If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
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...hts_Police_war 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"Rich" wrote in message ... 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...hts_Police_war 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 This demonstrates just how little you actually know about the UK Police. The Police Federation is the Trade Union for Policemen. It may well have Ideals about Standards, but its main function is looking after the rights of its members. Roy G |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
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/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
frank wrote:
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. That wasn't just "a police station", it was New Scotland Yard, the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, which is responsible for policing Greater London and for taking the lead in anti-terrorist operations across the whole country. 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. In the UK, Governments have no need to work with the press. Governments have routinely silenced the press for decades using D-Notices. D-Notices are a form of instant censorship. Once a notice has been issued in respect of a particular story or situation, the media must not make any further reference to it until the D-Notice is lifted. In theory, compliance is voluntary, but enormous pressure is brought to bear on publications or broadcast media who do not obey. In the last year or so the system has been made even stricter, and I think the D-Notice name has been replaced by something else. A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses against Israel's military operation in Gaza. I read about the demonstrations on CNN, where they made the Top 10 News for several days. Trying to find any reference in the UK media was a thankless task; I tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968. Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In message , Bruce
writes frank wrote: Governments forget working WITH the press is much easier than working AGAINST them. In the UK, Governments have no need to work with the press. Governments have routinely silenced the press for decades using D-Notices. D-notices no longer exist and were becoming counter productive. The D-notice committee has not met in years but often "a Quiet word " was had with the relevant editors. The problem over the last decade has been that all the quiet word has done is warn journalists of a story. A story that then often appears outside the UK in print or more usually on the Internet where the UK has no control. SO they tend not to have a word with the editors lest the story comes up on a web site in a country that is unfriendly ... eg the when the US leaked the information on Prince Harry in Afghanestan In the last year or so the system has been made even stricter, and I think the D-Notice name has been replaced by something else. I believe so. Mainly the greatly misused anti terror laws. A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses against Israel's military operation in Gaza. That was kept VERY quiet. I only found out as I had a meeting in a UK University and was surprised to find protest posters al over the place. I tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968. I did not realise it was that big. Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this. Then perhaps the FS should resign -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Chris H wrote:
Bruce writes A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses against Israel's military operation in Gaza. That was kept VERY quiet. I only found out as I had a meeting in a UK University and was surprised to find protest posters al over the place. I tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968. I did not realise it was that big. Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this. Then perhaps the FS should resign What? And lose the Israelis their most powerful inside man? One wonders where the BBC's decision not to broadcast the Disaster Emergency Committee's charity appeal for Gaza actually came from. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In message , Bruce
writes Chris H wrote: Bruce writes A recent application of the system was to prevent reporting of many extensive and highly effective demonstrations on UK college campuses against Israel's military operation in Gaza. That was kept VERY quiet. I only found out as I had a meeting in a UK University and was surprised to find protest posters al over the place. I tried over 20 new web sites including all the national daily newspapers and several TV and radio stations - nothing. But as CNN reported, these were by far the biggest student demonstrations in the UK since 1968. I did not realise it was that big. Presumably reports were censored to avoid upsetting Israel - the UK having a Jewish foreign secretary may have something to do with this. Then perhaps the FS should resign What? And lose the Israelis their most powerful inside man? One wonders where the BBC's decision not to broadcast the Disaster Emergency Committee's charity appeal for Gaza actually came from. Good Point. OTOH the refusal did generate a LOT of publicity. Hopefully things will Change as the USA has been wanting to dump Israel for some time. Obama may actually get around to it. The idea had been to palm Israel of on the EU but their recent round of war crimes has precluded that somewhat. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
Rich added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
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...hers_rights_Po lice_war 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. You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So, why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your rights, and take back your country from the Socialists. -- HP, aka Jerry "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job" – Ronald Reagan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
"HEMI-Powered" wrote in message
[...] You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. So, why are you so surprised that the State now wants to chip away at your freedoms one by one? Your country has never had a formal consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. The fix? Vote the Socialists clowns out of office, elect some representatives that will do what the people want them to do and NOT do what the people don't want them to do, write a formal document defining your rights, and take back your country from the Socialists. You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless wiretapping and all the rest and then you can talk. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Britain's horrific new photo law
In message , HEMI-Powered
writes You have allowed your country to become a vast Socialist nanny state where everything is "free" and everything is controlled. That would not be a socialist state. Probably Facist though doms one by one? Your country has never had a formal consitution which states all of your freedoms, rights, and protections as does the US Constitution and Bill of Rights which leads me to believe you got just what you deserved. You just don't understand. The US is in a WORSE state than the UK because of your bill of rights. The fix? Vote the Socialists clowns out of office, Had we voted the Socialists out of office 5 years ago we would have been out of Afghanistan about 4 years ago. The only real support the US had globally for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq was the UK's socialist government. The PM of the time Blair has been decorated twice by GWB. No other forigen government member has. Certainly not the right wil Germans and Austrians who refused point blank to support GWB . so it seems the UK Socialist Government is the only friend the US had. -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | Digital Photography | 872 | January 29th 05 11:45 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 234 | January 7th 05 11:13 AM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 09:02 PM |
A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | January 4th 05 12:34 AM |