Oh yeah, plus...

[denny]

I forgot to mention that I'm live on Sky News:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Climate-Camp-London-Liveblog/Article/200908415368880

And while I'm posting this morning, here's a bit of video footage that shows the Climate Camp just being set up - fencing being unloaded and raised - and some local police officers displaying their lack of knowledge of UK law as it pertains to filming policemen:
http://london.indymedia.org/videos/2001

Comments

[allsweetnessandlight]

So was the filming actually for use by terrorists, or is it just that their knowledge of the law is better than yours?

[denny]

Sorry, I don't follow. Possibly the pronouns are confusing here because you think I shot the video clip?

The video clip was filmed by someone involved in the initial set-up of this year's Climate Camp. The officer didn't give any reason for asking them to stop filming, and I think would have found it hard to cite section 58 of the terrorism act given that the police came and found the person filming in a field, rather than him stalking them as they went about their duties.

The clip demonstrates (imho) that the police knew less about the law than the person filming (and me), not more. Or, equally likely, that they know the law but choose to act is if it were different - because most people are unlikely to challenge a policeman on a point of law.

[allsweetnessandlight]

Well, I've watched it twice and they don't make any claims about the law whatsoever, which suggests to me they know exactly where they stand and what they can legally get away with.

[denny]

The police? They're in the wrong here. If you want I can find the Met's own guidance to officers, published in the last month or so, which they just violated.

They may well know what they can get away with, but the word 'legally' isn't a feature of that sentence. The guy with the video camera has grounds for a complaint.

[allsweetnessandlight]

the Met's own guidance to officers

. . . which isn't the law. So they were being rude? Well, tell people that it's film of policeman being rude and obstructive, then.

They may well know what they can get away with, but the word 'legally' isn't a feature of that sentence.

Don't be so pedantic. "They know what they can legally get away with", if you prefer. The guy can complain if he wants, but on the grounds of rudeness rather than illegality - unless it's now illegal for anyone (police or otherwise) to put their hand in front of a lens when they're being photographed.

[denny]

It is classed as assault, in fact - they physically interfered with him when he hadn't touched them.

It wouldn't go anywhere in court, of course. Unless it was the other way around, and a member of the public had his hand on a policeman's camera.

[allsweetnessandlight]

Assault? Touching someone's camera?

I'm not a lawyer, but I wouldn't have guessed so. The usual rule as I understand it is that you have to apply force to someone's person, or put them in reasonable fear of you immediately doing so. Does touching an object somebody's carrying really count?

[denny]

If someone grabbed a camera you were aiming at them, and you weren't in fear of what might happen next, then you're a braver man than I.

Particularly given the track record of the police lately.

[denny]

http://www.met.police.uk/about/photography.htm

"Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel."

They can arrest you if they suspect you of being a terrorist, but they can't stop you filming without arresting you. They can look at your video or photos, but they can't delete them.

[allsweetnessandlight]

They didn't claim any law prevented people from filming. They made it perfectly clear that they didn't wish to be filmed, and put their hand in the way, which as far as I'm aware is no more illegal than if I were to do the same.