frank wrote:

On Feb 17, 1:18 pm, Rich wrote:
Well the new Soviet state apparatus. The police say photogs won't be
bothered by it? Even without this law they've been searched, detained
and arrested too many times before this law was passed.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._rights_Police...
n_of_terror_law_misuse_update_news_277211.html

Photographers' rights: Police warn of terror law 'misuse' (update)

Tuesday 17th February 2009
Chris Cheesman
community police

The Metropolitan Police Federation (MPF) has come out in support of
photographers by condemning the latest anti-terrorism legislation as
'unfair', 'poorly drafted' and open to misuse.

The body, set up to ensure high standards of policing, backs the campaign
led by Labour MP Austin Mitchell who is calling for the introduction of a
photography code to be followed by officers on the ground.

Last year the MP for Great Grimsby launched an Early Day Motion in the
House of Commons, highlighting photographers' right to take pictures in
public.

The petition has won cross-party support from more than 240 MPs and was
drawn up largely on the back of the experiences of Amateur Photographer
(AP) readers.

In a statement the MPF said: 'The code should be drawn up jointly by the
Home Office and the various professional bodies representing police and
photographers. Its aim should be to facilitate photography wherever
possible, rather than seek reasons to bar it.'

Yesterday, amateur and professional photographers staged a demonstration
outside Scotland Yard over fears that police will enforce Section 76 of
the Terrorism Act 2008 to stamp out photographs of police officers.

As reported by AP, Section 76 of the new Act (which came into force
yesterday) expands on Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 which made it
an offence to record an image likely to be useful to a terrorist.

The MPF warned that Section 76 is open to 'misinterpretation'.

It adds: 'How, for example, will it be expected to apply to the 2012
Olympics which will be both a photo event, par excellence, and subject to
an intense security operation?

'Does the law mean tourists are going to be rounded up and arrested en
masse for taking suspicious photos of iconic scenes around the capital?
That will work wonders for the international reputation of the London
Bobby and for the city as a whole as a welcoming destination.'

Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police claimed that taking photographs of
police officers would not - except in 'exceptional circumstances' - be
covered by the new offence

Interestingly, Chicago Trib ran a photo of a demonstration by a few
hundred photogs at a UK police station all taking photos in protest of
the law. Interesting expression on the female police officer's face
that was watching it all.

No doubt there are others out there on the web. Enough of those
protests and the government will probably cave and write something
more useful. Say, prohibitions on what would be SWAT teams in the US
or narcotics officers working undercover. - both pretty much protected
over here for obvious reasons.

Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working
AGAINST them.

It IS supposedly to be to keep the identity of undercover cops out of
the papers. Problem over here is they have a habit of using these laws
to do what they want. Our local councils are using anti-terror
legislation to spy on people who let their dogs foul the pavement etc.
They have crazy rules about protests and so forth and are about to or
have already virtually made it impossible to protest against stuff
like nuclear facilities. If memory serves me right they were even
going to remove the rights of local councils to object to them in
their own regions, so the govt can force through any facility and
there will be nothing anyone can do about it.

--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/