vehicle. At the temples they were also asking for KTP. Only time I've seen that.

 

[editor]

Just got back from the protest. Pics soon!

 

[editor]

Here's a few:

http://www.urban75.org/photos/protest/photographers-protest-section76.html

 

[e19896]

Fucking love it more Photographers turn out in solidarity against new “terror law”.

To mark the enactment of the amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorist Act 2000 making it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about police officers, Fitwatch have produced a new spotter card.

The above people are dangerous troublemakers. They are extremists who will stop at nothing to stifle protest and dissent in this country. If you see these people take appropriate cautionary measures, such as masking up, and take action to stop them repressing your right to protest.

If you have any information on any of the above suspects (or any other extremists we might be interested in monitoring), please email defycops@yahoo.co.uk

 

[moon23]

This is horrifying. They say you cant "attempt to elicit information"...so you cant even ask an officer their name.

Sure there is a "reasonable" defence probably put in by the police statists to LOOK reasonable when the whole concept is unreasonable.

Plod can now nick you for asking their name and then give their account that you werent being reasonable.

They lie instinctively when they have to, and so they will with this legislation.

I hope Labour backers see the error of their authoritarian appeasing ways before rather than after a Conservative government gets hold of these powers.

You have to admire their ability to create facist legeslation they have taken it to an art form.

 

[marty21]

ed, you was on the telly a brief glimpse at the start of the bbc london news report, just now, you were taking a picture of the police

 

[Lazy Llama]

Yeah, BBC London news just showed the side of the Editor's head on their report of the event shown at 10:30pm

 

[spitfire]

The side of my head was on the telly too, for a split second or two.

I saw Editor but didn't get a chance to say hi.

It was an interesting little event. Everyone sort of milling around quietly.

here's a couple:

 

[strung out]

just a quick question, do they have to nick you for it at the time, or if you get away with it but then post the pictures somewhere afterwards, are you liable be arrested then?

 

[SpookyFrank]

just a quick question, do they have to nick you for it at the time, or if you get away with it but then post the pictures somewhere afterwards, are you liable be arrested then?

From the wording of the law I suspect that either would be possible. Posting the pictures on the interweb or otherwise making them public presumably counts as 'disseminating' them, regardless of who they're being disseminated to

 

[spitfire]

Disseminate.....disseminate

 

[editor]

Yeah, BBC London news just showed the side of the Editor's head on their report of the event shown at 10:30pm

What?!! OMG. They filmed me without my permission?! There should be a law against that kind of thing!

*consults legal team.

 

[derf]

Yeah, BBC London news just showed the side of the Editor's head on their report of the event shown at 10:30pm

Moses only got to see god's back.

 

[Lazy Llama]

What?!! OMG. They filmed me without my permission?! There should be a law against that kind of thing!

*consults legal team.

Now, if you were an undercover policeman....

 

[stowpirate]

Hey, we have secret police now. Just like a proper totalitarian regime ...

To make it more interesting we also now have a rapidly expanding informer based society just like in the old GDR. History is beginning repeat itself albeit so far without the mass murder unless that it is you include our foreign policy.

In a foreign war zone you can probably point your camera at more or less anything and attempt to get it published without fear of prosecution?

 

[noriise]

To make it more interesting we also now have a rapidly expanding informer based society just like in the old GDR. History is beginning repeat itself albeit so far without the mass murder unless that it is you include our foreign policy.

In a foreign war zone you can probably point your camera at more or less anything and attempt to get it published without fear of prosecution?

Unless your embedded and have your photos go via military censors (eg. last lebanon war)

 

[winjer]

History is beginning repeat itself albeit so far without the mass murder unless that it is you include our foreign policy.

It's no coincidence that this law is based on the Defence of the Realm Act, 1914.

 

[paolo]

Hideous hideous law. Good work those who did the demo.

Anyone got any info/links on the background to this, i.e. who specifically architected it?

 

[winjer]

Anyone got any info/links on the background to this, i.e. who specifically architected it?

The law? It's the latest version of Regulation 10 of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922:

No person shall, without lawful authority, collect, record, publish or communicate, or attempt to elicit, any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any police force, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct, of any operations by any such force, or any information of such a nature as is calculated to be or might be directly or indirectly useful to persons hostile or opposed to the preservation of the peace or maintenance of order, and if any person contravenes the provisions of this regulation, or without lawful authority or excuse has in his possession any document containing any such information as aforesaid, he shall be guilty of an offence against these regulations.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/hmso/spa1922.htm

which was amended and reintroduced many times before now, most recently as Section 103 of the Terrorism Act 2000:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_8#pt7-pb3-l1g103 (Northern Ireland only, now expired)

But it's based on even earlier powers to regulate information in wartime:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1915/may/04/military-prosecutions-of-journalists

 

[HarrisonSlade]

For those who have wondered why I put a poll to this thread, I did so as a form of petition. The reason I put it on "General", was that I thought more people would see it, but I realise that it would be taken a lot more seriously on this page.

The reason for my thread title is because I'm rather rubbish at them, so thank you to the mods for changing it.

....and moving the thread

I have just been travelling round the City, and on one occasion, on the tube (at Green Park) the driver made an anouncement:

"Flash photography is prohibited anywhere on London Underground".

Nice.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I have just been travelling round the City, and on one occasion, on the tube (at Green Park) the driver made an anouncement:

"Flash photography is prohibited anywhere on London Underground".

Nice.

But that's a serious thing because flash photography of a tube driver as s/he drives into the station means that s/he could suddenly find their vision seriously disrupted by the effect of the flash, both directly whilst travelling at a relatively high speed and indirectly as it bounces off walls and tiles and cabs. Which could harm an awful lot of passengers. And I've certainly seen enough idjuts flashing pictures as tube trains pull into stations to understand why this announcement may be made over a pa system tbh.

 

[editor]

I have just been travelling round the City, and on one occasion, on the tube (at Green Park) the driver made an anouncement:

"Flash photography is prohibited anywhere on London Underground".

Nice.

The reasons for that are obvious, but you can take pictures on the tube.

Tube stations
Seeing as we've heard so many instances of people being hassled over this, here's the low down: non-commercial photography on tube stations is most certainly allowed - and if any busybody tries to tell you different, politely tell them to bury their head in part 10 of rule Sa109 in the Working Reference Manual:

10.1 Passengers can take photographs with small cameras for private purposes, provided flashlights and/or tripods are not used no obstruction or inconvenience is caused to staff and/or passengers.

http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html#tube

 

[dooley]

you shoulda popped round to 1 bessborough gardens and taken a few snaps of that

 

[Urbanblues]

Martial. As in military.

Or, marital law, as in nuptials.

 

[moon23]

Perhaps we should all start a mass campaign to report companies with CCTV cameras to the police as suspect terrorists. After all they must be filming police all the time! As they say, if you suspect it report it.

 

[winjer]

We should all do our bit for the war effort, lets form civil defence units and take them down ourselves.

 

[moon23]

We should all do our bit for the war effort, lets form civil defence units and take them down ourselves.

I feel it would be my civic duty to do so, to protect the realm against CCTV footage falling into the wrong hands. J

Just think Terrorist might learn all sorts of things from anaylising the footage.

OMG it's just got worse... Serisouly people Sussex police are Disseminating photographs and information! They are the enemy within. A quick search of their site shows they have photographs of officers, and details about what areas they patrol. The ragheads could lay an ambush, this is an outrage!

http://www.sussex.police.uk/neighbourhood_policing/npt.aspx

 

[moon23]

Oh god....oh now.look

Helen Singleton

Meet me in person
I will next be at: Patcham Community Centre, Ladies Mile Road
Date & Time: 02 Mar 2009 at 19:00h
Purpose of meeting: Patcham Local Action Team Meeting

If you have any local concerns or issues you’d like to discuss please feel free to approach us when you see us out and about – that’s what we’re here for!

What if this is used by a terrorist? It tells us her whereabouts and location! She could be kidnappped FFS!

http://www.sussex.police.uk/neighbourhood_policing/local_officer.aspx