Police defend arrest of Colne photographer taking pictures in Accrington (From Lancashire Telegraph)
When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
|
JOIN THE DEBATE BY ADDING YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE STORIES Registering to post comments on the Lancashire Telegraph website only takes a few seconds. Click here to go to the registration page. |
Police defend arrest of Colne photographer taking pictures in Accrington
4:11pm Tuesday 23rd February 2010 in
-
- By Emma Cruces » Reporter
LANCASHIRE police have defended using anti-terror powers before arresting a man taking pictures in a town centre.
Police said they were justified in holding Bob Patefield for eight hours following concerns his actions may have been construed as 'anti-social or indecent’.
The amateur photographer from Colne, was taking snaps of crowds in fancy dress and Christmas festivities in Accrington town centre when officers told him they required his name under the Terrorism Act.
Mr Patefield, who videoed officers throughout a lengthy exchange, responded that he was entitled to keep his details private.
He was then monitored by officers, stopped on two further occasions and told his behaviour was ‘anti-social and suspicious’.
The encounter with officers began when a PCSO told Mr Patefield that because of the Terrorism Act they needed details of anyone taking pictures in the town.
He was told he was free to go after he declined to give his name.
Mr Patefield was then stopped a second time by an officer who said she was concerned he was taking pictures 'sneakily and behind his back'.
Mr Patefield repeatedly asked if he was being detained, before walking away.
He was then stopped as he walked to his car by an officer who said members of the public had been concerned.
He added that Mr Patefield was required to give his details or may be arrested for failing to do so.
On being arrested, Mr Patefield told officers he did not consent to be arrested but that he would not resist arrest.
Footage of his experience has since been posted online.
A police spokesperson urged Mr Patefield to come forward if he had a complaint, adding: “After refusing to give his details to the officers, they withdrew but monitored the situation and felt justified in approaching him again when he continued to use his camera in the same way.
"The constabulary does not routinely stop people taking photographs in a public place but the manner in which he was positioning his camera, and the way it was making some members of the public feel, could be construed as anti-social or indecent.
“The gentleman refused to co-operate on three occasions and so officers felt they had no choice but to make an arrest in order to make further inquiries into his actions."
Comments(64)
RAyzer
says...
4:21pm Tue 23 Feb 10
RAyzer wrote:terrorist in accrington???ha-ha the cops have gone mad!!!what was the target??oddies!!!
what the???the police in England have no common sense at all,for a start detaining him for 8 hours???ii hope this man makes a complaint,and the officers get fired....
burner
says...
4:22pm Tue 23 Feb 10
midas
says...
4:25pm Tue 23 Feb 10
.
He should be prosecuted for wasting police time!
Davidoff
says...
4:30pm Tue 23 Feb 10
However, this is not an isolated incident and indicative of the level of hysteria in this country right now (God help the public if police are armed on the streets is all I can say if they react to something like this!) as some time ago grandparents of a young child were subjected to hours of police interviews after security staff were 'alerted' at a major shopping centre somewhere in the south. They were taking pictures of their own grandchild enjoying shopping with their grandparents. Now, one would imagine a perfectly normal scene when out in a public place and nothing really 'sinister' about it unless it was fairly obvious it was. Security staff harassed them because they felt they were taking indecent pictures of their own grandchild. Yeah, er right, in public? Erm, yeah. Riiiight.
And further ... Security around the London Eye have been getting touchy and stopping tourists with a sharp ticking off for taking pictures of something they've travelled miles to see. They are told to put their cameras away.
I give up, I really do. So, then, anyone now in this country on holiday in another area, using a video camera to record their holiday to keep as a keepsake for future years could potentially be subjected to the same ludriocracy as reported above. My God, is it any wonder justice is topsey turvey then!
ganja man
says...
4:43pm Tue 23 Feb 10
THIS is barking mad!!!
You can be investigated and arrested for being a radical socialist or a communist activist.
People did not realise as to how these terror laws would be used to "terrorise" the proletariat.
Peace loving Anti fascist activists going out by their lawful business too can be subject to arrest.
Time to review the legislation!
ganja man
says...
4:43pm Tue 23 Feb 10
THIS is barking mad!!!
You can be investigated and arrested for being a radical socialist or a communist activist.
People did not realise as to how these terror laws would be used to "terrorise" the proletariat.
Peace loving Anti fascist activists going out by their lawful business too can be subject to arrest.
Time to review the legislation!
kaotic kaos
says...
