counter terrorism act 2008

#1
It is now an offence to take a photo of serving or ex-service personnel. subject to a maximum inprisonment of 10 years + fine.

As a keen photographer I have taken many self-portraits, which would now be illegal under the current act.

Also, any unit or course photographs would alse be deemed illegal under the above act.
 
#2
if this is true, please can you post a link?
 
#3
That is if you take your words literally. But I doubt that is how the Act is worded. More likely, if you take photographs for a criminal purpose.
 
#4
i concur
 
#5
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080028_en_9



76 Offences relating to information about members of armed forces etc

(1) After section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (collection of information) insert—
“58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(ii) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.

(4) In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).

(5) Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.”.

(2) In the application of section 58A in England and Wales in relation to an offence committed before the commencement of section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44) the reference in subsection (3)(b)(i) to 12 months is to be read as a reference to 6 months.

(3) In section 118 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (defences), in subsection (5)(a) after “58,” insert “58A,”.

(4) After Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 insert the Schedule set out in Schedule 8 to this Act.
 
#6
The wording of the act is that if you take a photograph that could be used for terrorism. There does not have to be intent to supply it for terrorism (thats part b)


which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism
 
#8
Lots of room for arguing that you photographs are not for illegal purposes.

Saying that, whilst collecting for the RBL at a London train station, I did notice that the Police and the Community Police would stop and interview people who were using a camera in the station.
 
#9
I suppose I can expect my house to be raided soon, as I clearly display pics of my son's pass-out parade !!
 
#10
slopsjon said:
Lots of room for arguing that you photographs are not for illegal purposes.

Saying that, whilst collecting for the RBL at a London train station, I did notice that the Police and the Community Police would stop and interview people who were using a camera in the station.
no really, you would be a arrested for taking a photograph that may be used for terrorism.

you can't get arrested for taking a photograph that may used for illegal purposes. There has to a link to criminal intent, which is missing from the above legislation.
 
#11
Telecomsgeek said:
slopsjon said:
Lots of room for arguing that you photographs are not for illegal purposes.

Saying that, whilst collecting for the RBL at a London train station, I did notice that the Police and the Community Police would stop and interview people who were using a camera in the station.
no really, you would be a arrested for taking a photograph that may be used for terrorism.

you can't get arrested for taking a photograph that may used for illegal purposes. There has to a link to criminal intent, which is missing from the above legislation.
(2) 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.

Doesn't that bit cover taking a photo of your mate who is serving.
 
#12
So I won't be arrested for mooning a guardsman outside Buck Palace then? Wahey!


not under this act anyway...
 
#13
It'll be used to stop the rent a mob scum from taking pictures of the rozzers on duty at any stop the war/pro terrorist demo's, of course it'll also stop any ordinary well mannered citizen from photographing police brutality on any Countryside Alliance march :wink:
 
#14
slopsjon said:
Saying that, whilst collecting for the RBL at a London train station, I did notice that the Police and the Community Police would stop and interview people who were using a camera in the station.
There is some bylaw making it illegal to take photographs on the transport system. The law has been in place for donkey's years but it was originally intended for public safety reasons.

Many moons ago (late 1980's) I had a contract to photograph on the London Underground. Despite the photography being for LRT I was unable to use a tripod or flash equipment and had to carry a letter of permission from a high-up manager. I then still had to seek permission from the Station Manager’s of every Tube station I visited.

As for this new law, it seems so badly worded that it could easily be abused.
 
#15
PsyWar.Org said:
As for this new law, it seems so badly worded that it could easily be abused.
Absolutley 100% certain that this ZANU Labour Government will abuse this law.
 
#16
.Sven said:
It'll be used to stop the rent a mob scum from taking pictures of the rozzers on duty at any stop the war/pro terrorist demo's, of course it'll also stop any ordinary well mannered citizen from photographing police brutality on any Countryside Alliance march :wink:
Ahhhh, those peace loving simple country folk eh? Of course they were merely standing there when Blairs facist boot boys laid into them for no reason. :wink:
 
#17
.Sven said:
PsyWar.Org said:
As for this new law, it seems so badly worded that it could easily be abused.
Absolutley 100% certain that this ZANU Labour Government will abuse this law.
If they're happy to use anti terror legislation to boot out an OAP who spoke up at their conference you can bet your house on them abusing, or allowing the abuse, of this piece of legislation.
 
#18
Sorry I started a new thread - hopefully it will get deleted.

The Home Office says the new offence is intended to help protect those in the frontline of counter-terrorism operations from terrorist attack.

But photographers, professional and amateur, say it means they can be stopped and searched by police at any opportunity.'


However as a professional TV cameraman whilst I don’t necessarily agree with what could be construed as another stealth attack on civil liberties I can understand the need to protect the identities of some sections of our security services.

Amongst intelligent professional camera men/snappers it's common practice to always ask permission before filming a CO 19-type copper (i.e. carrying a fire arm or driving a red panda) In Northern Ireland and Bosnia I always checked before I filmed anyone in green.
Furthermore whilst filming at an incident, if a 'plain clothes' type thinks his PERSEC has been compromised then they will say something and their wishes respected or more likely a uniform will say 'see that scruffy lot over there don't film them' and we won't

Not everyone in the world of media/news respects this - turn up to a protest and there always a load of wannabes running about with little cameras trying to get a 'big' scoop. As regards protocol -they don't give a stuff - but do occasionally get a boot in the arrse in the scrum.

But where does it all stop? It could also be said that although it is now apparently illegal to photograph the police, this is despite the fact that they use increasingly aggressive techniques to record citizens.
 
#19
Following bigeye from his thread
bigeye said:
'Section 76 of the Counter Terrorism Act creates a new offence of eliciting, publishing or communicating information about the Armed Forces, intelligence services or police which may be used by terrorists.
.
Surely it will only be crime if you are aiding terrorists, Taking a photo of the OB aresting someone shouldn't be a problem.
 
#20
The_Seagull said:
.Sven said:
It'll be used to stop the rent a mob scum from taking pictures of the rozzers on duty at any stop the war/pro terrorist demo's, of course it'll also stop any ordinary well mannered citizen from photographing police brutality on any Countryside Alliance march :wink:
Ahhhh, those peace loving simple country folk eh? Of course they were merely standing there when Blairs facist boot boys laid into them for no reason. :wink:
It's because country folk don't know how to behave in a civilised city like London. They should of got drunk, through up in a corner, shouted "come on have a go if you think your hard enough" before trying to break down the barriers and charging into parliment. We Londoners would have been fully behind the country bumkins and their subsidised life, if they knew how to behave properly.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads