Bad plumbing

What's your verdict on this? 16 year old student who works as a freelance photographer is asked to not take pictures during an armed forces parade. After asking under what law he is being detained, the police claim they don't need one

To think this kid could/would have got a criminal record to carry around with him, if only it wasn't recorded

It's 8 mins of audio, but worth listening to. The police behaviour is absolutely disgraceful. I hope when the cuts come along, these jobsworths are first in line.

BTW, the kid was offered £3.5k from the met as compensation. What a victory for the public (purse)

Obligatory 'don't turn this in to a complete police bashing thread' request.

But what was the kid to do, plumbers?!

Laws different here so not getting involved.

sadly this happens a bit, and some photographers are up in arms about it.

There are a number of reasons you are not allowed to take photographs in certain places (precinct of a court for example) but the anti terror laws are frequently used.

Good rights document here

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Laws different here so not getting involved.

He was being detained under NO law.


Regarding Section 44 and Section 43 [Terrorism Act 2000] stop-and-search powers the advice for officers now states: 'Officers do not have the power to delete digital images or destroy film at any point during a search. Deletion or destruction may only take place following seizure if there is a lawful power (such as a court order) that permits such deletion or destruction.'

Guidance for using Section 58A, which makes a photograph of a police constable a potential crime if police deem it likely to be useful to a terrorist, now states: 'It would ordinarily be unlawful to use Section 58A to arrest people photographing police officers in the course of normal policing activities, including protests, because there would not normally be grounds for suspecting that the photographs were being taken to provide assistance to a terrorist. An arrest would only be lawful if an arresting officer had a reasonable suspicion that the photographs were being taken in order to provide practical assistance to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.'

It adds: 'There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty's Forces, Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits that individual from doing something which is not unlawful.'

Woah, don't start quoting legislation at me. I said it's different up here, meaning I wasn't going to get into the rights and wrongs because I am not properly equipped with the knowledge to do so.

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Woah, don't start quoting legislation at me. I said it's different up here, meaning I wasn't going to get into the rights and wrongs because I am not properly equipped with the knowledge to do so.

Terrorism act 2000 is the same for you, but I understand what you're saying about the rest.

[Ch00]

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

Its all there on the public Met Poilce website.

Some sillyness on both sides. Nice job Met boys make us all look silly!!

Actually, you are incorrect because our definitions of arrest and detention etc are different and as such the terrorism act has to be tailored around that.

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

Actually, you are incorrect because our definitions of arrest and detention etc are different and as such the terrorism act has to be tailored around that.

Arrest - What Scots have after a day thieving.