Human rights may be at risk of police overreach after UK officers’ habit of unlawfully punishing auditors, journalists, and photographers in public. In recent years, a growing number of citizens across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland have taken to auditing police activity — filming officers on duty, publicly recording police-station entrances, or documenting conduct in public places — as a means of holding law enforcement accountable. While these actions are often entirely lawful, many auditors report being detained, searched, or arrested without clear legal basis. Legal experts suggest that the root of the problem lies in a complex overlay of historic charters, statutory law, human rights treaties, and administrative guidance that officers may not fully understand. The right of citizens to hold the state accountable traces back centuries. The Magna Carta 1297 enshrined the principle that “No free man shall be… imprisoned… except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” Clauses 39 and 40 guarantee due process and access to justice. The Charter of Liberties 1100 further constrained arbitrary government power, while the Petition of Right 1628 affirmed that the Crown must respect subjects’ rights, including the right to petition without fear of reprisal. The Bill of Rights 1689 explicitly recognised: “It is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.” These historic instruments form the constitutional backdrop for modern auditing of police conduct. Modern UK law reinforces these rights through statutes such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (“PACE 1984”), which regulates stop, search, and arrest powers; the Criminal Justice Act 1972; and the Act of Settlement 1701, which ensures judicial independence. Common-law protections — such as the writ of habeas corpus  — also underpin the right not to be unlawfully deprived of liberty. Under common law, the doctrines of legality and proportionality demand that police powers be clearly defined and exercised only when necessary. In Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis  [2013] EWHC 1695 (Admin), the High Court held that police had no lawful authority to require individuals to submit to filming or identification as a condition of release from containment [see CaseMine, 2013]. At the heart of modern accountability lies the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Key rights include: Article 5: Right to liberty and security Article 6: Right to a fair trial Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life Article 10: Freedom of expression — covering filming and audiovisual recording in public Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association The UK is also bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), both of which safeguard freedom of expression and due process. In the policing context, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly held that covert filming and the retention of images without adequate safeguards may breach Article 8. In Peck v United Kingdom  [2003] EHRR 287, the Court found that the disclosure of CCTV footage violated Article 8. Similarly, in Perry v United Kingdom  [2003] 63737/00 (ECHR), covert filming at a police station was deemed an unlawful interference with private life [see LawTeacher.net , 2003; Lexploria, 2003]. Although the UK has left the European Union, the legacy of EU law remains significant. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, a substantial body of EU-derived law was retained, including data-protection principles stemming from the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018 (DPA 2018). The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 4 May 2023 that Article 82 GDPR does not permit compensation for mere infringement of data-protection rights unless actual damage is proven [see Farrer & Co., 2023]. Earlier decisions had found the UK’s Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 (DRIPA) unlawful for permitting indiscriminate retention of personal data [see Hogan Lovells, 2016]. The European Commission has since confirmed that the UK continues to adhere to key safeguards under the DPA 2018 regime, though the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights no longer applies directly [see European Commission, 2021]. In Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, devolved legal frameworks broadly mirror core constitutional and human-rights protections, albeit with jurisdictional nuances. For example, policing and public-order powers in Scotland fall under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012, overseen by the Scottish Police Authority. Northern Ireland likewise maintains its own oversight bodies. Across all jurisdictions, the rights to freedom of expression and due process remain guaranteed under the ECHR and HRA 1998 and both local and UK-wide constitutional statutes/charters. Local authorities — including city and county councils — enact by-laws, surveillance codes, and public-space filming policies that must align with national statutes, human-rights obligations, and common law. Police guidance documents frequently reference these local policies when interacting with auditors or citizen journalists. National policing guidance explicitly affirms the public’s right to film in public: The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC)  Guidance for Photographers  states: “There are no powers prohibiting the taking of photographs, film, or digital images in a public place. Therefore, members of the public and press should not be prevented from doing so.” [see NPCC, 2017]. The College of Policing (CoP)  Media Relations Authorised Professional Practice (APP)  similarly asserts: “Police have no power or moral responsibility to stop the filming or photographing of incidents or police personnel.". The CoP, APP Media Relations, and local force guidance — such as that issued by West Midlands Police — reiterates that, if a person is filming from a public place and not obstructing officers, they should be informed that they are not detained, are free to leave, and may continue filming. The guidance emphasizes: “There are no powers prohibiting people taking photographs or filming outside our buildings or in any other public place, and they should not be prevented from doing so.” [see West Midlands Police FOI, 2022]. Despite a clear legal and policy framework, auditors frequently report obstruction, detention, or searches by police. Typical incidents include: Being asked to delete or surrender recorded footage without lawful authority. Being detained or arrested for filming police-station entrances or officers in public spaces. Being searched under broad powers — for instance, under Terrorism Act 2000 sections 43 and 44 — where “reasonable suspicion” may not, in fact, be met. Such actions may give rise to claims for false imprisonment, misfeasance in public office, unlawful arrest or detention, and breaches of Articles 5 (liberty) and 10 (expression) of the ECHR via the HRA. Auditors who believe they have been unlawfully detained or searched may pursue several remedies: A civil claim in the High Court or County Court against the Chief Constable (or equivalent) for false imprisonment, assault or battery, or misfeasance in public office. A claim under the HRA for breach of Articles 5, 8, or 10. A complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) or equivalent professional-standards body. A data-protection claim under the DPA 2018/UK GDPR framework if footage or personal images were retained or processed unlawfully. Equivalent oversight and redress mechanisms exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though the procedures differ. Several factors contribute to the ongoing disconnect between law and practice: Many frontline officers lack full familiarity with the legal limits of their powers, particularly regarding public filming. Institutional culture may sometimes perceive auditors as antagonists rather than as citizens exercising lawful rights. Broad powers of stop, search, or detention (under PACE, the Terrorism Act, or the Public Order Act 1986) may be applied too broadly or without sufficient justification. Local or station-level policies may lag behind national guidance or current human-rights jurisprudence. The UK’s legal architecture — from the Petition of Right 1628 and Magna Cartas 1215-1297 to the HRA 1998, ECHR, and modern police-policy frameworks — clearly affirms the public’s right to film police officers in public without fear of reprisal. Yet, the experience of many auditors reveals a troubling gap between principle and practice. As policing institutions continue to champion transparency and accountability, it is imperative for both officers and public auditors to understand their respective rights and obligations. Without such mutual understanding, citizens who seek to lawfully observe state power may continue to face coercive or unlawful responses — a contradiction of the very rule-of-law principle that underpins policing in the United Kingdom. For further reference, see NPCC Guidance for Photographers , College of Policing Media Relations APP , Peck v UK , Perry v UK , and Mengesha v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis .

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was intended to protect vulnerable individuals and empower those who may lack capacity to make decisions. In reality, it has become a legislative framework that enables systematic discrimination, paternalism, and serious violations of constitutional and human rights. Far from reflecting modern legal standards, the MCA is fundamentally incompatible with centuries of British constitutional law, international human rights treaties, and evolving common law principles across the Commonwealth. 1. Historic Constitutional Guarantees of Liberty For centuries, English law has safeguarded the right to liberty and the rule of law: Magna Carta 1225 & 1297, Clauses 29 and 39, guarantee that no free person shall be “imprisoned or disseised… except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” The Habeas Corpus Acts (especially 1679) enshrine the right to challenge unlawful detention before a court. The Bill of Rights 1689 prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments” and affirms the primacy of due process and liberty. The MCA’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and substituted decision-making frameworks allow state bodies to detain individuals in care homes, hospitals, and institutions without the kind of prompt judicial oversight or jury trial contemplated by these historic constitutional protections. The Supreme Court’s decision in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 exposed how thousands are deprived of liberty under administrative procedures, not genuine judicial process. 2. The Right to Petition and Protection from Reprisal Under the Petition of Right 1628, every subject has the right to petition the Crown and Parliament and to be heard without fear of punishment. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights 1689 reaffirmed this protection. Yet, individuals and families who have petitioned or complained about MCA procedures—including through the Court of Protection, to local authorities, or via advocacy—have sometimes faced retaliation, withdrawal of services, or punitive measures, contrary to this constitutional guarantee. This undermines not just individual rights but the integrity of the rule of law itself. 3. International Human Rights Law: Incompatibility with the CRPD and Beyond The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by the UK in 2009, is clear in Article 12: “States Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life.” The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2014 Concluding Observations, UK) held that the MCA violates Article 12 by allowing substituted decision-making based on mental capacity assessments. Article 14 CRPD prohibits deprivation of liberty on the basis of disability—yet DoLS are applied overwhelmingly to disabled people. These are not symbolic findings. Under Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, treaties are binding, and the UK is internationally obliged to bring its laws into conformity. Further, the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights)—incorporated via the Human Rights Act 1998—protect liberty (Article 9 ICCPR; Article 5 ECHR; Article 3 UDHR) and freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 7 ICCPR; Article 3 ECHR). The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held (e.g., Stanev v Bulgaria [2012] ECHR 46, DD v Lithuania [2012]) that institutional placements and substituted decision-making regimes can violate Article 5 (liberty) and Article 8 (private life). These principles apply to the UK, as the UK remains a party to the ECHR post-Brexit. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), under retained EU law, continues to influence UK courts, especially regarding fundamental rights as general principles of law. Post-Brexit, these decisions remain persuasive and can be binding in certain contexts under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. 4. Children’s Rights and Family Life The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), incorporated in part through the Children Act 1989, demands that children’s best interests be a primary consideration (Article 3 UNCRC), and that their voices be heard (Article 12). MCA processes often fail to respect these principles for young people turning 16–18, creating legal grey areas that undermine rights guaranteed under the UNCRC and domestic family law. 5. UK Case Law and Common Law British courts have long affirmed the sanctity of liberty and the right to personal autonomy. In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Khawaja [1984] AC 74, the House of Lords reaffirmed the common law’s role in guarding against unlawful detention. In Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789, the courts acknowledged the gravity of decisions affecting life and autonomy. Yet, under the MCA, capacity assessments and “best interests” decisions often override clear expressed wishes, without meaningful court oversight, contradicting the principle in Re C (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290 that capacity must be presumed and autonomy respected. 6. Comparative Common Law Jurisdictions Australian and Canadian courts, sharing the UK’s common law heritage, have moved towards supported decision-making and stronger rights protections. Cases such as Re Eve [1986] 2 SCR 388 (Canada) and PBU & NJE [2018] VSC 564 (Australia) emphasise autonomy, dignity, and proportionality. These persuasive authorities show a growing consensus that capacity law must be rights-based, not paternalistic. 7. International Adjudicatory Bodies Although the UK has not been subject to an International Court of Justice (ICJ) or Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) judgment on the MCA specifically, these bodies, along with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in human rights contexts, consistently affirm the supremacy of international legal obligations over conflicting domestic practice in matters involving fundamental human rights. Conclusion: Repeal, Not Reform The Mental Capacity Act 2005 is not merely flawed in practice — it is incompatible with the UK’s constitutional heritage, in breach of multiple binding international treaties, and out of step with modern human rights jurisprudence domestically and abroad. Parliament must act to repeal the MCA 2005 and replace it with a framework that recognises universal legal capacity, embeds supported decision-making, and guarantees effective judicial oversight and protection against arbitrary detention. If Parliament refuses to act, the the Supreme Court of the United Kingdon, Court of Appeal, devolved courts, or the High Court of England and Wales should do the right thing and either refuse to accept arguments under this discriminatory Act or outright strike it down. Such a move would not only fulfil the UK’s legal obligations under the CRPD and other treaties but also restore the ancient constitutional promise: that no person shall be deprived of liberty save by lawful judgment and with equal dignity under the law. Here's my view on the situation: ⬇️ I wrote this article about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it appears to be discriminatory against people with additional needs. This is unfair and needs to change. The ball is in hands of Parliament and the Judiciary, and I hope they do the right thing with this information. We can't continue like this; it's not fair, and there's millions of British people suffering at the hands of a messy and potentially discriminatory statute, which I argue is used to target disabled people unfairly and without regards to due process required under common law and Clause 29/39 of the Magna Carta 1297 and of 1225. This urgently needs a formal review from our politicians and judges. I also argue it is discriminatory, as challenging decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 often requires judicial review, which many people targeted unlawfully under this Act are simply not able to do or even afford its costs, allowing violations of the law to go unnoticed and dodging institutions from being held accountable for their actions. I am for everybody, and I refuse to allow discrimination against people just because they need more support. Having an impairment or disability isn't a choice; people are born with it. No one should be punished for who they are, full stop, and we need to stop being so silent about equal rights for our citizens. There's problems, and those need to stop being overlooked.