4:59pm Tue 23 Feb 10
shellywelly
says...
5:10pm Tue 23 Feb 10
I would rather be safe than sorry.
Also - if he was detained for 8 hrs it may be that the police where busy or had to fill out the paperwork that consumes so much of their time.
what did he want to do with the pics anyway??
ExForces
says...
5:34pm Tue 23 Feb 10
another idiot thinking he knows best.
Akki
says...
5:35pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Wikidi
says...
5:49pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Lifeinthemix
says...
6:06pm Tue 23 Feb 10
First criminal act in this case is to have a police impersonator, namely a PCSO acting to enforce the law, only a police Constable can enforce the law but only to keep the peace.
.
Second Criminal act is for Lancashire Police to aid and abet a criminal act in shielding a police officer impersonating a Police Constable.
.
So that is Lancashire Police and the PCSO in question guilty of criminal acts.
.
The photographer is correct that under no circumstances do we need to give our details to police, to do so is to enter into contract with the statute private security.
.
The photographer is also correct in understanding the police have no power to prevent anyone filming or taking pictures in a public building and on the streets, under common law we the people have the god given right to our land and highways.
.
However in taking pictures one should in no way upset people or create the idea ones privacy is being invaded, which sets up the police again with their CCTV extravaganza.
.
On that basis the police are the criminals in this common law court
voxpopuli
says...
6:25pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Lifeinthemix
says...
6:36pm Tue 23 Feb 10
mixtalk.com/?p=10242
MerlinTheVoiceofReason
says...
6:37pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Watch the video on The Guardian website and you will see why. This guy acted entirely reasonably and was just standing up for his and our civil liberties.
People have been taking photos of public events since the camera was invented. Their initial charge was that he was being "anti-social" but failed to say how or why. When challenged they could not elaborate.
The man repeatedly asked if he was being detained and the copper looked very uneasy as she was on video camera and was nervous about slipping up!
Knowing they could not arrest him, and that they could not insist that he gave his name and address, they then invoked section 4 of the Terrorism Act, which is now a catch all for arresting anyone the cops get annoyed by when someone stands up to them.
We had years and years of REAL terrorist activity on our shores when the IRA were active and people were not arrested for taking photographs in town centres. There is something much more sinister going on ... and Lancashire Constabulary need to provide some answers!
MerlinTheVoiceofReason
says...
6:39pm Tue 23 Feb 10
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/video/2010/
feb/21/police-arrest
-photographer
kaotic kaos
says...
7:00pm Tue 23 Feb 10
I watched the video earlier and those guys are just complete and utter prats, all she asked for was his name but no he had to be a clever ****, i could understand if he was just walking down street but he wasn't, he was taking pictures in a town centre, is it not enough that cctv is everywhere yet we have to put up with idiots like this thinking they have the right to photograph anyone they want, i agree with what the police did., they should of
confiscated his camera.
brfcrules
says...
7:05pm Tue 23 Feb 10
MerlinTheVoiceofReason
says...
7:14pm Tue 23 Feb 10
kaotic kaos wrote:Are you the PR spokesman for Lancs Police by any chance? Or a copper?
Why you lot posting the video when it clearly shows it under the article.
I watched the video earlier and those guys are just complete and utter prats, all she asked for was his name but no he had to be a clever ****, i could understand if he was just walking down street but he wasn't, he was taking pictures in a town centre, is it not enough that cctv is everywhere yet we have to put up with idiots like this thinking they have the right to photograph anyone they want, i agree with what the police did., they should of
confiscated his camera.
Why should he give his name? Why is taking photographs wrong? Like them, you have NO answers!
Old Timer
says...
7:39pm Tue 23 Feb 10
The police were not to know the two men were well known in their field of photography and were bona-fida photographers. He was detained for that long period of time for being unco-operative. Had he presented his case in a proper manner and stopped to show some form of identification the matter could have ended there. Amateur photographers are bombarded by magazines about their rites and many times are badly informed about the law of trespass on public property and even issued with useless passes to show they are photographers. If one of those persons who he photographed had been under the jurisdiction of the law Bob could have been arrested for unknowingly taking pictures within the precincts of the court, I bet he didn't know that in his deliberation.
Mr Tickle
says...
7:41pm Tue 23 Feb 10
These people are the reason why respect has gone to pot for any authority. What job does he do anyway? Unemployed???
kaotic kaos
says...
7:45pm Tue 23 Feb 10
MerlinTheVoiceofReasThe police had no idea who he was so instead of just walking past him they simple asked for his details, he had to be stubborn and he got what he deserves, it would be alot different if they ignored him and he turned out to be a terrorist or pedophile, you lot would of had something to say about it then wouldn't you, what is so hard about providing your details.
on wrote:
kaotic kaos wrote:Are you the PR spokesman for Lancs Police by any chance? Or a copper?
Why you lot posting the video when it clearly shows it under the article.
I watched the video earlier and those guys are just complete and utter prats, all she asked for was his name but no he had to be a clever ****, i could understand if he was just walking down street but he wasn't, he was taking pictures in a town centre, is it not enough that cctv is everywhere yet we have to put up with idiots like this thinking they have the right to photograph anyone they want, i agree with what the police did., they should of
confiscated his camera.
Why should he give his name? Why is taking photographs wrong? Like them, you have NO answers!
hugh germany
says...
7:52pm Tue 23 Feb 10
shellywelly wrote:Ever thought of joining the police? Just the kind of thinking they seem to appreciate.
If i caught anyone taking pictures of myself or my children they would have their camera shoved where the sun dont shine. I strongly object to people wandering round with a camera - in todays society its all too common for pedos to be on the loose.
I would rather be safe than sorry.
Also - if he was detained for 8 hrs it may be that the police where busy or had to fill out the paperwork that consumes so much of their time.
what did he want to do with the pics anyway??
Maybe you also think anti-terror laws should cover perverts with cameras, the accusation the police resorted to when nothing else quite stuck.
tonygreaves
says...
7:56pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Perhaps Lancashire Police should issue new instructions to their officers and PCSOs, some of whom appear to be as brain dead as the ones in London and on stations who have been exceeding their authority in this way.
Tony Greaves
Stone Island
says...
7:57pm Tue 23 Feb 10
.
Maybe he was just trying to prove a point.
Ragnarok
says...
8:22pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Some guy decides to take some innocent pictures...of ACCRINGTON Town Centre...Oh,I forgot! Accy centre is a major hub of Scientific and Technological advancement!!!
I'm sure that Al Qaeda is just GAGGING to blow up Accrington,especiall
y since the guy with the camera was called 'Bob Patefield'!
Now there's a TERRORIST name if I ever heard one!
What a load of old SH*TE!
Lifeinthemix
says...
8:29pm Tue 23 Feb 10
.
Very Naughty and as I have said for a long time now, it is set to get much worse if we the people do not begin to exercise every right we have under our constitution...just because we have the right.
.
Rights are lost when people stop exercising them, Britain used to be famed for exercising our rights just to keep them, we have forgotten who we are
Fruitbat
says...
8:59pm Tue 23 Feb 10
1) Thank goodness the Guardian didn't reveal his precious identity inthe video...... oh but put his name in the title
2) For someone so up tight about his identity, why is he seeking publicity in the national press
3) If he was a paedophile taking pictures of children and the Police had stood idily by doing nothing, all you civil rights whingers would be up in arms with your left wing agendas. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
4) How rehearsed were his answers, and his post arrest rhetoric. He obviously set out to provoke the confrontation, video the police and then have his 5 minutes of fame. I'm sure the Police had better things to do, but were they to know he was just a stupid time wasting self publicist.
5) I agree Accrington isn't exactly an obvious target, but just have a think about how much terrorist activity has occurred in East Lancashire in recent years. Theres even a trial ongoing now about the 'Blackburn Resistance'. Now have you watched their video..... that IS laughable!!!
Anyway, I think he deserved his 8 hours at her majestys pleasure for being such a time-wasting, self publicising, arrogant, irritating $%@&.
But that's just my opinion.
Stone Cold
says...
9:03pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Akki wrote:This WAS life in the mix. What a tool this guy was. Polite request, polite answer and on his way without anyone being troubled. Very easy to slag the Police. God, what a job they have without thanks from anyone. Patefield was the one at fault. Well done the Police, more of the same for these idjits please.
I believe this is what 'lifeinthemixer' has been banging on about, come on , lets have a post!
Stone Cold
says...
9:13pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Old Timer wrote:Great post, spot on. The usual c5ap from the do-gooders who spout on about the cops. Glad this cocky idjit got 8 hours in the cells. Think again next time wont he.
Bob Patefield is a well known photographer but that does not allow him the right to refuse to give his name and address to the police when asked to do so, it's as simple as that. I have watched the Guardian website showing the incident and there are two sides to this story. Nowadays we have in our society people who use cameras for other means than just taking snapshots of youngsters. The police were not to know the two men were well known in their field of photography and were bona-fida photographers. He was detained for that long period of time for being unco-operative. Had he presented his case in a proper manner and stopped to show some form of identification the matter could have ended there. Amateur photographers are bombarded by magazines about their rites and many times are badly informed about the law of trespass on public property and even issued with useless passes to show they are photographers. If one of those persons who he photographed had been under the jurisdiction of the law Bob could have been arrested for unknowingly taking pictures within the precincts of the court, I bet he didn't know that in his deliberation.
No wonder people like that Michael Craig fella with 101 convictions get to that amount with you lot out there. Cops are damned if they do and damned if they dont. Wish some of you perfect people would have the guts to get on a uniform and actually contribute something to your community instead of dividing it! Who would be a copper in this day and age? Well not LITM, Rayzer, Ganja Man, Ragnorak, Tony "expenses" Greaves, katoic kaos, etc. You might actually have to get up from the keyboard, off your opnionated fat ar5e5 and go and do some bloody work. Love you to make a pigs ear of something so I could boo and hiss everything you did. Tools!
Stone Cold
says...
9:15pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Stone Cold
says...
9:19pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Fruitbat wrote:Its a top top post.
A few observations - 1) Thank goodness the Guardian didn't reveal his precious identity inthe video...... oh but put his name in the title 2) For someone so up tight about his identity, why is he seeking publicity in the national press 3) If he was a paedophile taking pictures of children and the Police had stood idily by doing nothing, all you civil rights whingers would be up in arms with your left wing agendas. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. 4) How rehearsed were his answers, and his post arrest rhetoric. He obviously set out to provoke the confrontation, video the police and then have his 5 minutes of fame. I'm sure the Police had better things to do, but were they to know he was just a stupid time wasting self publicist. 5) I agree Accrington isn't exactly an obvious target, but just have a think about how much terrorist activity has occurred in East Lancashire in recent years. Theres even a trial ongoing now about the 'Blackburn Resistance'. Now have you watched their video..... that IS laughable!!! Anyway, I think he deserved his 8 hours at her majestys pleasure for being such a time-wasting, self publicising, arrogant, irritating $%@&. But that's just my opinion.
cyberpaul
says...
10:11pm Tue 23 Feb 10
It also proves that Airstrip One is no longer a democracy - if it ever was one in the first place.
Problem is though is that there is a surplus of unemployable wan**ers who can only find jobs in "make-work" public sector nothing-jobs like being PCSOs.
PCSO actually stands for "Pill*ck Can't Solve Owt". Plastic Coppers one and all - like real coppers but without the charisma and brains.
What a sh*thouse our country has become thanks to laws designed to control the people instead of protect them.
GrahamJ
says...
10:28pm Tue 23 Feb 10
The next photographer playing this cat and mouse game could be a terrorist.
The Police didn't invoke the Terrorist Act. This was an escalation by the photographer who chose the path to custody.
happycyclist
says...
11:15pm Tue 23 Feb 10
Lifeinthemix
says...
11:21pm Tue 23 Feb 10
.
For gods sake if you watch the video to its conclusion you see he was released without charge...thus proving that his right to not consent to any of the action by the police Constable impersonators was not only his right but is the law.
.
How can anyone lay siege on the man for acting as an Englishmen...even though he is from Colne!!!
Lifeinthemix
says...
11:24pm Tue 23 Feb 10
anytime
LT is bought and paid for, it is the media dont you know...
JohnR1
says...
12:50am Wed 24 Feb 10
On the other hand, the PCSO cited section the section 44 terrorism act as her reason for wanting his name and address, this act DOES NOT require an individual to reveal their identity. Also this act requires that the area where people can be stopped under the act is specified in a warrant raised by the Chief Constable of the force in question. As many on here have said, I doubt Accy town centre is on one of these warrants. London, the undeground and all railways are permanently on a section 43/44 warrant. The PCSO then went to her police 'guardian' and suddenly the reason for needing his name was changed to the antisocial behaviour legislation which DOES require an individual to identify themselves. The Seargent said that several members of the public had complained that he was acting anti-socially - I suspect the Seargent was lying at this point. We will never know the truth about this but rest assured, the photographer was 'having a go' and the police were in the wrong so both sets of arguments hold water. Yes he was wasting police time but on the other hand, the PCSO should know her law and the real coppers should not have lied to get the desired result.
If you 'police injustice' people want something to really get your teeth into, go the the Guardian website and look at the video and on the same page, look at the one of the Italian student in London for some real footage of injustice and downright slovenly PCSO's aching for an arrest.
CapitaBackHander
says...
1:03am Wed 24 Feb 10
The policeman who tries to shove the camera away and does should be spoken to, he would love one on his shoulder while on some Police program but he didn't like it while it showed him up.
Lucky he was in Lancashire, Greater Manchester would have 'dealt' with him AND the camera plusthe footage would NOT exist.
AnthonyUK
says...
7:56am Wed 24 Feb 10
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!
Old Timer
says...
8:11am Wed 24 Feb 10
I suppose he will then give his full name and address to the constabulary.......
mi lud.
jackmetickler
says...
8:54am Wed 24 Feb 10
Ban all mobile phones..
Imprison the artistic...
or
Just get properly trained Police supported by pratical laws.. and a bit of common dog...
I know I know common sense and the law ... theres a laugh.
Never mind I am sure some grasping avaricious Lawyer will make some money out of it somewhere.
burner
says...
10:34am Wed 24 Feb 10
Little Diamond
says...
11:14am Wed 24 Feb 10
The police as far as I can see from the video DID NOT arrest him under section 4 terrorism. They used setion 2 which relates to anti social behaviour.
I don't want smart arses like "Mr I know my rights I don't want anyone to know my name" Bob Patefield looking after my civil liberties thank you very much.
AnthonyUK
says...
11:32am Wed 24 Feb 10
insigniades
says...
12:06pm Wed 24 Feb 10
We no longer live in a free land, we are under the powers of idiots who do nothing but abuse their rights.
I'm sure if they examined the mans camera they would find nothing that could point to terrorism and or anti social behaviour.
"the manner in which he was positioning his camera" I wish the police officer would have elaborated on this as I am intrigued as to what position could trigger an alarm.
Anyway, Bob lost 8 hours of his time due to extreme idiocy by the police force and nothing can be done about it now. I would certainly be filing a complaint.
Little Diamond
says...
12:36pm Wed 24 Feb 10
As I said on my previous post Patefield is a smart arse!
AnthonyUK
says...
1:16pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Little Diamond wrote:Why do you stick up for the cops and their overzealous killjoy spoilsport-in-the-na
READ THE REPORT WATCH THE VIDEO. The silly man went looking for it and got it. At best this was a stupid ill-conceived publicity stunt and at worst a deliberate attempt at wasting police time. As I said on my previous post Patefield is a smart arse!
me-of-terrorism attitude and blast this man? He has the right not to give his name and address for something perfectly legitimate like taking photographs or taking video of local celebrations and events, if you are going to stop him from taking video and photos of events then you might as well use those same powers to ban and target everybody doing the same thing at local celebrations and events! If you do not then it's truly a case of doublestandards for the polices' conduct towards the general public. It's NOT terrorism NOR is it antisocial behaviour to take video and pix of local celebrations and events;the police are just using this as an excuse to justify the harrassment and interference towards people doing something that is perfectly legitimate, OK Little Diamond tell me where in law it says that taking video and photographs of local celebrations and events is illegal and that it constitutes an act of terrorist or antisocial behaviour if you can. I bet there is NOTHING in it whatsoever!
Lifeinthemix
says...
2:18pm Wed 24 Feb 10
First I am not what you call part of the freeman movement, which incidentally leads to nought...
.
All statutes come from the law of the sea, we kept civil law and merchant law separate for very good reason, common law treats us as human beings under common sense law to be judged by our piers.
.
Statute law deals in contracts and the sale of assets, from the 1930 western bankruptcy's we all became assets of United Kingdom Corporation sole, and as such we are now dealt with not as human beings but as commodities...assets to be traded as such. This is what your birth certificate now means, you are a certified asset of the UK to be dealt with as British Admiralty sees fit from its land office the Bank of England.
.
Jesus when spoke of walking on water was in fact describing how the people of his time could walk on the see(law) without letting it touch you.
.
You have to understand this to understand statute law and why the police always need your corporate name...denoted capitol letters.
.
To use the term life of the mix family presents your common law human self as opposed to the corporate creation of a vessel (ship) or person, you are not a person you are a human being, thus to not give your name is to not enter into the corporate contract with the corporate police officers, they operate the statute law while only a police constable can enforce common law.
ganja man
says...
