Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > gerry.walden@me.com writes: > > LUGers may be interested to read this article in the > Guardian Online > today:> > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/feb/12/photographers-anti > -terror-laws > > My favourite part: > > "A spokeswoman for the Home Office said the law was not > specifically intended for photographers and concerns about > how it would be used were speculative. It would be the job of > the police and the courts to interpret the law." > > Looks like Orwell was only out by a quarter century. > > Any country who give their police the right to "interpret the > law" is doomed to absolutism. > > Protest this vocally... while you still can! > > Greg Lorenzo > Calgary, Canada The police have to interpret the law - how else can they try to decide whether or not someone may be breaking it? The courts are there to decide whether or not they interpreted it correctly. In the case of this particularly stupid law, of course it gives the police the power to stop people taking photographs, whether the photographer intended to use the photographs for an illegal purpose or not. For example, if I saw some policemen kicking the shit out of a black guy - let's call him Rodney King - and I lifted my camera to photograph them apparently breaking the law, under this law they could legally prevent me from taking the picture, which they can't at the moment. By the time it goes to court the shit-kicking incident is over. The courts dismiss the case because I'm a middle-aged, middle class white guy, but now there is no hard evidence that the cops kicked the shit out of old Rodney. Great law. Bob