Britain's most senior police officer has asked the home secretary to help cut the amount of legal action taken against his force.

Met Police chief Sir Paul Stephenson suggested making it harder for members of the public to bring civil cases against police, the Guardian reported.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11511716

yes- I can believe it.

Yes, I can believe it too. Fresh from comparing our police with the Stasi in another thread, I see this news item. I'd also like to remind readers of the new-ish law against filming or photographing policemen (to reduce the chance of them getting caught doing something they shouldn't).

This jumped-up little Stephenson twat might usefully be advised that the best way of reducing legal claims against the police is to ensure that they do their damn job properly and refrain from beating people up, gassing them while helpless, violating people's important legal rights, breaking or circumventing evidential rules, inventing evidence...

Oh dear.

They really have lost touch with reality.

Beam me up Scotty - I have had enough of this

SJB wrote:
I'd also like to remind readers of the new-ish law against filming or photographing policemen (to reduce the chance of them getting caught doing something they shouldn't). ...

Which "law" is this? I'll look into it.

As a photographer I can photograph ANYTHING which is in a public place (or can be seen from a public place).

Here it is

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act

A person commits an offence who—
(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i)a member of Her Majesty's forces,
(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii)a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

Note also that the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are not a terrorist

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

Another blow against the principle of being innocent until proven guilty: we are now obliged to give a "reasonable excuse" for taking a picture rather than it being taken for granted that we are free to do so.

This particular sentence is in error...

Note also that the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are not a terrorist

The burden of proof is upon the police to make the case for terrorist activity.
Also, as far as I am aware, of the many arrests made for this 'crime', there have been no successful prosecutions. Nevertheless, it is a pathetic law that has been widely abused and misunderstood by the police. Equipment has even been wrongly confiscated. I would sue for damages, any officer that confiscated my equipment or falsely imprisoned me.

SJB wrote:
Here it is

Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act

A person commits an offence who—
(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i)a member of Her Majesty's forces,
(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii)a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b)publishes or communicates any such information.

Note also that the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are not a terrorist

It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

Another blow against the principle of being innocent until proven guilty: we are now obliged to give a "reasonable excuse" for taking a picture rather than it being taken for granted that we are free to do so.

Thanks SJB

It doesn't say you cant photograph a copper, does it?

British Journal of Photography: Met Police Re-Issues Guidelines On Use Of Anti-Terrorism Legislation On Photographers [Update: Full Guidelines Published]

14th Dec 2009

John Yates, assistant commissioner of specialist operations at the Metropolitan Police, has today issued a statement to all Metropolitan Police members reminding them that people taking photographs in public should not be stopped and searched unless there is a valid reason.

The message was circulated to all Borough Commanders and published on the MPS intranet. The Met Police says that it reinforces guidance previously issued around powers relating to stop and search under the Terrorism Act 2000. 'Guidance on the issue will continue to be included in briefings to all operational officers and staff,' a spokeswoman for the Metropolitan Police says.

In a statement seen by BJP, Yates says that the new guidance comes after people complained 'that they are being stopped when taking photographs in public places. These stops are being recorded under Stop and Account and under Section 44 of [the Terrorism Act]. The complaints have included allegations that people have been told that they cannot photograph certain public buildings, that they cannot photograph police officers or PCSOs and that taking photographs is, in itself, suspicious.'

He adds: 'Whilst we must remain vigilant at all times in dealing with suspicious behaviour, staff must also be clear that there is no restriction on people taking photographs in public places or of any building other than in very exceptional circumstances; there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff; the act of taking a photograph in itself is not usually sufficient to carry out a stop.

He also says that unless there is a very good reason, 'people taking photographs should not be stopped'.

more here: www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-ph...guidelines-published

Best Wishes,
Jim

Oh dear!

www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...64&g2_itemId=469

Thank, Jim ... just as I thought.

JK2006 wrote:
Oh dear!

www.kingofhits.co.uk/index.php?option=co...64&g2_itemId=469

Notice how many are "eying" you suspiciously, JK ???!

Of course the major issues with Section 76 are that it goes against common law and also articles regarding the Human Rights Act. It can - and no doubt will be - challenged in European Courts, because it's simply illegal.

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.