 |
 |
Met warns officers off photographers
John Oates
The Register
Thursday, July 9, 2009
The Metropolitan Police has issued guidance to its officers to remind them that using a camera in public is not in itself a terrorist offence.
There has been increasing concern in recent months that police have been over-using terrorism laws and public order legislation to harass professional and amateur photographers. The issue was raised in Parliament and the Home Office agreed to look at the rules.
The guidance reminds officers that the public do not need a licence to take photographs in the street and the police have no power to stop people taking pictures of anything they like, including police officers.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
The over-used Terrorism Act of 2000 does not ban photography either, although it does allow police to look at images on phones or cameras during a search to see if they could be useful to a terrorist.
Section 58 of the Act covers the offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about any member of the armed forces, spying agencies or the police. But officers must show a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in terrorism – it is not a blanket ban on photographing working police officers.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
23 Responses to “Met warns officers off photographers”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Nice, it is about time someone came to their senses.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I remember on new years eve last year I was in parliament square full of people – this was before the new law came in and I took a picture of a guy being arrested. An officer came up to me and said “if you take any more pictures than I will have to take the camera away as evidence” – so while I was free to take photos of police and such like I ran the risk of confiscation of my expensive camera. And this was before the controversial law came into force. So if you take pics of a crime scene or event like a protest then they are in theor rights to confiscate your camera even if they susect that a crime is being comitted by someone else.
So, by definition, if you are a 70 year old granny who takes a snap of Parliament or another potential terror target then put it on the internet then you are just as guilty as the terrorist that the government seeks to thwart. (and that’s assuming that terrorists exist inasmuch as they are are always a creation of government mis-doings)
Stop Wearing Tinfoil says Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
How in the world do you guys live in your aquairium…. Dont you feel like there lab rats?
England sucks ass . We left there only to bring the bastards with us. Now the freaks are trying to kill us then they’ll come for there countrymen …Same shite different day.
mjfdog Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
Please check out his site that I found… It is awesome and there is so much information about everything. The spiritual info is just what the doctor ordered… Too much bad news all of the time…. Turn your day around… http://www.thegrandawakening.com
crazations Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Obviously they had to backtrack on this ‘Law’ as they didn’t have enough Prison Cells for all the Japanese tourists in London.
July 9th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Noolabour,They brought in another classic offence ‘glorifying terrorism’, I suspect to thwart their nemesis George respect Galloway…THEN ,almost the next day, they unveil a X2 lifesize bronze statue of Nelson Mandela in Parliament square with much ceremony and licky speeches!
July 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
all those cams about watching the people, and they worry about everybody else taking photos because in their mind, you are a potential terrorist.
in every police encounter nowadays it seems that you are what they think you are: carrying potentially offensive weapons like toenail cutters that can poke your eye out. You have to be beaten and taken to jail, where you just may slip on the slime and kill yourself.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
First Contact is about to happen. These are exciting times. A whistleblower and several persons associated with the Obama Administration have come forward to FINALLY reveal the truth about Extra-Terrestrial existence. There is a benevolent race called the Galactic Federation of Light, a consortium of 1200 inhabited planets which have reached a deal for final First Contact. Google & You Tube First Contact and learn the truth.
This is all a part of 2012 and the Ascension process. Visit this web site and learn what these kind ET brethren want us to know and how to prepare:
http://www.thegrandawakening.com/services.html
kswatcher Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
I don’t know if I would be too trusting of extraterrestrials. How do you know they aren’t the serpent seed referred to in the Bible? How are you going to know if they are really benevolent? It could just as easily be a trick, which we have been warned about.
artsy Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:15 am
beware of lying signs and wonders. We were warned.
sporidium Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Exactly. Intelligent alien life cannot exist within a universe subjected to the second law of thermodynamics, since that law is in place as a result of man’s fall; otherwise you would have intelligent alien beings bound by a form of physics set in place as a direct consequence of human sin. It is conceivable that beings in another dimension(s) could exist, outside our laws of thermodynamics, and able to interact with us, but Scripturally speaking that would be defined as angelic beings. In my view therefore, any substance to the whole “alien” thing is demonic.
Steve Williams Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Sigh…
Human “intelligence”…
An oxymoron if there ever was one. According to humanity, when can personal opinions replace facts? “Always!!!” According to humanity, when is any sort of actual proof ever needed? “Never!!!”
No wonder we’re so screwed. What’s the use of having a brain if no one ever bothers to use it?
artsy Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 4:15 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFnz30_Nslc
July 9th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
You know, it is just ridiculous that police officers should have to be reminded about this at all.
WolfHound Reply:
July 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
True, 2 True
July 9th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO REMIND THEM ? HOW LAME IS THAT ? BUNCH OF BRAINWASHED HEATHEN WORKERS FOR THE NWO
July 10th, 2009 at 12:55 am
CONSTABLE – An officer, generally elected by the people, who possesses power as a conservator of the peace at common law, and by virtue of various legislative enactments.
we see that a “Constable” is “an officer, generally elected by the people”?
Hot damn – there it is in Black and White that a Constable is responsible primarily for upholding the peace under COMMON LAW.
Also take a look at the Attestation published earlier, it says …
“I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property;” “and by virtue of various legislative enactments”
“and that while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.”
Its says … “ACCORDING TO LAW!”
Statute / Leglislation are merely a set of rules given the FORCE of law by the consent of the governed”
though the Definition says “by various legislative enactments” those very legislative enactments are impotent unless we give our consent to be governed by them. I certainly don’t!
Statue and legislation is NOT law! Merely a set of rules (not law) given the FORCE of law (same power as if law SUBJECT TO) by the CONSENT (means agreement and recognition of that FORCE of law) of the GOVERNED (by you and without which the FORCE of law does not apply).
NOWHERE, I Repeat NOWHERE in the Attestation (Oath) of a Constable does it mention or speak of STATUTE or LEGISLATION! Therefore by default no single Police Constable in this land has agreed to uphold Statute / leglislation in their Oath.
“He may also arrest a supposed offender upon the information of others but he does so at his peril, unless he can show that a felony has been committed by some person, as well as the reasonableness of the suspicion that the party arrested is guilty.”
so from what I am reading here is that there is a price to pay if a Constable makes an arrest without being able to show that a felony has been committed along with the reasonableness of the suspicion that the arrested party is guilty.
Chris Diminie Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Yes indeed, a Law Enforcement Officer and a Peace Officer are 2 very different things.
And I imagine the word “Police” comes from Policy, implying a Law Enforcement roll.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:00 am
Wow you can actually take a photograph of a God? Whoa…
July 10th, 2009 at 6:38 am
the brits have started to revolt.they are taking to the streets.
shissss this is a secret do not let the authorities know.
July 10th, 2009 at 7:01 am
Hip Hip Hooray!
July 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Police in Montreal do this too. I’ve been stopped by police for filming them, asked why I was filming and asked to show the police my film. I told them their activities are of public interest, and refused to show them my film.
They told me that filming wasn’t protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms…I told them it most certainly is and that I happened to have a full copy of the document in my camera bag, and offered to show them. They didn’t want to see it.
They asked for ID, i refused, and asked them why they weren’t displaying ID on their uniforms, and the junior officer stated that they “don’t need to wear ID anymore.”
The lead officer seeing that they weren’t getting anywhere said: “Well, you know your rights so there’s nothing we can do….” What was THAT supposed to mean??
They told me I was free to go on my way, I informed them that I was waiting for a friend and wasn’t moving. They left.
I shouldn’t have to give the Montreal Police civics lessons to have my rights intact.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
If people do not want to be filmed, they can just move away from the photographer. Jumping up in front of a photographer is something reckless as rushing toward a car on the street.