Monday, 22 February 2010

Still it continues.

If you're a photographer who fancies a picture of Accrington town centre, beware.

Photography is now anti-social behaviour, so you will be arrested and held in a cell for eight hours then released without charge. Unless you give in to the bullies and hand over the personal details they are not entitled to demand other than from those who have committed actual crimes.

All those protests. All those publicised occasions of harassment of photographers. Pronouncements from On High. Even old Jacq the Ripper, when she was Porn Secretary, stated quite clearly that photography was not a crime.

And yet it is still treated as one. Eight hours of wrongful incarceration because a policeman thought it was a bit of fun to bully an innocent member of the public, and who will be held accountable for this? Nobody. Nobody will be disciplined. Nobody will be demoted. Nobody will be fired. There will be no consequences for the police, nor for the pseudoplods involved. None at all. They can do what they like and their superiors will make excuses for them.

Then those same superiors will wonder why it happens again.

UPDATE: Obo caught this one too.


Anonymous said...

Cunts! And they wonder why the public won't help them when they need it.

Leg-iron said...

They'll still put out those 'did anyone photograph this while it was happening' requests, and expect us to admit to taking photos.

Nope. If I ever accidentally photograph a crime, I won't be heading down to the police station with it.

Mark Wadsworth said...

It's the inverse law of authoritarianism - the punishment is inversely proportional to the offence (if you can count it as an offence in the first place).

WV: tediume

microdave said...

I suppose if you gave them false details, it would get them off your back, but then run the risk of being arrested for doing so if you were subsequently stopped again?

Anonymous said...

Could it be something to do with coppers just nicking people so they can get out of the cold for a few hours? Does this harassment appear to be more prevalent in the winter months?

Anonymous said...

They were after DNA. If plod thought that the two had committed some kind of offence, why were they not charged?

Because they knew that under the law, they had no case.

We need to equip ourselves with wearable cameras. I.e., as buttons, sunglasses, etc.

iDave has said he'd abolish the database state. But he also gave an 'iron-clad' guarantee about the Lisbon Treaty.

moonmadmerv said...

notice how the policy officers keep refering to the act is statute NOT law,they need your name in order to "act" upon your "person".By providing a name and address you are tacitly entering into contract with them.BTW when a policy officer fails to distinguish between law and statute they are commiting gross negligence wich is tantamount to fraud,an arrestable offence .more info at

Anonymous said...

I know that you were one of the first to exercise the Socialist lefts demons About This Subject and so with it now coming into full public view, how are New Labour any different to the B.N.P. in the terms "Racist and Racism", in using that unspeakable area for their own political advantage?

The B.N.P. talk about what they would like to do, where as New Labour have carried it out. So who is worse?

opinions powered by