Photograph a cop, go to jail

[Jeff Canes]

Does UK have an establishment or government sanctioning of the press?

 

[Samriel]

It can't happen here without amending the constitution and removing the pesky little part about "freedom of the press."

Does that mean that if am not a member of the press, I don't have those rights? I'm sorry for asking this potentially stupid question, but these things tend to vary from country to country.

This is going to far-making photographing a cop illegal, but to discount terrorism is cultural suicide

Yet I must wonder how we always seem to tackle the effects, and rarely the causes of these problems.

 

[Jeff Canes]

Does that mean that if am not a member of the press, I don't have those rights? I'm sorry for asking this potentially stupid question, but these things tend to vary from country to country.---

in the US there is no establishment or government sanctioning of the press so free of the press apply to everyone from a one person internet newpaper to network TV

 

[und3r.th3.sink]

Check this out for rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This was in 2006, so the laws you are talking about are new, but I thought you guys might find it interesting.

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

 

[Phelan]

It can't happen here without amending the constitution and removing the pesky little part about "freedom of the press."

The 2nd amendment hasn't done much to stop politicians from trying to grab the guns of the law abiding... Don't be so confident that the 1st will be given any greater respect.

 

[brileyphotog]

Welcome to the UK...first they take your handguns, and then your cameras...

It's sad that people only look out for the individual rights that they are interested in...

 

[Flash Harry]

In the UK we have a government body for everything, they are called quangos, set up by those that know nothing about anything but who want to control everything the public do. They are staffed by massively overpaid morons, who, I suspect, are mostly the sons and daughters of chinless government and upper class wonders who failed to gain a degree in any academic subject, so, rather than let these twits sign the dole a quango is invented by their parents in government to give them a point to their lives. The rest of us are left to suffer regardless which gov are in power, as whether its the tories or labour, they all attended the same private schools. H

 

[usayit]

Yet I must wonder how we always seem to tackle the effects, and rarely the causes of these problems.

Now there's a statement I like!!!

I guess if someone photographs a crime being committed by an police officer they too face jail time. Oh how wonderful!?!?

 

[Slaphead]

'm so glad I emigrated from the UK - IMO the british government is using the perceived (I'm tempted these days to say the "invented") threat of terrorism to invoke more and more freedom curtailing laws.

How ignorant that statement was. There's several thousand parentless children in NYC that wish terrorism was an invented threat.

Terrorism is very real.

stsinner, in saying what I said I had absolutely no intention of trivialising the loss of life and pain caused in that atrocious event. Please accept my apologies if this offended you or for that matter anybody else in any way.

However, having grown up in England in the 70s when the IRA was delivering a sustained campaign of terrorism against mainland England it was difficult not to become at least a little bit desensitised to these acts. Sure there was nothing even beginning to approach the scale of 9.11, but it seemed at that time hardly a month would go by without hearing that a bomb had gone off and that there were people killed. When you hear this so often it unfortunately becomes part of everyday life. This campaign continued on and off into the late 90's - yet there were no new laws or official powers that reduced the freedom that the man in the street as a result of this.

In those days I considered the threat of terrorism to be very real but we got on with life.

Today I don't consider there to be clear and present threat. 9.11 happened 7 years ago and to my knowledge there has been no further attacks on American soil. The London tube bombings happened 3 years ago and again to my knowledge there have been no further attacks on British soil. This is a far cry from England in the 70's

The problem that I have is this - Every time our respective governments wants to pass a law that reduces our freedoms or would otherwise be very unpopular and a disadvantage for the everyday man they seem to use the "terrorism", "9.11", "London tube bombings" as wildcards in order to justify the further reduction of civil liberties that will accompany the new law.

The powers that the police now have in England, directly as a result of the "threat of terrorism" worries me more that the "threat of terrorism" itself.

I'm scared - I admit it. But I'm scared for my freedom, and not because there's a chance that a bomb might be around the corner.

 

[stsinner]

I think cameras may be against Sharia law and, therefore, soon banned in England.... Of course I'm just kidding, mostly, but here in the US, we hear news that in some parts of the UK there are dual court systems-the traditional English law and Sharia law for the Muslims.. If there's any truth to this, it is a very dangerous slippery slope..

 

[Slaphead]

I think cameras may be against Sharia law and, therefore, soon banned in England.... Of course I'm just kidding, mostly, but here in the US, we hear news that in some parts of the UK there are dual court systems-the traditional English law and Sharia law for the Muslims.. If there's any truth to this, it is a very dangerous slippery slope..

It was was suggested by the archbishop of canterbury that England adopts Sharia law in some situations, but it was met with a storm of protest. I don't think that will happen anytime soon - thank god.

 

[MikeBcos]

stsinner, in saying what I said I had absolutely no intention of trivialising the loss of life and pain caused in that atrocious event. Please accept my apologies if this offended you or for that matter anybody else in any way.

However, having grown up in England in the 70s when the IRA was delivering a sustained campaign of terrorism against mainland England it was difficult not to become at least a little bit desensitised to these acts. Sure there was nothing even beginning to approach the scale of 9.11, but it seemed at that time hardly a month would go by without hearing that a bomb had gone off and that there were people killed. When you hear this so often it unfortunately becomes part of everyday life. This campaign continued on and off into the late 90's - yet there were no new laws or official powers that reduced the freedom that the man in the street as a result of this.

In those days I considered the threat of terrorism to be very real but we got on with life.

Today I don't consider there to be clear and present threat. 9.11 happened 7 years ago and to my knowledge there has been no further attacks on American soil. The London tube bombings happened 3 years ago and again to my knowledge there have been no further attacks on British soil. This is a far cry from England in the 70's

The problem that I have is this - Every time our respective governments wants to pass a law that reduces our freedoms or would otherwise be very unpopular and a disadvantage for the everyday man they seem to use the "terrorism", "9.11", "London tube bombings" as wildcards in order to justify the further reduction of civil liberties that will accompany the new law.

The powers that the police now have in England, directly as a result of the "threat of terrorism" worries me more that the "threat of terrorism" itself.

I'm scared - I admit it. But I'm scared for my freedom, and not because there's a chance that a bomb might be around the corner.

I grew up at the same time, in a military family living in and around London for much of my life. I was taught to recognize the signs of a parcel bomb early, I was used to being locked down in school until late because of a bomb threat. It wasn't unusual to have a tank parked outside the school because of a specific threat.

I saw the results of bomb blasts in London, once, I passed through Kings Cross station 15 minutes before a nail bomb went off there.

Throughout the whole time though, no freedoms were taken away because of this threat. Now it is different. I left the UK in 1999 and from what I have heard from my family and read in the press, I wouldn't want to go back.

 

[fightin14]

You guys can take a picture of me, I won't arrest you.

 

[table1349]

Maybe if you ask nice we would take the island in as the 51st state. We already have one island state you know. Minus Parliament of course. We will figure out something for the queen to do however. 10 Downing street could become a coffee shop or something. Upscale of course.

Then Canada would become the 52nd state, Australia the 53rd etc. With 53 independent countries in the Commonwealth added there would be 103 states altogether.

Guess were going to have to build a bigger Capitol Building though. :lmao: :lmao:

With states in every continent except Antarctica maybe tech support would even become a local call. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 

[Joves]

The 2nd amendment hasn't done much to stop politicians from trying to grab the guns of the law abiding... Don't be so confident that the 1st will be given any greater respect.

Exactly! Granted we did win a little victory in the Supreme Court last year on the total banning but, somehow they will figure a work around. The reason for the Second Admendment is to protect the first.