Dwayne Hards, LCN's Founder, began dating Brandon Rodda on June 29 2024, and they're soon due to celebrate their first anniversary in less than a month. They're the perfect match and said "they're madly in love with each other" and will always stick by each other's side. Dwayne Hards is currently 17 and was born on 07/08/2007, while Brandon Rodda is only one year older at 18 years old and was born on 04/08/2006. They're close in age, share many of the same views and interests, share maturity and common-sense political views, and appear to be inseparable and close to each other. They've both been through challenges together but have always worked them out together. Dwayne and Brandon have started making plans for their future together, such as: moving out, travelling, exploring the world, and more. Dwayne is even considering standing in a UK general or local election in the future, campaigning for and protecting relationships, fighting for common-sense politics, anti-immigration policies, judicial independence and the rule of law, clamping down on violent crime and fraud, cracking down on anti-Semitic pro-Palestine rioters (who often appear to support a state with a terrorist regime, which is illegal under terrorism legislation, common law, and case law), justice, and the importance of respecting international law and the UK Constitution, as well as equity and equality before the law and stronger healthcare standards and patient-centered care and youth rights. An 18-year-old TikTok creator, Brandon loves uploading TikToks of him dancing and his life with Dwayne, which Dwayne said is "really sweet and cute". His love for pop music fueled his desire to become an online creator. Dwayne also has a TikTok profile. Dwayne's relationship is partly why he hasn't uploaded much content to LCN lately, as well as life challenges and the fact he's creating a new self-hosted website from scratch and is soon moving out with Brandon. Finding the one at such a young age is a milestone achievement for us, and we're so happy in our relationship and will always be there through each other's good and bad. Disclaimer: This article is Comment & Analysis and not necessarily based on strict facts. It's important to do your research, too. This article is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, Protection of Journalists treaties and UK law, common and case law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, Clause 39 of the Magna Cartas 1215-1297, the Habeus Corpus Acts (right to prevent unlawful detention), judicisl review and the rule of law principle, and the Petition of Right 1628 (right to petition and debate and petition the public without fear, retaliation, or punishment).

WCN | Guidance

FREE BOOKS A Boys Life with Autism.pdf

Weather To request that your hometown weather or another location is added to this page then please email email.wcn.uk@gmail.c om .