I've said it before and I'll say it again, until people take this issue into the Courts, where the do's, don't and procedures regarding how we are treated is formally clarified, we will continue to hear many more complaints. However, those who have threatened to do this so far, have settled out of court, and that just might point to the possibility that the powers being used, are indeed beyond the margins of what would be deemed unreasonable, and there are agencies who do not want that to happen. There have been instances in the past where legislation has been brought in and subsequently rules have been imposed as to what is and is not a reasonable manner in which to treat individuals.
The fact that professional photographers and journalists felt that they needed to get their 'Rights' clarified and set down in black and white, seems to indicate that something similar needs to be done regarding 'Joe Public' too. I fully accept that the perceived threat of Terrorist activity means that levels of security need uprating and officers etc need to be a lot more vigilant, but that does not mean they are also entitled to act in the heavy-handed and unpleasantly officious manner that some think they can. It seems to me that the authorities have been given these powers, but have not (or do not want) cast in stone, (or on paper) a formalised structure regarding how 'suspects' are treated.
Detective Chief Inspector Mark Lawrence has said he "Will 'encourage officers at ground level to adopt a more sensible approach when considering whether to stop photographers and other Londoners who are in the vicinity of transport networks.", but I would say to him that 'encouragement is not what is needed, but rather a formal set of 'Rules of engagement'.
-------------------- Trainee reprobate with a pronounced limp (spelt L .. I .. M .. P.)
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Re: NEW POLL - photography in public places
Edit
Reply
Quote
