"No it isn't."
"Yes, it is. Put that camera down."
"No it isn't. Under what law is it illegal?"
"Sarge..."
Via LMWN:
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
It's illegal to film the police
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
That whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of those ends,
it is the right of the People to alter or abolish it and to institute new Government.
You might also like (or dislike)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(955)
-
▼
October
(98)
- Greenland Ice - Stop Press
- Monarchy, constitutions and republicanism, Interlude
- Monarchy, constitutions and republicanism, Part 2 ...
- Monarchy, constitutions and republicanism, Part 1 ...
- Web application security
- Aayan Hirsi Ali security trust
- Basic error
- Quote quoted
- Headlines
- 100 million years before the dinosaurs
- Headline of the day
- Extreme fun competitions
- Papal dispensation
- Axis of evil cookbook
- Review of banned books
- Quote of the day
- Underachieving criminals
- Harsh
- Coyote on climate
- Organic health
- Putney Debates
- Attacks against anti-Islamisation demonstrators
- Govt to UK Schools - Don't buy Microsoft
- Fingers
- The great adventure
- What they are fighting in Iraq
- Police Special
- Losing the "War on Fire"
- Quote of the day
- Public service message
- Goat vows to protect the cabbages
- Quiz night
- Darkness visible
- Jewish World Controllers
- Prescient Persian
- Unforeseen consequences
- Be cool
- Tips for would-be criminals
- Abortion
- Blue lips?
- Proper movies
- It's illegal to film the police
- Our dawn will come
- Class and sport
- Stealing privacy from the innocent
- Know your constituency
- A question of torture
- Perfidious footsteps
- The wrong kind of evidence
- Justice is blind
- Best practice
- Algerian landmines
- Cryptography and snake oil
- Schadenfreude
- Internet censorship again
- Rugby
- Too busy to blog
- Dillow and pies
- Trains, dentistry and death
- Edible
- The Theology of Water Management
- There is no wood
- Posting lull
- Save the planet - eat kangaroo
- Belay there, me hearties
- Your rulers
- Venal union practices
- Oh please... please...
- Berkeley lectures online
- WOD and WAT
- Betraying Iraqis
- Pigs in space
- Che chic
- Helping our helpers
- Democracy in action
- Mystery
- Quote of the Day
- Do you know this man?
- Leftist errors
- Rugby news
- Iran worried
- Vanilla from cow dung
- Rugby quotes
- Want a better camera?
- Read this
- Industrial suicide
- Sledging
- Universal franchise
- Mad Mel on drugs
- Invisible surge
- Feeling evil
- Stepping over the corpses
- Martyn Williams to retire
- Obscenity alert
- All too common
- Jewish conspiracy news
- MS to compete with Google in web apps
- It's not cute and it's not funny
-
▼
October
(98)
11 comments:
Does anyone know if the cameraman was OK here only because he was on his own property, or is it OK to film in public too?
I think it's OK, period.
That's an increadable clip. Obviously the police officers did not like being filmed, having aspects of their identity recorded, whilst they go about their business.
Perhaps they SHOULD bring it up with their MP. But rather than restrict the use of CCTV or other govt intrusions on the public's privacy, etc, a new law will be passed banning the filming of police. Under terror laws, most likely.
That was awesome! Not only was Darren polite, but he did what every citizen in a self-proclaimed free country should do. He took some time to learn his rights! What I love the most is how polite even the police were. Here in America, he would have been treated like trash, had his camera taken away, and detained long before any of the dolts arresting him would have bothered to find out that he was well within his rights and the law. It's a shame... but it's nice to see that even across the Atlantic there are uniformed bigots packing law enforcement tools all without the slightest idea of what the law actually is... Good on ya Darren!
Bastards
He was not polite, it is an offence to film anyone without their consent. If he knows and want his own rights respected he should respect the rights of the others.
The act in question is stated in the terrorism act, section 58 1a. Up to a maximum of 10 years.
Under section 82 3a, gives the constable the ability to seize the camera or any other media without warrant.
I also remember during a law lecture being told how an officer arrested an individual for taken pictures of his police van, the camera was destroyed and the individual prosecuted.
Can i also add, it's people like you who do not respect the authority that these hard working and qualified people are doing that makes their lives so much harder. If you don't think that these people are fit to police then change it, by all means become a police officer, and memorise all the acts of parliament become a high ranking officer and make the changes yourself; instead of whining about all this crap.
Anyone who thinks that it should be illegal to film police should do the world a favor and kill themselves. No loss.
On all those police shows where members of the public or the people they are arresting say they dont want to be filmed, the police say the camera man is doing nothing wrong and has every right to film what he or she wants.. now isnt that the case when a member of the public films the police?
It began with them harassing him and ended with him harassing them.
when the guy filming asked for their names, that was an offense to not reply. Same if he had asked for their numbers. This bloke seemed like a nice man...I bet they wouldn't have confronted him if he was an ethnic minority, or someone who looked violent. Every policeman has their own views and agendas. Most do not know the meaning of discretion. Reminds me of the case with Emily Apple, last year.
If it is an offense to film without consent, then does that make the use of CCTV an offense, as i have never given my consent to be filmed? By the way, i live in Hampshire, which is reported to have over 200,000 CCTV cameras.
Post a Comment