tpuc.org Man held in police station for eight hours after taking pictures of Christmas celebrations in Accrington, Lancashire. Police questioned an amateur photographer under anti-terrorist legislation and later arrested him, claiming pictures he was taking in a Lancashire town were “suspicious” and constituted “antisocial behaviour”. Footage recorded on a video camera by Bob Patefield, a former paramedic, shows how police approached him and a fellow photography enthusiast in Accrington town centre. They were told they were being questioned under the Terrorism Act. Senior police officers last year promised to scale back the use of anti-terrorist legislation such as Section 44 of the act, which deals with photographers, after a series of high-profile cases in which photographers said they had been harassed by police for taking innocuous images in the street. Patefield and his friend declined to give their details, as they are entitled to under the act. The police then appeared to change tack, saying the way the men were taking images constituted “antisocial behaviour”. Patefield, who is in his 40s, was stopped three times before finally being arrested. He and his friend were taking photographs of Christmas festivities on 19 December, after attending a photography exhibition. The last images on his camera before he was stopped show a picture of a Santa Claus, people in fancy dress and a pipe band marching through the town. He turned on his video camera the moment he was …
@VeeDubInThaHaus School photographs ARE taken with permission.
@VeeDubInThaHaus Scool photographs ARE taken with permission!!
Welcome to facist state Britain.. Lol
This LEFT WING TWAT SHOULD BE FUCKING BEATEN UP!!! POLICE WOULDNT STAND FOR THIS SHIT IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY!!!!
@claire0101, Huh ? No, Everyone has a right to take pictures or moving images in a public place, Police cannot ask for personal details unless they have grounds to suspect you are acting suspiciously, In which case you’ll be searched under section 44 of the terrorism act, Which they have to make an official note of, Which can be appealed and used against the police officer, Dont see you complaining about the 4 + million CCTV cameras that film everyone every day.
@claire0101 Grow up Claire , we’re being filmed every inch of every pavement by the same forces which are now branding photographers as anti social or taking pictures . incredible hypocrisy on their part .
@claire0101 Are you sure? this was crap and the police make it up as they go along!! you dont need to explain why you are taking photos in a public place! and the twats came up with a cock and bull story to arrest these people!!
no i do not understand.
i will not stand under your corporation.
sly little buggers with there legalise.
y do police always get away with it. freemasonry? establishment cover up? you should be concerned because one day it will be you fitted up, beaten up, framed or criminalised by these fascist, psychopathic, criminal thugs.
@claire0101 photography or recording video in a public place is not a criminal offence.. sounds like your the plonker darling
fuck them basterds they just wanted an excuse to arrest you guys feel free to take photos if you want its your right and like u said its ur hobby so u have the right to take photos and have the right not to give ur details to anyone unless you get a full explanation of why they wer stoping you people :)
Google Hollie Greig…Freemason Pedophile Ring !…..
Im glad most of them are being sacked due to cuts in ‘tax spending’ . If this is the kind of rubbish they get involved with – do you want your taxes spent on this?
@claire0101 what about security cameras claire? if citizens have to ask permission from other citizens before photographing them thats fine, but why don’t private security firms have to get permission before photographing me going on my shopping trip? Our rights are being diminished under the guise of anti terrorism, if you don’t see this then nobody can help you.
check out raymond st.clair!
The private police force no longer serve the public the police opperate outside the law they abuse every statute passed to them by private politicians that have attained no royal prorogative for the bill in parliament making the act a fraud against the public.
taking photos. . . . . . papers please !
your a terrorist. . . . . . sec 44 papers please !
anti social behavior. . . . . . papers please and sgt it is section 50 parts 1 and 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002, you stupid copper ! nice try though sgt incompetant !
nice of you to bring up the Police Reform Act Act though as you try to improperly foist your authority. i like the Police Reform Act 2002 especially sections 9-37 dealing with compliants and misconduct of officers. Station Sgt.
@claire0101 Hahah claire0101 you’re a fucking idiot. There is no law that says you cannot take a picture of a person. Just learn your facts before you come here and waste peoples time and your own!
Jesus, what a joke this is and what a complete waste of police resources. One of the officers mentioned that there hadn’t been any complaints or suspicion from members of the public. How can the police deem the actions of these two men as ‘antisocial’? This whole scenario is a joke and it looked to me like a bunch of bored officers throwing their authority around just because they can. Good on those two guys for questioning everything and refusing to give their details.
I think it’s all about ‘camera envy’. The people in weird suits and funny hats always have crappier cameras than those they hassle and assault. Camer envy, you heard it here first!
The police officer saying that he must give his details is either lying or just wrong. Section 2 of the violent crimes reduction act 2006 is about the duration of drinking banning orders……..
I think the police was within their rights, because there’s no law that defines what’s suspicious and what is not, it’s purely subjective, and anyone can report anyone. If the law indeed allows requesting information basing on that, then you have to abide, while the police does not need to tell you the basis for their suspicion. If you are sure that you were not obliged to give your name and address, then you probably need to test this by suing the city, so it becomes a precedent.
I looked up the law that the officer sited – he said “section 2”, that requires giving name and address. I found this:
“Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 168″ – Offence: It is an offence for a person who is:
i) the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle who is alleged to (…)
ii) the rider of a cycle who is alleged to (…)
to refuse (…) to give his name and address, or give a false name or address.”
which obviously does not apply. Any other law, anybody?
Rights are being eroded everywhere, if we did this in America we might get beat to death, tasered or even shot by the cops. One thing I’ve noticed about English cops is they seem more educated and polite than American cops, but they do think they are always right and they certainly do not care about violating your rights. That girl knew damn well you wasn’t a terrorist, she was just pissed that you wouldn’t show her your details.
According to the Home Office, “Antisocial behaviour is any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person’s quality of life.”
I did not see all of the video , but seems to me the Police were doing the Antisocial behaviour.
And it cracks me up they say not to film them , all the while UK has been installing survelence cameras to view every square inch of the country! LOL!