This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- i feel like i failed
- criminology
- UK Police
- NCA/ Civil Service failed pre-employment checks
- Debate Help!!!
- Family Rift on Israel Gaza
- Someone has threatened to leak my nudes if I don’t pay them, what can I do?
- Leaving sixth form?
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- I’ve been harassed on Snapchat, what do I do?
- 17 and clubbing in Marbella?
- I accidentally ran a red light
- Relationships as a police officer
- detective career path
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Opinion : You should no longer be able to drive high-performance cars if banned ?
- Somebody is using my nudes against me
- Forced marriage
- Post being taken - alternatives?
Photography of Police in UK now illegal - and being enforced
Scroll to see replies
Videos of police officers can be used to target individual members of the police force, not only for the sake of terrorist activities, but personal attacks toward individual members of the Police.
The ban makes sense - Police officers don't want to be identifed as Police Officers because of the predjudices rife against them; generally from the petty scum on the street and the rebelious nerd on TSR. The police do a tough job, a job a lot of you couldn't and requires more personal sacrifice than may be noticed. They deserve some respect, and they deserve some privacy.
They're there to maintain a bit of order in society. You may not agree with the law, but the Police themselves just enforce it - they are not THE law.
The ban makes sense - Police officers don't want to be identifed as Police Officers because of the predjudices rife against them; generally from the petty scum on the street and the rebelious nerd on TSR. The police do a tough job, a job a lot of you couldn't and requires more personal sacrifice than may be noticed. They deserve some respect, and they deserve some privacy.
They're there to maintain a bit of order in society. You may not agree with the law, but the Police themselves just enforce it - they are not THE law.
Terryw
Example: If you are a police officer doing a drug raid. Your being recorded. The footage then gets online or into the wrong hands. The peoples whos house the drug raid was on may see this footage or even their friends. If the officer is then seen in the street he could be set upon.
Example: If someone is recording Nuclear police, it gives them the times that the offciers switch ******* and their routine. This could be used to attempt an attack a power station or such.
Example: If you are a police officer doing a drug raid. Your being recorded. The footage then gets online or into the wrong hands. The peoples whos house the drug raid was on may see this footage or even their friends. If the officer is then seen in the street he could be set upon.
Example: If someone is recording Nuclear police, it gives them the times that the offciers switch ******* and their routine. This could be used to attempt an attack a power station or such.
We're not just talking about police doing raid's though are we, we're talking about police at protests etc. where there couldn't possibly be any 'terrorist threat' from filming them. I assume the reason you didn't respond to the second part of my post was because you cannot argue against it?
Terryw
Yeah, becuase google maps shows details about registration plates, pictures of people their, times and dates of images and anything else that is in real time.
As I said earlier. Footage would be allowed if it was an officer doing normal duties. But high profile things like drug raids, terror polcing or nuclear police then it becomes a different story, as the footage poses a risk to the officer and to the country.
Example: If you are a police officer doing a drug raid. Your being recorded. The footage then gets online or into the wrong hands. The peoples whos house the drug raid was on may see this footage or even their friends. If the officer is then seen in the street he could be set upon.
Example: If someone is recording Nuclear police, it gives them the times that the offciers switch ******* and their routine. This could be used to attempt an attack a power station or such.
As I said earlier. Footage would be allowed if it was an officer doing normal duties. But high profile things like drug raids, terror polcing or nuclear police then it becomes a different story, as the footage poses a risk to the officer and to the country.
Example: If you are a police officer doing a drug raid. Your being recorded. The footage then gets online or into the wrong hands. The peoples whos house the drug raid was on may see this footage or even their friends. If the officer is then seen in the street he could be set upon.
Example: If someone is recording Nuclear police, it gives them the times that the offciers switch ******* and their routine. This could be used to attempt an attack a power station or such.
It's a pretty damn major difference between taking picture whilst your house is being raided for drugs, and taking snapshots in public. Pictures of police stations could be lethal in hands of terrorists? Well, how about that terrorist just WALK there and look for himself?
And how many times have Britain been attacked by terrorists these last 10 years, with how many casualties?
Terryw
"Law is way too often misued"
I don't understand this, the law is there for a reason, no matter how many times an offence is committed, it is still an offence.
"Law is way too often misued"
I don't understand this, the law is there for a reason, no matter how many times an offence is committed, it is still an offence.
That's often a question of interpretation/definition. All sorts of laws can be used in ways unintended by the law-makers due to their bad drafting of it.
Howard
They Could. But how likely is it that you have loads of photos of police HQ's? Do you collect them?
And then what? Do you think a team of Al-Queda terrorists, learning of your photo collection, will break into your home an steal this precious hoard of state-sensitive secrets, handcuff you to a radiator (a la Terry Waite) while then plan and carry out a dirty bomb attack on Stevenage Police Station (I wish)?
You have a very vivid imagination.
The fact is that Britain is inch by inch turning into a police state. And it will continue to do so while people like you are naive enough to believe that the government is doing this sort of thing for your own good.
And then what? Do you think a team of Al-Queda terrorists, learning of your photo collection, will break into your home an steal this precious hoard of state-sensitive secrets, handcuff you to a radiator (a la Terry Waite) while then plan and carry out a dirty bomb attack on Stevenage Police Station (I wish)?
You have a very vivid imagination.
The fact is that Britain is inch by inch turning into a police state. And it will continue to do so while people like you are naive enough to believe that the government is doing this sort of thing for your own good.
I understand in what your saying. But IMO the principle of the new law means photographers cannot film police during their duty as it is annoying and they can get in the way. THEN, the terror issue comes AS WELL AS a threat to the officers being recorded.
What is to stop a terrorist seeking such images? I am pretty sure there are some well informed terrorists whom would like images of sensitive areas of the UK.
I feel like I am alone here defending such a thing where people have not thought it through.
If you stopped a huge drug raid to which armed people were involved. Would you want your face plastered all over the place. People could see the officer in the street and take their own action.
|>|Imagine|<|
Videos of police officers can be used to target individual members of the police force, not only for the sake of terrorist activities, but personal attacks toward individual members of the Police.
The ban makes sense - Police officers don't want to be identifed as Police Officers because of the predjudices rife against them; generally from the petty scum on the street and the rebelious nerd on TSR. The police do a tough job, a job a lot of you couldn't and requires more personal sacrifice than may be noticed. They deserve some respect, and they deserve some privacy.
They're there to maintain a bit of order in society. You may not agree with the law, but the Police themselves just enforce it - they are not THE law.
The ban makes sense - Police officers don't want to be identifed as Police Officers because of the predjudices rife against them; generally from the petty scum on the street and the rebelious nerd on TSR. The police do a tough job, a job a lot of you couldn't and requires more personal sacrifice than may be noticed. They deserve some respect, and they deserve some privacy.
They're there to maintain a bit of order in society. You may not agree with the law, but the Police themselves just enforce it - they are not THE law.
The problem is when you get police officers who think they are the law, for example in this case, where they choose to interpret the law as they see fit.
Have you never heard of police brutality? It's not just 'the petty scum on the street and the rebelious nerd on TSR' who are right to be afraid of the police, it's every educated person who has seen photographs or footage of police brutality, the exact footage that the police are trying to stop people making with this law.
|>|Imagine|<|
Police officers don't want to be identifed as Police Officers because of the predjudices rife against them
Bit of a generalisation - have you seen the number of programs like "Traffic Cops" "Road Wars" "Total Emergency" etc where police officers are quite happy to be named and filmed doing their job?
Terryw
That's an incredibly weak justification for the inception of this law. You think making it illegal will stop people recording images of such places clandestinely?
Terryw
I understand in what your saying. But IMO the principle of the new law means photographers cannot film police during their duty as it is annoying and they can get in the way. THEN, the terror issue comes AS WELL AS a threat to the officers being recorded.
What is to stop a terrorist seeking such images? I am pretty sure there are some well informed terrorists whom would like images of sensitive areas of the UK.
I feel like I am alone here defending such a thing where people have not thought it through.
If you stopped a huge drug raid to which armed people were involved. Would you want your face plastered all over the place. People could see the officer in the street and take their own action.
What is to stop a terrorist seeking such images? I am pretty sure there are some well informed terrorists whom would like images of sensitive areas of the UK.
I feel like I am alone here defending such a thing where people have not thought it through.
If you stopped a huge drug raid to which armed people were involved. Would you want your face plastered all over the place. People could see the officer in the street and take their own action.
The police will use this law to get away with disgusting behaviour like this......
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=273220&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=
Here's an update on this story from the yesterday's Telegraph.........
Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours. When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".
You want to live in a society like this?
Terryw, you are an idiot.
I'll reconsider this viewpoint once you consider the point about filming police brutality at protests and stories such as the above.
I'll reconsider this viewpoint once you consider the point about filming police brutality at protests and stories such as the above.
I cannot reply to all the people on here. But please read this post as i have repeated myself a few times to no avail.
Police Officers will NOT be bothered by average Joe photographer taking snaps, they will not be bothered by the odd photo at a crime scene.
They WILL be bothered if images are being used which could threaten them at a later date or cause the country harm.
At protests, lets say animal rights. The police are protecting a building. There are many people at the protect. A photographer takes some images of the police at the scene. The extreme animal rights people see the images and are not happy. They want revenge on the police for protecting the building. Who will they go for? The officers attending that protect of course, whom are all on video/camera.
Then there are like I said, sensitive places. For those who think that it is just an image of say CO19 HQ, a video can also detail the times of a shift change, areas which are weak from protection, ways in, fire exits, times, access points and a lot of other real life stuff. It is not just an image/video. If someone was to sit outside CO19 with a notepad and pen taking notes of all the above they could find themselves in serious trouble as is could be used by a terrorist, with or without the permission of the person who took the images/video.
Then of course we look at annoyance, how many people here would like it if someone with a camera was at their worl place taking video and asking questions all the time. What if you was working at boots slling make up made from animal tested products. A huge crowd gather outside who are disgraced. Amongst them are some extremists. Would you like to be filmed? I think not, someone could take a disliking that you are selling such goods and cause you harm.
The press have published episodes where the law may have been abused by a minority. But what about the rest of the times when things go well. This is not published or even shown any interest.
Police Officers will NOT be bothered by average Joe photographer taking snaps, they will not be bothered by the odd photo at a crime scene.
They WILL be bothered if images are being used which could threaten them at a later date or cause the country harm.
At protests, lets say animal rights. The police are protecting a building. There are many people at the protect. A photographer takes some images of the police at the scene. The extreme animal rights people see the images and are not happy. They want revenge on the police for protecting the building. Who will they go for? The officers attending that protect of course, whom are all on video/camera.
Then there are like I said, sensitive places. For those who think that it is just an image of say CO19 HQ, a video can also detail the times of a shift change, areas which are weak from protection, ways in, fire exits, times, access points and a lot of other real life stuff. It is not just an image/video. If someone was to sit outside CO19 with a notepad and pen taking notes of all the above they could find themselves in serious trouble as is could be used by a terrorist, with or without the permission of the person who took the images/video.
Then of course we look at annoyance, how many people here would like it if someone with a camera was at their worl place taking video and asking questions all the time. What if you was working at boots slling make up made from animal tested products. A huge crowd gather outside who are disgraced. Amongst them are some extremists. Would you like to be filmed? I think not, someone could take a disliking that you are selling such goods and cause you harm.
The press have published episodes where the law may have been abused by a minority. But what about the rest of the times when things go well. This is not published or even shown any interest.
Sounds like a challenge.
Howard
The police will use this law to get away with disgusting behaviour like this......
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=273220&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=
Here's an update from the Telegraph's story yesterday.....
Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours. When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".
You want to live in a society like this?
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=273220&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=
Here's an update from the Telegraph's story yesterday.....
Andrew Carter, a plumber from Bedminster, near Bristol, took a photograph of an officer who had ignored a no-entry road sign while driving a police van. This might have appeared a somewhat petulant thing to do, but taking a photograph in a public place is not a crime. Yet the policeman smashed the camera from Mr Carter's hand, handcuffed him, put him in the back of the van and took him to the police station, where he was kept for five hours. When he returned to answer bail the following week, he was kept at the station for another five hours. He was released without charge, despite an attempt by the police to claim some spurious offence of "assault with a camera".
You want to live in a society like this?
How 'bout this?
A nice complement of laws, don't you think?
Terryw
I cannot reply to all the people on here. But please read this post as i have repeated myself a few times to no avail. Police Officers will NOT be bothered by average Joe photographer taking snaps, they will not be bothered by the odd photo at a crime scene.
You're wrong. See post 51.
Terryw
Police Officers will NOT be bothered by average Joe photographer taking snaps, they will not be bothered by the odd photo at a crime scene.
They WILL be bothered if images are being used which could threaten them at a later date or cause the country harm.
Utter BALLS! There's copious amounts of evidence floating around the web of British police forcing people to stop taking photographs or filming them intimidating members of public or breaking the law themselves.
It infuriates me that people can be so insufferably naïve.
emilyyy
I think most of you are missing the point that the rule's only supposed to be enforced if the photo could be of possible use to terrorists. It's a law that's been made up in order to maximise the safety of the country. What's the issue with that?!
You're basing all your opinions of it being stupid on a few "horror stories", where officers have abused a perfectly sensible law, and the media have blown it out of all proportion. The majority of officers won't be abusing the law - so why are you all so dead against it?
You're basing all your opinions of it being stupid on a few "horror stories", where officers have abused a perfectly sensible law, and the media have blown it out of all proportion. The majority of officers won't be abusing the law - so why are you all so dead against it?
How is taking a photograph of a policeman going to be used to aid terrorists? Most actions taken in the name of anti-terrorism have nothing to do with wanting to prevent terrorists. A terrorist will always find a way to bomb somewhere and they don't need photographs and information to do so.
And these "horror stories" aren't as rare as you think. I'm an amateur photographer and I've been hastled in shopping centres, parks, out in the street, railway stations, theme parks and on buses. If you look through any British photographer's photostream on Flickr you will find at least one example of people being harrassed for photography.
I don't think the media have picked up on the extermity of the abuse of anti-terror laws to anywhere near the extent that you claim they've been 'blown out of proportion'. This law will make innocent photographers criminals, it protects the police when they abuse their powers and it is just another example of the government using 'anti-terror' legislation to restrict the freedoms of the public.
If you swallow this then what's to stop the government from banning photography in public places in order to prevent terrorism. To prevent the publication of articles or books to stop terrorism. To arrest people and never charge them in order to prevent terrorism. Oh wait. It's already happened.
Related discussions
- i feel like i failed
- criminology
- UK Police
- NCA/ Civil Service failed pre-employment checks
- Debate Help!!!
- Family Rift on Israel Gaza
- Someone has threatened to leak my nudes if I don’t pay them, what can I do?
- Leaving sixth form?
- Will I get prosecuted for fare evasion?
- I’ve been harassed on Snapchat, what do I do?
- 17 and clubbing in Marbella?
- I accidentally ran a red light
- Relationships as a police officer
- detective career path
- French holocaust denier faces extradition from Scotland
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- Opinion : You should no longer be able to drive high-performance cars if banned ?
- Somebody is using my nudes against me
- Forced marriage
- Post being taken - alternatives?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 16 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 16 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
