Socialist Britain turning more toward old Soviet tactics
RichA
Jail for photographing police?
The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next
month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest - and
imprisonment - of anyone who takes pictures of officers 'likely to be
useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to
information about members of armed forces, a member of the
intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A
of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit
information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind
likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of
terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment
for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today
by police officers to stop photographers, including press
photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say
that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance
photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last
week.
Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest
on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer.
Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see
the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press
photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.
According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away.
Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken
that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on
camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.
Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the
British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10
seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your
camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.
The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an
amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when
taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any
terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.
A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious
circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police
officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings
and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not
something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to
verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers
are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'
The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed
by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the
police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places.
'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places.
However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else
in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of
photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise
security considerations,' Downing Street says.
'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational
matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be
taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern
about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief
constable of the relevant force.'
However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the
excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under
section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James
Welch, said the powers were used too widely.
In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for
more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding
of a couple married in Docklands.
She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was
forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card,
three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.
'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right
to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time.
'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being
stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought
the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a
sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the
photographer.'
The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited
to the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on
photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the
country's parliament building.
Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he
was targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic
police systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying
them,' he says.
The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing
parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial
system collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of
foreign debts incurred by its banks.
Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted
by the Icelandic Police.
jaf
John
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:10abdc39-55a9-4e9a...@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Alan Browne
> Freedom isn't free.
*plonk* for x-posting irrelevant tripe.
eNo
wrote:
> jaf wrote:
> > Freedom isn't free.
>
> *plonk* for x-posting irrelevant tripe.
You really think this is irrelevant? Let's see when the next clueless
American tourist traveling through Britain thinks a photo of a Bobby
would make a quaint memory and lands himself in jail.
jaf
You missed the point.
The spineless subjects of the crown have always been spineless.
Always will be spineless.
Always will be subjects of the crown.
They don't have the wherewithal or the backbone to become free.
That's why we threw them out of here 235 years ago.
John
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message news:Xu6dnVk61K6GOxDU...@giganews.com...
frank
Yeah, you know the Japanese are setting up their invasion forces as we
speak. Millions of camera toting tourists. Arrest them all, after 2
days you're bankrupt for upkeep and they take over.
Russia is really lucky there aren't camera toting Chinese tourists.
Paul Heslop
>
> Alan,
> You missed the point.
> The spineless subjects of the crown have always been spineless.
> Always will be spineless.
> Always will be subjects of the crown.
>
> They don't have the wherewithal or the backbone to become free.
>
> That's why we threw them out of here 235 years ago.
>
> John
daft sod if you think this is anything to do with the 'crown'
it's actually to do with democratically elected governments
overstretching their mark, aided by the 'anti-terror' war. Basically
anything they don't like you doing over here they just say anti-terror
etc and bob's yer dad's brother.
Hopefully enough people will be sick enough of this shit to do
something about it in the next election, but I doubt it.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
DRS
news:WN2dnQAa-fbgbhDU...@giganews.com
> Alan,
> You missed the point.
> The spineless subjects of the crown have always been spineless.
> Always will be spineless.
> Always will be subjects of the crown.
>
> They don't have the wherewithal or the backbone to become free.
>
> That's why we threw them out of here 235 years ago.
And why you spineless subjects of Bush's imperial presidency passed the
Patriot Act.
jaf
Congress is infested with liberals left over from the revolution.
They are same as commies except they deny they are commies.
Liberals create laws that apply to everyone except themselves.
It's kind of like a mommy complex. Do as I say, not as I do.
They think because they got elected spending other peoples money, that they are supposed to spend other peoples money.
When the pending depression gets rolling good we will have to purge the liberals out of the population.
Or maybe the pandemic will only affect the liberals. That would be nice. It would save me a lot of bullets for other things.
John
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message news:498e61f4$0$23931$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Paul Heslop
>
> The US is becoming a police state. It's for our own good.
> Congress is infested with liberals left over from the revolution.
that's about as much idiotic crap as one person can spew in a couple
of lines.
Ray Fischer
>The US is becoming a police state. It's for our own good.
>Congress is infested with liberals left over from the revolution.
>They are same as commies except they deny they are commies.
Quite the extremist fascist, aren't you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jürgen Exner
>The US is becoming a police state.
s/is becoming/has become/
At least since 26-Oct-2001.
jue
jaf
Sorry, I thought I was being optimistic. Something I learned from that Murphy guy. 8<)
John
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:498f3080$0$1622$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Ray Fischer
>Ray,
>Sorry, I thought I was being optimistic. Something I learned from that Murphy guy. 8<)
Looked like the same-old propaganda we saw produced by the nazis.
You're arguing for a police state in order to prtect people from
your political enemies.