New Anti-terrorism Bill starts today

[Micra 110]

Today is the start of the new Anti-terrorist law.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...9/Why-cant-we-take-pictures-of-policemen.html

We are now moving into a phase where your rights will get whittled down to nothing. It's a Police state in this country, you can be stopped and searched without reason, Police can enter your home without a warrant, thousands upon thousands of CCTV cameras everywhere, kids can't even climb trees, we can't go out for fear of being beaten up by a bunch of 12 year olds, a country where we're so dummed down we don't know how to go around these Fascist bullyboy tactics where the Govt's only goal is for total control with chaos.

Have you noticed how the majority of Police look like German SS officers?

Oh well roll on the next dictatorial bill.....Seig Heil and all that

 

[Arnold]

Totally agree it's a joke. I don't take pictures of police and don't intend to, but there's so much fuss over filming in public now it's silly.

 

[tse_adam]

We have to look it at a different persective. For example, If I was to report someone, accusing them of so and so, and the police turns around and say they don't have to power to search them, investigate this matter or do anything for me based on no evidence whatsoever. At that point i will wish the police will have that sort of power to protect me and everyone of us.

 

[Antony]

the terrorist law, ASBO's and everything like that are against the very laws of the country,

the right to remain innocent until proven guilty!
the right to apeal and/or trial.

these are in the magna carter and this government have taken them away!

yet nobody will do anything.

 

[Pete]

What poppycock! utter libralist tripe!

It's not illegal to take photographs of the police, there have been a few high-profile occasions where officers have got it wrong. We've had circulars reminding us that it isn't against the law to photograph us. If someone wants to take a photo of me doing my job then thats fair enough, what gets officers irate is that people take photos and video's of us doing our job then over-lay it with text saying we're being heavy handed or breaking the law when infact we are just doing our job.

We are trained to take the first punch if we think we're going to get hit, we're trained to take someone out quickly to avoid prolonged fighting, we're trained to use pain compliance techniques because we have to. I work mainly in community policing, on a day by day basis I can deal with as little as taking alcohol off kids all the way up to being the first on scene and removing a fire-arm from someone (thinking of a specific job there).

You can't be stopped and searched without reason other than in designated places, even then there are specific indicators that are looked for before we'll select people. Even then the searching can't go beyond outer garments whilst in a public place.

Enter homes without warrants? I wish. Have you any idea of the paperwork that goes into organising a bust? At the very least an inspector is required for resi searches.

CCTV is such a benifit, it puts a lot of people at rest and it really upsets shoplifters when we can show them clearly the footage that's about to put them away. A fellow officer is just putting to bed a case where the guy would have got away with it had their not been CCTV.

And whats this about police looking like SS officers? I presume you mean the Waffen SS? In most county forces the wearing of Hi-viz for foot patrol is mandatory, police officers usually have to wear a custodian helmet. Even in the more forward thinking forces they wear baseball caps and t-shirts, nothing like them! I take your remark to be in serious poor taste.

ED/Kev, I'm sorry if this comes accross as a bit strongly worded from my side but I take great offence at being called a fascist or compared to the people that were responsible for tha holocaust. That side of my family came over before it all started but it isn't something any of us take lightly especially so soon after holocaust memorial day.

 

[Ed]

No problem. The real issue I feel is with the Media, which causes the public perception shown above....

 

[Antony]

i think you will find that the connection between the look of armend police to SS troops isnt that far off.

and its just the look. nothing more. afterall they are very similar..

 

[Ian]

a helmet and long sleeves? :s.

 

[rlees85]

Everyone to their own. Personally, I agree with the thread starter...

 

[ronin_kid]

got to agree with you there Pete - i'm pretty left-wing in most stuff, but when your dealing with people who have no respect for life and regard EVERYONE in this country as an acceptable target softy-softy tactics are not gonna work...

alot of people harp on about the loss of civil libities but have no idea about what exactly the new laws and powers being implimented actually mean in real terms, and base their opinions solely on sensationlist propaganda put out by those oppising the goverment.. for example several campaign groups were very vocal in condeming the goverment for expelling so-called 'preachers of hate', but were overjoyed when britian refused entery to that dutch right-wing politician - the only civil liberties those people are interested in are the ones that allow them to voice their views but silence everyone elses...

its like speed cameras on the roads - everyone knows the limits, if you dont wanna get caught and fined then dont speed!. same goes with these new laws - if youve got nothing to hide then youve got nothing to worry about!. of course there my be times when the police overstep the mark, but personaly i'd much rather be the 'victim' of an over-zealous police officer who is trained and accountable then the victim of a religious nut whos only aim is to devide us politically and religiously so they can use terror and distruction to conquour us...

or perhaps some of you would like to have all your cosy civil liberties and live in a sociaty where extreemism can grow and thrive - i strongly suspect that after a few more July 7th type attacks youd be the ones shouting loudist at the goverment that it needs to do more to protect you...

 

[Pete]

Antony, how often do you see CO19 on a raid? I don't know a single officer who has that kind of kit. The most para-military type thing we've got are PSU officers who wear blue flame proof overalls, head to toe armour (mostly under the overalls) and if the need arises a Nato helmet with a flippy visor and trust me they are needed! the kind of public order situation where P.O. level three dress is worn is only when there is a specific threat identified.

