Mastermind and the road to Damascus

[Roland Perry]

In article <49A69E64.5090109@callnetuk.com>, Pete Mitchell 
<otcbn@callnetuk.com> writes
>> The person answering the question would be the Home Office 
>>spokesperson,  so an unambiguous statement that there has to be 
>>suspected *terrorist*  activity associated with the taking of the photo.
>
>No it hasn't.

<panto> Yes it has:

"In a statement, the Home Office said taking pictures of police officers 
would only be deemed an offence in "very exceptional circumstances".

{rp: although this also conflates the issues of photographing *anything* 
that might be useful to terrorist, and the extension to "elicting 
information" about the police.}

"The new offence is intended to help protect those in the front line of 
our counter terrorism operations from terrorist attack," it said.

"For the offence to be committed, the information would have to raise a 
reasonable suspicion that it was intended to be used to provide 
practical assistance to terrorists."

{rp: they've settled down a bit here and are using the [elicited] 
"information" word, not "photograph".}

The Home Office added that anyone accused under the act could defend 
themselves by proving they had "a reasonable excuse" for taking the 
picture."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7892273.stm

>>They could also repeat  what they've already said, which is that the 
>>photo-taking issue has been  in place since 2000,

I assume you weren't saying "no" to this bit, because the 2000 Act was 
quoted here recently:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_6#pt6-pb1-l1g58
-- 
Roland Perry