| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nrmis
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist - great demo |
 |
|
Jail for photographing police?
From the British Journal Of Photography...
| Quote: | Jail for photographing police?
The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow 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'.
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.
Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.
According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.
Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.
The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.
A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'
The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places.
'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations,' Downing Street says.
'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of the relevant force.'
However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James Welch, said the powers were used too widely.
In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of a couple married in Docklands.
She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.
'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.'
The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited to the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the country's parliament building.
Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he was targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic police systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying them,' he says.
The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial system collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of foreign debts incurred by its banks.
Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted by the Icelandic Police.
Check bjp-online.com for updates. |
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836675
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heard this for the 1st time last night (in the Pub, where concerned citizens can still meet in public) so spoke to a Bobby policing a club in town and he was evidently totally oblivious to the new scam!! Oh and against the idea 
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Illegal+to+take+pictures+of+pol ice&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
British Journal of Photography - Taking photos of police officers ... 27 Jan 2009 ... The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers. ...
www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836646 - Similar pages
I-Witness Video Blog: Are you allowed to take pictures of the police? Can the police simply decide that it is illegal for you to to videotape them? Do you have the right to take pictures of police officers at work in public ...
iwitnessvideo.info/blog/9.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages
Illegal to take photos of police in UK and Canada - Canon Digital ... 15 posts - Last post: 9 Dec 2008
Well, not quite yet, but on Feb 16th a law is set to be passed that "would make it illegal to use bad language or take photographs of police ...
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=638358 - 101k - Cached - Similar pages
Illegal to take photos of police in UK and Canada - Page 2 - Canon ... 10 posts - Last post: 9 Dec 2008
Illegal to take photos of police in UK and Canada General Photography Talk. ... As for photos, it's illegal to take a photo of military ...
photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7247289 - 83k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from photography-on-the.net »
Digg - UK makes it illegal to take photos of the Police The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow for the arrest and imprisonment of anyone ...
digg.com/world_news/UK_makes_it_illegal_to_take_photos_of_the_Police - 39k - Cached - Similar pages
Why can't we take pictures of policemen? - Telegraph We should all photograph the police whenever they do something illegal - like drive teh .... have the right to take pictures of police officers not under- ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4632459/Why-cant -we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html - Similar pages
UK law makes it illegal to take pictures of Police Officers! - b ... UK law makes it illegal to take pictures of Police Officers! ... It's a bit difficult to be a news photographer and not take pictures of police officers! ...
www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22820 - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
Photographing thugs 'is assault', police tell householder snapping ... But when Mr Green left his £1million London flat to take photographs of the ... a warning that taking pictures of youths without permission was illegal, ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article.../Photographing-thugs-assault-police -tell-householder-snapping-proof-anti-social-behaviour.html - Similar pages
Planet Kaua`i: Is it illegal to take pictures outside federal ... Is it illegal to take pictures outside federal buildings? Or of police officers? And does it make a difference if he was documenting potential ADA ...
planetkauai.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-it-illegal-to-take-pictures-outsid e.html - 83k - Cached - Similar pages
Are “Close-Up” Photos of Police Wrong or Illegal? « Damon Tucker’s ... 4 Jan 2009 ... So we are allowed to take pictures of Police Officers… ... When I found this news about the UK making it illegal to photograph police, ...
damontucker.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/our-close-up-photos-of-police-wro ng-or-illegal/ - 69k - Cached - Similar pages
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news
Spy chief: We risk a police state --Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has warned that the fear of terrorism is being exploited by the Government to erode civil liberties and risks creating a police state. 16 Feb 2009 Dame Stella accused ministers of interfering with people’s privacy and playing straight into the hands of terrorists... Dame Stella said in an interview with a Spanish newspaper: "The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures. MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/464341 5/Spy-chief-We-risk-a-police-state.html
Terrorist threat 'exploited to curb civil liberties'--Security measures brought in after September 11 attacks 'undermined the rule of law' 17 Feb 2009 Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5, has accused the Government of exploiting public fear of terrorism to restrict civil liberties. Her comments came on the same day as a report published by international jurists suggested that Britain and America have led other countries in "actively undermining" the rule of law and "threatening civil liberties" in the guise of fighting terrorism. In an interview with the Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia, Dame Stella said that a series of increasingly draconian policies have led British citizens to "live in fear and under a police state".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/terrorist-threat-exploit ed-to-curb-civil-liberties-1623795.html
Whitehall colluded in torture of British suspects, says agent 17 Feb 2009 British terrorist suspects who claim they were tortured in Pakistan were then interrogated by MI5 agents under rules drawn up in Whitehall, a court has been told. The Home Office has already launched an inquiry into claims that UK intelligence services colluded in the brutal treatment of British citizens and residents in Pakistan. Last night it emerged that an MI5 officer told the High Court an official policy existed over the questioning of suspects by Pakistani authorities. It was agreed by MI5 lawyers and government figures, he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/whitehall-colluded-in-to rture-of-british-suspects-says-agent-1623987.html
Report: U.S. "war on terror" seriously damages human rights --Report illustrated consequences of notorious counter-terrorism practices such as torture, disappearances, arbitrary and secret detention as well as unfair trials. 17 Feb 2009 The so-called "war on terror" launched by the United States following the 9/11 terror attacks has resulted in serious damage to the world's respect for human rights, according to a report released on Monday. The United States "has adopted measures to counter terrorism that are inconsistent with established principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law," said the report, which was released by an independent panel of eminent jurists. It warned that excessive or abusive counter-terrorism measures adopted by the United States were having influence on other countries and causing them to follow suit.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/17/content_10830239.htm
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GodSaveTheTeam
Moderator
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 575
Location: the eyevolution
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrmis
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| So this law HAS BEEN PASSED?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nrmis
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 294
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That youtube video you have posted is private.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dewstru
Suspended
Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 61
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Isn't this latest bit of newlabour BS the final straw? Broon', at his monthly press conference today, was asked about his government's latest 'anti terror' policy by a foreign journo' who suggested tourists could end up in jail for taking innocent holiday snaps, 'Flash Gordon' (saviour of the universe) just gave a nonsense reply something to the effect...'I-I don' t recognize this image of Britain' 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthseeker john
Validated Poster
Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 577
Location: Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:29 pm Post subject: Why can't we take pictures of policemen |
|
|
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/photographers-criminali sed-as-police-abuse-antiterror-laws-1228149.html | Quote: | Photographers criminalised as police 'abuse' anti-terror laws
Fury as stop-and-search powers are used to block and confiscate legal pictures
By Jonathan Brown
Tuesday, 6 January 2009
The artist Reuben Powell was arrested and imprisoned for photographing an old government building
WILL WINTERCROSS
The artist Reuben Powell was arrested and imprisoned for photographing an old government building
Reuben Powell is an unlikely terrorist. A white, middle-aged, middle-class artist, he has been photographing and drawing life around the capital's Elephant & Castle for 25 years.
With a studio near the 1960s shopping centre at the heart of this area in south London, he is a familiar figure and is regularly seen snapping and sketching the people and buildings around his home – currently the site of Europe's largest regeneration project. But to the police officers who arrested him last week his photographing of the old HMSO print works close to the local police station posed an unacceptable security risk.
"The car skidded to a halt like something out of Starsky & Hutch and this officer jumped out very dramatically and said 'what are you doing?' I told him I was photographing the building and he said he was going to search me under the Anti-Terrorism Act," he recalled.
For Powell, this brush with the law resulted in five hours in a cell after police seized the lock-blade knife he uses to sharpen his pencils. His release only came after the intervention of the local MP, Simon Hughes, but not before he was handcuffed and his genetic material stored permanently on the DNA database.
But Powell's experience is far from uncommon. Every week photographers wielding their cameras in public find themselves on the receiving end of warnings either by police, who stop them under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, or from over-eager officials who believe that photography in a public area is somehow against the law.
Groups from journalists to trainspotters have found themselves on the receiving end of this unwanted attention, with many photographers now fearing that their job or hobby could be under threat.
So serious has the situation become that the MP and keen photographer Austin Mitchell, chairman of the Parliamentary All-Party Photography Group, tabled an early day motion last March deploring the "officious interference or unjustified suspicion" facing camera enthusiasts around public buildings, where they are increasingly told that it is against the law to photograph public servants at all – especially police officers or community support officers – or that members of the public cannot be photographed without their written permission. The Labour MP is now calling for a photography code for officers so that snappers can continue going about their rightful business.
Yet, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers, the law is straightforward. "Police officers may not prevent someone from taking a photograph in public unless they suspect criminal or terrorist intent. Their powers are strictly regulated by law and once an image has been recorded, the police have no power to delete or confiscate it without a court order. This applies equally to members of the media seeking to record images, who do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places," a spokeswoman said.
But still the harassment goes on. Philip Haigh, the business editor of Rail magazine, said the bullying of enthusiasts on railway platforms has become an unwelcome fact of life in Britain. "It is a problem that doesn't ever seem to go away. We get complaints from railway photographers all the time that they are told to stop what they are doing, mainly by railway staff but also by the police. It usually results in an apologetic letter from a rail company," he said.
In the summer, armed police swooped on a group of trainspotters known as the Steam Boys as they waited with high-powered photographic equipment to capture a 1950s engine called The Great Marquess as it crossed the Forth Bridge near Gordon Brown's constituency home in Fife.
The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) has also taken up the cause, highlighting the case last month of the photographer Jess Hurd, whose camera was taken from her when she was detained for 45 minutes under Section 44 while documenting a traveller wedding in London's Docklands. Last week police were filmed obstructing photographers covering a protest at the Greek embassy in London. Scotland Yard promised to investigate.
Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the NUJ, said: "It's time the police realised that taking photographs doesn't automatically mean you're a terrorist. Every month the NUJ finds itself dealing with yet more cases of officers infringing journalistic freedoms and, very often, exceeding their legal powers.
"Even the police's own guidance makes it clear that there's nothing in the Terrorism Act that can be used to prohibit the taking of photos in a public place. The authorities have got to do more to ensure that those people charged with upholding the law don't keep on contravening it by trampling over well-established civil liberties." |
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=5855 | Quote: | Why can't we take pictures of policemen?
Telegraph / 14-02-2009
In that brief time not long after he became Prime Minister, when Gordon Brown was regarded as a serious political figure and one refreshingly less artful than his predecessor, he delivered a speech at the University of Westminster on liberty. It was an erudite and thoughtful exposition of this country's difficult, and sometimes bloody, attempts to come to terms with the countervailing demands of individual liberty and state power.
I recall being impressed that a prime minister was making such a weighty and thought-provoking speech. I even kept a copy, though it can be found on the Number 10 website; and after last week's decision to ban a Dutch MP from visiting Britain because of his views on Islam, I thought it apposite to read it again.
"Too often in recent years the public dialogue in our country has undervalued the importance of liberty," Mr Brown said. "Now is the time to reaffirm our distinctive British story of liberty – to show it is as rich, powerful and relevant to the life of the nation today as ever; to apply its lessons to the new tests of our time."
Yet, not for the first time, what the Government does bears no resemblance to its rhetoric. From today, new counter-terrorism laws come into effect that will entrench a growing tendency by the police to prevent anyone taking photographs in public, especially if they (the police) are the subject. There has been a worrying increase recently in police arresting or seeking to prevent what is a lawful activity.
Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours. When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".
Whereas in the past the police have not had the power to prevent photographs being taken of them, from today they have. Under the new Counter-Terrorism Act it is an offence to take pictures of officers "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". This is such a catch-all measure that it can be used – and, in view of recent trends, will be used – to prevent photographs to which the police object merely by invoking counter-terrorist requirements. While it is important for officers involved in such operations to maintain anonymity, many photographers fear these powers will be abused.
In an article in the British Journal of Photography, Justin Tallis, a freelance photographer, recounted how he was threatened while covering a protest against the BBC's decision not to broadcast a fundraising film for Gaza. He was approached by an officer who had just been photographed. According to Tallis, the officer tried to take his camera away, but gave up as other photographers captured the incident.
A few weeks ago, an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file. According to the Government, while there are no legal restrictions on photography in public places, "there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations".
The problem is that there are so many instances of counter-terror laws being invoked to stop perfectly innocent activities, such as trainspotting or bird watching, that many photographers do not believe such assurances.
There is a wider issue of creeping censorship which a new organisation, the Convention on Modern Liberty, is seeking to highlight with the publication today of a list of examples of this insidious development. They include a demand by Suffolk police that Facebook shut down a page dedicated to an over-zealous traffic warden because it contained "hurtful criticisms"; proposed curbs on financial reporting during the banking crisis; a ban on students filming an interview in Parliament Square; the threatened arrest of two evangelical preachers for committing a "hate crime" by handing out Gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham; the occasions when the police have reprimanded people for wearing T-shirts carrying political slogans; and, of course, the ban last week on Geert Wilders from showing a film on Islam to a group of parliamentarians.
In his speech on liberty, Mr Brown said: "The character of our country will be defined by how we write the next chapter of British liberty – by whether we do so in a way that respects and builds on our traditions, and progressively adds to and enlarges rather then reduces the sphere of freedom." At least it sounded good at the time. |
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=5856 | Quote: | Photographers angry at terror law
BBC / 16-02-2009
Hundreds of photographers have staged a protest outside Scotland Yard against a new law which they say could stop them taking pictures of the police.
The law makes it an offence to photograph police officers or military personnel if the picture could be used for a purpose linked to terrorism.
The National Union of Journalists said the law could be used to harass photographers working legitimately.
The Home Office said it was designed to protect counter-terrorism officers.
The NUJ wants the government to issue guidance to police forces on how exactly the law should be used by individual officers on the ground.
'Treated as terrorists'
The photographers, both professional and amateur, held a mass photo-call outside the Met Police headquarters at Scotland Yard on Monday.
They are angry at the introduction of Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act and argue it can be used by police to stop and search them in any situation.
The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack
Metropolitan Police
Is it a crime to take pictures?
It makes it an offence to "elicit, publish or communicate information" relating to members of the Armed Forces, intelligence services and police, which is "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Vice President of the NUJ Pete Murray said it was absurd to treat photographers as terrorists simply for doing their job.
"If the police officer isn't doing anything wrong then what are they worried about?" he told the BBC.
"I mean, we as citizens constantly get told that these extra security laws, terrorism laws, all of this surveillance stuff, is not a threat to us if we're not doing anything wrong.
"So why on earth it becomes a threat to a police officer to have a photographer, a working journalist, a photographer taking a picture of them is quite beyond me."
He said that even if an officer were in the background of a shot - for example, at a football match or street parade - "the photographer may end up on the wrong side of the law".
Critics say the law will prevent them reporting on legitimate protests
In a statement, the Home Office said taking pictures of police officers would only be deemed an offence in "very exceptional circumstances".
"The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack," it said.
"For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide practical assistance to terrorists."
The police added that anyone accused under the act could defend themselves by proving they had "a reasonable excuse" for taking the picture.
Anyone convicted under Section 76 could face a fine or a maximum of 10 years' imprisonment. |
http://www.underthecarpet.co.uk/Pages/NewsArticle.php?num=5866 | Quote: | Calling the police to account
Guardian - Comment / 16-02-2009
On the day that it becomes illegal to take pictures of police engaged in counter-terrorist operations – in practice a ban on taking pictures of the police – it is worth noting events in Brighton recently where police set up outside a cafe and photographed people attending a meeting about the environment.According to the Brighton Argus, members of the Cowley Club, which was hosting a meeting of Earth First, "were confronted with four uniformed officers outside the Somerfield store, opposite the venue, snapping visitors using a paparazzi-style lens". One of the club members, David Biset, said the police were behaving in a deliberately "intimidating manner". He said:
Avenues of dissent are being closed down and police feel able to treat politics as a police matter. There was no suggestion of anything going on outside the building. The police have no reason to be there beyond intimidating people. You shouldn't be put on a database simply for attending a meeting.
The local MP, David Lepper, agrees that the police operation was designed to scare activists rather than prevent crime, and has written to the divisional commander for Brighton and Hove demanding to know why officers were photographing people engaged in a political activity. The police have refused to comment other than to produce the usual assertion that this was a normal police operation.
But of course this action breaches the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of association. It is clear that people will not feel free to meet on these legitimate matters of concern if the police are taking photographs and adding images to a database. What is worrying is that this operation may be an intimation of things to come with the new central intelligence unit set up by Acpo to monitor activists and extremist groups.
Although I write as someone who has no particular axe to grind about the police, I am beginning to wonder whether we have a serious problem with a police force that believes it is entitled to monitor political activity. Set against the new law banning photographs of the police – which surely will be used by every policeman parked on a double yellow line or meting out the rough justice – there is increasing tendency of the police to photograph people in an aggressive fashion. It shows an innate lack of respect for the innocent citizen and the conventions of our free society, which is extremely disturbing.
Yesterday the Mail on Sunday published an extensive investigation into Acpo and alleged that not only was it making vast amounts of money as a private company – a status that seems extraordinary given the money received via the Home Office from the taxpayer – but that it had been pushing a self-serving agenda that mimicked the governing board of a national police service, yet without the accountability and scrutiny expected in most public bodies.
The Mail called it "One of the most mysterious and powerful organisations in Britain". The paper, which has led a lot of reporting on the crisis of rights and liberties in this country, went on to comment:
Now it turns out to be a comfortable gravy train for retired police chiefs and a grasping business charging the public up to £70 for criminal records information which it can obtain for 60p.
In response to this story, Acpo produced a statement from its head Ken Jones:
British policing is among the best in the world and in counter-terrorism, in the way we investigate murder, in forensics and many other areas of criminal investigation we are recognised leaders through the efforts of chief officers working through Acpo. Beyond 44 local police forces there is no national operational policing structure and so chief officers voluntarily combine through Acpo to agree approaches, lift the performance of the police service and protect lives.
He did not address the substantive issue that Acpo is run on largely secret and unaccountable lines and in the rest of the statement he doesn't deny Acpo's profiteering activity. The paper is right when it says "Parliament should urgently investigate this strange, unaccountable body and bring it under proper control". We need to take a serious look at the police and policing in Britain and establish certain ground rules which say that the police have no business assessing what is and what is not legitimate political activity.
I end with the quote from Winston Churchill, which I first used in the Summerfield lecture at the Cheltenham Literary Festival two years ago. It bears repeating.
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.
For all our sakes this battle must be fought now and not left until it is too late. |
_________________
"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish." - Euripides
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it." - Albert Einstein
"To find yourself, think for yourself" - Socrates |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
think we should all carry cameras with no film in and see what happens
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we should set up a website for pics of Bobbies on the Beat.
We could run competitions for Best Dressed and Most Upstanding Pillor of the Community  Any other suggestions welcome 
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure I saw some 'footage' from ten Downing Street the other day on the BBC news and the Police constable on guard duty outside No10 ... WAS NOT pixelated  As a licence fee payer am I now an accomplice to... terrorism?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | I'm sure I saw some 'footage' from ten Downing Street the other day on the BBC news and the Police constable on guard duty outside No10 ... WAS NOT pixelated As a licence fee payer am I now an accomplice to... terrorism? |
Come to think about it the bobbies that stand here are probably some of the most photographed in the Uk . The few times ive been down that way there are hoards of tourists snapping each other in front of the gates with the bobbies in the background.
If you internet search images of UK policeman there are already plenty of pics. I suppose one defence would be that you have a "thing" about men or women in uniforms! 
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dewstru wrote: | | Isn't this latest bit of newlabour BS the final straw? Broon', at his monthly press conference today, was asked about his government's latest 'anti terror' policy by a foreign journo' who suggested tourists could end up in jail for taking innocent holiday snaps, 'Flash Gordon' (saviour of the universe) just gave a nonsense reply something to the effect...'I-I don' t recognize this image of Britain' |
New Labour, Old Conservative what is the difference? Surely we have surpassed that goal-post?
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also I hate to be stating the obvious but why has no one commented on losing any recourse to State or Police brutallity?
Remember what worth material witnesses are to State or Police crime anyone? Thats right not alot 
Do you not think that these people have the extra freedom to yeald a stronger hand?? Knowing there will be no come back?
How many assaults will our bravest suffer before they're forced to call it a day?
This is a full blown Dictorship!!
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bill Hicks 'You are free to do what we tel you'
Skating pensioner fined by court
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/7908446.stm?lss
CCTV footage of Geoff Dornan rollerblading
A rollerblading pensioner has been fined £300 after he was filmed skating along a street in Southport.
Geoff Dornan, 71, of Ormskirk, Lancashire, was caught on CCTV skating through Chapel Street in October 2008.
He said it was to keep fit but Sefton Council said his rollerblading was a nuisance and a danger to the public.
He was found guilty at North Sefton Magistrates Court of two counts of breaching a by-law but has since lodged an appeal.
I think people suspect that I am more dangerous than I am
Geoff Dornan
He was also ordered to pay £1,800 costs, but the fines were suspended after Andrew Scott, defending, said an appeal notice had been handed to the prosecution.
The appeal case will be heard at a crown court at a later date.
In his defence, Mr Dornan, a retired youth worker, told the court he took up rollerblading seven years ago as a way of keeping fit.
He said he enjoyed skating down the town's main street as he enjoyed moving to the music from buskers, but he insisted that he always gave right of way to pedestrians.
He also told the court he tried to give people as much space as possible and used his rollerblades responsibly.
Geoff Dornan: 'I like to go shopping on my skates'
He said: "The reason I do the skating is primarily for my health benefit.
"I think people suspect that I am more dangerous than I am."
But the council said he was contravening a by-law which forbids skating on Chapel Street.
The by-law states that "no person shall skate, slide or ride on rollers, skateboards or other self-propelled vehicles in such a manner as to cause danger or annoyance".
Chairman of the bench, Fraser Wallace, said: "We find the manner of your skating put pedestrians at risk and exposed them to harm."
He said it was clear Chapel Street was not meant to be used as a "skate park" and said Dornan's behaviour "causes a danger" to the public.
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2009 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He was pretty nifty on them roller blades. by-laws will be by-laws. Guilty as charged imo. wants to try Dam Square in Amsterdam, he would be classed as a street entertainer and probably make a few bob to pay off his fine.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/21/britains-nophotograp.html
Britain's no-photographing-cops law: even the cops hate it
Posted by Cory Doctorow, February 21, 2009 9:11 AM | permalink
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's radio show As it Happens did a great job covering the new British law that makes it a crime to take a picture of a police officer or a building, where that picture might be useful in "planning an act of terrorism." First, they interviewed Peter Murray, Vice-President of the National Union of Journalists, who, predictably, worries that his members will find themselves with arrest-records as terrorists for violating the law.
But then, they talked to Peter Smyth, Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, who also thinks the law is ridiculous -- and this is just stupendous. Smyth says that there's no evidence that terrorists use photographs to plan attacks, admits that this is an invitation for scared officers to abuse the law, and says that it will needlessly create conflict with journalists and the public.
The program tried to locate someone -- anyone -- who supported the law, but no one was forthcoming.
related
Previously:
UK Police seize amateur photographer's film - Boing Boing
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/18/uk-police-seize-amat.html#previou spost
London cops declare war on photography - Boing Boing
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/london-cops-declare.html#previous post
Current TV on photo bans in UK - Boing Boing
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/05/27/current-tv-on-photo.html#previous post
UK to punish "publishing police info" with 10 years in jail ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/12/01/uk-to-punish-publish.html#previou spost
Police warn UK man that taking photos of "hooded teenagers" is ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/22/police-warn-uk-man-t.html#previou spost
Londoners: rally today at Scotland Yard 11AM to preserve the right ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/15/londoners-rally-toda.html#previou spost
Brits: rally to save your right to photograph the police, Feb 16 ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/13/brits-rally-to-save.html#previous post
UK Home Secretary green-lights harassment of photographers in ...
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/07/06/uk-home-secretary-gr.html#previou spost
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fish5133 wrote: | | He was pretty nifty on them roller blades. by-laws will be by-laws. Guilty as charged imo. wants to try Dam Square in Amsterdam, he would be classed as a street entertainer and probably make a few bob to pay off his fine. |
Someone could introduce a by-law to prevent people posting here
I know its illigal to cycle etc on the pavement but who enforces that??
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nick Cooper
Suspended
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 329
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funnily enough, while passing through Victoria Underground station on Tuesday, I could not fail to notice the posse of police inside the ticket barriers at the head of the "up" escalator using a sniffer dog to check people coming off it. At the same time, a photographer in the usual police body armour was constantly recording the scene with a professional standard video camera, repeatedly scanning it across the faces of the people coming off the escalator. It did cross my mind to see what would happen if I snapped this cheery scene myself (I always have a compact digital camera in my backpack), but I have to admit that trepidation and a desire to actually get where I was going that evening on time disuaded me.
One law for us, another for them....
_________________
How can I be a "9/11 Truth critic" when I have never discussed 9/11 here?!
"Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." WSC
Last edited by Nick Cooper on Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GIRLSCHOOL LYRICS
Legacy (2008)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miOr0xeWO-M
3. I Spy
[Jackie Chambers - Enid Williams - Kim McAuliffe]
Be careful what you do now
Be careful what they now
They're watching every movement
Every place and where you go
You're under their surveillance
Be sure to toe the line
In the name of your security
The innocent stand trial
Playing I Spy in the sky
Big brother's up above
They've got you in their sights
Escape the private eyes that pry
If you've not done wrong yet
There's nothing there the fear
We sleepwalk into darkness
As freedoms disappear
Their criminal intentions
Will put the blame on you
No crime has been committed
But they watch in case you do
Playing I Spy in the sky
Big brother's up above
They've got you in their sights
Escape the private eyes that pry
Playing I Spy in the sky
Big brother's up above
They've got you in their sights
Escape the private eyes that pry
Playing I Spy in the sky
Big brother's up above
They've got you in their sights
Escape the private eyes that pry
http://www.darklyrics.com/lyrics/girlschool/legacy.html#3
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IanFantom
Validated Poster
Joined: 31 Jan 2007
Posts: 296
Location: Halifax, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:12 am Post subject: G20 death renews efforts to unban photographing of police |
|
|
I hadn't actually realised that Westminster had passed a law prohibiting the public from photographing the police. They got that one through in a flash. Now there's a petition to remove that ban. With witnesses to police assaults under threat of prosecution if they reveal their videos, it looks as if we really are on the brink of a police state.
From The Daily Telegraph, April 9, 2009:
| Quote: |
G20 death: Fresh attempt to overturn ban on photographing police
A fresh attempt to fight a ban on taking photographs of police officers in public has been launched in the wake of Ian Tomlinson's death.
By Jon Swaine
Last Updated: 9:10PM BST 09 Apr 2009
A petition on the Downing Street website urging the Prime Minister to overturn the ban has attracted renewed interest after video footage showing police attacks against Mr Tomlinson emerged.
Campaigners say the fact that the footage is at the centre of the investigation into Mr Tomlinson's death shows that the public must be free to photograph or film officers on duty.
The Government installed the ban in February under a strengthening of the Counter-terrorism Act.
It made it an offence to take photographs of police officers, military personnel or members of the intelligence services "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".
Anyone found guilty faces up to 10 years in prison and a heavy fine.
The petition was started by Simon Taylor, a photographer from Farnborough, Hampshire.
It states: "We call for these vague restrictions to be lifted, as they can easily be mis-used by the police."
It has attracted more than 2,000 signatures and was being linked to on Twitter, the micro-blogging website, every other minute at some points on Thursday.
Mr Taylor told The Telegraph: "The rule is terribly overpowering. I hate to use the phrase, but it borders on a police state. The problems with it are especially borne out by the Ian Tomlinson case. It could so easily have been covered up."
A spokesman for the NO2ID campaign group said: "This is a good example of ludicrous law. Doing things as part of the planning of terrorist acts was already against the law. Police on the ground will just be able to misuse this." |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5132071l
Here's a bit of background from The British Journal of Photography, January 28, 2009:
| Quote: | Jail for photographing police?
The relationship between photographers and police could worsen next month when new laws are introduced that allow 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'.
Set to become law on 16 February, the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 regarding offences relating to information about members of armed forces, a member of the intelligence services, or a police officer.
The new set of rules, under section 76 of the 2008 Act and section 58A of the 2000 Act, will target anyone who 'elicits or attempts to elicit information about (members of armed forces) ... which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism'.
A person found guilty of this offence could be liable to imprisonment for up to 10 years, and to a fine.
The law is expected to increase the anti-terrorism powers used today by police officers to stop photographers, including press photographers, from taking pictures in public places. 'Who is to say that police officers won't abuse these powers,' asks freelance photographer Justin Tallis, who was threatened by an officer last week.
Tallis, a London-based photographer, was covering the anti-BBC protest on Saturday 24 January when he was approached by a police officer. Tallis had just taken a picture of the officer, who then asked to see the picture. The photographer refused, arguing that, as a press photographer, he had a right to take pictures of police officers.
According to Tallis, the officer then tried to take the camera away. Before giving up, the officer said that Tallis 'shouldn't have taken that photo, you were intimidating me'. The incident was caught on camera by photojournalist Marc Vallee.
Tallis is a member of the National Union of Journalists and the British Press Photographers' Association. 'The incident lasted just 10 seconds, but you don't expect a police officer to try to pull your camera from your neck,' Tallis tells BJP.
The incident came less than a week after it was revealed that an amateur photographer was stopped in Cleveland by police officers when taking pictures of ships. The photographer was asked if he had any terrorism connections and told that his details would be kept on file.
A Cleveland Police spokeswoman explained: 'If seen in suspicious circumstances, members of the public may well be approached by police officers and asked about their activities. Photography of buildings and areas from a public place is not an offence and is certainly not something the police wish to discourage. Nevertheless, in order to verify a person's actions as being entirely innocent, police officers are expected to engage and seek clarification where appropriate.'
The statement echoes the Prime Minister's answer to a petition signed by more than 5700 people. Gordon Brown reaffirmed, last week, that the police have a legal right to restrict photography in public places.
'There are no legal restrictions on photography in public places. However, the law applies to photographers as it does to anybody else in a public place. So there may be situations in which the taking of photographs may cause or lead to public order situations or raise security considerations,' Downing Street says.
'Each situation will be different and it would be an operational matter for the officer concerned as to what action if any should be taken in respect of those taking photographs. Anybody with a concern about a specific incident should raise the matter with the chief constable of the relevant force.'
However, Liberty, which campaigns on human rights, has decried the excessive use of stop-and-search powers given to police officers under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. The group's legal director, James Welch, said the powers were used too widely.
In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of a couple married in Docklands.
She was detained under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. Her camera was forcefully removed from her, and while she showed her press card, three police officers insisted on viewing the footage she had taken.
'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.'
The tension between police officers and photographers is not limited to the UK. Last week, Icelandic police fired pepper spray on photojournalists as they were covering protests in front of the country's parliament building.
Kristjan Logason, a press photographer in Iceland, tells BJP that he was targeted along with other press photographers. 'The Icelandic police systematically tried to remove photographers by pepper-spraying them,' he says.
The photographers were covering a protest in front of the Althing parliament building in the capital Reykjavik. Iceland's financial system collapsed in October under the weight of billions of dollars of foreign debts incurred by its banks.
Already seven photographers have come forward as having been targetted by the Icelandic Police. |
http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=836675
The petition is at http://www.avaaz.org/en/fix_british_protest_policing/?cl=214554502&v=3 198
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kookomula
Validated Poster
Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Posts: 328
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 22, 2009 11:39 am Post subject: Guardian today |
|
|
Fit Watch campaigners describe how they were arrested and bundled to the ground
Val Swain and Emily Apple, campaigners against surveillance of police forward intelligence teams, were held in custody for four days after challenging police officer over failure to display badge number
"Have you seen the Blues Brothers over there?" the police surveillance officer said. "Look – filming everybody else."
It was supposed to have been a routine day of protest for Val Swain and Emily Apple, but at 1.31pm on 8 August last year, moments after being spotted by the surveillance unit, they found this was to be no ordinary demonstration.
After challenging a police officer over his failure to display a badge number at a protest against the Kingsnorth power station in Kent, the two women were wrestled to the ground, handcuffed and placed in a police van. They were held in custody for four days, three of which were spent in HMP Bronzefield.
Swain, 43, was arrested for assault and obstruction and Apple,33, for obstruction. The charges were later dropped.
The arrests were caught on police surveillance footage obtained by the Guardian and will be submitted to the Independent Police Complaints Commission tomorrow in a complaint lodged by the solicitors firm Tuckers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/21/fit-watch-police-sur veillance-val-swain-emily-apple-arrests
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:04 pm Post subject: Flashers confront Police In Trafalgar Square |
|
|
| Quote: | Thousands of professional and amateur photographers have lit up London's Trafalgar Square with their flash bulbs in a protest against the police's "malicious" use of stop and search powers.
The snappers claim officers are routinely using laws designed to foil terror attacks to prevent people taking pictures in public places.
Freelance photographer and writer Marc Vallee, who helped organise the protest with appeals on Twitter and Facebook, said frustrations with police surrounded the scope of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Mr Vallee, 41, said he was "delighted" by the turnout, estimated at more than 2,000 professional and amateur photographers.
"It's quite surreal today but we are pleased with the support," he said.
"It's quite obvious that professional photographers across the country are being searched because they are photographers, not because they are suspicious.
"It's a common-law right to take pictures in public places and we are here to show that."
Many protesters brandished mini placards with the message: "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist."
Onlookers in Trafalgar Square were handed stop and search cards by organisers outlining their rights.
Amateur photographer Lucy Hogan, from Twerton, Bath, said: "The support has been incredible. There are so many people here today, even photographers from Italy.
"It just goes to show that it's not only Britain where photographers are treated with such malicious use of the law."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, supported the protest, saying: "In the face of Home Office complacency, Liberty has warned of the dangers of blanket stop and search under section 44, for at least a decade.
"We have been completely vindicated by the Court of Human Rights and in the coming weeks MPs will have the chance to change this law. Let's hope they step up to their responsibilities." |
http://web.orange.co.uk/article/news/snappers_in_protest_over_search_l aw?sid=202c6fa49e18
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
