Mastermind and the road to Damascus

[Pete Mitchell]

[I've changed the order of comments to try and make it clearer]

Roland Perry wrote  on 26-02-09 14:41:
> In article <49A69E64.5090109@callnetuk.com>, Pete Mitchell 
> <otcbn@callnetuk.com> writes
 >> Roland wrote
>>> 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

That *is* the bit I was saying "no it hasn't" to. The 2000 Act is very
vague about what sort of material is illegal to collect, so an officer 
is on shaky ground when claiming that a photo of him is such a piece of 
information (though they've certainly tried it). But the new Act 
specifically mentions collecting information about constables as a prima 
facie dubious activity that demands an excuse. So it is much easier for 
the police to destroy such a photograph and later claim that he 
genuinely believed it was illegal.

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

As if anyone except you believes what the Home Office says on such 
matters. The regular abuse of terrorism powers like stop and search has 
become a part of everyday life in London.

Anyway, as has been pointed out, it's not being charged that's the 
problem, it's being arrested and having the photos deleted.


-- 
Pete Mitchell