Section 58A - the drama (and uncertainty) continues

[paulnolan]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's assertion that it is not illegal to photograph a police officer, provided you have a 'reasonable excuse', has sparked confusion among photographers.

Brown issued the statement last week, as part of his response to an e-petition launched on the Number 10 website earlier this year.

The petition had called for Section 58A

Comments

[paulnolan]

Somehow I don't think "I felt like it" will wash, either. :|

[akuma_river]

Is...this whole thing about them worried about cop's identities being leaked out and targeted?

I know we have that issue in high gang areas in the states, like LA and other cities. But I don't think we have a ban on taking pictures of them.

[paulnolan]

I'm not sure how it would help stop police being targeted, as any information a photo might provide (visual ID, badge number) is already freely available by virtue of people having eyes (and police having to give their badge number if a member of the public requests it... in theory, anyway). The paranoid in me thinks it more likely it's just another excuse to harass photographers (police not liking cameras as they can't lie and all that...) in the vein of Section 43. :|

(incidental note: technically we don't have a ban either; the law is against eliciting information from police, military personnel etc. that could be useful for terrorism. Unfortunately it's very nebulous and unclear how it applies in practice.)

[epicet]

That's what they claim, but lately it's just being used as a way to shut down people they'd rather not deal with. This video shows a good example starting around 2:15