styx Posted July 21, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 21, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 21, 2009 Posted July 21, 2009 Hi styx, Take a look here Not a Crime. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mgcd Posted July 21, 2009 Share #22 Posted July 21, 2009 If people are regularly behaving like terrorists (eg street photographers, professional journalists) on a regular basis surely it would be appropriate to help the authorities to identify them as bona fide (ie a database). Excuse me? This is a most incredible statement... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted July 21, 2009 Share #23 Posted July 21, 2009 Conrad I am SURE that Frank meant "terrorists behaving like "normal" people". He can't POSSIBLY have meant anything else. Can he? Here's something to add to the pot: Police powers for 2012 Olympics alarm critics | UK news | The Guardian When did we start living in a police state? Can anyone remember the date? Were we all asleep? Are we going to do something about it next May? Sounds like some people don't even care... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnkare Posted July 22, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 22, 2009 Whatever he meant, where is the line to be drawn between behaving "like a terrorist" and not? Terrorists, as well as spies, behave like normal people. That's their method! Well, one terrorist, or spy for that matter, can infiltrate better than another, but then again, so can a "normal person" beave more or less "like a terrorist" unintentionaly. And this is where the harrasment becomes inevitable. And the terrorists win a round, if we start living in suspiciosness and fear. That's exactly what they want. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted July 22, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 22, 2009 If people are regularly behaving like terrorists (eg street photographers, professional journalists) on a regular basis surely it would be appropriate to help the authorities to identify them as bona fide (ie a database). You are hereby charged with being a street photographer and a professional journalist. How do you plead? Guilty, m'lud. Penalty...? [The Moderator shall pronounce the sentence.] Mind you, some of the British media pack should be locked up, their antics are definitely harassment and give all journos and photogs a bad name. And I say that as a professional journalist... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 22, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 22, 2009 You are hereby charged with being a street photographer and a professional journalist. How do you plead? Guilty, m'lud. Penalty...? [The Moderator shall pronounce the sentence.] Mind you, some of the British media pack should be locked up, their antics are definitely harassment and give all journos and photogs a bad name. And I say that as a professional journalist... First I did not mean "If people are regularly behaving like terrorists" ...sorry for any confusion I did of course mean "terrorists behaving like normal people". I also feel that normal people should be allowed and encouraged to behave normally, without harassment. That said those people that wish "NO RIGHT FOR THE POLICE TO STOP AND QUESTION ", do not approve of databases, do not wish to help the police in their job etc will carry a heavy burden when the next atrosity happens. We are told that in most European cities it is "WHEN" not "IF" and worse the attrocity when it happens could be much much larger than July 7....I hope that what we have been told by the politicians is wrong but......... I do not believe anyone is going to get charged with being a street photographer...they will just have to explain their activity as I understand it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share #27 Posted July 22, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) *sigh* ...those people that wish "NO RIGHT FOR THE POLICE TO STOP AND QUESTION ", Hands up who said that? ...atrosity ...attrocity Write out one hundred times. "atrocity" ...I hope that what we have been told by the politicians is wrong but... No, surely not... well THAT would be a first... I do not believe anyone is going to get charged with being a street photographer...they will just have to explain their activity as I understand it. You really have no idea, have you Frank. The world of Dixon of Dock Green no longer exists. Never mind. I'm going to find a visually-impaired man, pet his guide dog, and start explaining "colour" to him. It would be a darn sight quicker and more considerably enjoyable than engaging in a battle of wits with a troll armed with a toothpick and a contrarian attitude. I'd stay on your boat, if I were you. The world is not a place that marches to your tune. Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted July 22, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 22, 2009 Conrad [snip].... Here's something to add to the pot: Police powers for 2012 Olympics alarm critics | UK news | The Guardian .... [snip] . As soon as the Police or any other so-called "security" body get given a power, you can bet your bottom dollar/pound/euro that they'll find a way to use it, sometimes in a way no-one ever expected or intended. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted July 22, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 22, 2009 [snip] ...... ,,,,,{snip Sounds like some people don't even care... I would go further. Most people don't care. They've been brainwashed by the hysterical mass media into believing that there are terrorists or paedophiles lurking everywhere using 'fancy' cameras for nefarious purposes. So anything done in the name of "making the public safer" is naturally ok. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 22, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 22, 2009 *sigh* ...those people that wish "NO RIGHT FOR THE POLICE TO STOP AND QUESTION ", Hands up who said that? Bill The BJP advert that you sent us Bill said: Police routinely invoke anti-terror legislation to prevent photographers from carrying out their work, and photojournalists are constantly filmed at public gatherings and their details kept on an ever-growing database. Tourists, particularly foreign tourists, are also targeted by police, ..... My view is that the BJP is suggesting that the police are stopping people and questioning them because they are taking photos. The tone of the argument is that this is somehow wrong? I dispute that this is indeed wrong, provided there is some just cause for the questioning. *sigh*Write out one hundred times. "atrocity" Bill atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity, atrocity *sigh*No, surely not... well THAT would be a first... Bill I think that if we contine with a philosophy that all politicians are liars and fiddle their expenses etc then our future is not good. I believe that we need to address the real issue that worries all of us and slap big fines, and criminal proceedings against those that abuse the system.. Specifically I would identify: use of legislation approved for antiterrorist strategy inappropriately, harassment, fabrication of evidence, wire tapping without judges approval, misuse of databases for personal gain, failure to protect databases due to mismanagement etc etc. *sigh*You really have no idea, have you Frank. The world of Dixon of Dock Green no longer exists. Never mind. I'm going to find a visually-impaired man, pet his guide dog, and start explaining "colour" to him. It would be a darn sight quicker and more considerably enjoyable than engaging in a battle of wits with a troll armed with a toothpick and a contrarian attitude. I'd stay on your boat, if I were you. The world is not a place that marches to your tune. Bill No comment Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 22, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 22, 2009 My view is that the BJP is suggesting that the police are stopping people and questioning them because they are taking photos. The tone of the argument is that this is somehow wrong? I dispute that this is indeed wrong, provided there is some just cause for the questioning. Too often that isn't the case. Here are some examples: Kent Police clamp down on tall photographers ? The Register Too-tall terror snapper stopped by cops again ? The Register Police order tourists to delete photographs of bus station | Politics | The Guardian Schoolboy, 15, held as terror suspect after taking photos of railway station for GCSE project | Mail Online Charges against London tube tourist snapper thrown out ? The Register Police use terror law to quiz photographer over police car snap - mirror.co.uk Man arrested and locked up for five hours after taking photo of police van ignoring 'no entry' sign | Mail Online Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 22, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 22, 2009 I think there was another case on the London news this evening. A woman used her phone to video uniformed police stopping and searching her boyfriend. She was surrounded by plain clothes police and they wanted her phone etc and quoted the prevention of terrorism act. I think she is taking them to court for improper use of the act. The prevention of terrorism act seems to give them cart blanche to do as they wish. The only recourse is after the problem has occurred. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick_dykstra Posted July 22, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 22, 2009 Frank - congratulations on keeping your sense of humour. :-) I would not be troubled by being approached by a police officer if photographing in London, even if it was several times a day. Of course I would prefer that it didn't happen, but I would recognise the interruption as part of keeping people safe in unsafe times. I would take the opportunity to have a chat and exchange pleasantries. My accent would give me away as an Ashes thief, not a terrorist. Does anyone get grumpy about having to walk through a metal detector at the airport? No. We'd all prefer it wasn't necessary, but it is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted July 23, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 23, 2009 *sigh* I'd stay on your boat, if I were you. The world is not a place that marches to your tune. Well, with the world as troubled as it is in so many places, that might not be bad idea! Only, these are real issues that affect everyone -- no matter where they live. So they warrant serious discussion. Thomas Jefferson's quote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is just as relevant nearly 200 years on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted July 23, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 23, 2009 [snip]..... Thomas Jefferson's quote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is just as relevant nearly 200 years on. I'm not sure that TJ meant it in quite the way that you seem to be implying, or that it is now applied by the "powers that be". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
giordano Posted July 23, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 23, 2009 I'm not sure that TJ meant it in quite the way that you seem to be implying, or that it is now applied by the "powers that be". In fact there doesn't seem to be any evidence that Jefferson said it at all, though I'm sure he'd have agreed. Other contenders are Patrick Henry, John Philpot Curran and Wendell Phillips. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 23, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 23, 2009 Too often that isn't the case. Here are some examples: Kent Police clamp down on tall photographers ? The Register Too-tall terror snapper stopped by cops again ? The Register Police order tourists to delete photographs of bus station | Politics | The Guardian Schoolboy, 15, held as terror suspect after taking photos of railway station for GCSE project | Mail Online Charges against London tube tourist snapper thrown out ? The Register Police use terror law to quiz photographer over police car snap - mirror.co.uk Man arrested and locked up for five hours after taking photo of police van ignoring 'no entry' sign | Mail Online Each one of these cases is awful.....this is abuse of powers at worst and harassments at best. My point remains that the police should be held to account and forced to pay serious damage compensation for "forcing someone to delete photos of a public place" or "holding a 15 year old schoolboy for taking photos for his school project". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 23, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 23, 2009 I think there was another case on the London news this evening. A woman used her phone to video uniformed police stopping and searching her boyfriend. She was surrounded by plain clothes police and they wanted her phone etc and quoted the prevention of terrorism act. I think she is taking them to court for improper use of the act. The prevention of terrorism act seems to give them cart blanche to do as they wish. The only recourse is after the problem has occurred. Jeff Photographing a uniformed policeman stopping and searching the boyfriend does not seem to be an act of terrorism, but one of building information (against the policeman) for improper and possibly illegal behavior. Using extra police resources and the anti terrorism act to prevent members of the public collecting information for possible use in a legal action is I would believe an abuse of powers. If they then harassed her, and confiscated her camera / phone I sincerely hope that she wins in court and that the police are forced to pay her very heavy damages indeed and that the police in question are downgraded plus are forced to re-attend training sessions. The police need to use their powers wisely and with discretion. If however the police can explain to the judge that there were specific reasons in this case and that the public was at risk...fine. I hope that she wins her case and the police learn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted July 23, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 23, 2009 Well, with the world as troubled as it is in so many places, that might not be bad idea! Only, these are real issues that affect everyone -- no matter where they live. So they warrant serious discussion. Thomas Jefferson's quote that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is just as relevant nearly 200 years on. Actually on my 16metre, UK registered, sailing yacht I now expect to be buzzed by helicopters from the authorities and 30 minutes later boarded by customs and excise on a fairly regular basis. I need to show passports for ALL on board, show that VAT has been paid and I would expect to then be left alone......It happens about 2 to 3 times a year in S.France and more regularly in Spain, and Turkey. Unfortunately the norm is that I find myself being quizzed for up to 3 hours about my place of residence, where I have been sailing lately (the log book is inspected to verify, and it is now apparently UK and EU law that you keep the log book up to date as you leave harbour). I have nothing to hide and I suppose they are doing their job so I support this . Here in this thread people complain that the police ask "Why are you photographing this potential terrorist target?" The alternative of escaping questioning by going to sea is the wrong approach.....visit Heidi with her uncle in the mountains! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted July 23, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 23, 2009 In the Med, with your proximity to North Africa and smuggling a real concern (people, drugs, or weapons), I wouldn't be surprised you get buzzed and searched from time to time. These guys aren't doing it for the hell of it -- they are doing an important and tough job. It sounds like you've got a good ocean-going size craft! Come over to New Zealand -- lots of peaceful sailing around Auckland and the Bay of Islands or the Marlborough Sounds in the South Island. (This shot from a kayak in the Bay of Islands.) But we do have several thousands of kilometers of coastline to protect, so Customs and biosecurity are vitally important here, too. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/91248-not-a-crime/?do=findComment&comment=971564'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.