The vast majority of officers in the UK wear, black trousers, white shirt and a black or yellow overt stab/ballistics jacket. Some forces have moved towards black or white polo-neck tops and most forces have started phasing out the blue NATO jumpers in favour of black fleeces with the blue and white checker pattern on.

In mine and a lot of forces (but not the met for some reason), it is policy that all officers outside of a vehicle must wear yellow hi-viz jackets.

I don't think any of this sounds like a green tunic and tin helmet? which is typical of most armies at one point or another.

 

[rlees85]

pete, ronin_kid, have you read the article? becuase what you've said is total ########.

Basically taking away the freedom to take photographs.

Dont you think thats pointless? In the name of terrorism?

How many terrorists to you see in town taking photos? I bet theres been about 0 reported cases ever?

and tbh Ed your probably right. Most policemen I have met have actually been decent blokes.. touch wood

 

[Antony]

agreed, i think the reason the met police dont allways wear flourescent jackets is they are seen as a target..sort of.

its like speed cameras on the roads - everyone knows the limits, if you dont wanna get caught and fined then dont speed!. same goes with these new laws - if youve got nothing to hide then youve got nothing to worry about!. of course there my be times when the police overstep the mark, but personaly i'd much rather be the 'victim' of an over-zealous police officer who is trained and accountable then the victim of a religious nut whos only aim is to devide us politically and religiously so they can use terror and distruction to conquour us...

whilst i agree that speed cameras are only there to catch the speeding motorist. basicaly those who fount the law anyway.... the thing i am against is every time a polotictian is asked about the subject they LIE. "safety cameras" theres nothing safety about them. they are money cameras. they are replacing traffic police on the streets and allowing untaxed, uninsured, stolen cars and drink drivers off the hook as long as they dont go over 32mph!! thats what i dont agree with.

 

[ronin_kid]

rlees85 - that is one writers OPINION of the new law, not the law itself... as stated in that article there are no legal restrictions on photography in public places - these people are using isolated examples and 'the threat of oppression' to create fear among the populace for their own gain...

and Antony, compairing specalist firearms officers to the SS is hardly fair, they are only ever deployed in serious circumstances - they are not the police you see on the streets...

and i used speed cameras as an example to illustrate a point relivent to this thread, their merits and flaws are fodder for another thread - lets keep this one on topic....

 

[Pete]

pete, ronin_kid, have you read the article? becuase what you've said is total ########.

Basically taking away the freedom to take photographs.

Dont you think thats pointless? In the name of terrorism?

How many terrorists to you see in town taking photos? I bet theres been about 0 reported cases ever?

and tbh Ed your probably right. Most policemen I have met have actually been decent blokes.. touch wood

Rlees, I have a habit of ignoring anything the telegraph prints and I'm not about to change that now. I'll believe what I read in my forces general orders, supervisors legal updates and CPS advice that I receive.

I don't know if you've noticed but I take pictures, lots of them infact. There are anti-terror laws that have been a bit overly enforced at times but isn't it important that the police discourage and deal with security threats? Or should we just stop asian people from Beeston, West Yorks or Wathamstow, E17 from taking pictures in public? The law applies to everyone, the threat is huge.

We've even had people photographing FIGs (the police officers at football matches who video holligans and gather evidence), finding out who they are and terrorisng their families.

The world isn't this cuddly safe place where everyone can go about their business blissfully ignorant of whats out there. We try and make it so by dealing with things the best we can but with constant criticism of the few tools we have to deal with things makes it harder and harder to do it.

I don't want it to get to the stage where we have to tell people everything we do... "yes everyone on acacia avenue, we are increasing patrols, upping the stops and searches on people who fit the following profile because we suspect that Mr ###### is dealing drugs/grooming terrorists/distributing child pornography" It would just drive people further underground and make things harder to detect.

I'm pretty sure that the general population do not realise what people are like. I remember back when I started being given the statistic that we will spend 95% of our time dealing with 5% of the population. There are some horrible, horrible people out there, if you want them to have greater freedom then thats your shout, don't complain to us as by that time we'll not have any powers left.

I can't even give a parking ticket out now as that's been taken from us, I can't give someone a ticket for no tax, I can't even chase/follow certain classes of motor vehicle due to H&S.

 

[NeX]

hey Pete, its great to see an officer that is dedicated to justice and peace keeping, bit like hot fuzz lol, (please don't take any offence to that)

i agree with both points, there is some excessive policing sometimes, there is sometimes (as there always will be) some police officers that just take things too far and abuse their power, its human nature to get the odd bad apple.

but also it is frustrating that the police haven't been able to help me because the law prevents them from investigating people or there just isn't enough evidence because of fuzzy CCTV (portsmouth meet shunt is a perfect example)

so the only real problem i have is that some officers don't seem to be able to judge each situation as it is, for example someone is driving at 45mph in a 30, and a police officer stops them, if they have a pregnant woman in the passenger seat who has to be at the hospital asap, then they should forget that they are speeding and give them an escort. but alot of police have "the law is the law" attitude.

oh and one last thing, i hate how difficult the law is to understand, i have been stopped by police who know less about the law than me, and to find the actual laws you have to pay money...

 

[rlees85]

Look I can understand your point and I agree there is some (quite a lot) of skum around. As I said before most bobbies I met have been nice blokes... I just think that terrorism (yes, a geniune threat) is also an overexaduated threat that will be used to the goverments advantage. Very much like the carbon trust.