Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime [Archive]

PHIL THE FRAME

5th February 2009, 01:51 AM

i read this elsewhere and was shocked thought i would share just incase

Taking photos of police officers could be considered a crime

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 Vallée.

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

Taken from The British Journal of Photography

lostmysnorkel

5th February 2009, 02:01 AM

So that means that 'Road Wars', 'Cops with Cameras' 'World's Wildest Police.....' 'Nightwatch' 'Emergency' amd all the other cheap programming that fill the late night TV slots will become illegal?

PHIL THE FRAME

5th February 2009, 02:10 AM

So that means that 'Road Wars', 'Cops with Cameras' 'World's Wildest Police.....' 'Nightwatch' 'Emergency' amd all the other cheap programming that fill the late night TV slots will become illegal?

naw they were all taken pre 16th Feb after that and it`s 10yrs , what if your son/daughter has just pass his/her Police/Army basic training exam, and your there at the passing out parade with your trusty DSLR , so now your a terrorist:laugh1:, the law is an ass:coffee:

lostmysnorkel

5th February 2009, 02:49 AM

naw they were all taken pre 16th Feb after that and it`s 10yrs ,

They're still shooting 'Road Wars' for Sky....it's all around my way!

Black&Blue

5th February 2009, 02:54 AM

I wondered how long something like this would happen.

Next it's be against the law to fart in public as it is an infringment on peoples basic human rights :laugh1:

lostmysnorkel

5th February 2009, 03:01 AM

I wondered how long something like this would happen.

Next it's be against the law to fart in public as it is an infringment on peoples basic human rights :laugh1:

That would depend on what you had for dinner the previous night. But yeah, in some cases it should be a public order offence!
:laugh1:

Roger S

5th February 2009, 04:12 AM

So, I'm assuming that the UK lawmakers are attempting to stop such things as the recent videotaping of 4 police officers in the US, who beat a man senseless and resulted in the police officers being convicted of assault?

It's stupid, in some respects, and justifiable in others, but where to draw the line. If an undercover cop should be outed as a result of a newspaper photo, that's one thing. If the constabulary are properly identified by wearing recognized uniform, then what in the name of all that's holy is the problem?

darrenmwinter

5th February 2009, 07:57 AM

So I guess it's not okay to ask them for directions to the police station either?

PHIL THE FRAME

5th February 2009, 09:18 AM

So I guess it's not okay to ask them for directions to the police station either?

now its the case, if you need directions to the police station,don`t ask just take his photo, and he will show you the way personally:crazy:

chrishoggy

5th February 2009, 09:43 AM

As much as I hate the laws this country pumps out, to be honest this doesn't bother me. I'm not taking photos of anybody or any thing in order to facilitate terrorism. The police can question me all they like, they still wont get my photos. The copper and tog had an argument for all of 10 seconds, and the tog walked away. To me that sounds more like a tog getting on his high horse about being asked if he could show him the picture, and the copper going a little OTT.
You know the scenario: The tog has a bit of a chip on his shoulder about the police and their powers. Tog is asked reasonably if he would show him the photo, and he then assumes the officer is asking him under some anti-terrorism laws, rather than him simply asking to see the photo. Tog then replies in an argumentative/aggressive way saying "NO", pulling his camera away in an over exaggerated manor, and fronting up to the copper.
Looking at the photo of the incident, the scenario above does seem to be a possibility:ok:
http://marcvallee.wordpress.com/2009/01/25/surveillance-police-grab-press-photographers-camera/

I'm sorry to say it, but a few togs crying wolf and/or making something of nothing, are the main problem. They are adding fuel to a fire, that isn't really their. I have no doubt there are times when an officer has done wrong/gone OTT. But when you are faced with numbers of 100's to 1 against you, and you are a bit on edge watching for trouble makers, you are going to make mistakes. And before someone jumps down my neck about it being a peaceful protest, it's not the every-day protesters they are looking for. These things are used by trouble makers/extremist protesters, in order to cause trouble and have the cover of a "peaceful protest".:ok:

End my rant for today :laugh1: :laugh1:

pburnett

5th February 2009, 10:32 AM

Some people, including the police, don't know what the laws are. Not surprising really as there are quite a few complications and local variations. We are pretty lucky in the UK regarding what and who we can photograph and what we can do with the images.

This anti terrorism stuff is OTT though and it's being used as an excuse to allow the state to do all sorts of things that I feel aren't necessary or reasonable.

I would suggest cooperating if an officer stops you, by all means show him the image and explain why you took it. But if he then asks you to delete it it gets a bit complicated. That could well be considered as "damage" to your property, something which ultimately they could be sued for. But if you start arguing this they may detain you citing the terrorism act and you have to consider whether the image is worth it.

darrenmwinter

5th February 2009, 11:30 AM

I understand the whole anti-terrorism angle. I also think that if we had had a dictator- sorry Prime Minister who hadn't been Bush's pet poodle we probably wouldn't be having this conversation but that's a different forum altogether!

But I am amazed that the police don't show more common sense. If I'm planning to blow up Canary Wharf, do I:

a) Set up my tripod in ten different places; mess around with ISO, shutter, exposure, white balance etc for ten minutes; wander around while I look for better angles; mutter about tourists getting in the way; and finally take 1 shot after 45 minutes preparation; or

b) Take ten pictures in ten seconds on my mobile phones when I walk past?

I do agree that the situation probably gets blown out of all proportions at times, but it takes two to argue. More common sense from both sides is probably the answer. But that probably needs a change of teams at the next general election to be facilitated ... I worry about our civil liberties while Jacqui Smith is in charge of anything.

