I couldn't find an off topic section, but I'm posting videos so I hope this section is ok.

I thought this might be interesting for people so see the way anti terrorism legislation is affecting the freedom of photographers in the UK.

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/fe...-terror-arrest

A few photographs add up to a minor terror alert - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...terrorism-laws

'You're filming for fun? I don't believe you' - http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2...lice-terrorism

These links also show how an individual can act toward an officer of the law, or a security officer, or a owner of a facility.

I watched a couple of these links you posted and it seemed to me that if any respect were to have been given to the officers (protecting the public mind you) there would have been zero problem.

The filmers/photogs wanted to get a reaction, so they got one didn't they...
The filmers/photogs actions seem so pathetic to me, and might I add that if they dont like the system they live under I suggest to try living in Iran or somewhere of the like....heck, I would even help pack their bags...

yes, we are not as free as we were.... but then again my kids arn't going to be ripped apart by a terrorists explosion so easily either.

Sounds like the guy was a dick.

I loved the line "I do not consent to this arrest"

As a loss prevention officer for awhile I made a little over 40 arrests, I don't think anyone of them would consent to it :)

And yes, co-operate with the damn police and everything goes much smoother.

Wow watching the last one now. What a B. In this video it starts saying she was working on a project regarding CCTV. Why didn't she just tell the officers? Then the story changes, no wonder the police are not believing her.

ya the last one was a real winner....

taking on the "Victim role".....

Pathetic.

Hmm...very interesting. I am very skeptical of such laws and believe the path to a degrading our freedoms is quite slippery indeed. No, I am not a big conspiracy theory type, but here in the U.S. after 9/11 things got a little out of hand. Apparently in the UK as well. Sure, these guys could have been a bit more cooperative to the police but did the police really have just cause in the first place? I would say not.

Originally Posted by nickeverett I couldn't find an off topic section

Our off-topic section is The Big Picture.

Very interesting replies. The same thing was posted on a UK photography forum and got a VERY different response.


These videos are about the misuse of the 'Terrorism Act of 2000' to stop, question, search and detain members of the public without due cause. Many people see this as an invasion of privacy and personal freedom.

Some people in the UK are strongly against divulging personal information to anyway without due cause (even to law enforcement officers). Personal privacy and individual freedom in public space is important to many people.


I agree that the photographers and videographers did not co-operate with the police and if they had done so it would have made the process easier. However, people are affraid of the errosion of their civil liberties in aid of "fighting the war on terrorism".

I didn't put these videos up to start a political debate. I just thought it might be interesting for people in the US to see.

Originally Posted by nickeverett Very interesting replies. The same thing was posted on a UK photography forum and got a VERY different response. These videos are about the misuse of the 'Terrorism Act of 2000' to stop, question, search and detain members of the public without due cause. Many people see this as an invasion of privacy and personal freedom. Some people in the UK are strongly against divulging personal information to anyway without due cause (even to law enforcement officers). Personal privacy and individual freedom in public space is important to many people. I agree that the photographers and videographers did not co-operate with the police and if they had done so it would have made the process easier. However, people are affraid of the errosion of their civil liberties in aid of "fighting the war on terrorism". I didn't put these videos up to start a political debate. I just thought it might be interesting for people in the US to see.

I agree that the issue is about due cause. I think the photographer acted properly and that the infringement on his personal freedom is the result of a heavy-handed police state. I would hope that I would have the presence of mind to react as calmly but firmly as he did. He should not have to give them anything for taking photos in a public place. They were totally out of line, IMO.

I also stand with the photographer. It's easy to say that he could have been nicer to the officer, but in this instance, "being nicer" would have meant the erosion of civil liberties. He wasn't belligerent, he wasn't rude, he didn't interrupt. He made it clear that he had some knowledge of the law and that he expected to be treated within the bounds of that law.

If I had been in his shoes I probably would have given my details and been done with it. But I would have done that, not for any principled reason, because of fear. I think that the rights of citizens are being eroded in many civilized nations these days. It seems to me that the kind of resistance necessary to prevent that from happening is what this gentleman demonstrated.