In what characteristics of Country do the Police want "no law" to detain a Human Being.?

That's right,...no law is need to arrest and detain someone.

Two police officer stopped a teenage photographer from taking pictures of an Armed Forces Day show - and then claimed they did not need a regulation to detain him.

Jules Mattsson, a 16-year-old freelancer from Hackney, east London, was photographing police cadets on Saturday when he be ordered to stop and give his personal details by an adult cadet officer who claimed he needed parental approval to capture images of the cadet. After arguing his rights in a series of protracted legal debate with officers, the sixth former say he was pushed down a set of stairs and detained for breaching the peace until the parade passed.

see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQucfv0sl…

I influence sue them.

We all of us should be aware of the so called "fright threat" and be watchful for "who" exactly is behind the alleged fright, but if we allow the "threat" of terror (which we are constantly warned just about through the Media) to turn the United Kingdom into a nation where honest law abiding harmonious human beings cannot take photos of PUBLIC events, where will this finishing.

WHERE ARE YOUR PAPERS?

Which brings me back to the original quiz...

In what kind of Country do the Police need "no law" to detain a Human Being.

WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY?
Answers:
"After arguing his rights contained by a series of protracted legal debates near officers"

To me it sounds like he was cause a disturbance, and wanted to make a spectacle of himself. He get his wish as far as I'm concerned.
MEXICO.
this once fine country . uk
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Im-a-Photo…
the relation shows more persecution of photographers.
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/…

Not only detain but to torture and blame wrongfully.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news… arrested for wearing an anti bush shirt. Doesnt **** like this happen adjectives the time in n korea?
People grasp the Hell that their cowardice presents to them. The people of Britain have become meagre servile needy creatures. An out of control parliament, a bulling local council situation, police treading over everybody's rights......Its a nightmare because the population are too scared of authority to kick its (a)rse. The general public own the country. Not a little group of lying deceiving thieving fat lice in parliament. Its about time the British relatives grew a set of balls and took their country back.
In the US, police can detain suspect short making any charges for a brief period of time. People are otherwise protected by the law of habeas corpus. Oftentimes, the police will verbs to hold someone while investigating a major crime by filing more minor charges. Even consequently, the suspect is fairly quickly brought up until that time a judge on a bail hearing.
The US vertebrae in the 1700's.
Well, we all know Britain is prompt becoming a wretched police state
but to answer your question under part 44 of the Terror Act 2000, the police and public officials have some highly vague wording that they exploit to make it "illegal" to photograph public servants and since the Terror Act already allows for detainment minus charge, there you have it.
next to the new policing cuts maybe the police thugs will not enjoy time to persecute innocent photographers.
i think jules should take his aggressors to court. he should also contact his local MP and grasp the case raised within the house of commons.
Yes, this is now adjectives place in the UK. We can't even take photos or video at our own kid's nativity plays anymore. Even taking photos in shopping centres or beach have been challenge by the wannabe Nazis that rule us.

AND:
I wonder if nubes Dave the Rave or Clever Cloggy will repeal any of these so-called anti-terror laws that were made by Bliar and Gormless? I wouldn't hold your breath. It suits both Labour AND Tory agendas.
Any liberal utopia....aka communist nation, like Cuba or China.
I agree with Rob71 to be honest - and I'm a member of Liberty.

I've watch the link and the young man have a range of options available to him which he seem to shun in favour of goad the police into a hostile reaction which he could capitalise on. There are genuine cases surrounded by which the police act in an indecorous manner and there are a quantity of options which are available to those who are genuinely aggrieved - the IPCC, local MP and even the courts where on earth rights have been seriously infringed.

A reporter next to a stronger desire to be the news than report it arouses little more than irritation for me, to be honest.


Related Questions: