Mastermind and the road to Damascus

[Roland Perry]

In article <49A55925.4080007@bbk.ac.uk>, ken <k.brown@bbk.ac.uk> writes
>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In article 
>><a9f4d96f0902241312l5ba85c67n485dd11dd32b1dd3@mail.gmail.com>, John 
>>Wilson <tugwilson@gmail.com> writes
>>> To be clear - I know of nobody who is a serious amateur or
>>> professional photographer who believes that anybody is going to be
>>> charged under this section of the act. There is, however, real concern
>>> that people are going to be harassed using it (think suss laws).
>>  So that community needs to be vigilant if/when such things happen.
>
>Yes but the point (and a pretty obvious one I think) is that people 
>very often do what they are told by a police officer and think about it 
>afterwards. Maybe from habit, or a respect for authority, or because 
>they feel themselves to be generally on the same side, or because they 
>are afraid of being arrested or attacked in some way.  The "community 
>vigilance you so correctly desire gets a little bit harder  each time 
>the law is seen to give the police a little bit more power.

We are talking about a community of professional photographers. They 
should be organised enough to see through this issue.

>If someone does say "why not?" the answer used to be, more or less, 
>"because I say so" (maybe dressed up in jargon about security or 
>safety). The worry is that now the answer is going to be "because of 
>the wibble-wobble Terrorism Act of 200x" - whether or not that or any 
>other law is at all relevant.

Perhaps they could persuade one of their journalist colleagues to write 
up a fact sheet to hand to the police in such circumstances? It could 
include some of the quotes from the Home Office.
-- 
Roland Perry