Jurujoh

5th February 2009, 01:27 PM

You have had terrorist act committed in your community and the laws and attitudes are stronger than here in Aus.However seen from the otherside, I have a police friend (I know him personally) who is also a quality photographer and is part of a local forum. He has said that being in the police he has been targeted by local gangs and criminals who have secretly harassed and scared his family and because of that he is reluctant for his photo to be taken while on duty as he fears the possible effect and danger of retribution to his family. He also said that all his fellow police have silent phone numbers and many have suffered also.

Photos of him in the wrong hands could undermine his work when his identity needed protection.

This all in a quiet back water of the world. So I can see how some Police and anti terrorism personnel could be paranoid about their photo being taken and more so if published.

Jules

Kenny

5th February 2009, 02:39 PM

Hi Guys

please don't take it out on the serving officers on the beat.They have a tough job as it is being emasculated by the PC brigade we have in power.Its because of the powers that be that we have thousands of people being freed from prison who the police have caught.If anything is an ass its the people that make the laws.

Before my Brother in law became ill due to the stress,He was the chief probation officer in Greater Manchester and manys the argument we would have when I would say it was people like him that made criminality so easy.He turned round and said to me that if I had any idea of the paperwork that came his way from the Government which was clearly designed so that they met targets to keep people OUT of prison or they were for the chop it would make my hair turn.They were ordered to fiddle figures so that crime didn't appear to be going up.They were even ordered to call the scum they had to deal with "Clients" and Sir and Madam.I've seen the so called Clients that he had to deal with in the many times I drive past my local probation office and the scum of the earth they look too.Five minutes after going to the office they are round the corner at the local pharmacy queuing up for their three times a week methadone fix.

I think people need to realise that police officers are leaving the job in droves because the government are tying their hands behind their backs and expecting them to catch the criminals but not giving them the tools to deal with them.At Christmas my car was smashed up by six pieces of scum that dived out of a taxi without paying.They then stood on the side of the road and became violently abusive-one of them going to hit my mum who had got out of the car.If I hadn't stepped in front of her and the driver of the taxi hadn't shouted he was ringing the police they would have done serious damage to her.When we went to the police we were told that because nobody was hurt,the law as it stood made them powerless to do anything.Irs a pity that they didn't strengthen the laws that mattered and gave people proper jail terms so that ten years meant ten years and not stifle peoples civil liberties.

To those of you who stood waving flags when Tony B liar walked the mall when he got voted in,and then voted for him twice more you are getting exactly what you deserve.I said years ago that the Labour government was a wolf in sheeps clothing.They crippled this country and slowly but surely they are taking every right you hold dear away from you.It wont be long before you have to ask permission t go out of your own front door and I know its a joke but if this shower in Westminster-and I wouldnt pee on any of them of what ever party if they were on fire, could tax breathing and bonking,believe me they would.....I'd love to know where they would stick the meters though:stir:

What really kills me is that a couple of months ago I stood as part of the assignment for my course at a Cenotaph and watched the dead of two world wars-and our fab lads dying now in Afghanistan and Iraq being honoured.What a bloody farce.Why did they die...to keep the free free and to crush the jackboot. I wonder what they would think now.Would they think their sacrifice for this country was valid....or would they be horrified to see a dictatorship they fought against slowly come to pass again...

unless we all stand and fight against such things and unless we all stop burying our head in the sand and saying " if you dont do owt wrong you have nothing to fear" you'll find one day that that freedom you THINK you have wont be there at all.

Then you`ll realise that that fear was all too real.But it will be too late.

Bessy regs

Kenny

darrenmwinter

5th February 2009, 03:09 PM

This is how I see the UK next year.

lostmysnorkel

5th February 2009, 05:01 PM

But I am amazed that the police don't show more common sense. If I'm planning to blow up Canary Wharf, do I:

None of the above.

I'd use Google Earth, Multimap and AA Routefinder.

All I need to know without leaving the comfort of my own living room!

fishes

5th February 2009, 05:06 PM

None of the above.

I'd use Google Earth, Multimap and AA Routefinder.

All I need to know without leaving the comfort of my own living room!

that post will probably have MI5 knocking at your door :acute:

tbh I wouldn't be happy if someone took a photo of me without asking (a tad hypocritical I know) so I can see why he asked to see it.

lostmysnorkel

5th February 2009, 05:12 PM

I don't have a problem with people wanting to see pics I've taken of them.

It can become a pain at a wedding or porty shoot but usually Iwouldn't mind.

chrishoggy

5th February 2009, 05:23 PM

unless we all stand and fight against such things and unless we all stop burying our head in the sand and saying " if you dont do owt wrong you have nothing to fear" you'll find one day that that freedom you THINK you have wont be there at all.

Kenny, I will have to agree to disagree with ya on this point, as it kind of contradicts the first part of your post. If I'm reading it right, you don't want these anti terrorism powers in place (eg: stopping photographers, and asking them to show photos etc), as it stops their freedom of movement or right to photograph what-ever. Yet you also don't like seeing our lads n lasses at war, trying to stop the very groups that are coming over here blowing Jo Public to bits with bombs, because they have the time and freedom to do so.

I would rather delete photos of a police officer or who/what ever, than put them at the personal risk of such things as those pointed out by Jules (or worse). We could all kick up a fuss about how the anti terrorism laws may effect photographers, and fight to have them removed. But I'd rather someone be questioned (me included), than them be let free to plot what ever bombing mission they may have in mind. Only a guilty person (or someone appearing guilty) would have anything to fear from being stopped.
We can't shed a tear over those lost/fighting on our behalf, then say we don't want the laws in place that would stop/restrict those they are fighting against, in our own country. You can't seriously expect a total freedom to do as you please in sensitive areas/situations, then expect the terrorists or what ever not to abuse that?
I'm not going to get in to a party political debate, as IMHO none of them are any good.:ok:

fishes

5th February 2009, 05:35 PM

Kenny, I will have to agree to disagree with ya on this point, as it kind of contradicts the first part of your post. If I'm reading it right, you don't want these anti terrorism powers in place (eg: stopping photographers, and asking them to show photos etc), as it stops their freedom of movement or right to photograph what-ever. Yet you also don't like seeing our lads n lasses at war, trying to stop the very groups that are coming over here blowing Jo Public to bits with bombs, because they have the time and freedom to do so.

I would rather delete photos of a police officer or who/what ever, than put them at the personal risk of such things as those pointed out by Jules (or worse). We could all kick up a fuss about how the anti terrorism laws may effect photographers, and fight to have them removed. But I'd rather someone be questioned (me included), than them be let free to plot what ever bombing mission they may have in mind. Only a guilty person (or someone appearing guilty) would have anything to fear from being stopped.
We can't shed a tear over those lost/fighting on our behalf, then say we don't want the laws in place that would stop/restrict those they are fighting against, in our own country. You can't seriously expect a total freedom to do as you please in sensitive areas/situations, then expect the terrorists or what ever not to abuse that?
I'm not going to get in to a party political debate, as IMHO none of them are any good.:ok:

I disagree with you disagreeing actually ;) I think the anti-terrorism laws aren't necessarily the way to deal with terrorism and I DO oppose a lot of them, and other "if you are not guilty you have nothing to hide" initiatives (i.d cards grrrrrrr PLEASE don't start me!) However I can still support armed personnel and "shed a tear" when they are hurt or in danger or be greatful for their contribution.

There is a middle ground between no security and invasion of privacy, and its a very personal and subjective thing where the optimum point is between those two things

george.monaghan

5th February 2009, 05:55 PM

Hi,

Having photographed police officer's weddings a few times, being one, and 17 years in the army might not make me an expert, but it comes close.

I often have the wedding pictures posted in the local paper with officers in uniform. Only once did I have to ask the editor to remove an officers from the picture - this was because he was involved in a local drugs operation in plain clothes.

The police actively pursue publicity for their officers and campaigns. We have "all" the local papers delivered to the office for this very reason.

Many of our laws are now EU driven and not under the control of our government. Human rights laws have 95 pages on the rights of a person in custody, 4 pages on the victim. Nice to see who has most of the rights. It is our courts that have started to put the rights of the "community" before the rights of the individual.

Prisons are overcrowded so the emphasis is not to send to prison and to release - not remand prisoners. This is even up to attempted murder.

I do not feel it is helpful to blame any government as they are all the same. It was Maggie T that used the police to inhibit the free movement of people during the miner's strike and intelligence agencies to spy on them.

Never trust a politcian, any variety, they lie for a living. They never answer a straight question with a straight answer - well apart from Tony Benn, a dying breed. They are overpaid and have an expenses system that should be passed down to every worker as a right within employent. Then we could all get rich and keep our wages as pocket money.

Rant over. Dont vote - it just encourages them!!!!!!:acute::acute:

chrishoggy

5th February 2009, 06:00 PM

LOL fishes, I need to disagree with you disagreeing with my disagreement:). I'm not saying the laws are the best move, but we have to start somewhere. As much as I don't like ID cards, I actually would support their use in the UK. I carry one anyway, it's called my driving licence. And when in the forces, I couldn't get in to anywhere without one, so I'm used to carrying ID. It's no big deal, just a card with your details on, and may be a smart chip to confirm printed info and that the card is genuine. The gov has more chance of tracking you via the GPS transmitter in your tooth fillings, than with an ID card:laugh1:

darrenmwinter

5th February 2009, 06:32 PM

I wouldn't trust this government with my tooth fillings, let alone my whole identity on an RFID chip. Cloning kits are already available on eBay (sorry, can't post the link but check out IT website The Register) and speaking as someone who has already had their bank account cleaned out by some thoughtful person who didn't want me to be burdened with savings, I can't even imagine what it would be like to have my whole identity stolen. If someone took your ID and biometrics off an electronic card and just replaced the salient details with their own, how could you prove who you are?

george.monaghan

5th February 2009, 06:49 PM

Kenny

5th February 2009, 07:02 PM

Hi Chris

I dont think you read my post properly.I never said I didnt support our lads in the armed forces fighting for this country and nowhere in my post have I said such a thing.When I went to the centotaph last year I did so for my course but I felt really proud of the lads and lassies that laid their lives on the line for this country and to protect our freedoms.If you read the post properly my point was that if the lads and lassies had seen that they fought to get rid of one dictatorship only be be replaced with another then they would turn in their graves.I happen to know two people who died in Afganistan and their families are devasted.I also spent time a few years a go in Cornwall with some of the lads and lassies from 45 commando( I have photos of them excersising on Petwewan beach.One of the soldiers I got to chatting to died in an IAD attack in Helmond.

The fact of wheather someone agrees with the fields of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan or not does NOT stop someone supporting our fab armed services.I support them to the hilt.I do NOT support going into peoples countries to tell them what our idea of democacy is.Its not our right.I dont also like the fact that in the last twenty years,the US only seems to go into places where theres oil....they didnt go to Darhfor and didnt go into Zimbabe-both places with dictators who are killing their own people.There was no oil there but you can bet if there was oil found there tomorow the amassador of the US in the UN would be whipping up some sort of sanctions as an excuse to go in there.

I know we had IRA terorists in this country in the 60's and 70's but that was an entirely different matter.We now have a situation where people born in this country want to blow it up and thats only because of reckless and mindless actions done by this government.Our lads and lasses are now out there fighting George Bush's war. Only now he has conveniently buggered off and left it in the hands of Mr Obama.Lets hope that saner minds and thoughts now prevail in the whitehouse.I do doubt it though.....after all,as long as theres a 3,00 mile oil pipleline running through the centre of Afghanistan they wont ever leave.

If we had never gone into those places we wouldnt have Muslim extremists acting here now.Its funny innit that prior to both gulf wars and the one in Afghanistan we didnt have muslim extremists then did we????

and isnt it funny that the very person who dragged us into wars in the midle east couldnt even be bothered to stand there when they brought the body bags back.And isnt it a crass twist of fate that Tony B Liar- a bloke who in my opinion is a war criminal should now be the peace envoy for this country...

Theres an old saying from Benjamin Franklyn which goes..." Those who give up their freedoms to secure their security run the risk of loosing both"

Like I said in my original post,Chris.What is the farce in all this is that we let millions die in two world wars in the cause of freedom-and even now our armed forces are fighting for what they believe in as our freedom and all the while they are being blown up and shot and come home by the hundreds in body bags,this government slowly but surely destroys the very freedoms they fight for.

Bessy regs

Kenny

BarryM

5th February 2009, 07:18 PM

I think ID cards are a fantastic idea, as long as my driving license and passport stuff is on it too, then i have no issues with that, i do have issues with paper counterparts needing to be carried around though like the driving licenses at the moment.

I have no issues of having to pull it out (ID that is :Dm) if a copper asks to see it as long as its for a reason or suspected reason.

Our boys are fighting for a basic " rights " than we have and take for granted sometimes... the right to follow your religion or not follow one, the right to walk the street without fear of being taken from it and locked up indefinetly, the right to put your tick on a vote for whoever you want to represent you, (even though the wrong tosser ends up in anyway) the right for your child to grow up having a childhood in relative safety.

We have freedom, i can get up in the morning, decide if im going to work, decide if im driving,walking, decide if i want to wear trousers of a skirt, i can smoke as long as i dont make others smoke my smoke, i can have a drink at a pub or in the house, as long as i dont walk the streets with it, i can decide to drive hundreds of miles without checkpoints and crossing locked off borders to see friends, i can be friends with whoever i want to be friends with, i can eat out, i can have an argument or discussion without ending up in jail for my views, i can phone people and curse the goverment without fear of going " missing" i can spend my money on whatever i want to (well wife permitting). Im free, if i have to show an ID card if somethign suspicious has happened, il do that, cos i did nothing wrong, and have no fear.

Im not a number IM A FREE MAN.

My son is going to fight people who dont even allow this kind of Rights

ps as you see my views have drastically changed the closer my son gets to going to afghanistan, but after watchign a suicide bomber blow the hand and arm of a 2 year old girl, the stomach of a wee boy and kill 3 kids on a medic thing the other night i am so proud of him protecting those rights others deserve and a bit more humbled at what rights we have and the right to whinge about what we want.

chrishoggy

5th February 2009, 09:38 PM

Kenny, I don't think I ever said you didn't support them (if I did, I apologise), I said "you also don't like seeing our lads n lasses at war". In other words you don't like seeing them being sent over to fight what you may or may not see as an unjustified war.
You will find that they are not actually fighting for our freedoms as such, but for the freedoms of those in the country they are fighting in. The extremists have always been there, but they are now striking in the UK. The reason for that is, we are helping to remove them from power. We are not forcing our style of democracy, they are doing it their way, now they have control back.

I think I share similar views to Barry, as I feel carrying ID and being asked to show a photo etc, really isn't a big deal. Having your children shot in front of you, just because you spoke out against a leader, is something I would expect any man, woman or gov to fight against. If we were to go to Iraq etc, and show how upset this country is about having ID cards etc, they would laugh in our faces. To say "We now have a situation where people born in this country want to blow it up and thats only because of reckless and mindless actions done by this government" is really a bit OTT.

I could go on and on, but I'm not going to.

Barry, your lad has more guts in his little finger, than most of the people protesting over peoples so called restricted freedoms here in the UK. You have every reason to be proud of anything and everything he does, and to sing it from the roof-tops. I don't know how I would handle being in your shoes, and to be honest I don't think I could. I've got m8's in Afghanistan, and have been told first hand what goes on. But as with anything, it's not real until you have seen it for yourself:(x

BarryM

5th February 2009, 09:46 PM

Thanks Chris, but in all honesty im not sure how im going to handle it, my wife is already on tablets for worry and he aint even out there, my brother is going out too and i have my mother now with a son and grandson going out to afghanistan, and she just wont let it lie, which is getting to me a bit. I sit and watch things like warzone and that medic program the other night, and at one time id have been hooked on it, now i watch it and think the worse. Ive had to tell my son on the side to make it out as if its a easy task for his mums ears. Then when you hear daily of marines losing their lives it makes we wonder how the hell the next 7 or 8 months are going to go by.

I would love our army to be back over here defending our lands from within but alas its a different world now, i suppose if you have the power its your place to help those that cant help themselves, i really have had my thoughts and stuff changed over the last few months, i used to be so war minded, reading it, watching it, and now i just listen to what my son tells me.

