Boo38
New Member
Apologies...
UK photographers: the law and your rights: discussion
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
i don't know if there are any regulations about filming yourself getting searched. as far as i know it's not against the law, although it would be slightly inconvenient for the cops and you wouldn't get great pictures. never seen anything in the pace code of practice about stop the person being searched filming. and as long as you're in a public place you can take pictures of what you want.
Boo38
New Member
Yes thank you for your advice and thoughts, there is NO law that stops you from filming what you wish, nor is there any law that says you can't photograph what you want either.
It is simply the old bill making up the law as they go along, thinking that they are one rung above the rest of us and have some sort of authority over us, especially photographers?
Simply because they dislike the fact that you have a pro camera in your hands and are photographing something you find interesting, they believe they can accuse you of being a terrorist and attempt to exploit your lack of knowledge into submission, is what is wrong here.
They are public servants, they serve you and me, they are there to protect US.
However some of them fail to honour the oath they swore when they became members of the public office, and believe that they are employed to protect those that choose to govern us, this is incorrect, and I firmly believe that they need to be made accountable for their actions against us, the people they have been employed to protect.
I was in public, on a public pavement, by a public road, minding my own lawful business, taking a photograph of something I thought might be news worthy for the local rag, they took offence to that and they committed offences themselves, I committed none.
Taking photo's is not a crime, detaining a person using a suspended act, and handcuffing them for the duration of a search, is common assault.
It is simply the old bill making up the law as they go along, thinking that they are one rung above the rest of us and have some sort of authority over us, especially photographers?
Simply because they dislike the fact that you have a pro camera in your hands and are photographing something you find interesting, they believe they can accuse you of being a terrorist and attempt to exploit your lack of knowledge into submission, is what is wrong here.
They are public servants, they serve you and me, they are there to protect US.
However some of them fail to honour the oath they swore when they became members of the public office, and believe that they are employed to protect those that choose to govern us, this is incorrect, and I firmly believe that they need to be made accountable for their actions against us, the people they have been employed to protect.
I was in public, on a public pavement, by a public road, minding my own lawful business, taking a photograph of something I thought might be news worthy for the local rag, they took offence to that and they committed offences themselves, I committed none.
Taking photo's is not a crime, detaining a person using a suspended act, and handcuffing them for the duration of a search, is common assault.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Mr.Bishie
pickled egg
They're a bunch of utter fickin' cunts.There were suspicions that Section 58A of the Terrorism Act 2000 (introduced by Counter-Terrorism Act 2008) was intended to stop filming of police (and members of the armed forces and security services). But it had not been used by the end of 2010, the Home Office reported in January - and I haven't heard of use this year.
58A states that:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
eliciting isn't taking pictures, it's asking people questions. and you can't use a bit about publishing and communicating to stop people taking pictures.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
someone he is cunting about . Just as Im sure Levi Bellfield ,minimum wage security guard and prize cunt , cunted others about when he had his little uniform on . Earning a crap wage isnt a license to fuck others about . Just think of the others he has intimidated that werent as conversant with personal rights and the law as you are , and the others he will most certainly harass and intimidate in the future . Zero sympathy for twats like that .regardless of the money theyre on .
Agreed. If he's abused even the tiny bit of power which went with his job, he doesn't deserve to keep it.
Nigel
For A Degenerates' Workers State
Guy in America could face up to 75years in prison for photograping police officers, what he considers wrongly executing their duty:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DbxSZ_FB8&feature=share
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DbxSZ_FB8&feature=share
Boo38
New Member
Well I had the first response to my complaint today off my local MP.
And I am extremely pleased with what he has said in his letter, he has written to the Chief Constable of Hants police, the Chair of Hants police authority, and chair of the professional standards committee on my behalf.
He has asked that the chief constable deal with this very quickly, offer an apology and compensation, as in his own words "On the face of it, there were no legal powers to stop & search him or stop him from taking photographs in a public place".
He also goes on to say "I look forward to your early reply as it is of great concern to me that officers are going about their duties quoting the law wrongly and acting illegally"
So far so good, lets see them play their hand first before I make my next move.
Thank you once again everyone for your advice.
And I am extremely pleased with what he has said in his letter, he has written to the Chief Constable of Hants police, the Chair of Hants police authority, and chair of the professional standards committee on my behalf.
He has asked that the chief constable deal with this very quickly, offer an apology and compensation, as in his own words "On the face of it, there were no legal powers to stop & search him or stop him from taking photographs in a public place".
He also goes on to say "I look forward to your early reply as it is of great concern to me that officers are going about their duties quoting the law wrongly and acting illegally"
So far so good, lets see them play their hand first before I make my next move.
Thank you once again everyone for your advice.
ddraig
kicking against the pricks...
Tash (Alan Lodge)
posts about a Notts student getting his tape back after more overzealous and incorrect policing
http://nottingham.indymedia.org/articles/2239
posts about a Notts student getting his tape back after more overzealous and incorrect policing
http://nottingham.indymedia.org/articles/2239
notts indymedia said:
Boo38
New Member
I find it absolutely incredible that it ever got to this stage at all, I mean how on earth do they seriously believe they are acting with any sense of lawfulness going around detaining and seizing innocent members of the public equipment? I have never heard that one of there 'knee jerk' anti terror stop & search has ever provided any evidence that they have made the correct decision.
It is purely because they wish to exert some sort of authority over others, well, if this is how they improve public relations someone is seriously deluded.
My s&s was done unlawfully under a part of an act (s.44) that no longer exists, the fact that Acts are not law is beside the point, but I will not let there puerile attitude deter me from photographing what I want when I want.
It is purely because they wish to exert some sort of authority over others, well, if this is how they improve public relations someone is seriously deluded.
My s&s was done unlawfully under a part of an act (s.44) that no longer exists, the fact that Acts are not law is beside the point, but I will not let there puerile attitude deter me from photographing what I want when I want.
Yes, I'm fairly sure the courts would find that in the end. But, what with plod (and pseudoplod?) apparently using S44 after its repeal... the question would be, how far up the chain of courts would you have to go to get the right answer? £1000-worth, £10,000-worth... ?
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Unreadable even under a microscope I'm afraid.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Particularly now the MP is involved. (MPs love this sort of thing - the law is clear, it's not politically risky for them because every party _claims_ they're for press freedom, there's a high chance of success, and they can look like the good guys standing up for their constituents for a change.)
Boo38
New Member
It loads large enough for me to read? Even if you click on the image and then on the arrow in the top right hand corner it should enable you to magnify it, it's just the 'code' J, and it's definition, Terrorism s.44(2)
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Maybe it's just my notebook, but nothing works to make that attachment readable, even hitting Ctrl + so that other test is three inches high.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Better, but there are still parts that are very blurry that I can't see properly, but I do have cataracts. You must have good vision.
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
On another note, a mate of mine had hassle from a couple of cops a few months ago when he was taking pictures near Buckingham Palace and was well pissed off at their lack of legal knowledge regarding the rights of photographers and refused to give his details but loved the fact that he was recorded as 'male, forties' when he's well into his late sixties.
Boo38
New Member
Update, yesterday I received a letter from the Chief inspector, asking if I would be so kind as to arrange an appointment with his 'management assistant' to go into my local cop shop and attempt a local resolution......er No I can't and I won't.
I had at first simply rolled over and though yep OK I will arrange to go in and discuss this, but after a bit of thought, I wondered why 'I' should have to go to their place of work? After all I've done sod all wrong here, shouldn't it be them making the effort to come to me and sort out their mess?
Besides, I don't trust them, I would much rather the meeting is held on neutral ground where I can stack the odds in my favour, I am not contemplating letting them in my front door, but would much rather it be held somewhere I know, how do I know that walking into his place of work I'm not opening myself up to arrest?
I smell a rat.
Am I paranoid, yes, after years of being treated badly by the police, and now unlawfully, they are the very last people on earth that I would trust.
I had at first simply rolled over and though yep OK I will arrange to go in and discuss this, but after a bit of thought, I wondered why 'I' should have to go to their place of work? After all I've done sod all wrong here, shouldn't it be them making the effort to come to me and sort out their mess?
Besides, I don't trust them, I would much rather the meeting is held on neutral ground where I can stack the odds in my favour, I am not contemplating letting them in my front door, but would much rather it be held somewhere I know, how do I know that walking into his place of work I'm not opening myself up to arrest?
I smell a rat.
Am I paranoid, yes, after years of being treated badly by the police, and now unlawfully, they are the very last people on earth that I would trust.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
Nice one Jules Mattson.
And can someone find the online link to this week's Economist piece on photographing police in the US? I have to go now...
Boo38
New Member
http://www.economist.com/node/21541467 is it this?
Similar threads
