sade
12-12-2009, 06:30 PM
Well, well, well! The Daily Mail seems to be changing...
This might be no news for most of the people writing on this forum, since David Icke has talked about this before,
but reading the comments in the comment section @ DM made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I mean, look at the anger!
The sweet anger that is bubbling in the people of "Great" Britain will be fantastic when it erupts!
Smith was standing on the corner with his cameras when he was approached by a security guard from the neighbouring Bank of America Merrill Lynch building. 'He asked me for ID,' says Smith.
'I politely explained that I didn't need to provide ID as I was standing in a public place. Then another,
more senior, security guard came out. 'Again, I said that I didn't have to say who I was, and withdrew to the other side of the road.'
Smith was then approached by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) who demanded to know what he was doing.
Their conversation was cut short by the noisy arrival of blaring police sirens bearing down from the east and west.
As Smith watched in astonishment-three police cars, lights flashing frenetically, as well as a police riot van containing armed police officers, swerved into view and pulled up to investigate the 'incident' - which consisted of nothing more than a man taking pictures of a church in the capital in broad daylight.
Fortunately, as a professional photographer, Smith knew exactly what was going on, so he was more angry than distressed.
This had, after all, happened to him before. Nor is he the only one.
Up and down the country, every day, people whose only 'crime' is to be carrying a camera and using it to take harmless snapshots of landmarks - or even, in one extraordinary case, a fish and chip shop - are being stopped, questioned by the police and asked to give their personal details.
Sometimes, they are told (wrongly) that they are not allowed to take photographs - despite being in a public place.
On occasion, the police have even (illegally) asked people to delete photographs from their camera.
This is happening to tourists, day-trippers, sightseers and amateur photographers, as well as professionals.
The reason for this absurdity is a controversial piece of legislation known as Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Section 44 gives police the right to stop and search anyone within certain geographical areas without the usual requirement of reasonable suspicion. It was brought in as a counter-terrorism measure.
But, increasingly, members of the general public are complaining that because of it they are being treated like potential terrorists on reconnaissance missions.
Continue reading here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235241/The-picture-land-jail-How-police-Big-Brother-Britain-treat-like-terrorist-taking-holiday-snaps.html)
So, what are your rights if this happens to you in the UK?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/12/article-1235241-0792059A000005DC-756_634x502.jpg
This might be no news for most of the people writing on this forum, since David Icke has talked about this before,
but reading the comments in the comment section @ DM made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. I mean, look at the anger!
The sweet anger that is bubbling in the people of "Great" Britain will be fantastic when it erupts!
Smith was standing on the corner with his cameras when he was approached by a security guard from the neighbouring Bank of America Merrill Lynch building. 'He asked me for ID,' says Smith.
'I politely explained that I didn't need to provide ID as I was standing in a public place. Then another,
more senior, security guard came out. 'Again, I said that I didn't have to say who I was, and withdrew to the other side of the road.'
Smith was then approached by a Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) who demanded to know what he was doing.
Their conversation was cut short by the noisy arrival of blaring police sirens bearing down from the east and west.
As Smith watched in astonishment-three police cars, lights flashing frenetically, as well as a police riot van containing armed police officers, swerved into view and pulled up to investigate the 'incident' - which consisted of nothing more than a man taking pictures of a church in the capital in broad daylight.
Fortunately, as a professional photographer, Smith knew exactly what was going on, so he was more angry than distressed.
This had, after all, happened to him before. Nor is he the only one.
Up and down the country, every day, people whose only 'crime' is to be carrying a camera and using it to take harmless snapshots of landmarks - or even, in one extraordinary case, a fish and chip shop - are being stopped, questioned by the police and asked to give their personal details.
Sometimes, they are told (wrongly) that they are not allowed to take photographs - despite being in a public place.
On occasion, the police have even (illegally) asked people to delete photographs from their camera.
This is happening to tourists, day-trippers, sightseers and amateur photographers, as well as professionals.
The reason for this absurdity is a controversial piece of legislation known as Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
Section 44 gives police the right to stop and search anyone within certain geographical areas without the usual requirement of reasonable suspicion. It was brought in as a counter-terrorism measure.
But, increasingly, members of the general public are complaining that because of it they are being treated like potential terrorists on reconnaissance missions.
Continue reading here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1235241/The-picture-land-jail-How-police-Big-Brother-Britain-treat-like-terrorist-taking-holiday-snaps.html)
So, what are your rights if this happens to you in the UK?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/12/12/article-1235241-0792059A000005DC-756_634x502.jpg