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.

"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

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

"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.

Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"DRS" wrote in message
...

You first. Get rid of the Patriot Act, the warrantless
wiretapping and all
the rest and then you can talk.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?

Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in
America for 8 years?

So your stating that the democratic controlled congress during the Bush administration never passed an intelligent bill?

I have no problem believing that!

John

wikipedia
"In the 1996 and 1998 elections, Republicans lost Congressional seats but still retained control of the House and, more narrowly,
the Senate. After the 2000 election, the Senate was divided evenly between the parties, with Republicans retaining the right to
organize the Senate due to the election of Dick Cheney as Vice President and ex officio presiding officer of the Senate. The Senate
shifted to control by the Democrats (though they technically were the plurality party as they were one short of a majority) after
GOP senator Jim Jeffords changed party registration to "Independent" in June 2001, but later returned to Republican control after
the November 2002 elections. In the 2006 elections, Democrats won both the House of Representatives (233 Democrats, 202 Republicans)
and the Senate (49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats) as well as the majority of state
governorships (28-22).



"DRS" wrote in message ...
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message

Do we have permission to get rid of the Stimulus bill, also?

Why would you want to get rid of the first intelligent bill introduced in America for 8 years?

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:48:21 +1100, "DRS" wrote:
: "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.

We have, at least, finally gotten rid of the worst of the clueless goobers who
foisted those outrages on us (which, I guess, is one of the things that has
made Jerry so apoplectic). So please cut us some slack while the new guys try
to shovel the place out.

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:48:21 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:
"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.

We have, at least, finally gotten rid of the worst of the clueless
goobers who foisted those outrages on us (which, I guess, is one of
the things that has made Jerry so apoplectic). So please cut us some
slack while the new guys try to shovel the place out.

Obama has made it clear there will be no investigation, much less
prosecution, of Bush Administration officials who broke both domestic and
international laws on things like torture because he is focused on "moving
forward", as if crimes are not always prosecuted after the fact. So much
for his promise to restore the rule of law in America. He's made some
symbolic gestures (ie, closing Gitmo down was easy because it had become a
huge embarrasment anyway) but I'm not seeing substantive change. Hardly
surprising, really, since half his administration consists of Republicans
who help create the various messes he inherited in the first place.

DRS wrote:
"Robert Coe" wrote in message

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:48:21 +1100, "DRS"
wrote:
"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.
We have, at least, finally gotten rid of the worst of the clueless
goobers who foisted those outrages on us (which, I guess, is one of
the things that has made Jerry so apoplectic). So please cut us some
slack while the new guys try to shovel the place out.

Obama has made it clear there will be no investigation, much less
prosecution, of Bush Administration officials who broke both domestic and
international laws on things like torture because he is focused on "moving
forward", as if crimes are not always prosecuted after the fact. So much
for his promise to restore the rule of law in America. He's made some
symbolic gestures (ie, closing Gitmo down was easy because it had become a
huge embarrasment anyway) but I'm not seeing substantive change. Hardly
surprising, really, since half his administration consists of Republicans
who help create the various messes he inherited in the first place.


You have a very interesting POV. In reality, government in the US (and
I suspect every country) is driven of things other than laws, and
international agreements. I suspect than when Obama found out just how
things REALLY are at his National Security and other classified
briefings, his reaction was "What have I gotten myself into?" I suspect
it is the same for each president. It's a job no sane person would ever
willingly take, which tells you a lot about presidents in general. Bush
had his 9-11, and Obama has an economic meltdown. I only hope that
Obama does as well with his crisis as Bush did with his. If so, then by
the end of his first year, we will all be safe from any further economic
woes. Somehow I suspect that will NOT happen because Democrats just
don't understand economics.