Petition.

[AndyB]

And Austin Mitchel, being a photographer, is completely unbiased of course. There's two sides to this and you're not seeing them both - or don't want to see them both.

 

[Itti]

The link http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...face_wider_anti_terror_curbs_news_281398.html is on about 60,000 volunteers (not full time police officers) looking out for anybody with a camera, zoom lens, and taking pictures overtly, does this sound like you?

If so, no doubt you'll have infinite patients when one of these 60,000 busybodies starts giving you grieve over taking pictures, Yeah!

After all, 'they' will have been on a 3 hour course!

Bloody hell!

 

[MarkG]

And Austin Mitchel, being a photographer, is completely unbiased of course. There's two sides to this and you're not seeing them both - or don't want to see them both.

It's quite obvious which site Austin Mitchell is on, but let's be fair to him - even he has had more than an occasional run-in with the law over photography:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4291424.stm

My view is that very few laws are worded 'perfectly' (i.e. without room for misinterpretation), so yes, until this gets challenged in a court of law there is a very real possibility that section 76 is going to cause a few problems.

There's always the bad apples in the Police force who think they're a law unto themselves, but in general if you treat an officer with respect you'll get the same in return.

The petition is still factually incorrect and designed to cause alarm. It is not illegal to take a photograph of a police officer. Nowhere in the law does it say that it is. Since the petition is asking people to sign up to something that is factually incorrect, there is only one possible response however many signatures it gets - and that is to simply re-state the law as it stands.

Which, of course, is a pointless waste of time.