Don't be scared of the National Security Act 2023
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 бер 2024
- buymeacoffee.com/pinaci_news
Don't be scared of the National Security Act 2023 if you're a photographer because it ONLY applies if you have bad intentions towards the UK.
Clips courtesy of....
DJE Media... www.youtube.com/@DJEmedia88/v...
POLITE CAMERA ACTION... / @politecameraaction
Auditing Britain... / @auditingbritain
And myself !
National Security Act 2023... www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...
.
You just know how "prejudicial" will be interpreted ~ plod will place the burden of proof on the citizen!
Another very good reason to stay silent and not say anything to the police. As soon as you speak then you run the risk of incriminating yourself, so stay silent.
Jerry
Don't know about down there in Englandshire BUT up here in Scotland when any charges are made and it goes to Court the BURDEN OF PROOF lies with the PROSECUTION. So SAY NOTHING AND PLEAD NOT GUILTY and if they charge you then the thick, moronic, cretins that are POLICE will have to JUSTIFY their actions in a COURT. I would reckon that someone in the CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE will work out that the POLICE got it wrong, YET AGAIN, and the charges will be DROPPED/THROWNOUT.
POLICE AND SO CALLED JUSTICE SYSTEM CORRUPT FROM THE TOP.
They all ways will and do
The problem as I see it, it’s another piece of legislation that plod will either misunderstand or deliberately misinterpret to violate the rights of photographers and to stop them carrying out a lawful activity. As we all know plod hate anyone taking pictures and will try any underhand trick to stop them.
The police will be itching to abuse this law.
They abuse every other Law...why would this one be any different
Exposing these places and how our taxes are being wasted is in the public interest and beneficial to the people.
National Security Act means nowt.
It means 14 years inside and probably five years on bail awaiting trial.
that act is a new arrangement of the same words that didn't mean anything before and still doesn't. As before they would have to prove intent of terrorism and can do nothing to citizen journalists performing a legal activity lawfully.
Auditors are not in any way citizen journalists.
It’s a lot wider.
It’s for where the purpose is for acts prejudicial to the “interests” of U.K.
That’s way more than terrorism.
It could even be to stop foreign governments seeing UK designs of aircraft.
If the purpose is to show the world a new aeroplane before it’s launched I think this could cover that, if they’re trying to keep it quiet.
I've been waiting for someone to cover this. Just busy, will watch asap. Liked the vid already 😂
Link to NSA 2023 in the description. On PC or laptop just press Ctrl+F and type photo in search box, then keep pressing enter to see any mention of photo throughout the legislation.
@@PINACI Now that's a man who knows how to research....
Just about to go do some auditing so this is useful information. Cheers mate appreciate it
You always do great video's. Very interesting 👌 😊
"Theres no camping on the filmus"
Another example of rules written to make people act as if theyre mentally ill.
1:20 cross between the guy off the King Edward cigar packet (King Edward VII), and Milburn Pennybags (the guy off the monopoly box).
Small people, big jobs.
Hopefully it won't be misused like section 44 was and section 43 is now of the Terrorism Act.
Dream on.
@@FirstNameLastName-ev3jkOh yes, dream on, I agree.
I wrote it with that in mind as we know it will be misused and abused.
“For a purpose prejudicial to the interest of U.K.”
You’re spot on. Correct.
So far, so good.
“….the person OUGHT to reasonably know the purpose is prejudicial…”
Wow. That’s big.
But it still says you ought to know the PURPOSE is prejudicial. Not that it IS or may be prejudicial
I suspect they’ll argue it means you ought to have known it was prejudicial but it says you ought to have known the PURPOSE was prejudicial.
By a very fine margin, I think you’re right.
The problem is that there’s 14 years inside and probably a five year wait for trial to get a case law.
Real result; no pictures of MOD.
The case of Chandler vs DPP [1964] AC 763 looks at what is meant by 'purpose' and 'prejudicial to the security of the state'. It was a case based on the old Official Secrets Act, but the wording is similar.
It does not, however, address the issues surrounding the new wording of 'ought to reasonably know'.
It seems alot of newer legislation has terms such as 'likely to', 'ought to reasonably know', which seems to 'broaden the net' of what behaviour can be classed as offences.
The Industry Standard Notice accompanying the legislation says the complete opposite. It says it’s an offence to enter, approach etc if it is prejudicial.
It misses out PURPOSE.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65ba6951c75d300012ca0ff3/ISN_2024-01_National_Security_Act_2023-O.pdf
They will be bringing in new laws to stop filming in more and more places, that's for sure.
You can read the Act on legislation gov uk
I had 2 great years in Esposkpi in Cyprus,.
❤
A new law to make hostile reconnaissance illegal.duh.
The BBC, I T V and all other broadcasters as well as Hollywood and other film makers would be scuppered if it was illegal
👍
Meanwhile the 'national securiy' at the Channel is absolutely piss poor
Gate guardians; dogs and their fences.
Thanks PINACI N
I literally watched the police today abuse this section by only reading out the part they wanted to and left out the most important section stating "for the purpose of..."
@@PINACI It could be the new 'section 44' for a while.
@@focuspocus3690 Absolutely. Ryan Rampage just put a part 2 video up of a police officer reading out the legislation to him but stop reading and leave out the most important part, then tell him that he believes he's committed that offence !!
Its at 39:56sec on his video. I couldn't believe my ears after literally putting this video up the day before.
The same officer also abused schedule 9 Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 on his friend Josh by first telling him that he doesn't have any evidence of him flying his drone but then later said because he also has a drone in his bag that hes going to use the same legislation used on Ryan to get his details but that legislation requires reasonable grounds that he was flying a drone that he previously admitted didn't have.
But this is also the problem with modern policing, none of them know the legislation and they also choose to twist it for their needs.
@@PINACI So many infringements there. A designated prohibited site must have signage so suspect that it isn't designated. They had no reasonable suspicion regarding registration required (Flyer ID), they had no right or reasonable suspicion regarding Josh flying so drone legislation has been trampled. It was de facto detention by stringing them along suggesting that this was serious and they had to wait for them to be informed of their fate. And as you say, they couldn't prove intent and didn't think to apply journalistic licence and civil society activities - www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-security-bill-factsheets/journalistic-freedoms-national-security-bill-factsheet
@@focuspocus3690 Exactly, and if you watch their original video then you will see the police totally take the piss by scaring them into basically arresting themselves and going to the police station voluntarily for an interview which prevented them from making any unlawful arrest !!! Oh and thanks for the .gov link which is very interesting and proves my point I'm trying to make that this new legislation is not really aimed at average Joe taking innocent photos or videos.
The for info very useful info 😂
Part 1 of the Act is basically just a re-hashing of the outdated Official Secrets Acts of 1911, 1920 & 1939.
…except it now includes “approaching” and “in the vicinity” and drones specifically.
@MrAndrewFarrow Yeah, there are some tweaks, and adjustments to modern techology and methods of 'espionage'.
The explanatory notes associated with the Act help (as the name suggests!) explain the new additions and some of the reasoning behind them.
@@Stuart_George when are you making a comeback?
Show these kids how it’s done.
The problem here of course is that, like so many modern laws, the scope of the acts are entirely subjective. The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the UK" could mean absolutely anything and in the first instance will be decided upon by a barely literate plod. This act WILL be abused to include or exclude breaches as they see fit.
The phrase "prejudicial to the interests of the UK" can't mean anything and has to mean 'prejudicial'
@@PINACIThat's entirely my point, the word "prejudicial" is entirely subjective. Give me any lawful activity you like and I bet I could come up with some reason why it would be prejudicial to the interests of the UK.
@@jannenreuben7398 I gave a perfectly legal example in my video when showing some photos of gate guardians on display at military bases. I very much doubt I would get 14yrs in prison for taking photos of a tank thats on display to the public.
@@PINACI No you probably wouldn't but that's not the point I'm trying to make. It could be argued however, by the hypothetical barely literate plod I mentioned earlier, that by taking and publishing pictures of military hardware outside sensitive sites you could in fact be compromising the security of said site because terrorists might now be aware that the aforementioned gate guardians don't actually work anymore. As such this would be prejudicial to the interests of the UK and as such, said hypothetical barely literate plod now has the grounds to demand your details under threat of arrest. Now you know this is BS. I know this is BS. But I think we both know how this will play out in practice.
The thing is most police officers are to arrogant to read this new law and will end up just interpreting it to fit their narrative, just like they do with section 43.
That is exactly what they just did with Ryan Rampage in his recent video. Police read out part of the legislation but stopped reading at the most important part, then told him that under that legislation he believes hes committed an offence.
Is the last part of the video Portsmouth in Queen St?
Correctamondo !
Why is everyone communicating with a little cartoon man?
Its stating the obvious really..you can go in a supermarket aslong as your not trying to steal anything.
"Absolutely NO FILMING permitted anywhere on the campus sir"..... then the goon turns round to expose all those CCTV cameras fixed to the wall of the building *on the campus* hahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa foo ken wee tar did
Where is the campus you were at second video clip
Its BOEING, but I'm not 100% which one in the UK
But still its not law , only a STATUTE ACT given the force of law by consent contract or joinder, so is it fraud to claim law?
EVERYONE is PRESUMED to have consented ( _via voter registration_ ) to be governed through expressed OR IMPLIED consent and if there even IS a way to rebut that presumption thereby removing said implied consent without completely rescinding one's citizenship and successfully applying for citizenship of a different country, nobody has yet found it ! Many Freeman On The Land remedies were tried and failed.
ua-cam.com/video/GqADkQ7J4gU/v-deo.htmlsi=K0vQKPKZTlBQHBl5
@@philmingnotallowed Exactly, not seen or heard of one win in a court yet.
So if it means exactly the same as the last time, then why are they changing it? By these fukers love wasting our money. Don't they 🇬🇧
If the King (or his late mother?) signed it, it IS law.
If you didn’t vote, more fool you.
INCORRECT.
the legislation you quote is incorrectly interpreted by you.
You say the "Purpose MUST be for purpose of being harmful to the UK."
HOWEVER, this is where you are incorrect, you are correct in what you say but there is more to it, "if you suspect, know or should reasonable know" means that posting on UA-cam for example, you should reasonably know that it could be used for illegal purposes or should reasonably know it maybe used as such.
That makes it unlawful to photograph or film unless you are photographing it to frame for your snooker room wall at home, for exampl.
Guess the UK government will have to send Google to prison then !! Oh, hang on, unless the purpose of Googles images is not to be prejudicial to the UK
National security hahahaahahahahaha erm the boat people dont care about that
…but you do.
When satellites in space can photograph the same area you can with a camera you are fine
The Thought Police will no doubt take it upon themselves to sort it, and you, out.