)
Sorry, I meant Linda MacPherson (Must have been thinking of Terminator when I said Linda Hamilton
So you're saying she's completely contradicting herself and from the text youre reading from, you say she's basically saying that her own Photographers Rights guide is completely wrong?
I think someone should tell her then.
Les - could you clarify your legal qualifications please? Not specifically relevant to the thread, but as you are advising others on the law I think it might be sensible for you to clarify this, so that people are aware that in fact you have training in such matters. Apologies in advance if you have already done so, and I have missed this.
Les - there is one important difference between us though. On each occasion I have commented on the law, I have before posting run that comment past my Husband, who is a qualified barrister and practises law on a daily basis. I would not presume to post an unchecked opinion on an area in which I have no qualification, without making it extremely clear that it is simply opinion - NOT fact. Ben has previously looked into, and clarified the situation regarding the HRA & DPA for the membership on here - his conclusions on the subject were posted at that point. There are many contradictory articles available online these days - indeed many within his profession feel that the amount of information available online these days for any Tom, **** or Harry to read and draw conclusion from, is dangerous, as false impressions are easily gained and then spread via such media as this forum.
Please don't read this as a personal attack - it's not intended to be in any way - it's simply an attempt to make clear the dangers associated with unqualified individuals attempting to advise others on what they may, or may not do, in the eyes of the law.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE guys can we leave the law alone now? We seem to have established that no-one contributing to the legal argument on this thread has any qualification in their own right to do so. I have posted the opinion of someone who DOES have qualification to clarify things - as I explained before, my Husband is a qualified Barrister (called to the bar in 1995) and a degree in law from the University of Wolverhampton. If people choose to accept his clarification of the issue or not that's up to them, but for people to be interpreting the law wrongly and then posting that on here - worded as fact in several cases - then that is going to do nothing but harm all round.
I will firstly congratulate all who have contributed to this thread and made it such a good read it has it all much like those epic hollywood films .... an emotional roller coaster, villans, heros, comedy and much much more. 
Are we heading towards a dictatorship? 
If you need a clear indication of your rights for street photography I would point you to the article in the Feb 2008 issue of Digital Camera magazine as this explains things clearly, consisely and in laymans terms cutting out all the legal jargon. It also addresses the OP of "Photographing kids in park" and deals with the issue of covert photography of kids. My opinion on this is that common sense 
should prevail, I have been lucky in all the years of pursuing my photography hobby that I have not come across angry, irrational parents/gardians
and overzealous officials. My comments are not meant as any sort of attack towards individuals (although I am sure I won't get away without some rebuke) but I do feel that many of the posts show how media, politicians and people in the public eye affect public opinion and this in turn makes changes in our way of life not always for the better. If you have a strong belief then make sure you are ready for the consequences and that you have assessed the issues from all other angles.
As we've established, you don't have a right to privacy in public, hence the name....public. You have a right to privacy in your own private areas, ie home etc, but when you're in public, it's exactly that, you're in public.
