http://www.bjp-online.com/category/rights/street-rights[/url] where those who video or photograph in public can get themselves well informed such as to HELP our officers with an area of law which has been changing rapidly over the past few years in a calm and rational manner (quite unlike the belligerent nature of the videographer in the clip) if they ever find themselves in such a situation.
Further, why did the post come with the title "The police again" which to me at least has connotations of "see, they're at it again" and not "there may be a common misconception in the force about the law regarding filming and photography in public"?
Further, the videographer didn't "explain", he "stated" and then began to challenge the officers on what they thought the law was rather than calmly and rationally helping them to understand - which would be my understanding of "explain".
Further, the assertion that the garden was fully enclosed is false. There are a couple of zoomed out frames where it is obvious that the the hedge to the left is broken and not continuous. It therefore remains a very real possibility that the videographer has filmed them from prior to this clip as they patrolled from left to right as we see it. We do not have the full picture.
The ONLY thing IMO that the officers got wrong here was to just wander off with their tails between their legs. I would have preferred them to have acknowledged their mistake and regained the moral high-ground.
Finally, it is not a police officer's remit to know the ins and outs of EVERY law of the land. They do not and legally can not pass judgement. This is why you can tick the "I want a hearing" box on any fixed penalty notice. They are there to ensure that the law is upheld and have the right to challenge us when they *believe* us to be breaking the law - they are not, despite the common nickname, "The law".
So, photographers' rights - very important civil liberty. And one dear to me (and clearly Tony too).
IMO this was not any attempt whatsoever to further knowledge of that. After all why would you post it here and not
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/ here for example...? Also IMO, that clip and the attitude of its *star* serves to hinder the debate and demean the efforts made by the sane and rational imagers out there rather than help the cause.
So, if we are to assume, as I now do, that this wasn't about photograpers' rights it must only be about police officers who don't know every law. Which is just odd, because how on earth could *any* one person know them all, let alone 132,000 individuals know every law in force in the UK. If any one of them was that smart they would either be making millions at the bar or making millions circumventing the law.
I think perhaps some people need to accept that each officer is limited in terms of the laws they instinctively know and that the law itself makes provision for this, accept that they actually do a good job (with a few cock ups along the way) just like we all do in our respective careers and find something more productive to do than moan about other peoples failings. While I really quite enjoy an active debate such as this, I much prefer a more productive one.
Out.
