No photos please, we are British and totally paranoid . . .

Rich_L said:
... Nice spin in the OP mind :)
Click to expand...
Bonomo returned the next day to interview builders who had witnessed her arrest. Footage of the interviews appears to corroborate her account. "I was disgusted," one said. "They were terribly out of order. There was one officer who was spiteful to you."
Click to expand...
Two PCSOs and six regular cops and it was some 32 year old female art student "causing harassment, alarm and distress in public" huh :confused:

As Detective Superintendent Chris Greany of City of London Police so reasonably pointed out, "The cops on the street are aged 21 and 22" - they are probably also somewhat lacking in common sense or any real ability when mob-handed, to deal with someone being a right pain as I have no doubt Ms Simona Bonomo was and shouldn't have been doing.


Thanks for the info and advice, Mr. Jones, even if it is from the Daily Wail ;)
 
I read a quote recently, about American police; they are there to protect the state, not the people in it. Seems like we may be heading that way.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Link no worky

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/15/italian-student-police-arrest-filming

And people support anti terrorist laws, it's not the government letting this country down. but the public. Most of these laws after all are public opinion stocking fillers.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure most people agree with 'anti terrorist' laws, but they will put up with most anything as long as it doesn't affect them.
eg 'we' tolerate the concept of locking someone up without charge for no good reason for 42 days, as long as it isn't us it's done to.
 
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Terrorist incidents will happen under any circumstances, taking away liberties as a pretence for stopping it is a war on all of us.

Bush said after 9/11 that we will not change our way of life or give up our freedoms, then he swiftly introduced the Patriot Act and us the Anti-Terrorism laws which give governments the power to do just that.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jones said:
Anyway, here's about a little snippet of our Rights (surprisingly useful from Dailymail), based HomeOffice released.


[/QUOTE]

In addition to this here is a short UK guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs:

[url]http://www.sirimo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ukphotographersrights-v2.pdf[/url]
Click to expand...
 
Have these new terrorism laws actually done anything useful other than cause headache to normal citizens?

I mean, i hear about loads of raids on the news all the time - theres a new raid every month BUT no one ever gets charged!
They all just get released!

Seems like they are used for catching nornal citizens than terrorists!
 
slambo69 said:
Wasnt there a thing recently that they arrested al qaeda members because of these new laws?
Click to expand...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091215/tuk-suspected-terrorists-caught-filming-dba1618.html

This you mean?

City of London Police have released chilling footage recorded on one man's mobile phone as he travelled around the capital.

It shows the man examining Oxford Circus, Mornington Crescent and Camden Town Tube stations.

Extensive footage was also recorded at Liverpool Street railway station and at the Broadgate Circle shopping and restaurant plaza.
Click to expand...
 
slambo69 said:
Wasnt there a thing recently that they arrested al qaeda members because of these new laws?
Click to expand...

Because of a dodgy looking photographer?

I think it was a guy using his N95 to film e.g. security cameras and whatnot. He was it seems a bit of a fraudster and has been charged as one. There were no terrorism charges bought against him because apparently those laws were being challenged in the House of Lords (?!) and fraud carries the same punishment (?!).

So they used anti terrorism laws to arrest somebody in the same vein as the Italian woman, but then haven't charged him for those very reasons. Instead he's been charged for fraud (I'm not really certain that the end justifies the means, being jammy (or not) shouldn't really come into it).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6957646.ece
 
In essence, if they arrest enough people, they will one day arrest the real terrorist, whilst the rest who were detained under the Section 44 act will be charged with whatever the police can push in?

Like the video of The Guardian reporter I stated earlier, the reporter had no choice but to give up because after being stopped for shooting The Gurkin and not providing his name and detail (as stated within his Rights), the police officer had to throw the law of obstructing a police officer - which they can use to arrest.

I just find it stupid.
Especially so after that the Metropolitan chief said about Photographer's right, be it reporters or tourist, they are not criminals. Makes me wonder if the Chief is communicating with the Indians.
 
Gaygle said:
I think there is a little more to the story than is being reported...
Click to expand...

Normally, I would question it but with video of the conversation (without major editing), unless she's some illegal migrant with history of drug trafficking, the builder's reaction backs up a lot to what had happened and for that, it does in no way justify such an arrest or treatment, much less a fine of £80.
 
It's bad luck to be stopped by such "police" officers, I shoot in London semi regularly and have never been stopped for anything even when standing in the middle of the road shooting ¬_¬

These enforcement officers need better training.

vonhelmet said:
You're not allowed to photograph anything these days without being a paedo or a terrorist.
Click to expand...

But....I photographed you in your sleep and I'm neither of the above =]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom