.JL.
Established
If it means going to jail in the UK, does it means I get executed if I do it in China??
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
I see a decent to "toxic thread" status...
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Probably the same place US Bashing comes from. Many people are incapable of original independent thought, so they repeat some drivel they read on their favorite websites.
And I'm not immune to this syndrome either...
There are some nice photos in this thread so far, so maybe it is headed in a decent direction after all.
oftheherd
Veteran
Probably truth to that. What I would like to see is the exact wording of the law. What is in the article is pretty vague. No court is likely to like that. I could take a photo of a relative who was a policeman. Then post it on my family web site for all my relatives to see the policeman we are all so proud of. All of us would rejoice. However, what is to say a terrorist would not use that. That would put me in violation as the article relates it. I suspect the law is more specific, and hopefully requires something more than simple innocent photo taking for police action.
Beyond that, I deplore some of the reactions to 9/11 and terrorism in general. The problem is that we are in some sense, at war. At least in the US, we tend to pur up with some curtailing of our freedoms in war. We understand the need to be more suspicious if for no other reason than to scare away all but the most fearless enemies.
However, this isn't a normal "war." I am not sure we need to be as quick to give up freedoms. Especially we need to make sure if we do there is a certainty we will gain more that we lose. I don't see it with the referenced law. My personal opinion is that we need to take the war to the terrorists. I don't think we have really done that, or at least not effectively.
As to police; they are just as human as anyone else. They do tend to deal with the dregs of humanity. Unfortunatly, that often causes them to take on some less than desireable reactions in defense of their own sanity. One of those is a tendency to be more rough on suspects than is alway necessary. Wrong, but frustration is a strong emotion. Even when they may not be wrong in something they do, they often get portrayed as such either in the press, or in public misunderstanding. That fosters a we/they attitude. Not desireable, but again, when you feel you are right and "outsiders" still cut you down and call you wrong, what can you expect.
I don't say police should be excused for beating up a suspect when there is no more resistance. (I do believe if a suspect is fighting, the policeman is allowed to do what it takes to subdue them. Policeman aren't paid to get beat up themselves). Nor should police be excused for any intentional actions to violate anyone's civil rights. Those are violations of law and police are susposed to prevent or arrest lawbreakers, not be come intentional lawbreakers.
However, I would say don't be too quick to assume police are just looking for ways to arrest law abiding citizens. Or that they want to be part of a police state. Most hopefully get into law enforcement out of a sense of wanting to help their fellow man. They want the same things the rest of us do. Just try telling some of them they are appreciated from time to time. They may become better people too.
Wahoo
Washing on Siegfried Line
I wonder what Chaplin would make of the kerfuffle ?
I wonder what Chaplin would make of the kerfuffle ?
'Easy Street' 1917
Are we to be stopped taking pics of anyone in Khaki next ?
Bottom photo - Ripon, North Yorks '80's.
I wonder what Chaplin would make of the kerfuffle ?
'Easy Street' 1917
Are we to be stopped taking pics of anyone in Khaki next ?
Bottom photo - Ripon, North Yorks '80's.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Pardon me, but why wouldn't we want the police to arrest people plotting terrorist acts that would kill people? It seems absurd but they are probably lacking the power to do so under current laws even when confronted with suspicious activity. If I were plotting to blow up a bridge or a subway tunnel, one of the first things I would do is to photograph it and estimate the security response, so working under the guise of photography is a perfectly fine ruse.
Besides, if my dark swarthy butt gets arrested I am sure there is a surfeit of bleeding heart civil libertarian lawyers frothing to make a big case out of it.
And in the case of the LA Police beating Rodney King on videotape, what the sensationalist and completely biased news media conveniently edits out is the preliminaries, where a PCB-enraged 275-lb 6'-4" Rodney throws a few cops around. If I were one of the cops I'd be hard pressed not to shoot first and ask questions later.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Some worthy points for consideration. However, I still have to disagree that the police have any "right" to beat a suspect once they have stopped or are sufficiently subdued that they can no longer resist. That happened in the Rodney King episode. He had indeed fled arrest, and when stopped, very forcefully resisted attempts to subdue and arrest him. However, the clips I saw showed him being beaten after he had been subdued. There is no legal justification for that.
As I stated above, I perfectly understand their frustration, I just don't agree they have any right to do that. I would also agree they shouldn't be summarily fired or jailed the first time they do it. But they should not either be allowed to continue to do it just because they are frustrated.
emraphoto
Veteran
care to explain al?
WigglePig
Newbie
Indeed, I see no good reason why we shouldn't wish for police to (be able) to do this. However, we seem to be missing the point here...the offence is committed if you take photos which "may be likely" to be of use to a (potential) terrorist. So, if I, as a perfectly law-abiding citizen, take a photograph of Buckingham Palace with policemen and a soldier or two in-shot then I can, if the police see fit be arrested and charged with having made an image that is "likely to be of use" to Bin Laden. Which, of course, I have. Banged to rights.
I have not seen, nor am I aware of any evidence that any terrorist in recent (say 20) years has photographed their targets as part of planning an attack. Their eyes and memories are just as useful in this regard and attract less attention.
Tra
WP
bmattock
Veteran
I won't slam you, but I do need some clarification. You state the laws are 'stupid' but it seems you are defending them nonetheless, on the grounds of the terrorist attacks against the USA. Perhaps I am misunderstanding and you are simply stating that 9-11 was the reason we all went nuts and demanded such 'stupid' laws.
If it is the former, I would only say that:
a) This was the terrorist's intent - to create terror and cause us to destroy ourselves from within. It must give them great comfort to watch us do what they wanted us to do.
b) I am unaware of any terrorist attacks caused by taking photos of police officers. I'm pretty sure terrorists know what police officers look like.
If it is the latter:
a) It is politics, because citizens become fearful and politicians pander to that fear. Politicians pander to whatever they sense might be the current zeitgeist. The first and only job of a politician is to remain in office. They have no other concern (IMHO), and if they say they do, they are lying.
b) Our memories are not short - we remember 9-11 and clearly we don't want it to happen again. However, most people are amazingly stupid and easily led. If a leader stands up and says "We must not let the terrorists win! We must protect ourselves from them! Therefore, I am proposing this law that requires every citizen to dress in a lobster costume, cover themselves in hot butter, and head for the hills," there will be citizens that stand up and cheer, and go on and on about how this brave leader is protecting us from evil. And those same citizens will be very angry at anyone who dares to speak out against the pro-lobster-disguise plan.
In the final analysis, if someone can rationally connect stopping people from taking photographs of police officers to terrorist activity, I'd like to hear that explanation. An example of it happening, or even a logical argument would be fine. Simply shouting "9-11!" isn't enough to justify taking away civil liberties in my opinion.
John Lawrence
Well-known
In some places in the UK you'd be hard pressed to see a policeman - let alone take a picture of him! 
Sparrow
Veteran
Did anyone bother to read the article? It’s a bit sloppy, but what appears to be the text of the amendment makes no mention of images, it only refers to “information”
the author, who fails to give his name, then conflates that with some story that must obviously predate the act, and offers video in evidence but fails to provide a link to it, try Google for a UK pj called Tallis, he’s also a very shy chap
the author, who fails to give his name, then conflates that with some story that must obviously predate the act, and offers video in evidence but fails to provide a link to it, try Google for a UK pj called Tallis, he’s also a very shy chap
Last edited:
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Every time threads drift towards the political area, they tend to go downhill fast. I do notice that Rueben's thread regarding "toxic threads", to which I was referring is no longer around.
So far we've picked on China and the US, let's see who gets insulted next...
John Robertson
Well-known
The laws are brought in by politicians who havn't a f*****g clue what to do about the current terrorist situation, but who try to show the gullible public that they are doing something. Its called window dressing!!! I hope the new President has more idea, here in the UK, Brown just grins at the cameras, and tries look reassuring. You don't reassure me mate!!!!
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
:bang::bang::bang::bang::bang:
John Lawrence
Well-known
emraphoto
Veteran
i thought this was about the uk?
i would hardly call it "picking on" (my comment). i agree that these threads do have a tendency to get a little testy but it really does befuddle me. a nation (the uk) steeped in the tradition of protecting "freedom" worldwide taking such dramatic steps against personal liberty.
i would hardly call it "picking on" (my comment). i agree that these threads do have a tendency to get a little testy but it really does befuddle me. a nation (the uk) steeped in the tradition of protecting "freedom" worldwide taking such dramatic steps against personal liberty.
dmr
Registered Abuser
DC's Finest<tm> didn't seem to mind posing for the Kodachrome Project:
lic4
Well-known
Sorry to slam you on this, but I think this is also a shortsighted memory - I've read compelling arguments that nations throughout the 20th century implemented "states of emergency" to take greater control of its citizens. McCarthyism and campus shootings during Vietnam are two American examples that come to mind. External events provide a basis for the government to believe it can't trust its citizens and thus, freedoms should be limited.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Well then the problem is with the legislators for micro-managing and making laws for every practical probability, rather than having common sense and allowing well-trained and intelligent police to use their judgement.
The 9-11 terrorists had access to the builder's plans for the WTC. Now that many of those documents have been secured from the general public, I would think the "power of photography" would be very useful, say in determining where charges might be placed on a bridge or to determine the volume of a subway tunnel. The engineer planning the attack need not be doing the scouting themselves and could indeed be half a world away....
McCarthy got quite a bum rap. It turns out there really were a fair number of spies in government and military service -- he simply didn't want them on the payroll!
The 9-11 terrorists had access to the builder's plans for the WTC. Now that many of those documents have been secured from the general public, I would think the "power of photography" would be very useful, say in determining where charges might be placed on a bridge or to determine the volume of a subway tunnel. The engineer planning the attack need not be doing the scouting themselves and could indeed be half a world away....
McCarthy got quite a bum rap. It turns out there really were a fair number of spies in government and military service -- he simply didn't want them on the payroll!
Last edited: