WTF? Olympic police state?

Crapaud

It's not so long ago that I scoffed at activists who claimed that we were moving towards a police state, now I read this:

... Moves to safeguard company trademarks and stamp out ambush marketing, to preserve the monopoly of official advertisers and the International Olympic Committee (IOC) logo, are raising concerns among civil liberty groups.

POLICE POWERS

Police will have powers to enter private homes and seize posters, and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events.

"I think there will be lots of people doing things completely innocently who are going to be caught by this, and some people will be prosecuted, while others will be so angry about it that they will start complaining about civil liberties issues," Chadwick said. ...

If this is true - and I can't help think it's a wind-up - WTF's going on?
It's outragous!!!

Discuss ...

zanes

"Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear" will no doubt be rolling out to this thread shortly. Whether that makes me sad, angry or amused I don't know. :roll:

Crapaud

zanes wrote:

"Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear" ...

It's an expression that immediately rings alarm bells.

There've been a few things in the news, over the last couple of years, that I've noticed and it's only now that I've put them all together and the picture's started to look alarming.

Is 1984 running 20 years late?

Anonymous

Sounds unenforceable to me...

Also sounds a load of b0ll0cks...

I would question the proportionality under ECHR...

softlad

I can't help thinking that some hapless journo has made a mistake with that bit. Surely any powers like that - no matter how ridiculous - would require an amendment to the criminal justice act...

Stewie Griffin

"and will be able to stop people carrying non-sponsor items to sporting events. ". This has been in place at major sporting events for the last few years I bet it was in place during the Winter Olympics. It ruined the 2007 Cricket World Cup in the West Indies until they relaxed it. The idea is to prevent (for the sake of arguement), Pepsi having 200 people sitting right behind a goal all wearing pepsi branded shirts being shown over and over again around the world in slo mo action replays of a goal in the coca cola cup final. The rights for which costs coke millions.

Crapaud

NapoleonD wrote:

Sounds unenforceable to me...

Also sounds a load of b0ll0cks...

I would question the proportionality under ECHR...

Possibly not bollox. Sections 19 & 20: London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006. It's late so I might be misinterpreting it, but it seems that they do have these powers. It looks as though it's aimed at activism and protesting, which would make more sense, though a surely a freedom of speech / expression issue.

It's too late to go digging about. I'll think about it tomorrow.

Jez mon

Sounds exactly like the kind of thing that was batted around when everyone was complaining about the Beijing Olympics...Thank God I don't live in a police state I thought at the time lol...

Tbf sounds like the journalist might be exaggerating for dramatic effect so I'll with hold conclusions until someone has done some more digging!

Toomanybikes

This has been a constant refrain leading up to the Olympics in Vancouver.

The IOC and VAnoc have been brutal about going after the "Olympic Trademark"

They went after long established businesses in Vancouver - one was a pizza joint that had been started up by a greek immigrant and had been in business for 25 years.

The name of the business was Olympia Pizza and the symbol was a torch.

Vanoc went after them all guns blazing claiming that people would be confused and that the pizza joint was trying to trade on the Olympic name.

Same thing with a plumber, the stories are legion.

Have no idea how much money businesses ended up spending on legal fees from having the IOC coming after them.

Then there was the whole "signs in the window" nonsense - same thing happened in Vancouver - claimed they would enter people's houses - I am not aware that it ever happened ( it WOULD have been on the news if it had) but still and all.

I have no idea how they got that little gem of a law passed but it was there.

The acted like classic robber barons all through the piece.

It has only just started folks, just started.

nicensleazy

Can't see how it will work?

awallace

Journo drivel.

Common sense must and will apply.

Just the usual media sensationalism again!

On a quick search i cant find anything however Im sure Warwickshire County Cricket Club banned people taking certain products in to the ground which were not that of their approved sponsors. Dont quote me though as i cant back this up yet.

I dont know of any law in that case either so it may have been a civil issue.

GiantMike

It's from a journalist so it's likely to be wrong (or just spun for effect).

Cressers

Yes, you go on believing that it'll never happen to you...

It was one of the reasons that I had a profound moment of depression when i heard that the UK had won the Olympics, I knew that it would the pretext used for the creation of another security/surveillance hell. I pity anyone living near to an Olympic venue...

daviesee

awallace wrote:

Journo drivel.

Common sense must and will apply.

Just the usual media sensationalism again!

Want to try telling that to photographers that have been hauled off to a police station for the "crime" of taking a photograph in a public place?

The Police State is alive and coming to you soon :evil:

Crapaud

awallace wrote:

Journo drivel.

Common sense must and will apply.

Just the usual media sensationalism again! ...

GiantMike wrote:

It's from a journalist so it's likely to be wrong (or just spun for effect).

It appears to be true. See sections 19 - 25 of the act. It's in legalese and open to interpretation, but seem to be a possibility.

IANAL

Richard_D

I am not sure they will get the access to peoples homes but at the last World cup Dutch fans were forced to hand over their shorts in the national colours as the wrong brewers name was spread across them.

daviesee

Richard_D wrote:

I am not sure they will get the access to peoples homes but at the last World cup Dutch fans were forced to hand over their shorts in the national colours as the wrong brewers name was spread across them.

:shock: :shock: :shock:

That must have been fun to watch.

Any commando Dutch fans?

Simon Notley

I'm sure I heard somewhere (possibly on Charlie Brooker's newswipe?) that someone has a yoghurt confiscated at Wimbledon because it wasn't the official yogurt of Wimbledon.

Admiottedly, this probably wasn't anything to do with the police but it is sad that event organisers will put the interests of their sponsors ahead of the interests of the attendees. Money talks I guess.

Toomanybikes

Richard_D wrote:

I am not sure they will get the access to peoples homes but at the last World cup Dutch fans were forced to hand over their shorts in the national colours as the wrong brewers name was spread across them.

Take your lessons from history. Recent History.

The hysteria these days surrounding "security" allows the police to do pretty much anything they want. Between the police and the IOC there were special "security" provisions in Vancouver for the Winter Olympics that allowed the police to enter your house, whether you were home or not, with or without a search warrant, to "remove offending signage".

Put an anti-Olympics sign in the front window and come home to find muddy foot prints in the front room.

Nice.

markos1963

I don't know what you lot are worried for. Its not as if you are likely to get a ticket for any event. I heard a report the other day that only about 5% of the tickets are going to be available to the general public. Apparently we will have the same chance of a ticket as someone coming over from Latvia. But of course we are the ones who are picking up the bill.

awallace

Crapaud wrote:

awallace wrote:

Journo drivel.

Common sense must and will apply.

Just the usual media sensationalism again! ...

GiantMike wrote:

It's from a journalist so it's likely to be wrong (or just spun for effect).

It appears to be true. See sections 19 - 25 of the act. It's in legalese and open to interpretation, but seem to be a possibility.

IANAL

I agree its there in black and white however it does state

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that the contravention of the regulations occurred— .
(a)
without his knowledge"

Therefore the journalist implying your 85 year old nan who innocently sports a nike tick is going to get her door hoofed in isnt correct unless of course she is placed strategically in front of the cameras by nike for free publicity and she knows she is doing it!

There are much bigger issues in the UK to worry about though than protecting the revenue of fat cat bosses loosing out to competitors creativity!

Porgy

I definitely heard something a little while ago that people in Stratford who were engaged in protesting against the Olympic committee had been warned that it was illegal to put dissenting posters in their windows - but it's no good trying to find it at work as all the websites will be blocked.

If i remember might try to find something over the weekend.