Mastermind and the road to Damascus

[Roland Perry]

In article <49A8124E.5000808@callnetuk.com>, Pete Mitchell 
<otcbn@callnetuk.com> writes
>The 2000 Act is very vague about what sort of material is illegal to 
>collect,

It specifically mentions photos (which the 2008 amendment doesn't).

>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).

There's nothing in the 2000 Act that is specific to *only* policemen. It 
talks about a much broader set of situations.

>But the new Act specifically mentions collecting information about 
>constables as a prima facie dubious activity that demands an excuse.

It doesn't mention collecting information.

The verbs are "eliciting, communicating and publishing".

> So it is much easier for the police to destroy such a photograph and 
>later claim that he genuinely believed it was illegal.

It isn't "easier to destroy", as there's no [new or old] power to do 
that.

>> "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.

Armed with the Home Office "rules" it should be possible to make a stand 
against such things. The feared police unlawful activity is, after all, 
counter-productive because they alienate the middle class from the 
police.

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

Which should trigger complaints if not done lawfully.
-- 
Roland Perry