Mastermind and the road to Damascus

[Roland Perry]

In article 
<a9f4d96f0902240631h29ee0824x533c92901d64005c@mail.gmail.com>, John 
Wilson <tugwilson@gmail.com> writes
>> Which is why I am puzzled that people say there is a specific and new
>> prohibition on photos.
>
>I don't think people are saying that (at least not people in the
>professional photographic press) .

People on this list are, and I detect a similar trend in the 
non-specialist press.

>What the 2008 act does is make focus attention on the taking
>photographs of certain classes of people. You could argue that this
>was already an offence under the 2000 act, and I would not disagree
>with you. However, the new act makes this explicit.

No, the "extra" offence is "illiciting/ publishing/communicating 
information" (about constables etc), it doesn't in fact make the earlier 
offence of "collecting information" (which is the one associated with 
photos) any more specific.

>What professional photographers fear is that the explicit wording of
>the new act will encourage the Police (and, in particular, the
>Metropolitan Police) to use it to obstruct press photographers.

Of course, people can argue that having "collected" it, the only thing 
you might do is "publish/communicate" it, but that's a step further than 
the wording in the Act.
-- 
Roland Perry