Why should they be trusted to do the right thing?
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith in her response to the NUJ’s concerns over the rights of photographers, appears to give the police a blank cheque to restrict, ban, or halt photography wherever and whenever they wish. Without any legal statute to guide them one must ask if they can be trusted to safeguard the legal rights of photographers both professional and amateur.
First of all, may I take this opportunity to state that the Government greatly values the importance of the freedom of the press, and as such there is no legal restriction on photography in public places,’ Smith writes. ‘Also, as you will be aware, there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place.’
However, the Home Secretary adds that local restrictions might be enforced. ‘Decisions may be made locally to restrict or monitor photography in reasonable circumstances. That is an operational decision for the officers involved based on the individual circumstances of each situation.
‘It is for the local Chief Constable, in the case of your letter the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force, to decide how his or her Officers and employees should best balance the rights to freedom of the press, freedom of expression and the need for public protection.’
Spyblog covers the issue with greater alacrity here, and note that one third of our MPs have now signed Austin Mitchell’s EDM and without clear concise guidance on the law to police officers, pcsos, and other security personnel we must worry that Chief Constables ability to take operational decisions may well result in even further restrictions on our liberties. It seems to me that the Home Secretary has given the police a blank cheque to make restrictions as and when they see fit.
Should the police be trusted to take the right decisions?
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Should the police be trusted to take the right decisions?
As the bods on the ground, they should be able to apply sensible discretion, rather than a “one size fits all” stipulated policy. Therefore the principle is probably correct.
My concern comes with the knowledge that the current Government is no stranger to the idea of twisting rules and laws — especially those that do indeed have discretionary elements — to suit their own ends and to allow them to gain personal and/or party benefit therefrom. I’d much rather have commonsense policing than “politically correct” overbearing regulation, but I don’t like the idea of leaving convenient loopholes for the unscrupulous.
It is not an easy area to get right, and clearly cannot be done credibly in isolation from other areas of legislation and guidance. Safeguards need to be devised, but otherwise it is at least more sensible than the typical NuLab headline-of-the-week.
Comment by John Ward — July 24, 2008 @ 12:59 pm