Hopefully the 7 months pass by quick, and as Scots regiment they get the respect they seem to command everywhere else in the world but we know that wont happen.

chrishoggy

5th February 2009, 10:11 PM

Everybody reacts differently, and I doubt anybody could tell you and the family how best to cope with him going out there. I guess it's one of those things you have to experience first hand. Just take it a day at a time m8, and you will all find your own ways of dealing with it, as there isn't a right or wrong way.:ok:

Kenny

5th February 2009, 10:15 PM

Hi Chris

Id like to apologise too if I misinterpreted your post.I seem to do that a lot lately and Im really sorry.You know right now theres a few lads I know in the Territorials who are due to go over to Helmond and I really fear for them.My heart goes out to Baz cos his lad looked so damned proud in his uniform in all the pikkies he posted of him.

The guys I got to know on that beach at Pentewan were so proud to serve their country I cant tell you.The reason I got to talking to them was because they knocked on the door of the motor home one evening.They were warning us not to worry if we heard explosions and gunfire!!!We were staying at a site in Cornwall called Pentewan sands and 45 para use the beach along side the site every year for exercises.It was magic sitting on there at three in the morning watching them come up the beach in the landing craft etc and at one point we had a huge Westland helicopter land thirty feet up from where we were.They took people round in the amphibious landing craft and they were each year they came,taken into the hearts of the local community.I took many photos and chatted a lot to some of the guys.They couldnt wait to get shipped out and do their bit for their country.I was said to hear a year later that one of the guys I had been chatting to there on the beach was blown up by an IAD.I saw him mentioned on the news and it really made me feel really sad.Its easy to forget soldiers when you dont know them but when they are your family or someone you know its horrifying to see the news every night.

To Baz I can only say your lad is doing what he feels is right and is proud to do so.Its a wonderful regiment and indeed commands respect everywhere.I can only pray that his tour of duty sees him coming home at the end of it and that in the time he is there that you can settle to some sort of normality.My Bro-in law who is also in the terries cant go because he has very severe psoriasis and also a heart problem and they told him it precluded him from going.It was one reason even after passing every exam for the army they wouldnt let him join and he would go there tomorrow if they let him.My sister would have something to say about that but even she is in there too.She is a fully qualified fire arms instructor.She trains army cadets on the firing ranges at Holcome Moor.We actually come from a military family so I do appreciate the armed forces more than I can say.

I know you said I might be a bit ott with some of the things I said in my post but I do believe that we need to be careful that we dont sleepwalk into a police state.

If I can find the photos I took at Pentewan I might post them to show what a fab show 45 para put on.

Bessy regs

Kenny

chrishoggy

5th February 2009, 10:53 PM

Kenny, these topics can stir up all kinds of feelings for and against, and I can be as guilty as anybody when it come to misreading the written word:ok:. Everybody has their own views, but at least we can air them here, and it not get out of hand (as it does in many other forums).
But saying that, if Barry starts posting pics using that rubbish camera he just got, things could really get out of hand :laugh1: :laugh1: :laugh1:

.Ray

5th February 2009, 10:58 PM

tinysmall

5th February 2009, 11:07 PM

Has anyone realised yet that we're british, not american and as such we don't actually have any freedoms written into our law? There are just things that are legal and things that are illegal.

Anyway, as a serving member of the forces who's job is guarding camps against terrorist attacks and as part of my job, keeping upto date with all the amendments, I can safely say that the new laws are there to protect against terrorism, not to infringe on your private life. The armed forces and police have a job to do and if you are acting suspiciously, then you deserve to be stopped. If you are not acting suspiciously, you won't be stopped. Can't remember who said that the new laws are OTT, but what a load of rubbish. Try telling that to the families of all those killed in terrorist attacks over the last 40 or so years and see what they think. Terrorism needs to be stamped out and unfortunately, terrorists don't cut about in uniforms advertising their presence. They are just like you and me and sometimes mistakes can be made. If you are innocent and you get stopped, don't start getting agitated and indignant. Be polite and frieindly and helpful and you will find that most times, the problem will simply not occur or it will just go away.

pburnett

6th February 2009, 07:13 AM

The armed forces and police have a job to do and if you are acting suspiciously, then you deserve to be stopped. If you are not acting suspiciously, you won't be stopped. Can't remember who said that the new laws are OTT, but what a load of rubbish. .

Try telling that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes or those jailed indefinitely on "suspicion" only.

BarryM

6th February 2009, 09:06 AM

IMHO he shouldn't have run when told to stop. A short while after underground terrorist attack. Wearing a rucksack on a busy underground. A sad thing it was. But a one off incident out of probably loads of sucessful attempts that we don't hear to much about of thwarting terrorism.

darrenmwinter

6th February 2009, 10:02 AM

I wonder whether I would find it easy to dismiss the death of an innocent person if they were a family member of mine.

darrenmwinter

6th February 2009, 10:07 AM

Sorry, that last post sounds terribly harsh and I did not mean it to be so! I was trying to say that yes, I agree that there are probably loads of successful operations that we hear nothing about; but the death of JCdM has been put down to "one of those things". It's a scandal that the only way we can hold someone accountable is be trying to charge them under health and safety laws. I don't think I would be able to contain my feelings if that had been my brother (for example) who had been shot and I certainly wouldn't be able to chalk it off as an "acceptable loss".

chrishoggy

6th February 2009, 10:43 AM

Try telling that to the family of Jean Charles de Menezes or those jailed indefinitely on "suspicion" only.

Tell the families of those killed in 911 and London bombings that we don't need laws in place to detain, question and/or shoot terrorists. We can all give example for and against these laws, but if we remove the laws, who is going to abuse that tiny little bit of extra freedom? What happened to Jean Charles de Menezes was an accident brought on by poor intelligence. How could it have been prevented? By giving officers the power to stop and question the actions of someone before it gets to the "taking them down" stage. The laws being put in place, are not just there to detect the guilty, but also to eliminate the innocent
Tiny, I didn't realise you are a serving MP, but I guess you can relate to this example.
If people think police powers go a little OTT, try working in an army base for one day on high alert (as a civilian). Stand at the gate and protest about your freedom being invaded as you go in, and see what happens. I remember very clearly the first time we went to Bikini Red, and the MP's were all over everybody and their vehicles going in (IRA bombing anniversary 1989). One of the lads I worked with, made some wise crack about a bomb in his motorbike tyre (under his breath). Within about 2 seconds, he had armed guards all over him, and his bike was being stripped in to little bits. We all had to sit outside in the freezing cold, until they had finished, then he got dragged off for a beasting. He then had the pleasure of putting his bike back together when he got home, as his bike was left in bits and delivered to his house. I'm not even going to say what he got from the rest of us after, but it wasn't pleasant.:ok:

If people really believe that the laws are OTT, and that little bit of extra freedom is worth keeping, watch the Nick Berg video. Then come back and tell me your extra freedom is more important than trying to prevent what you have just seen.:ok:

simonpaul64

6th February 2009, 10:46 AM

Just a point about JCdM. He was here illegally and ran from police. In his home country the police murder people every day - so I wouldn't be surprised if he was "conditioned" to thinking the police would mean him harm. However, I don't blame our police for HIS reaction that, tragically, led to him getting shot. Sure, the police made mistakes, but if he hadn't have run I think he would have been stopped and questioned. I felt bad for the policemen that had to make a split second decision just days after the underground suicide attacks.

Kenny

6th February 2009, 11:40 AM

Actually,according to the proper info now thats been made public, JcdMz did NOT run from the police.He was actually sitting down on the train when they dragged him from his seat and shot him.He never had a chance to defend himself because they shot him first.The witnesses on the train state that for a fact.He also wasnt illegal in this country and had had his leave to stay extended.he was working as an electrician at the time and going to work.INfact the security services didnt even have a proper photo of the man they thought he was and that aided in the confusion.

If you had read any info at all on the case or followed the court case you would have known this.The judgment in the case of JCMz though not the verdict that was expected did not clear the police of any misdoing and infact now I believe his family are considering legal action.The whole incident was run badly and ineptly and thats one reason the Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir Ian Blair resigned.

The main problem I see with the idea that "if you dont act suspiciously you have nowt to fear" is this...what happens when tomorrow the goal posts are changed? When something that was perfectly normal,non threatening and natural is now deemed to be against the security of the country? What is legal today might not be tomorrow and on and on.It may well come a time when slowly but surely one thing after another is banned on the basis of National security.

..and whilst we are on the subject of Standing guard at camps,My bro in law has done that and stood guard duty with live rounds and he would have had no hesitation in shooting anyone who tried to break into one of the camps.He wouldnt however do that that unless he felt the person was a threat.

When JCdMZ got onto that train he had not fifteen minutes before,as security members watched him,get on a packed bus.Wouldnt you think that if they really believed that it was the guy they were looking for they would have stopped him from getting on ANY packed form of transport?

the news stories at the time said he ran from the police.False! he didnt.,he acted in a perfectly normal manner.They say he ran away from them and jumped over ticket machines.False.He didnt.He got his ticket and boarded and sat down on the train.All this is in the court transcripts and even the security men did not deny this.

He didnt try to run because he had no need to.They stormed the train and dragged him to the ground and shot him seven times in the head.To all intents and purposes that is nothing less than execution.If you or I did that we would be charged with pre meditated murder.I believe that the heightened tensions because of the July bombings made men who would otherwise have thought things out more carefully react on instinct and an innocent man who had done no wrong was killed.I`m just worried that one day another mistake like that could happen and that person shot could be you or I.

Bessy regs

Kenny

PaulG

6th February 2009, 11:52 AM

I agree with Matthew (tinysmall) Just be co-operative. I don't go round taking shots of the police but if one was inadvertently in an image I'd taken and I was asked to delete it I would. No argument! The terrorists have made the need for anti-terrorist laws because of what they do so we are protected. I know that occasionally some one will overstep the mark but that's life. Live with it. It's all this PC crap that I object to.

Paul

.Ray

6th February 2009, 11:54 AM

There will always be over zealous security workers, and there will always be people who forget their manners in their search for their rights to do this and rights to do that.

If only there aren't over zealous security workers; if only the public don't forget their manners then everyone will be happier... but we all know that scenario will never happen. And as for the de Menezes incident, it was a tragic accident / mis-understanding / incompetence / overreaction of the circumstances. No change in the law could have prevented it, nor did the law lead to it happening.

I thought the police already has stop and search powers if they suspect you for terror activities, so what's the point of the new law? Surely it will only create further tensions between togs and the police as each side will interpret the law differently.

Oh I know what the new law is good for... it will be yet another revenue stream for lawyers.

fishes

6th February 2009, 12:01 PM

i wrote a totally insightful and well thought out response earlier and my internet connection froze and lost it...... I can't remember what I said but you would all have been wowed by my eloquent post......:grin:

anyway..... I'm enjoying hearing the different opinions here, I know its an emotive subject but hopefully we can keep it un-heated so it doesn't have to be closed down

fishes

6th February 2009, 12:03 PM

IMHO he shouldn't have run when told to stop.....

I don't mean to be flippant - but this made me laugh..... talk about stating the flipping obvious Barry!!!

chrishoggy

6th February 2009, 12:58 PM

..and whilst we are on the subject of Standing guard at camps,My bro in law has done that and stood guard duty with live rounds and he would have had no hesitation in shooting anyone who tried to break into one of the camps.He wouldn't however do that that unless he felt the person was a threat.
And on this point, I have to ask the main questions relating to all this. What criteria would he use to work out if a person was a threat? How would he be able to tell the difference in that split second? Should he let someone run away/avoid him, rather than shoot them on the spot? Without the powers given to him by law, what could he do, other than nothing?
Lets say there has been attacks on bases by men with back-packs and hoodies on, and many lives have been lost. While on guard, he sees a hooded male jump the fence, with a back-pack on. When he shouts out, the hooded man starts to run, so he shoots. It then turns out it was a teenager with a hoodie on, who was retrieving a football, and he ran because he didn't want to get caught. Who is the guilty party in this situation?
It's the man on the front line who has to deal with it all, not some guy in an office, or us discussing it on a forum.

Kenny

6th February 2009, 01:22 PM

Thats fair comment Chris.

I wouldnt want to be the guy on the front line making that choice and I have to hold my hand up and say that in those circumstances where you just laid out I too would probably have fired and worried about it later.

My fears about civil liberties still stand though and I again raise the question about who judges that one thing is against a law when something else isnt and what criteria do they use.Also what protection as the public do we have against mistakes being made-you cant Unkill someone- and what protection do we have that what we take for granted as a hobby or occupation my tomorrow be deemed a crime?

I dont personally,nor have I ever broken the law.I obey and respect the law and the people that uphold it.It was drummed into me by my dad who was a serving member of the armed forces himself.I know theoretically I have nowt to fear-indeed on a recent trip to Angelsey I got chatting with two PCSO officers who actually ASKED me to take their photo down by Holyhead harbour and I sent them the photo.They were quite comfortable with it being done and there was no fuss.If a police officer came to me asking me what I was doing Id have nowt to hide and would tell them.If they asked me to delete the photos(which they at the moment dont have a right to do) I would do so out of common respect.My fear as I said is how many times do we stand by and watch the goal posts shift?? Do we watch as one by one some faceless beurocrat gets up one morning and says...." I think we well ban XYZ today because in theory it can be used to aid terroism?"

In theory any activity we do could be used to aid terroism.Do we end up banning everything?

Bessy regs

Kenny

BarryM

6th February 2009, 01:50 PM

I don't mean to be flippant - but this made me laugh..... talk about stating the flipping obvious Barry!!!

might be stating the obvious but obviously not very obvious to him.... although after reading kennys post, ive obviously not followed the story or report that was issued with the investigation.

chrishoggy

6th February 2009, 03:46 PM

As I see it, the laws being put in place, do actually work (to an extent), and privacy and rights are not being breached. What you tend to get is a few high up the ladder people who will misinterpret the new laws. This is then screamed from the roof tops, and people start to believe they are having their privacy or what ever invaded. The protesters then get wind of it, and use it as another claim of a BIG Brother style country.
I watched a program a while back (can't remember what it was) about civil liberties/human rights, from the protesters point of view. It showed protesters chained together in the road, and another one filming the police action. The police asked them several times to move out of the road, and they refused. The police didn't want to stop their protest, they just wanted, them to move out of the way of cars passing close by, as they had not actually blocked the road. In the end the police had to lift and move them while chained together. The protesters were screaming, crying, claiming limbs were being broken, throwing themselves to the floor and all sorts. The guy with the camera was doing a running commentary screaming police brutality, breaches of human rights, and attempting to pull the police off. They were acting like idiots, and IMHO should have been locked up for wasting police time.... When I see grown adults acting like that, it makes me wonder how much of it is just attention seeking people, using it as an excuse to get attention. There are also those who seem to want to be a victim in one way or another. If they got the laws changed, they would just move on to something else to claim they are a victim of.
This is going to be a long story now, but it is quite funny, now I can look back at it :laugh1:
I was arrested on a charge of theft of antique clocks in 1999, and they sent 5 officers to my door in a van. I'd done nothing wrong, and invited them in to search the house (they would have done anyway). A guy I had done some work for 6 month previous (when still living in Wiltshire), had said I'd done a runner with his clocks I was restoring.
The story behind it: I had called at his house to collect payment one evening, and I walked in to see a police officer sitting in the room. He looked at me and said "Your going to wish you never came here, as he has flipped his lid" Lots of talking about bizarre plots to kill him, strange goings on, and 4 hours later, the officer asked me to try and get him to go out side for a smoke (or what ever). By this time there were several police and a psycreatric team outside. I managed to get him out side on the pretence of having a smoke, and he got jumped on by the team. He was taken away and his wife and 2 kids came in. After some discussion, she instructed me to sell what ever I had left of his, as they had no money to pay me for the work I had already done. So I did, but still lost money on it. A few weeks later the guy found out from his wife, that I had sold them, and he reported it to the police while still in the mental institution. I was totally unaware of this at the time.
Because I'd made a classic business mistake (all eggs in one basket), loosing him as a customer forced me to stop trading, and we decided to move back up here for a fresh start. We had only been up here about 3 months, when the police came. I got taken away, and locked up in a cell for 2 hours. When I got fetched out, I was informed I would be put in hand cuffs, and escorted to Coventry, then from Coventry to Swindon, and from Swindon to Trowbridge. This was because I had not committed an offence in West Yorkshire, and they wanted Wiltshire police to deal with it. After lots of strong words from me, and the solicitor stepping in, I was eventually bailed to appear at Trowbridge station 4 weeks later. So I went down expecting to find it had all been sorted out, but Oooo no. I had travelled 500 miles round trip, just to make a statement, and to be bailed again for another 4 weeks. So I go down again (another 500 miles), just to be told his wife has confirmed my story, and I am free to go. They were not allowed to say it over the phone, and I had to sign papers at the station.

So all in all, I think I have a good idea of how much of an ass the UK laws are, but we have to work with it, rather than fight among ourselves about it.

PS: I never got a single penny in expenses, or pay for the time I had to have off work :crazy: Apparently you can't claim expenses if you have been arrested.:crazy:

BarryM

6th February 2009, 05:03 PM

ouch, deserved to be disgruntled,,,,

u got any cheap clocks going ????? :Dm :Dm

chrishoggy

6th February 2009, 05:48 PM

ouch, deserved to be disgruntled,,,,

u got any cheap clocks going ????? :Dm :Dm

:laugh1: Yeah, but you will have to go to Wiltshire to pick em up:stir:

I've had another law issue since that one, in Feb 2001. I got made redundant, and signed on for 4 weeks. Signed off, and they sent me a cheque for another 2 weeks money. Phoned them, and they said that was what I was entitled to, so I cashed it. In April I got called in to be questioned under caution for benefit fraud. Set my case out, along with phone records etc proving my case. But they wanted to screw me over, and get me to pay it back + admit I'd committed benefit fraud. Got the court papers through, and the transcript of the taped interview had been Dr'd to make it look like I admitted it. They had put the bit in where I said I had cashed the check, but left out bits where I said I phoned to confirm it was mine to cash. I was given a copy of the tape, so did my own transcript to prove that.
Went to court and I represented myself, as I couldn't afford solicitors fees. I won the case + compensation in 4 figures, had it brought up in the commons by my MP Bill O'Brien, had the then head of the DWP for Yorkshire and Humberside (Nigel Gair) come to my house apologise in person, and also did an appearance on the Kilroy show about benefit cheats in 2002 :laugh1:
Ohh I've got plenty to be disgruntled about, but that's the way our country is run.
I even took on Microsoft over selling on Ebay, as they made claims I was in breach of their copyrights/intellectual property rights, and had everything I was selling pulled, plus I got banned from Ebay. Argued with their UK Anti-piracy team (Netsafe) and eventually they had to confirm to Ebay that they were wrong on their own policy and EULA, plus an apology Email sent to me from MS :laugh1:.

Hello Mr. Hodgson,

Thank you for the additional information you provided regarding your eBay auctions, in which you were offering HP restore media. After further review, we have contacted eBay and notified them that Microsoft has no objection to the reinstatement of your auctions. Thank you very much for your patience and cooperation throughout the resolution of this matter. We apologize for any inconvenience that may have been caused by the suspension of your account.

Sincerely,

Scott
MS UK NetSafe Team

I found the legal way of selling XP HP recovery CD's, and I get messages all the time from other sellers asking how I'm not getting my listing pulled. As if I'm going to tell them that, and then open the market to all of them :laugh1:
I don't care how big they are. If I'm right, they WILL loose :laugh1: :laugh1:

BarryM

6th February 2009, 09:18 PM

lmao classic mate, absolute classic...

ps id have only accepted a letter of apology from Mr B gates, :Dm :Dm

chrishoggy

6th February 2009, 10:05 PM

It was funny dealing with MS, as they first seemed so sure they were in the right, like this.

Hello Chris,

Thank you for your reply. It is important to understand that Microsoft software is licensed not sold. Users rights regarding the software are listed in the End User License Agreement (EULA) distributed with the media. The license agreement for the software is not exhausted at any point. The distribution requirements established in the license agreement stay with the software throughout its entire existence. If you do not agree to the regulations of the EULA then Microsoft does not license the software to you and you are not authorized to use and/or distribute the media.

In your case, the recovery software can only be transferred with the computer system they were originally distributed with. Since you were not including the original computer systems, our investigators reported your listings to eBay.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Dave
MS UK NetSafe Team

And this

Hello,

Thank you for your e-mail. Each day our team reviews hundreds of auctions and online advertisements to identify offers involving counterfeit or otherwise unauthorized software. Our program is primarily intended to protect internet buyers from acquiring software that they would not be licensed or otherwise authorized to use. We carefully review the listings before we request that they be removed, nevertheless, we know that mistakes are made in a small number of cases. We thank you for your cooperation and understanding as we review your auction.

I believe auctions 190115080412 & 190115087703 you referenced below was reported to eBay due to concerns that it was offering to distribute restore, recovery, or configuration discs containing Microsoft software without also including the complete computer system with which they were originally distributed. Restore discs containing Microsoft software are licensed "For Distribution With A New PC Only." They are licensed under specific distribution agreements with the PC manufacturer, such as HP, and under the terms of this license they are only to be redistributed as part of a transfer of the computer with which they were obtained.

I hope this information has been helpful. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us and we will do our best to assist you.

Thank you,

Dave
MS UK NetSafe Team

Then when I started firing things back at them, rather than just giving up, Scott became involved. I was proven right after sending them a photo of the CD's, along with the EULA doc on the disc. Lets Just say there is something missing off the CDs printed label, that let's me sell as many as I want. :crigon_02

Whooooooooo's ya daddy Mr Gates :laugh1: