-
A bit late, but I'm sure this will be of some use:
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_and_general_information/guidance_issued_to_mps_officers_and_staff_re_stop_and_search_photo_policy. . . . I think we have been over this one already !!!
This from the Met late last year and Andy Trotter's (ACPO) statement - will have (and appears to be having) little effect as it is only 'guidance'.
The law remains the same (regardless of the ECHR ruling that it is illegal) so nothing is likely to change.
If an officer wants to stop you because he thinks black people are generally up to no good - the only reason he needs is that you are in a designated area - nothing much you can do, if he wants to fuck around with you for 40 minutes he can do - London is a designated area.
There is nothing in that guidance that could prevent this happening.
The only thing that would help would be a repeal of the law.
-
I read the thread and wasn't trying to go back over stuff thats already been covered, just posting up the info for anyone that may not know these 'guidelines', or wanted a more 'official' view of them.
-
I forgive you, you are God after all...
-
"There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always-do not forget this Winston-always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever.”
Are you also aware of Peter Mandelson's self-appointed role in UK science - this has a lot of scientists very worried about the future of science in the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/oct/12/scientists-for-global-responsibility
-
a few bullet points about the bill.
"• Unclaimed royalties will be treated as bona vacantia, diverting the creators’ income to the state"
nice one mandy you prick. did you get that dirty sanchez mustache as payment in kind for you fucking everyone up the arse (without consent)
http://www.epuk.org/News/936/mandelson-deb
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAQrsA3m8Bg"]YouTube-
Everything is OK Montage[/ame] -
Charlie and Danny (from Everything is OK) are idiots, I love all the undermining of petty figures of authority they get up to, but beyond this they are absolute idiots, they do the whole the government is trying to kill us with vaccines, NWO, 911 was an inside job . . conspiracy horseshit. Pair of fools.
-
Charlie and Danny (from Everything is OK) are idiots, I love all the undermining of petty figures of authority they get up to, but beyond this they are absolute idiots, they do the whole the government is trying to kill us with vaccines, NWO, 911 was an inside job . . conspiracy horseshit. Pair of fools.
Filthy speciesist.
-
Wednesday:
Stephen Russell, in his late 50s, was on a trip to buy fish and chips in Kidlington High Street when he spotted police swarming around. He had his camera with him and took four photos because it was unusual to see so much action in the village.
An officer demanded that he delete the photos. Mr Russell refused as it is not illegal to photograph police in a public place.
He was then detained and searched using powers under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act,. . . . .
Video:
The prick of a unnecessarily authoritarian, overbearing policeman says to a law-abiding member of the public who has done nothing wrong"
You are a stranger in Kidlington - tell me who you are - what is your reason for being here.
On what possible basis was any of that asked? We don't live in a country in which the police can demand our papers or to state our business, this isn't fucking North Korea.
-
Using 'horseshit' as a derogatory term. Indefensible.
-
Not sure what this means ?
Not sure what 'on the side of the everyday street snapper means' ?
How are the papers 'on the side' of anyone ?
And what about councils and Microsoft and McDonald's and Canadian Airlines and Wallmart and Café Nero and Starbucks and Ogilvy and the BNP and the Conservative Party and General Motors and EMI records and Apple and Unilever and Barclays and so on ?
Would open access (through third parties) and fee free usage get them on the side of the everyday street snapper ?
I am not sure I have understood your point (honestly not sarcastically) ?
How many sentences can you end with a question mark in a single post ?
Like, 55 ?
I was musing out loud really. The state can be pulled to rights by the usage of footage taken by everyday by street snappers and holiday makers. the abuse suffered by the protesters at the hands of the police at the G20 was a good example.
so with that in mind my other braincell got that warm fuzzy feeling and started figuring out how the change of copyright law on images (&video) in the public domain could lead to more of these photos./videos being used by papers to build cases protecting our interests against the state.
the two videos posted on here are already doing that job, the guardian did great things on "our" behalf. there is also the impact of blogs and online news, not just the tabloids.
If Al Qaeda can organise armys and train them all to blow up people on a global scale via a few blogs and txt messages, surly we must be able to organise a protest against state changes?Then i realised, in a sudden cold panic, i didn't understand in depth the legal standings today of using photos published on sharing websites. they could already be free?
Then after spending so long on this thread, and having written some words in the box down the bottom i decided to carry on.I figured no fucking lack of information was going to stop me from making a point, besides it could raise a question or 55??
-
Brave policeman tackles camera wielding Peadographer.
The whole 'I am a policeman and have the right to delete your photographs" really puzzles me, if you find yourself with someone who you suspect is a terrorist or a peadophile (read: photographer) why on earth would you make it your first move to demand that the evidence of the alleged crime be deleted ?
Fucking idiots.
To be fair to the officer involved, he managed to restrain himself and not use section 44, the child could have easily be a tiny robot that looks like a kid and packed with high explosives.
.
-
The state can be pulled to rights by the usage of footage taken by everyday by street snappers and holiday makers. the abuse suffered by the protesters at the hands of the police at the G20 was a good example.
Agreed, but that facility exists now, this new legislation adds nothing to that facility.
Worryingly - the second part of MrSmyth's link (The ICO code) is the one that could effectively "ban photography altogether in public places".
-
have been catching up with emails from my trade association and there is a lot going on the background with people trying to get the government to see the idiocy of this bill. it doesn't help that as far as the mainstream media is concerned it's not really an issue, or the issue is dominated by the broadband tax and isp's denying service to filesharers.
it's quite odd when you realise the bill is encouraging sharing of imagery for free (without consent of the owners) but on the other-hand wants to stop filesharing?!? -
Wednesday:
Stephen Russell, in his late 50s, was on a trip to buy fish and chips in Kidlington High Street when he spotted police swarming around. He had his camera with him and took four photos because it was unusual to see so much action in the village.
An officer demanded that he delete the photos. Mr Russell refused as it is not illegal to photograph police in a public place.
He was then detained and searched using powers under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act,. . . . .
Video:
The prick of a unnecessarily authoritarian, overbearing policeman says to a law-abiding member of the public who has done nothing wrong"
You are a stranger in Kidlington - tell me who you are - what is your reason for being here.
On what possible basis was any of that asked? We don't live in a country in which the police can demand our papers or to state our business, this isn't fucking North Korea.
When he decides he wants to search him, what rights do we have to say no to a search? Can I decline a search on the basis I choose to be arrested and searched at a police station instead?
-
When he decides he wants to search him, what rights do we have to say no to a search?
That depends on what legislation an officer uses.
But at the end of the day if you are aware of your rights and (depending on the legislation) do not consent to a search or do not wish to hand over your personal details, the officer will often simply change what it is you are being detained under - so when you refuse a demand for your name and address under section 44 it becomes a road traffic violation which then becomes an anti-social behaviour offence (or breach of the peace or obstruction . . . etc)
Attempts to assert your rights, as far as you are aware of them, is pretty much the quickest route to the back of the van with some officers. Like I have said previously, it's best to treat an encounter with a PCSO or police officer or enforcement officer like you would a mugging, give them what they want and you can usually go free, attempting to point out they have no legal sanction to search you, demand your name and address or delete pictures is like attempting to point out to a mugger that he has no legal sanction to take your property.
Technically accurate in both cases, but almost always useless in practice.
-
The reason I asked is if you get to the Police Station are they more likely to see some sense or is it more likely to go horribly wrong do you think? Judging by the number of people detained for 6-8 hours or overnight, I guess it's not such a good idea.
-
The reason I asked is if you get to the Police Station are they more likely to see some sense or is it more likely to go horribly wrong do you think? Judging by the number of people detained for 6-8 hours or overnight, I guess it's not such a good idea.
Hard to say ? . . . Once arrested I think it's unlikely that another officer not connected to the arrest or even a duty/desk sergeant would want to get into some long winded parsing of the particular statute you were arrested under, the police are not lawyers in this respect, I would also guess they would they want not want to question a fellow officers judgement.
I think you have to be a little more devious to stay on top.
-
Let me get this straight. On the one hand you have proposed legislation supposedly designed to cut down on digital theft (primarily in response to the recording industry's cries for help), and on the other hand, said proposals include a clause that allows for anyone to steel in this way from the individual?
Shafted by the government... quelle suprise!
Come the revolution!!
tynan
hellomiles
deleted
Oliver Schick
Greasy_Slag
NurseHolliday
hippy
roadrash-
Post a reply
About
For Sale: I'm a Terrorist not a Photographer
Posted by
@Guerillaphoto
A bit late, but I'm sure this will be of some use:
http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_and_general_information/guidance_issued_to_mps_officers_and_staff_re_stop_and_search_photo_policy