This article from June 2008 asks why all photographers are assumed to be terrorists or paedophiles, this article from August 2008 reported the case of a photographer arrested for taking photos of a police car ignoring a no entry sign and this piece also from August 2008 showed some video of a PCSO exceeding his powers. This piece from October 2008 asked if you needed a licence to take photos in Middlesborough, this piece from November 2008 reported the case of a 15 year old boy stooped for suspicion of being a terrorist because he was taking photos of trains and this article from January 2009 reported on several cases of photographers being badly dealt with by the police.
From January onwards I covered here, here, here and here the Government's introduction of legislation in the form of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which became law on February 16, and which
"allows 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’." The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to ten years and a fine."
I was reminded of all of this as the Police have come under criticism for their possible part in death of Ian Tomlinson. I wonder if the man who took the video of the incident could find himself arrested for filming policemen... Maybe at the next demonstration the Police will first arrest all the photographers before dealing with protesters and passers-by.
As I quoted Daniel1979 in February:
"When I was at school, not too many years ago we were taught that cameras were forbidden in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. This, our liberal teacher told us was because cameras can be used to document offences of the state against civilians; as such, they were considered a tool that can bring about civil unrest and encourage protest against the Communist Governments. This particular teacher, sneered at this particular law and the system in which it helped preserve."
Welcome to the DRUK (Democratic Republic of the UK) a part of the EUSSR; a land where democracy and freedom are soon to be just words...
I hope that you don't mind me leaving below, the comment that I made on The Remittance Man's blog.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I am certainly not a fan of the great unwashed anarchist contingent, I do salute the courage of the American financier, (those evil men!), who supplied the video, risking prosecution for capturing images of a police officer, something which has been illegal to do in the UK since 16th February 2009.
Obviously, the fact that after this brave American released the video to the Guardian because "his family didn't seem to be getting answers", other images of the incident started to be revealed, indicates to me that the British controllers of said capture devices, (personal cameras, cellphones, CCTV, etc.), were initially scared to be the first to come forward, probably fearing that by doing so, they would be "cuffed and stuffed" and have their DNA taken and then prosecuted.
Luckily for the remnants of British democracy, a fearless American saw that the situation was wrong: a member of the public going quietly about their lawful business, bowled over by a masked police officer whilst subsequent communiqués by the Metropolitan Police served to indicate that the gentleman who was assaulted and then died had had "no contact" with the police at all.
Thanks to his bravery, the state has had to conduct a quick volte face, with Jacqui Smith, architect of all these draconian and restrictive laws, declaring that the investigation should be as deep as possible. How different it would all have been, I'm sure, if the images had not been taken at all due to fear of police recrimination.
Now then, let us see which of the scores of officers watching the incident will come forward and volunteer information leading to revelation of the police officer's identity. The Met have form for lying and creative story-telling from the killing of the Brazilian who was "jumping over turnstiles, acting aggressively and acting in a suspicious manner". Prepare for pocket books to "go missing" **again**.
Oh yes, and remember that since 00.01 on 6th April, the state has assumed full entitlement to delve into everybody's internet activity. Contributors to blogs such as this won't be immune in the future.
And I'm not American.
I'm not sure about the photography/filming of Police being illegal, as they post very worrying material onto the public web all the time. Take this classic from the Metropolitan Police. (apparently currently under investigation)
ReplyDeleteVIDEO 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbks-FvSFVs
VIDEO 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbxEDx5KIC4
VIDEO 3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shVtaCOdSAQ
VIDEO 4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DapyrzsHmMs
These videos have recently been reported on BBC and SKYNEWS. 'youtube police shooting probed'