Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

Somthing is very wrong with the 'anti-terror' laws in this country. High time they where scrapped.

USA ain't much better, man. You can be harassed for taking pictures of facilities like hospitals, sports arenas, or other "high-value targets."

My dad got hassled by a hospital security guard a few years ago for taking a picture of the front of the facility for the local Chamber of Commerce. He didn't actually get arrested - but it was close!

The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.

It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.

That is pretty disgusting to be honest. Granted everyone was being very polite, but there was, in my mind, no reasonable cause for the police to arrest that man, assuming that he was behaving as any other photographer would do at any similar event.

I think they just wanted his details (which as was made clear, many people would have just given, even though they are not obliged to under the flim flam law that they were requested under), and when he declined to give them to the police, they made up a load of crap to get him under a law which requires a person to give their details up.

Good on him for sticking to his guns.

These sorts of arrests and threatenings have been increasing for some years, after the various Anti-Terrorism legislation in the early 00s.

Keen amateur photographers are advised to print out the summary of their legal rights and carry it with them in case they are stopped by police.

The rights doc can be found using Google, and will vary according to the country you live in.

A quick reference card (for the UK) can be found here.

warpcrafter wrote:The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.

It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.

...I really hope you're being sarcastic.

They used to just take your camera or film away if you were caught taking pictures of people like
Customs Officials and the like.

When people snap pictures of me, the authorities confiscate the photos. Something about "the good of the nation."

The government manages to do one thing right at last.

Back OT, someone got arrested in Manchester for taking pictures of drain gratings.

Now wait.

British folks--are your lot actually pressing charges, or just handing out fines and confiscating the cameras?

In the cases I have read about the charges are always dropped because they are complete nonsense and wouldn't stand up in front of a magistrate for five minutes. The 'perp' still has the fun experience of spending a few hours in the cells, and gets his DNA on the database.

(I mean, think about it. What policeman would want to actually go on the witness stand and accuse a person of having filmed a Christmas Parade in an anti-social manner. Or that he was taking pictures of drain gratings in a suspiciously terrorist methodology. The copper would be laughed out of court.)

It's illegal for the police to confiscate the cameras, film, SD cards or to delete photos, however it has been known to occur especially when the photographer is sufficiently intimidated to allow the police to do it.

Some police have even arrested photographers for taking pictures of policemen beating them up, on the grounds that it is terrorist behaviour.

London Police have had to be officially reminded they are legally obliged to wear their ID numbers all the time to allow members of the public to identify them. That is where we have got to.

They're required to hold you(as far as I know) for at least a short while to check up on your story for something like that, though.

warpcrafter wrote:The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.

It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.

Exactly. Welcome to 1984 with a smiley face. As long as there is crap being pumped into the living room through the TVs and hot chicks on the internet we're all willing prisoners in our own countries.

Something like the end of V for Vendetta is needed where everyone shows up with cameras.

warpcrafter wrote:The whole point of such laws is twofold.
#1: To give the police the authority to bully the public and generally treat people as less than proper citizens, so that they will eventually get used to such treatment.
#2: To promote a general feeling of fear, as if those laws are necessary, because the "Terrorists" are going to attack again, any minute and kill us all.

It's just a general softening up for then they decided to unleash another false flag attack, then they will declare martial law and drag us to the FEMA camps.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

You know, what I've never been able to figure out about this NWO stuff is the motivation. Not for belief, that's easy enough to understand, but the motivation for enacting any sort of NWO. Historically, violent coups are enacted by people who consider themselves to be marginalized, or oppressed, not by shadow governments that already possess nearly limitless power via anonymity.

I don't get it either Dogma.

I think we need to wear tinfoil hats and have secret bunkers to really 'get' it.

dogma wrote:You know, what I've never been able to figure out about this NWO stuff is the motivation.

Perhaps it depends on how they look at humans? Are we physical beings with spirit or spiritual beings that have taken on a physical form? They don't call it the occult for nothing. Apparently, the NWO types are heavy heavy into that stuff.

Um what, Khornholio?

The "NWO" following for the most part is a bunch of nutters who believe that there's a "Shadow Government" that is behind ALL of the other governments, and trying its hardest to bring us in line with their Master Plan.

Sure, some of them bring in the Lizardpeople from Beta Centauri-8, but most just think idiotic things like Bush planned 9/11 so that he could pave the way for Obama to take over and establish an international World Order with Bush Sr. in place at its head.

people go on about islamic countries having less freedom. But if this is our response to terrorism.
WHY bother fighting, because they've allready won.

He was arrested for failing to provide details when asked.
His mate was released after co-operating

As I understand it, an officer is entitled to approach anyone they deem to be acting suspiciously.
but they cannot just take your camera or confiscate the images.

I remeber when at the public libray doing an experiment videotaping it a couple of kids ran through the shot. We then were forced to delete the shot. Aprently you can video tape kids in the librarey. They wernt even part of the experiment. there parents were. A guy with the group even got his house a visit because he was stupid enough to apply for a card that day.

garret wrote:I remember when at the public library doing an experiment. When we were videotaping it a couple of kids ran through the shot, we then were forced to delete the shot. Apparently you can't video tape kids in the library. They weren't even part of the experiment, their parents were. A guy with the group even got his house a visit because he was stupid enough to apply for a card that day.

I fixed that to be more comprehensible for you Garret, but I'm not sure what the last part is meaning to say...

The guy got a visit from the police because he applied for a library card after filming children in a library?
How old was he? Your age or younger? Older than 18?

Because there's a possibility that someone figured him as doing scouting for kidnapping or child pornography.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:People go on about Islamic countries having less freedoms. But if this is our response to terrorism.
WHY bother fighting, because they've already won.

You do realize that there's a very, very, very good reason to detain someone who's taking photographs of potential targets...right?
And you do also realize that Al Qaeda and its similar organizations no longer restrict themselves to using 'just' Middle Eastern males 20-45 with traditional beards, right?

Welcome to the ever-evolving world of counterterrorism. The enemy isn't what you think you know.

No we were 17. all of us. But im just taking that guy at face value. idk if its true.
But even the lidrary knew that we were doing an experiment. they could have told them that.
And it wasnt the police. it was an lady who child was with the group.

garret wrote:No, we were 17(all of us). But I'm just taking that guy at face value. I don't know if it's true.
But even the library knew that we were doing an experiment, and they could have told them that.
It wasn't the police, it was a lady whose child was with the group.

Still not sure what you're talking about either way. The woman came to the camera operator's house because her child walked into the video during the experiment?

What the heck were you doing for an experiment that required you to film in a public library anyways?

We were taping peoples reaction to people playing loud music in the library. It is and experiment in breaking a social norm.
And i was the operater. He was one who played the music.
This will help explain it.

First--much better spelling and grammer. Still some problems, but much much easier for me to read and not want to make corrections to. We'll make you a literary icon soon enough. *highfive*

Second--Was the child whose mother came to the house one of those whose reactions were filmed for the experiment or what?

Because if you filmed their reactions and didn't TELL the child afterward, there's a pretty big issue due to the fact that you just videotaped someone without their consent.

I dont know. We wernt paying attention. Besides it was public. Why should we have to get consent. Also the children wernt part of the experiment. We just were in the child part of the library to vido tape the adults that were thr..... Ohh. know I get it. Crud. Oh well just what happned. it was like 4 month ago. not that big of a deal anymore. What were we thinking.

*facepalm*

Yes I face palm myself. But luckily it wasnt my idea. I didnt plan the experiment at all.
Oh well its all over. nothing happened.
can we close this topic know and get back on to the OP post.