UK Terror Law To Make Photographing Police Illegal
According to the British Journal of Photography, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which is set to become law on February 16th 2009, “allows 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’.” The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine.
Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
A ridiculously complex document;
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_1
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 17:43,
Reply)
wow....
So basically, you are not allowed to use video evidence against the police if they are out of order?
This sounds fucking dodgy to me.
(
Kung_Fu_Russ ran out of amusing signatures on, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 17:47,
Reply)
That's about it, yes.
We're all terror suspects now.
FUN!
"Besides the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain, one for every fourteen people, Police are now equipped with mobile surveillance vans and head mounted cameras and they routinely videotape everyone at a protest, yet anyone attempting to record them has been met with increasing hostility."
(
(|D[ekionplexis B3ta.com: fictional child porn is OK, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 17:49,
Reply)
we are living in a police state..
no doubt about it.
(
Kung_Fu_Russ ran out of amusing signatures on, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 17:51,
Reply)
dodgy numbers
Ahhhh, the old 4.2 million cameras chestnut. This number is always bandied around yet is wildly inacurate, its based on a 2002 paper which only counted the number of cameras on Putney High Street. They used this tiny sample to estimate how many there are in the entire country.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 21:50, Reply)
I wonder what next weeks image challenge will be
I think we've had "shop the cops" though
(
VampireMonkeyOnSpeed a super sexy sexual sex terrorist sex, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 18:12,
Reply)
not sure about this
it's under section 76 here
www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9#pt7-pb3-l1g76
seems like it's information as in collected data, not images. i think it would specifically have to state that to get away with it...
i'm not a fan of the terrorist act! - it's the biggest heap of shit spunked out in a while.
(
null and void, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 18:23,
Reply)
Hope it
doesn't apply to these racist policebears I took a pic of today.
(
moogy boobles, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 18:54,
Reply)
Bejeesus
To be honest I trust Prison Planet as far as I could throw it if it was a very heavy tangible object, but googling it produced even scarier stuff from The Register.
www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/23/police_photographer_stops/
Our country sucks balls. If anyone can think of a practical way for our country to stop sucking balls, I would like to hear it.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 19:11, Reply)
This tells you something about the police
Nothing about the law.
And the news that some police officers are semi-sentient fascists is surprising to... well... noone. Ho hum.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 19:21,
Reply)
Nope.
Prisonplanet - not the most reliable source in the world - has quoted a photography magazine. Woo hoo.
There's nothing in the Act that says what you say it does.
Here's a cut-and-paste job from sec 76, which seems to be the closes to what you're rabbiting on about:
76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc
(1)After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58AEliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1)A person commits an offence who—
(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i)a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii)a constable,which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)publishes or communicates any such information.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
Not nearly what you claim.
Again.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 19:18,
Reply)
Well...
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action"
I'm no expert (much like yourself), but surely the fact that you are, within obvious limits, allowed to photograph whatever the hell you like is reasonable enough defence.
(
applehead herp derp, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 19:45,
Reply)
I've been reading up on this lately.
What with being a photographer, its handy to know what you can and can't do.
I know, for starters that I can argue about this being blown out of all proportion and that you are just over-reacting to the slightest thing.
What I can't do is be bothered, because you'll just come back with some bullshit story about chips in our heads and other shite.
So fuck off.
(, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 21:42, Reply)
^ this with bells on
my flatmate is a news journalist, he gets the union magazine every month and I read an article about this exact subject.
In the same way that I had a run in with a twat cinema ticket checker tonight about having some leftover food in my bag and him jobsworthing over it until I left/handed it over/ate it in front of him, you will also get the odd twat policeman who applies the same logic.
Such is life, frankly. Policemen, cinema stub checkers, receptionists...
(, Wed 28 Jan 2009, 23:32, Reply)