from monday, it's illegal to photograph police officers

Former Member

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti-terror-laws


yet another dodgy anti terrorism provision coming into effect


I say organise a day of photographing every on duty police officer you see and putting it all on one website...

Former Member

They say we're 10 or 20 years behind America; as the Bush years recede in America, they continue apace in the UK.

JsT

I'm sick of hearing about Photographers getting shit from cops for public photography. This is just another step towards a nanny state.

Former Member

Jesus Christ. We might as well bring Mussolini back to life and put him in charge. At least you knew where you stood with him.

Former Member

Those in power need a serious reality check as present - the Home Office ignore their own research - ACPO spy on peaceful dissent - and now it will be even harder for police to be caught doing things that they shouldn't.

Whowhere (wherever you are) what's your take on this - what will rank and file police officers think of this?

Former Member

This decision is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. I can't say it often enough. They can take as many bloody photographs of us as they want, (and they already do - it's called CCTV) yet try and take any pictures of them and suddenly it's different?

East Germany before the fall of Soviet Russia had it better than we do.

Former Member

I thought it already was. Tracking of people leaving and entering the country is coming into force too. Not just general border control, but it's meant to 1) Cut down on crime, 2) Cut down on illegal immigrants and 3) Of course, fight terrorism. Though I don't see why they don't just improve the system that's already meant to combat this crap, rather than making another just to say "TERRORISM!".

Former Member

JavaKrypt wrote: »

Though I don't see why they don't just improve the system that's already meant to combat this crap, rather than making another just to say "TERRORISM!".

Because introducing new, draconian legislation allows this government yet more power over us. The fact that the grounds for requesting these powers are completely non-existent doesn't matter one jot to these chancers.

Former Member

Yup. Don't mean to sound like a huge conspiracy theroist, but this whole one world government thing just seems highly sureal considering all the crap that is changing. Mainly towards Terrorism. But I guess we'll see. "It's never to late to change" and all that.

Former Member

Does anyone else get the feeling that these sorts of laws are just created to essentially allow the police to arrest people for whatever reason they want on a technicality?

Former Member

JavaKrypt wrote: »

Yup. Don't mean to sound like a huge conspiracy theroist, but this whole one world government thing just seems highly surreal considering all the crap that is changing.

At first, I used to think that the idea of the new world order was utterly mental. But it seems to be becoming closer and closer every day.

Former Member

Same here. Now it seems like all the peices are fitting in place.

JsT

I wonder what Austin Mitchell has said about it, if anything. His motion about photographers rights seemed to be moving in the right direction, until now......

Former Member

Here's something else about "terrorism".
Fox News have said Terrorist Experts have said that Muslim Extremists are watching the devestation the bush fires in Australia, and are "taking notes". Are they serious?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490306,00.html

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Does anyone else get the feeling that these sorts of laws are just created to essentially allow the police to arrest people for whatever reason they want on a technicality?

The use of digital photography and filming equipment, along with CCTV has made it safer than ever for protestors to use their voice without the risk of police violence.

One can only hope that it will still be as safe to demonstrate in the UK.

Skive

Of course they're making it illegal. How else do you expect them to get away with behaving like absolute cunts.

Makes me want to go out and take pics.

Former Member

Wonder what else they will do to make it more difficult to prove a copper could ever be in the wrong or commit any sort of crime.

All though it will open a whole new idea of "drive-by-shootings" ha ha ha

<goes to look for his camera>

Former Member

Martin_Bashir wrote: »

Whowhere (wherever you are) what's your take on this - what will rank and file police officers think of this?

Honestly? I don't know. I personally don't give a shit if someone takes my picture, I'm that well known in the areas I work that it really is irrelevant if my picture is recorded for posterity, and I fail to see how my picture could help a terrorist.
I've not had chance to gauge opinion, but I'm sure it'll be divided. I expect rurally most cops also won't give a toss as they're all known anyway. I think you'll run into problems in city centres, as a photographer and PCSO I'm well aware of the issues with police not knowing the law surrounding taking pictures, and traditionally cops in cities have hated having their photo taken, one of the benefits of city working is anonyminity.

it's certainly a law I wouldn't be bothered about chasing people for, not unless they were the sort of photographer that invades your personal space and jams a zoom lens in your face, in which case existing laws would be more than enough.

Former Member

On bonfire night I took some excellent photos of policeman having a light sabre fight with those stupid flashy toys you get at such events.

Then they refused to return them as they liked them too much. Boo

Former Member

It says professional photographers so surely that means the drunken photo's people have taken with the PCs are still legal? It's not EVERY single photo by anyone, or have I misinterpreted?

Personally I don't give a shit either, although I suppose it does give you a good reason to send a photographer from the press away if you hate having your photo taken and published whilst at a major incident, which some do, including me.

Former Member

The legislation doesn't say anything about which sort of photographers. All it says is photos that could be of use/assistance to terrorists.

JsT

Define 'professional' photographer too!

Former Member

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/16/protest-police-liberty-central

If anyone has seen the film 'Taking Liberties' I am sure they will be worried by this turn of events - the police, as with all institutions, are imperfect and contain a mixture of good and bad and borderline eggs...the anti terror legislation is far too easy to abuse, a point which just isn't up for debate anymore given the track record of evidence on such abuses.

This really is a worrying development in my view.

Having mulled the article over for a bit - I think it might be time that the citizenry actually took police accountability more seriously. Evidently, massive strides have been made in the last fifty years but the worrying thing is that police forces and councils up and down the country have flat out abused powers that were meant to protect us.

Alot of Coppers are nice, considerate, helpful people but some of them aren't - some of them are bastards, and some of them think themselves above the law and the citizenry - it is these I am worried about.

Former Member

Whowhere wrote: »

The legislation doesn't say anything about which sort of photographers. All it says is photos that could be of use/assistance to terrorists.

And that's the problem. These mendacious bastards have deliberately made sure the wording of the legislation was as vague as possible. Meaning that all sorts of innocents will get caught up.

Former Member

Seeing as Google Earth images have been known to be used to be used by various groups planning anything from attacks to stunts, can it be long before the government bans access to them in the UK?

Fucking wankers :rolleyes:

Former Member

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillance

mWAHAHAHAHAHAHA this is too good!

Former Member

Martin_Bashir wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/19/ukcrime-surveillance

mWAHAHAHAHAHAHA this is too good!

they can see how it is to be on the other end of it now, and they don't like it suprise suprise

Former Member

Perhaps it's just me, but I can see the difference between cameras to catch people breaking into cars and cameras set up to see who isn't washing their dishes...

Skive

Flashman's Ghost wrote: »

Perhaps it's just me, but I can see the difference between cameras to catch people breaking into cars and cameras set up to see who isn't washing their dishes...

Littering is a crime.
If you get caught by CCTV dropping a wrapper in the street and the gavers will be straight on to you. What's the difference?


"Mr Bartlett said no extra money was being spent on the camera because it was already owned by Sussex Police."

Meaning it had already been paid for by the tax payer and had been collecting dust since.

Former Member

Perhaps it's just me, but I can see the difference between cameras to catch people breaking into cars and cameras set up to see who isn't washing their dishes...

Of course, but I wasn't suggesting equivalence, I was suggesting comedy value...

Former Member

Skive wrote: »

Littering is a crime.
If you get caught by CCTV dropping a wrapper in the street and the gavers will be straight on to you. What's the difference?

I'm not aware of anyone in our force who has done this. No cop is going to go through the hassle of trying to identify someone on CCTV, find them, issue them a ticket just because they dropped some litter or rode a bike on a pavement.

Assaulting someone or stealing something then yes.