We need to start raising funds for the local Elections in 2011, I would like to appeal to all members and supporters to donate what you can this month.
Our account number is 92635313 Sort Code 40-28-20
Our immediate target is £2000. We are looking to open a permanent office to handle donations and all the other administration and membership applications.
Times are hard but every £5 and £10 is income in the right direction.
This video was taken last Saturday by Jules Mattsson, a 16 year old freelance photographer, who tells his story here. (It's also reported by the British Journal of Photography and various others.) Ironically, the incident took place the day after photojournalist Marc Vallee and videographer Jason Parkinson won their case against the Metropolitan Police for preventing them from recording a demonstration at the Greek Embassy.
The most obvious question raised by the video is "Do we want to live in a country where the police regularly stop people who are taking pictures in public places?" But it's not the only issue.
Another is the question "Why are police officers apparently so ignorant of the law?" I've put together an abbreviated transcript below to show this. There are a few things that readers will notice. One is the number of times Mr. Mattsson asks "Under which law?" Another is how infrequently he gets an answer. A third is that the police change their story. Sometimes Mr. Mattsson is told that the problem is that he is photographing children, sometimes the problem is that he is photographing a military parade and there is a danger of terrorism. They aren't even sure why he isn't supposed to photograph a police officer. One gets the impression that the police don't really know what they are allowed to do. And when law enforcement officers are ignorant of the law - doesn't that suggest that perhaps we have too many laws?
But there is a third question. Who is responsible for the situation we are in when police officers are under the impression that they can stop people who photograph children and military parades in public places?
Abbreviated Transcript: (Abbreviated because it's somewhat repetitive, it's long enough, and sometimes unclear because two or more people are talking at the same time.)
Police: The trouble is, sir, you’re taking photographs of children. You’ve been asked to stop, and you failed to do so. Jules Mattsson: Because there’s no reasonable reason to stop. You have no power to take photographs of military personnel. When asked a question all you’ve got to do is answer. I was asked a question. I said what I was doing. You’ve already taken down my details. That’s right. We can do that. Under what law? (x3) ...My date of birth. I don’t have to give it. Under what law are you taking my details? (x3) Don’t have to have any law to take your details. Yes you do. No we don’t.... ... if they’ve given you permission . .. Are you saying sir, that in a public place, I have to ask permission of every person in my picture? I don’t. I know the law.
However, when you’re asked to stop photographing children, that then becomes a little bit of a grey area. Well, if it’s a grey area, why am I being detained? You’re not being detained. Why did he prevent me from leaving? You were acting silly. ...You were running around. I wasn’t running around. I was walking away from your officer ...when he grabbed my arm, twisted it, and tried to grab my camera.... Can I have my ID back? ... I’m going to carry on working in this area.
At the moment, in this area they are trying to form up the parade, safely and securely. They are welcome to do so, and I’m trying to do my job. Under what law am I being detained? I’m allowed to have free movement because this is a public place...Under what law am I being detained? ....
Tell my why I'm being detained. You're not. You're able to leave... that way.
You’re in the way I'm not in the way. You're in the way. Do you not understand? I was never in anyone's way. What the question was, was my right to take a picture in a public place, as by law guaranteed. Is that not correct? Unfortunately with regard to ... Have you read the metropolitan police guidelines for dealing with the media? When it regards to coming into contact with children and photographing children from an area (?) group, parents have to sign a consent form with regards to children. No they don't. Not for editorial use, they don't. I’ve been doing this for years.
If you'd like to leave that way. I don't want to leave the area, because I'm trying to work here. Now, under what law am I being asked to leave the area? I'm moving you . . . breach of the peace . . . you're right in the middle of a military parade... I regard you as a hazard to the public right now. ...You will get trampled by soldiers. I am aware of how to photograph a parade. We are concerned about terrorism at this event. Taking photographs of police officers and police staff is a criminal offence, under these circumstances. That's not true. No it's not. Under what law? ...Can you tell me what law it's an offence under? Young man, you are an agitator. I'm not an agitator. I'm trying to find out what law it's an offence under. Let me carry on with my work. You will not interfere with the parade. I'm not interfering with the parade. I am not detaining you. Then why am I not allowed to freely move around the area? You are not allowed to push past me. I'm not trying to push past you. I tried to walk, and you stood in my way. Tell me under what law it's an offence to photograph a police officer. Under what law? I have better things to do. Then you have no legal basis to detain me, and I'm going to carry on working. ... I took a picture, one person stopped me and said “You have to ask permission” and I said “No I don’t” and I carried on.
We will facilitate you in your taking pictures, but you will not... Take your hand off my lens. You know what? I consider you a threat under the terrorism act. Hey. Give me my camera back. Hands off me please. Under what law am I being detained, officer? Under what law am I being detained, officer? Could you please get your hand off me and tell me under what law am I being detained. Hands of me please. If you're arresting me you have to tell me what law it is under. Is that correct?... Oi! Did you just push me down the stairs? The officer just pushed me down the stairs. Hands off me please. Why am I being detained? ... your safety, taking images of children while their parents are present, in the very vocal disordered state that you are in ... I'm not vocal ... I got vocal when I was pushed down the stairs by a police officer. .. Could you please stop doing it? There's no restriction on photographing you, is there? We do not wish to be photographed by you. Well you don't really have a right to stop me. Can you please take your hands of my lens. Could you give me my camera. ...You have no legal right to do that. . . Because, I'm being detained illegally, and I have a right to photograph. Why is your hand on my lens? I've asked you politely please do not take pictures of me because it will stop me doing covert operations in the future. No, that's not in law actually. Under what law? My public privacy law ... In a public place there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
...to prevent a breach of the peace. OK. A breach of the peace. How? You know what you were doing. I took a picture. And that's my right to do so. And it was. And we would support your right to photograph this parade in a reasonable way. However what you will not do, is you will not purposely disrupt uniformed police officers... I did not purposely disrupt anything. One of your uniformed staff. .. I'm not going to stop Do you know what? I've told you why you're detained. You are detained. I'm Inspector ---. That's on my authority ... Under what law? The public order act? ...to prevent a breach of the peace because of the anxiety you were causing among members of the public back there ... the anxiety I was causing taking pictures ... ... you are detained. You have been acting in an antisocial manner... I have not been acting in an antisocial manner. Under what law am I going to supply my details? Breach of the peace. That's not breach of the peace law ...
Edit: The Registerapparently telephoned the Metropolitan Police to inquire what the law was in relation to taking photographs on the street.
The member of staff who took the call was aware that it was legal to photograph police officers – but rather less good when it comes to exercising one’s legal right to photograph other people, including children. He told us: "You can’t just go round taking photos."
This just to let you know that the South East branch of the Libertarian Party will being meeting for drinks and chat this Thursday, July 1st.
As usual we will be at the Rose and Crown in Southwark. And we will be there from 6:30 onwards.
The pub has a wonderful beer garden so if the weather holds we should be able to enjoy some drinks in the sun. Something that should make up for England's woeful display this weekend.
We hope to see you there. And if you haven't been before here is a map...
First the Fabians promised Cradle to Grave 'welfare'
The latter day Fabians extended this to profiling before you are born and taxing you after your death.
We are now in the final stages if the 'Crisis of Fabianism'
Taxes soaring both direct and indirect, 'services' by the State being cut back, but the public sector stays intact to be supported by the groaning mass of the people.
The Ponzi scheme is now at breaking point, the pensioners entering the last hurdle are now being told that the pension promise of the monthly mugging of their wage packet is going to be deferred, to the point of you carry on working until total decrepitude and the period between that and death is shortened, because it is our fault because we are living too long and screwing up the figures.
Many individuals could have enjoyed a comfortable retirement, but for the relentless taxation of the last thirty plus years, those that did save found their funds being targeted by Gordon.
A grandmother has been jailed for five years for possessing a "family heirloom" World War II pistol.
Gail Cochrane, 53, had kept the gun for 29 years following the death of her father, who had been in the Royal Navy.
Police found the weapon, a Browning self-loading pistol, during a search of her home in Dundee while looking for her son.
She admitted illegal possession of the firearm, an offence with a minimum five-year jail term under Scots law.
Cochrane told the High Court in Edinburgh that she had never contemplated she might be committing a crime by keeping the gun or that she might need to get a licence for the weapon.
Truly disgusting. That's the only comment I can sum this up with.
I do wonder what the people below would have to say about this.
We now know what Labour thought the answer was to this problem. Over the thirteen years of left of centre government the maximum tax take was in 2007-8, when taxes took 36.4% of all our incomes or GDP. This compared with the Conservative high of 38.2% in 1982-3 when the then Conservative government was tackling the large inherited debt from the previous Labour government, and with the 31.8% low the Conservatives got it down to at a later date. Labour inherited 34% and always charged more than that in their thirteen years.
This is why the new government is right to say we have to cut spending. Spending is running near to 50% of GDP. It needs to be realistic in relation to possible tax levels which are more than 10% of GDP lower. Why should we think suddenly the UK economy can sustain taxes of more than 40% of GDP when no previous government in the last 40 years has thought that possible? Who would stay to pay them? Who would carry on working hard and risking and investing more in such a climate? It’s a very competitive world economy, and our main economic competitors already have income taxes and capital taxes well below ours.
Following on from the horrific events in Cumbria, it was completely predictable that statist politicians such as John Pugh and Chris Williamson would come out of the woodwork to advocate yet more bans on lawful firearms ownership. Naturally they fail to provide any evidence that any further gun bans will reduce the likelihood of the next massacre, because there is no such evidence. People who want to commit murder will do so, whatever the law says. Certainly Derrick Bird's actions appear at this point to have been premeditated. If he hadn't used legally owned guns to do what he did, he'd have used firearms bought on the black market – and black market guns are easier to acquire than legal ones these days, especially if you want something that's currently prohibited.
The 1988 and 1997 Firearms Acts were sold as being intended to prevent future atrocities such as happened in Hungerford and Dunblane. They have clearly not had that effect, so what makes anyone think that further bans will improve the situation? The only obvious effect current legislation had on the outcome of the Cumbria massacre was to ensure that Bird's victims were all unarmed and therefore easy targets. If only one of the random people who crossed Bird's path on that day had been armed, they would have been in with a chance of stopping him, or at least slowing him down. A few decades ago this would have been more likely, as the gun laws were more laid back then.
But there's one more thing about this event that I've been wondering about – did Bird just suddenly snap or did he feel himself deteriorating over time, as his problems gradually started to get on top of him? There is a story that he tried to get himself admitted to a mental hospital just a day or two before the massacre, but was turned away – I don't know if that's true or not. But if it was a gradual process, did he seek help earlier? If not, why not? Could he have been deterred from seeking professional help by the 1997 Firearms (Amendment) Act? To see what I mean by this, pop along to the Merseyside Police website and download either a Form 101 (application for a Firearm Certificate) or a Form 103 (application for a Shotgun Certificate) and read Section 16. It reads “I hereby give permission for the police to approach my GP to obtain factual details of my medical history.” It's something that was added to the form as a result of the 1997 Act. That on it's own is enough to deter any licensed gun owner from seeing his doctor if he starts suffering from any emotional or psychological problems – he'd be scared that the fact that he's being treated for depression or whatever would get back to the police and that they'd use it as an excuse to revoke his FAC or SGC. Did this fact deter Bird from seeking help before it was too late? I don't know, we'll probably never know. Would a councelling or therapy have helped to prevent him going off the rails? Again, I don't know and we'll probably never know. It's not like psychology is an exact science.
But what does seem obvious to me is that clause in our draconian gun laws actually increases the risk of licensed gun owners developing problems in the future – probably not by very much but the possibility's there. Something to think about.
Now, I know it's the wrong continent, but I thought UK Libertarians might be interested in a quick overview of what our colonial cousins have been up to recently in the field of Liberty.
Patri Friedman (grandson of economist Milton Friedman) has a pet project which is just starting to get off the ground. The Seasteading Festival, or "Ephemerisle" is into it's second year now.
This year, the amorphous aglomoration of rafts, which annually accumulate in the Sacremento River delta will have it's own currency, dispute resolution system, and a system of polycentric "bylaws" on things like nudity, alcohol and children.
Nick Clegg has said “We will ask you which laws you think should go.”
So - what about Sections 44 to 47 of Terrorism Act 2000? These sections gave the police powers to randomly stop and search someone without reasonable suspicion, providing the person was in an area which had been designated a likely target for an attack.
The uses that these police have found for these powers have been many and varied.
There was the detention of Walter Wolfgang. 82-year-old Mr Wolfgang was ejected from the 2005 Labour Party Conference for heckling, and when he attempted to re-enter the conference, he was detained and held by the police under Section 44 powers.
And there are the photographers. According to the Independent, a BBC journalist was stopped and searched by two police community support officers as he took photographs of St Paul's Cathedral.
And then there are the train spotters. Last year Mr. Norman Baker, who is now Parliamentary Under Secretary for the Department for Transport, discovered that Section 44 powers had been used to stop 62,584 people at railway stations. At the time he commented “The anti-terror laws allow officers to stop people for taking photographs and I know this has led to innocent trainspotters being stopped. This is an abuse of anti-terrorism powers and a worrying sign that we are sliding towards a police state.”
I know of no evidence that Section 44 is actually necessary. The police would probably claim that it is, but I’m not sure why I should believe them. The evidence I see suggests that while the police like to have these powers, they are simply not able to use them properly - and are regularly using them improperly.
So Mr. Clegg - please repeal Sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000. They aren't necessary, and they are taking away our freedom.
Nick Clegg has promised reform. He has said “We will repeal all of the intrusive and unnecessary laws that inhibit your freedom." He has said “We will ask you which laws you think should go.”
So, what about the knife ban? The Criminal Justice Act 1988 introduced, at Section 139, the new offence of having an article with a blade or point in public place. It makes interesting reading, but the gist of it is that any person who has an article with a blade or sharp point (other than a folding pocket knife with a blade less than 3 inches long) in a public place is guilty of an offence - unless a) the person is able to prove that a) he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place or b) he had the article with him for use at work or c) he had it with him for religious reasons or d) he had it with him as part of a national costume - any national costume would do.
It is very difficult not to laugh. What would our ancestors have thought? If I were to pick up a bread knives in the kitchen, walk out the door, up the path, and out the garden gate, and onto the street, without a good reason, I would become guilty of a criminal offence.
Actually, I don’t tend to do this, so I don’t think that this one affects me personally. But then I imagine that Rodney Knowles and Brian Seaton thought that it didn’t affect them, either. And even if one is not charged, one could well end up (like Dale McAlpine) spending a few hours in the cells if a police constable doesn’t think that your reason for carrying a knife is good enough.
Now I know that some people are going to say “Aaaargh! We’ll all be murdered in our beds if the knife ban is repealed!” Er, no. I certainly don’t remember feeling any safer in on the streets in 1989 than I was in 1987. And Austria, where the knife laws are considerably less restrictive than those of the UK, is not known for particularly dangerous streets. (In fact, Vienna is reputed to have a pretty good quality of life.) I know of no evidence to suggest that the 1988 knife ban has done anything to reduce violent crime in Britain. (See discussion here and here.)
Every adult should be free to use their legitimately acquired property in whatever manner they choose, so long as in doing so, they do not harm or infringe upon the freedom of others. Carrying a knife hurts no one. So it should not be a criminal offence. And banning the carrying of knives does not stop malicious people carrying knives. So what is the point?
In the grand scale of things, repealing Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is not that important. But it would be an important sign that the government is moving away from knee-jerk responses to problems and from the obsessive desire that politicians seem to have for banning things.
The LPUK manifesto says: "We will amend the 1988 Criminal Justice Act to prevent law-abiding people from being prosecuted for the simple act of having sharp or pointed objects in their possession. This Act has led to perverse court rulings resulting in innocent people being convicted for carrying the tools of their trade and other non-weapons, and it has done nothing to reduce violent crime."
The tragic events of the past 24 hours are a reminder that the knee-jerk gun bans of the past Conservative and Labour governments have had no effect on the potential use of firearms in mass murders.
Before 1967, when anyone could go into a shop and walk out with a shotgun, gun crime was rare and gun massacres were unheard of. Since then, the systematic legislation and confiscation of privately owned firearms has not hampered shootings, which have risen despite the most draconian laws in the western world being implemented.
Banning semi-auto centre-fire rifles was sold as a measure to stop a repeat of the Hungerford massacre.
Banning pistols was sold as a measure to stop a repeat of the Dunblane massacre, almost ten years later.
Fourteen years later a shotgun and a rifle are used to indiscriminately kill 12 and wound 25 people.
Restrictions on the type of gun someone can own does not hamper a gun owner's ability to shoot human targets. These restriction do however hamper a gun owner's ability to partake in certain sporting disciplines, pursue a harmless interest, and if necessary, defend one's self from an attack.
As libertarians, we must continue to vehemently oppose any further attempts to widen the failed experiment of gun control and instead point to the ineffectiveness of restrictions already in place - the toughest in the western world.
All views on this blog represent the views of the author(s) and not the Libertarian Party. Unless otherwise stated. To find out more about the Libertarian Party's policies please visit the party website.The picture of the Houses of Parliament in the header logo was produced with thanks to Alvesgaspar. Under the GNU Free Documentation License
