One for those who naively believe the 'Nothing To Fear' mantra
Spike
"Ms Jess Hurd, a well known and highly respected photojournalist has
made a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (�IPCC�) after officers from the Metropolitan Police
Service stopped her under terrorist legislation when she was working
in a professional capacity covering a wedding on 10th December 2008 at
the Ramada Hotel in London Docklands."
"Police officers, who were aware that a wedding reception was taking
place at the hotel in London Docklands and had seen Ms Hurd filming
guests as they were leaving, approached her to see �what she was
doing�. She offered her Press Card so that her credentials could be
checked by the police..."
"A second officer, aware of Ms Hurd�s status as a journalist and that
her footage had been obtained through legitimate journalistic
activity, said he wished to view the film. He said she was being
stopped under �Section 44 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act�. "
"Ms Hurd�s camera was forcibly taken from her by the officer, despite
her protests that there were safeguards in place to ensure a free
press. The officer�s response was: �We can do anything under the
terrorism act�."
For those still wet-behind-the-ears, an accredited journalist, as this
woman was, can only have their material viewed under a court order,
S44/TA2000 notwithstanding. And this despite a very recent
reclarification of the police 'guidelines' informing them of the
position regarding journalists..
--
from
Aero Spike
Not a member of the RSGB for 50 years 1959 - 2009
Catweazel
Perhaps it's too much of a challenge to retain knowledge of 'the law'
to determine if an offence is being committed,
whereas the challenge of second-guessing a situation requires much
less effort?
Yeti
> On Dec 16, 3:17 pm, Spike <Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> wrote:
>> "Ms Jess Hurd, a well known and highly respected photojournalist has
>> made a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints
>> Service stopped her under terrorist legislation when she was working
>> in a professional capacity covering a wedding on 10th December 2008 at
>> the Ramada Hotel in London Docklands."
>>
>> "Police officers, who were aware that a wedding reception was taking
>> place at the hotel in London Docklands and had seen Ms Hurd filming
>> doing�. She offered her Press Card so that her credentials could be
>> checked by the police..."
>>
>> "A second officer, aware of Ms Hurd�s status as a journalist and that
>> her footage had been obtained through legitimate journalistic
>> activity, said he wished to view the film. He said she was being
>>
>> "Ms Hurd�s camera was forcibly taken from her by the officer, despite
>> her protests that there were safeguards in place to ensure a free
>> terrorism act�."
>>
>> For those still wet-behind-the-ears, an accredited journalist, as this
>> woman was, can only have their material viewed under a court order,
>> S44/TA2000 notwithstanding. And this despite a very recent
>> reclarification of the police 'guidelines' informing them of the
>> position regarding journalists..
>>
> Perhaps it's about what they are taught at police college.
> Perhaps it's too much of a challenge to retain knowledge of 'the law'
> to determine if an offence is being committed,
> whereas the challenge of second-guessing a situation requires much
> less effort?
Certainly seem to be the way they teach them in Strathclyde these days.
Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI
Plods like nothing more than the chance to throw their weight about.
They hate people who know their rights.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.co.uk
John
"Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote
>
> Plods like nothing more than the chance to throw their weight about. They
> hate people who know their rights.
Yes - because they know that that person is better educated (and probably
earning a hell of a lot more) than they are.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
No. No. No. They're always polite to me... It's the horns.
Nick :-)
Brian Howie
<Aero.Spike@S&T.invalid> writes
>
>
>"Ms Jess Hurd, a well known and highly respected photojournalist has
>made a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints
>Commission (‘IPCC’) after officers from the Metropolitan Police
>Service stopped her under terrorist legislation when she was working
>in a professional capacity covering a wedding on 10th December 2008 at
>the Ramada Hotel in London Docklands."
Http://www.jesshurd.com/gallery/0000016.html
http://www.jesshurd.com/gallery/0000015.html
there's a lot more of here stuff out there
Targeted and victimised ?
Brian
--
Brian Howie
Yeti
> In article <v2uhi59aek0trbu9s...@4ax.com>, Spike says...
>> The officer?s response was: ?We can do anything under the
>> terrorism act?."
>>
> Works both ways. I'm ex-forces so anyone trying to solicit information
> from me which could be of use to a terrorist, such as my name or address
> or movements - i.e what a Police Officer would ask, is liable to arrest
> under the recently amended Terrorism Act - Section 76 I think it is. So
> next time they ask me, I'm going to tell the partner of the officer who
> asks me to arrest him under the Terrorism Act.
>
>
Full of your own self-importance....
Nothing about you is going to be useful to a terrorist.
Johnny Melvin
"Conor" <co...@gmx.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2593704e5...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <v2uhi59aek0trbu9s...@4ax.com>, Spike says...
>>
>> The officer?s response was: ?We can do anything under the
>> terrorism act?."
>>
> Works both ways. I'm ex-forces so anyone trying to solicit information
> from me which could be of use to a terrorist, such as my name or address
> or movements - i.e what a Police Officer would ask, is liable to arrest
> under the recently amended Terrorism Act - Section 76 I think it is. So
> next time they ask me, I'm going to tell the partner of the officer who
> asks me to arrest him under the Terrorism Act.
I worked for GCHQ would I get away informing them of that.
Or just get a Size 12 boot in a tender place
de Johnny G3LIV
Brian Reay
news:wIfWm.21439$3d1....@newsfe12.ams2...
I suspect you would be far to sensible to even end up in the position of
being questioned by the police.
Elsewhere, a contributor to this group claims to record conversations with
the police. The implication is that he has them often. One wonders what sort
of "activities" he is involved in which lead to such frequent discussions.
I wonder what people are up to which leads to their being "stopped" etc. I
struggle to remember ever being stopped by the police let alone
"questioned". What on earth are people doing?
--
73
Brian G8OSN/W8OSN
www.g8osn.net
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
> I wonder what people are up to which leads to their being "stopped" etc.
> I struggle to remember ever being stopped by the police let alone
> "questioned". What on earth are people doing?
>
> 73
> Brian G8OSN/M3OSN
> www.m3osn.net
>
>
The Masons look after their own ...........
Jimbo ...
> I wonder what people are up to which leads to their being "stopped" etc.
> I
> struggle to remember ever being stopped by the police let alone
> "questioned". What on earth are people doing?
>
> 73
> Brian G8OSN/M3OSN
> www. m3osn.net
>
Because Masons get their Masonic Polis pals to do their dirty work and help
with vendettas ? .....
Jimbo ...
> Elsewhere, a contributor to this group claims to record conversations
> 73
> Brian G8OSN/M3OSNN
> www.m3osn.net
>
>
I found running a zen mp3 set for 8 hours recording in my top jacket
pocket was invaluable when a certain person got me on my own for a "little
chat" as part of his bullying technique ......
Jimbo ...
> Works both ways. I'm ex-forces
....... no wonder the world is fecked .....
Spike
Brian Reay wrote:
>I wonder what people are up to which leads to their being "stopped" etc. I
>struggle to remember ever being stopped by the police let alone
>"questioned". What on earth are people doing?
I think the quaint old term is "proceeding about their lawful
occasion". Believe it or not, a police officer has no power to ask you
what you are lawfully doing, and you have every right not to give him
your details.
Just remember that when you next visit London and travel on the
underground, that looking at or not looking at the police on duty in
the booking hall counts as 'suspicious behaviour'. Cheerily saying
'good morning' to them is even worse as it's a double bluff. Don't
wear a jacket that unseasonably warm, or carry a table leg in a
plastic bag. Not catching the first train that comes is raises
concerns about your behaviour. Try and avoid sweating at all costs.
Of all the 200,000 stops under the TA2000, none at all have ever found
anything to with terrorism. Something like 197,000 have found nothing
at all. A well-targetted piece of legislation. Not.
Yeti
> Elsewhere, a contributor to this group claims to record conversations
> with the police. The implication is that he has them often. One wonders
> what sort of "activities" he is involved in which lead to such frequent
> discussions.
>
Nothing illegal - yet being accused of it frequently. Currently being
taken to court for having no insurance on a vehicle, despite having a
letter of indemnity from the insurance company proving the vehicle was
insured at the time the police stole it.
Lordgnome
"Brian Reay" <seewe...@invalid.com> wrote in message news:trkWm.67100> I
> struggle to remember ever being stopped by the police let alone
> "questioned". What on earth are people doing?
>
I suspect that it might have quite a bit to do with the area in which you
live.
Out her in the wilds of Wales, we never see the police, let alone get
stopped (Unless they are hiding in the hedge on the Scamera beat). I suspect
that someone wandering around London or Birmingham in an apparently aimless
manner might well be a target for bored police.
Les.
Lordgnome
"Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
news:hgcu28$e3v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Nothing illegal - yet being accused of it frequently. Currently being
> taken to court for having no insurance on a vehicle, despite having a
> letter of indemnity from the insurance company proving the vehicle was
> insured at the time the police stole it.
Keep us posted. Nice if you could sue the bastards for wasting everyones
time and money!
Les.
Spike
Lordgnome wrote:
You don't understand how the criminal justice system works.
The police in this case will be able to show that they had a
'reasonable suspicion' that an offence had taken place, and that they
took steps to investigate it.
The 'reasonable suspicion' may have been a fabrication, and the
'investigation' a travesty (see the Barry George case for a
comprehensive description of these), but that's bye the bye.
This will have been written up and passed to the Crown Prosecution
Service, the duty of which is to assess the case to see whether there
is a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. If so, a summons
is issued.
A police officer cannot be sued for carrying out his duties.
Yeti
My car back, plus expenses for the time taken to make phone calls, visit
the police station (under the false pretence of having my car returned,
when it was in fact so I could be charged with an offence I had already
proven myself innocent of), loss of the remaining MOT and tax on the
car, and interest on the retail value of the vehicle between the time of
theft (unlawful siezure) and return, as well as repairs that will now be
required due to the length of it's incarceration (brakes and fresh fuel).
Plus a written apology....
None of which is unreasonable, but how much of that do you think I'll
actually see in reality?
Yeti
> Lordgnome wrote:
>
>> "Yeti" <ye...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
>> news:hgcu28$e3v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Nothing illegal - yet being accused of it frequently. Currently being
>>> taken to court for having no insurance on a vehicle, despite having a
>>> letter of indemnity from the insurance company proving the vehicle was
>>> insured at the time the police stole it.
>> Keep us posted. Nice if you could sue the bastards for wasting everyones
>> time and money!
>> Les.
>>
>
> You don't understand how the criminal justice system works.
>
> The police in this case will be able to show that they had a
> 'reasonable suspicion' that an offence had taken place, and that they
> took steps to investigate it.
>
But they can't - the law on s.165a of the Road Traffic Act states
'belief' rather than 'suspicion' - I had already told them it was
insured under a motor trade policy, and indeed, before the recovery
company towed it away, I had produced my insurance to the local police
where I was at the time. They contacted the police at my house (by
Airwave) and were fobbed off and ignored.
>
> A police officer cannot be sued for carrying out his duties.
No, but in this case the vehicle was insured, they were informed it was
insured (by two seperate sources), they made no attempt to contact the
insurance company before it's removal.
Therefore, the lawful reason behind seizing the car did not exist, and
they have taken away a car without lawful authority - thereby committing
theft of a motor vehicle.
Last I checked, the Police weren't supposed to steal cars.
Ian Jackson
<ye...@ayrshore.com> writes
Is that a rhetorical question? Get money FROM them? All you'll get is a
bill for towing and storage charges.
--
Ian
Yeti
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <hgdlkl$lj...@news.eternal-september.org>, Yeti
> <y...@ayrshore.com> writes
>
>
>
> >Lordgnome wrote:
> >> "Yeti" <y...@ayrshore.com> wrote in message
They STOLE my car - removed it without lawful authority. If they'd
left it where it was (which is what they should have done) it wouldn't
have cost them a penny.
Dave
> In article <v2uhi59aek0trbu9s...@4ax.com>, Spike says...
>> The officer?s response was: ?We can do anything under the
>> terrorism act?."
>>
> Works both ways. I'm ex-forces so anyone trying to solicit information
> from me which could be of use to a terrorist, such as my name or address
> or movements - i.e what a Police Officer would ask, is liable to arrest
> under the recently amended Terrorism Act - Section 76 I think it is. So
> next time they ask me, I'm going to tell the partner of the officer who
> asks me to arrest him under the Terrorism Act.
Not sure I understand that.
Dave
Dave
GCHQ Pahh. I worked under UK Eyes B.
The department I worked in was tested by the SAS 3 times. They never got in.
Dave
Dave
Having slept, I do now :-)
(I'm having sleeping problems these last few weeks.)
Dave
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
>>
>> Not sure I understand that.
>
>Having slept, I do now :-)
>
>(I'm having sleeping problems these last few weeks.)
>
>Dave
Don't worry about it. That law was to protect ex-military types who
actually know something. Not ignorant ex-squaddies who know sod-all.
Nick.
Dave
Something along this line came up in conversation at lunch time.
About the work that I did, it was highly secret and one day my manager
turned to me and said even the managing director doesn't know what we
are doing. Now that begs the question, of who authorised the project?
I'll never find out now.
Mind you, now I don't care :-)
Dave
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
> About the work that I did, it was highly secret and one day my manager
> turned to me and said even the managing director doesn't know what we are
> doing. Now that begs the question, of who authorised the project?
>
> I'll never find out now.
>
> Mind you, now I don't care :-)
>
> Dave
was that the Blue Streak or the TSR2 ? .......
Spike
Jimbo GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Probably neither.....Dave's clearances give a clue...;-)
Dave
No Jim, it is a project that is yet to be revealed and I retired ten
years ago. :-)
Dave
Brian Reay
news:kqadnaYkQJom_7DW...@bt.com...
Plus, I doubt you are old enough to have worked on TSR2, let alone Blue
Streak!
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
Brabazon? ... r100 r101 ?
Paul Starship
wrote:
>No Jim, it is a project that is yet to be revealed and I retired ten
>years ago. :-)
HMS DREADNOUGHT
Yeti
I've got a photo of the Brabazon at Prestwick (I didn't take it, obviously)
Interesting machine.
Ian Jackson
<seewe...@invalid.com> writes
secret, you don't even so much as hint that you ARE working on something
secret?
--
Ian
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eJMMDLDA...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
> Ian
some people, like me can't keep a secret ....
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
wrote:
>No Jim, it is a project that is yet to be revealed and I retired ten
>years ago. :-)
>
>Dave
I don't think the Sopwith Camel is still on the secret list, Dave.
Nick.
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
>I've got a photo of the Brabazon at Prestwick (I didn't take it, obviously)
>
>Interesting machine.
Didn't I read somewhere that Jimbo was given a flight on that, to
celebrate his 40th birthday?
Nick.
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
<luc...@eternal-flames.gov> wrote in message
news:njrri55r8vuek8cmu...@4ax.com...
I never get sod all nice for my burfday .........
jeff
>>
>> Plus, I doubt you are old enough to have worked on TSR2, let alone
>> Blue Streak!
>>
> Surely, under the Official Secrets Act, if you are working on something
> secret, you don't even so much as hint that you ARE working on something
> secret?
Not necessarily, each project will have an 'Aspects Letter' which will
state the classification of various parts of the project. Some projects
will state that even the name, or existence, has some classification or
other, but others will say that it is Unclassified.
73
Jeff
Lordgnome
"jeff" <je...@local.host> wrote in message news:hgl0tn$9mp$1...@aioe.org...
> Not necessarily, each project will have an 'Aspects Letter' which will
> state the classification of various parts of the project. Some projects
> will state that even the name, or existence, has some classification or
> other, but others will say that it is Unclassified.
Yes things have changed a bit since WW2. I used to work for the Defence
evaluation & research agency. Folk often said "I suppose you arn't allowed
to talk about that then?" I usually surprised them by saying that not only
could I talk about it in general terms, I was encouraged by my employer
(MOD) to advertise the existence of DERA and get some commercial work in if
at all possible!
Les.
Dave
Once again, a nice try Jim. :-)
I really couldn't comment.
Now can anyone tell me what prog that came from.
Dave
Jimbo GM4DHJ ...
Catweazel
<ianREMOVETHISjack...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <mtdXm.82481$QH6.7...@newsfe28.ams2>, Brian Reay
> <seewebs...@invalid.com> writes
>
>
>
> >"Dave" <daven...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:kqadnaYkQJom_7DW...@bt.com...
> >> Jimbo GM4DHJ ... wrote:
> >>>> About the work that I did, it was highly secret and one day my
> >>>>manager turned to me and said even the managing director doesn't
> >>>>know what we are doing. Now that begs the question, of who
> >>>>authorised the project?
>
> >>>> I'll never find out now.
>
> >>>> Mind you, now I don't care :-)
>
> >>>> Dave
>
> >>> was that the Blue Streak or the TSR2 ? .......
>
> >> No Jim, it is a project that is yet to be revealed and I retired ten
> >>years ago. :-)
>
> >Plus, I doubt you are old enough to have worked on TSR2, let alone Blue
> >Streak!
>
> Surely, under the Official Secrets Act, if you are working on something
> secret, you don't even so much as hint that you ARE working on something
> secret?
luc...@eternal-flames.gov
<jim.g...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>I never get sod all nice for my burfday .........
When I get back, I'll see if I can drum up interest in a 'lets all
feel sorry for Jimbo' day.
Something for you to look forward to.