It's not that bad really.
The main aspects of it are "which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism" and "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."
Basically if you are taking pictures of policemen and you have a legitimate reason other then "I'm a terrorist" then it's fine.
(
bobzarkoff, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:24,
Reply)
Someone who commits an act of terrorism
Terrorism being: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."
(
bobzarkoff, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:30,
Reply)
Which pretty much means they can use an 'anti terrorist' law
whenever the hell they feel like it. I don't see why they have to bring in a bunch of new stuff on the back of 'anti terrorist' stuff, it's just confusing.
Like national ID cards. How the hell does that have anything to do with 'terrorism'? Why not just bring it in as anti fraud and protection like they did in the rest of Europe?
(
Hellzapoppin, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 9:55,
Reply)
Harrumph
Certain police have shown a tendency to be dicks to photographers already. This act seems to do little else except allow them to be more dickish if they want to be, as well as giving them something to hide behind.
(, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:32, Reply)
You always get the odd cop that will be like that
Just like when you go to the supermarket you get the odd shelf stacker who thinks he runs the whole shop. The police don't have a leg to stand on if you are legit.
(
bobzarkoff, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:47,
Reply)
Once again
All the more reason not to give them a leg to stand on written into British law.
(, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:53, Reply)
this argument
in itself makes the law useless
i believe police were already peritted to ask people if they are terrorists, and to confiscate items that may lead to the prosecution of such a person.
So why invent a new law?
(, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:38, Reply)
There were too many misunderstandings about the law
This was to try to get it in writing clearly for everyone.
(
bobzarkoff, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:50,
Reply)
fair enough
but the statement "It's not that bad really." should never be one heard in response to a pointless law that was never needed in the first place.
(, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 1:52, Reply)
It's not really that pointless
Without it written down on paper then the police will make their own assumptions about the vague terminology before. Also this law is aim at terrorist and protecting everyone else who is not a terrorist. In other words a tourist taking pictures of a policeman is ok, but a member of the IRA taking pictures of a policeman for recon purposes is not good.
(
bobzarkoff, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 2:01,
Reply)
Nah
The ambiguous words they use are against you, never for you.
Councils use Terror laws to make sure you're not sending your kids to the "Wrong" schools.
This is as disgusting as not letting you protest against parliament... outside parliament.
The jack boot wearing police backed up by totalitarian laws like this will now get away with anything they like and use this law to stop thier malfeasence getting on the b3ta links board... via youtube.
(, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 11:19, Reply)
Why should I need a reason to photograph police officers?
Its my camera, in a public place, and they're in that public place. Perhaps they should wear balaclavas if they don't like being filmed. They're no more entitled to the protection of the law than I am.
(
Pew Pew Pew! Lasers! wannabe Gong Farmer, Tue 3 Feb 2009, 12:34,
Reply)