Not us, apparently.

Maybe CCTV should be turned off when police are present: the operators might see something they shouldn’t.

Incidentally, the cops who beat Rodney King are assholes, not arses. I don’t think we should impose British terms on our American chums.

That is a serious point.

Would you let me describe the coppers who kicked Rodney King in as arses…? Arses seems to be a better choice of word in that instance than, say, Samaritans. Dunno that those coppers were taking physical risks to protect the safety of others. They certainly made King take physical risks, but that is surely not the same thing…

And yep – I would be happy to use the phrases ‘Muslims acting like terrorists’ if I thought that’s what they were doing. Don’t have any romance about religion, me. Have been happy to use phrases along the lines of ‘Christians acting like buttholes’ over abortion, etc, so would cheerfully extend that to other faiths.

Don’t quite see how a copper asking for Tallis’ camera at a BBC Gaza protest (as per my original post) is putting oneself in the line of fire for the safety of the rest of us, or how telling me not to photograph a guy a bunch of coppers had arrested and encircled is taking a physical risk for all of us, but you perhaps see more romance in those actions than I do?

Feel free to elaborate, old boy.

It is bad law.

I would add that a ‘free press’ is recognised to be essential to the proper working of our ‘democracy’. We should scrutinise very carefully any limitation on it.

Would it be possible to post something more intolerant and prejudiced? I am sure after all there would be no problem with the phrase “Mulisms acting like terrorists?”

Such prejudice towards those who take physical risks to protect the safety of others is simply shameful.

And “arses?” Is this even meant to be a serious site any more?

This is a weak contribution to a serious debate.

I’m here!

Dying to twist your knickers, jailhouse. Let me know when you finish your shift.

Too true, ukl.

I just tend to take that one as written these days, and so no longer write it. I think I will go back to writing it, though. It’s cathartic, apart from anything else.

I would add that not only will we lack evidence of political activity, we will also lack evidence of alleged abuses of police powers, such as this video about Climate Camp ’08.

I wonder where we are going with all this. I’m sure our beloved leaders don’t intend for us to live in a police state or surveillance state or whatever, but that is where we are heading (if we aren’t there already).

(1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

This may explain why that Dutch politician was banned – because anyone who might have threatened him would, in law, be a terrorist!

It’s also noteworthy that the Act allows an organisation to be proscribed if the Home Secretary “believes” that “it is concerned in terrorism” – the belief does not have to be reasonable, and I’ve no idea what the legal definition of “concerned in” is.

It would at the least appear that being abusive to political canvassers (including the BNP, of course) is a terrorist act!

The only conclusion you can draw is that this law is at least partly about eradicating evidence of political activity and protest from the public view.

I’m not sure that’s the only reasonable conclusion. An alternative reasonable conclusion is that our beloved leaders are incompetent, to say the least.

(These aren’t mutually exclusive, by the way.)

I can see my partner and I falling foul of this almost immediately. He is often asked to attend various political meetings and protests as a photographer, and his photos are often circulated and/or used by other publications – recent photos of a protest outside of Barnet council ended up in a public sector journal, etc, as that journal covered a story about service cuts at that council.

These photos serve some sort of purpose, in that a lot of people want their events and meetings recorded – and their events, protests and meetings are worth recording. There are certainly plenty of them taking place at the moment, as people register their disatisfaction with government and council initiatives, etc.

You always find that a few police at least usually attend these events, or stop by to see how things are getting on. From today, though, they’ll be able to grab your camera as soon as you take it out of its bag – they’ll be able to say that they thought you were pointing it at them. And if you’re taking crowd shots, you may well be pointing your camera at them. What are you supposed to do at such times – draw attention to yourself by asking two coppers if they’d mind stepping out of shot?

I’d make the point, too, that the sort of lawful protest I’m talking about is hardly the stuff of international terroism. A bunch of nursery nurses and dinner ladies waving placards outside their town hall strikes me as an unlikely bin Laden seeding ground. The only conclusion you can draw is that this law is at least partly about eradicating evidence of political activity and protest from the public view.

And how exactly do they plan on gauging the likelihood of someone holding a camera being a terrorist? A simple ‘beard or no beard’ test, or would they try something a little more sophisticated like asking the photographer ‘are you a terrorist?’

Laws like this are just pointless. Either ban all photography of the police outright or just leave everyone alone, but this middle ground is ridiculous.

Searching for maps is already the reason given by police for searching anyone at train stations under the terrorism act. They never do search people going in to the trains though, I find…certainly not as fiercely as coming out. I guess an angry commuter trumps “safety”

In fact, I think my local service is running a pilot scheme as they rarely turn up the same time twice.

Trains should also vary their routes: the train I take to work follows the same line day after day.

And printing maps of the London Underground in diaries is just asking for it.

This government doesn’t know how to make law…or rather it knows how to make law so all encompassing that it criminalises or takes away the liberties of more innocent people than can ever be deemed proportionate.