2:50pm Wed 24 Feb 10
The terror legislation is being abused by the authorities. Check the statistics.
As you say your lordship some officers and PCSO's in London are braindead. The worst places are London St Pancras, Waterloo, London Euston and Victoria Station. We need more intelligent officers and PCSO's.
This terror legislation needs to be reviewed as it is clearly infringing on the CIVIL LIBERTIES of ordinary people like us. All this was predicted at the time the legisaltion was passed. How about being detained for 28 days wihout charge and no recourse to see the "evidence" to be used against you.
Are we in Orwells's big brother state yet, or not?
ganja man
says...
2:50pm Wed 24 Feb 10
The terror legislation is being abused by the authorities. Check the statistics.
As you say your lordship some officers and PCSO's in London are braindead. The worst places are London St Pancras, Waterloo, London Euston and Victoria Station. We need more intelligent officers and PCSO's.
This terror legislation needs to be reviewed as it is clearly infringing on the CIVIL LIBERTIES of ordinary people like us. All this was predicted at the time the legisaltion was passed. How about being detained for 28 days wihout charge and no recourse to see the "evidence" to be used against you.
Are we in Orwells's big brother state yet, or not?
Gaius Grossus
says...
3:15pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Gaius Grossus
says...
3:18pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Little Diamond
says...
3:18pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Are you actually suggesting that the police picked this guy out at random? He must have been doing something to attract attention,
Lifeinthemix
says...
3:55pm Wed 24 Feb 10
.
This will create the need for the call for help from the European police and military in domestic affairs, remembering our military is overseas....who's going to protect you now......?
Izanears
says...
4:23pm Wed 24 Feb 10
disgusted tunbridge wells
says...
5:08pm Wed 24 Feb 10
bikerjohn_uk
says...
6:54pm Wed 24 Feb 10
shellywelly wrote:Why do you object to photographers? By your argument, anyone who uses a camera for any purpose is a paedophile (learn to spell, by the way). Do you object to yourself when you take photos on holiday? Do you object to the person who takes your children's school photographs? Assuming that they go to school. Think before you post.
If i caught anyone taking pictures of myself or my children they would have their camera shoved where the sun dont shine. I strongly object to people wandering round with a camera - in todays society its all too common for pedos to be on the loose.
I would rather be safe than sorry.
Also - if he was detained for 8 hrs it may be that the police where busy or had to fill out the paperwork that consumes so much of their time.
what did he want to do with the pics anyway??
Shane
says...
7:23pm Wed 24 Feb 10
Little Diamond wrote:Unfortunately I believe you have to have smart arses like Patefield that keep the b#sta*ds honest.
Lifeinthemix, Merlin, Happy cyclist, Capia backhander and all the other "care in the community residents" have a look in the mirror and grow up. Read fruitbat's post and rethink. This guy went out armed with information to enable him to argue the legal rights and wrongs of the situation, he went looking for confrontation, The police as far as I can see from the video DID NOT arrest him under section 4 terrorism. They used setion 2 which relates to anti social behaviour. I don't want smart arses like "Mr I know my rights I don't want anyone to know my name" Bob Patefield looking after my civil liberties thank you very much.
.
I do believe they would have been better trying to charge him under the mental health act
Lifeinthemix
says...
8:24pm Wed 24 Feb 10
.
This mental health act garbage comes on the back of changes made while the flu pandemic scam was in full swing, happy of course to see it was demolished by the populations in the West.
.
Those pushing this mental health detainment issue come directly out of the common purpose subversive network, so I question your motives here
Lifeinthemix
says...
8:43pm Wed 24 Feb 10
.
Get out on the streets and peacefully film and photograph and always be polite, never get aggressive or abusive and exercise your right to free speech and free movement without being harassed by the corporate private security
thegobster
says...
4:10pm Sat 27 Feb 10
R Duluth
says...
12:52am Sun 28 Feb 10
More News stories
- Blackburn College University Centre boss resigns after suspension
- Darwen ‘cowboy builder’ in £23,000 OAP fraud charge agrees payback
- Football crazy Lillie Lawson, 8, signs for Blackburn Rovers
- Burnley soldier fined for New Year’s Eve attack
- Schoolboy biker recovering from horrific Chorley smash in warning to other riders
- Firefighters tackle Great Harwood fire
- Burnley FC chairman Barry Kilby to stand down in May due to health problems
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
RAyzer says...
4:20pm Tue 23 Feb 10