not an isolated case.. Police arrest man for photographing them | Metro.co.uk
No I did not by Ghost in the Machine due to Stings silky voice....the ...er...real police.
here is a dodgy incidence of the Police abusing their powers and the most feeble excuse known to man...
So does he mean; if you suspect someone is a terrorist then you can stop and search ? or you can stop anyone you feel like under those powers regardless of the reason ? I suspect he means the latter.Originally Posted by the article
Ah, but here he tries to define it more clearly and succeeds in saying that searches are justified if there are "articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism". He clearly considers visible cameras to qualify,only ever indirectly involved in terrorism. However, there are many reports of mobile phones being used as detonation devices as well as, rather obviously , communication devices - LOOK, direct terrorism involvement! Yet people with mobiles are not routinely stopped and questioned - why the double standard ? Is it because it's ridiculous ?'The act states that "this power can only be used for the purposes of searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism, and may be exercised whether or not the constable has grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind".'
False conclusion (sometimes called the "having a laugh" conclusion) as it redefines "reasonable" beyond understandingHe added: 'It is therefore reasonable for the officer in this case to have made reference to the act and been suspicious about why the photograph of the vehicle had been taken.'
not an isolated case.. Police arrest man for photographing them | Metro.co.uk
Incidents of Police, and others abusing some of these acts have been surfacing for some time now.
Remember the old codger banned from entering the Labour party conference under the Terrorism act because he heckled Straw ?
The cyclist who was arrested and searched after walking along a cycle lane. Excuse ? It was by a docks, so they could do so under the Terrorism act.
My local paper has covered several small, but telling abuses of this power.
These anti-terrorism acts are not really anti-terrorism acts at all. That was just the excuse by which the government could con the public and avoid outrage. They are basically Police State acts.
I'm sure our youngsters will adapt and fight this crap in there own way, and I know its only an 'old fart' viewpoint, but I am glad I am not a youngster growing up today, I would have a bleak outlook on the future, this Labour government really are the pits. And I am not political at all.
IMO of course.
At this moment, somebody, somewhere, is ferreting around in hyperspace tracking down the real identites of Dreadful Scathe and Beowulf, two politically-motivated individuals who are giving the oxygen of publicity to suspected terrorists who film police committing crimes.
So, on the logic of Supt Sherrington, police will be entitled to visit the homes of DS and Beo while "searching for articles of a kind which could be used in connection with terrorism".
Get ready for that 3am knock on the door, boys ..........
Quite right too. Anybody from the planet Scathe is guilty of interplanetary terrorism. The police of Portsmouth know this planet has been guilty of ignoring blue planets for too long and will be watching out for all three inch tall individuals with a blue face - if you match this description I recommend you avoid Portsmouth, visit Liverpool and mingle with the Diddy men
Me? I'm nearly four inches tall in my stilettos and wear orange make-up like any self-repecting Portsmouth dancer should
Politically motivated? There's a larf.. I don't vote.. couldn't tell you who our local MP is .. barely know anyone in the cabinet other than wossname brown.
Politically motivated? Nah mate.. I just read the Metro.. renowned for it's cutting edge exposés of political scandals..
.. and the occasional story about a singing dog.
oh btw.. I do hate wasting the tax payers money.. I'll Save them some time.. Pete Little SE22
I am inclined to agree that authorities are overstepping the line when they start harassing people for taking photographs in public places. As far as I'm aware, taking photographs in public spaces has (generally) never been illegal (there are some particular exceptions).
For Australian forumites who are keen photographers, I'd encourage you to download, print, and keep on your person this handy pocket guide to your rights as a street photographer, from the Arts Law Centre of Australia:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/_documents...hersRights.pdf
You can also view an online version here:
http://www.artslaw.com.au/legalinfor...hersRights.asp
Non-Australians: many of the principles expressed in this information apply to other jurisdictions as well, but do keep in mind that these guides are intended to only apply to the Commonwealth of Australia and not to other countries.
Google Street maps are generally a good idea - they are free and open and set out to blur out actual people if they catch them in the picture. I'm much more worried when the govenment have that sort of technology and keep it to themselves.
on another note, I found this story and more new definitions from the police.
A 5 year old shot her 18 month old brother in the head with an air pistol; to quote "The 18-month old's father, handyman Bakht Zaman, 29, was using the gun for target practice moments before the incident. But as he answered his mobile..."
Basically, he left the gun, loaded and ready to fire next to a 5 year old.
"Rashid's sister is really active and she got hold of the gun and pointed it at her brother." what ? she's really active ? is that an excuse to cover the incompotent father? its a mere step away from saying "she was lightning fast as she reached for the gun and in one swift movement, pivoted on the balls of her feet and fired, outpacing her attentive Father who slipped on a banana skin whilst leaping in the way of the pellet".
But the line from the West Midlands Police is that the shooting appeared to be a "tragic accident".
um...right. So when George W Bush leaves the big red nuclear armageddon button in a StarBucks and some 5 year old presses it, I'm sure it will equally be a "tragic accident", perhaps tempered with "it was only Russia anyway".
A UK version is available here:
UK Photographers Rights
Alternately just google "UK photographer's rights" for a host of good information on this subject.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks