Ican’t understand why ITV are allowed to broadcast Night Watch all week when it places our Boys in Blue in such terrible danger – unless there is no danger and its all about the police dictating how they are portrayed.

We’ll soon say moves to stop drama makers from usung replica uniforms unless scripts are vetted by the police just in case there’s anything in there which might make them vulnerable to criticism – oops, sorry meant ‘terrorism’

I don’t think this is a good law, but I really think people ought to stop exaggerating. The new law doesn’t make taking a photo of a police officer illegal, it makes it an arrestable offence given certain other conditions.

Quite right Andrew. LC’s coverage of this issue has been particularly poor. I’d like to see more discussion of what the police (at all levels) think about this. I suspect most police officers will be more concerned with doing their job that stopping people photographing them doing it.

But Andrew the “certain other conditions” are so loosely drawn and subjective that they can be invoked in almost any circumstances. See the JP’s letter in the Times, reprinted in “The Week”.

Well,

The Metropolitan Police Federation shares the concerns of press and other professional photographers that poorly-drafted anti-terrorist legislation could be used to justify unwarranted interference in their lawful activities.

And we echo MP Austin Mitchell’s call, made last year in an Early Day Motion, for the introduction of a photography code, which we believe should be clear and easily understood by any photographer, police officer, civilian support officer or warden. …

Not only that, the police have repeatedly abused anti-terrorism laws even when not justified, especially during environmental protests and even during the pro-Tibet marches. This is simply another excuse for them to stop people from holding them to account.

6. Sunny I agree. Part of the problem is that the Police are in danger or being corrupted by their own power. In WW2 people were given the most incredible powers but were held to account. In extreme even the youngest officer in the Merchant or Royal Navy was issued with a fire arm to keep order in lifeboats in the event of the ship sinking . This meant that an 18 year old had the power, on their own authority , to execute one or more people if their actions risked the lives of others in a lifeboat. However, there is no case of a officer no matter how younf misusing this authority.

I think it is time that Britain considered the level of emotional maturity we need from Police Officers in light of the exceptional discretionary powers they have been granted. If one looks at the minmum entry level to being a Customs Officer then it is higher than the minmum entry level to joining the Police.

It is not just that the Police are being given exceptional powers I have serious doubts about their emotional maturity, soundness of judgement and wisdom to handle them.

I agree with Andrew, it is only if the photos would aid terrorism that taking such is prohibited.

Instead of alarmist nonsense, why doesn’t Sunny Hundal start addressing the issues of Muslim extremism in prisons and the authorities responses?

Jailhouselawyer and Andrew seem to miss the point that while this isn’t a ban there is a chilling effect as a result of this law.

I am not in the habit of missing legal points, it’s what makes me a good lawyer.

True, the law is a worrying development.

Equally, it is a worrying development that the blogosphere talks about erosion of civil liberties and yet refuses to walk the walk when such erosion occurs. Recently, Harriet Harman mad a public announcement that Labour would ignore the decisions in a court of law if favour of the court of public opinion.

At para 70, in the Prisoners Votes Case before the ECtHR:

“There is, therefore, no question that a prisoner forfeits his
Convention rights merely because of his status as a person detained
following conviction. Nor is there any place under the Convention system, where tolerance and broadmindedness are the acknowledged hallmarks of
democratic society, for automatic disenfranchisement based purely on what might offend public opinion”.

If it is the court of public opinion that matters, then why is the government refusing to release the results of the public consultation exercise on whether prisoners should get the franchise?

In my view, I believe that the public actually supported the ECtHR decision and that the government cannot admit that it is seriously out of touch with what the public thinks.

Those in the blogosphere who do the talking but not walking should hold their collective heads in shame!

Are you referring to Hirst v UK, jailhouselawyer? I mentioned it in a short blog on how the Government responds to adverse judgements

I agree that the lack of response is a concern not only for its own sake but also in terms of the law v public opinion (or what the government claims public opinion to be).

UKLiberty: Yes, I was referring to that case. Thanks for the link. May I refer you to this link in relation to the latest edition of Inside Time? Link

There are related articles within the newspaper.

The present challenges are:

1. The Committee of Ministers meeting is on 17-19 March 2009, and the Prisoners Votes Case (HirstvUK(No2)) is on the agenda. We will be seeking execution of the Court’s judgment, in the light of the government’s apparent procrastination in this matter. As I understand it, the CoM now has new powers and we will be expecting them to use them against the government.

2. As citizens of the EU, prisoners are entitled to vote in the 4 June 2009 European Election for MEPs. Under EU law any EU citizen can petition the EU Parliament. The Association of Prisoners has lodged such a petition last week. If they are denied the vote, it will invoke a claim for damages between £250-1,000 per convicted prisoner, @ 60,000+ = bottom end £15,000,000 and top end £60,000,000. That’s just for the loss in relation to the European Parliamentary vote. If the General Election is also taken into account, the figure should be doubled. I am surprised that the government thinks that the public can afford this with the present economic downturn.

3. A judicial review is to take place at the High Court. It will be shown that the consultation process is legally flawed and that the only remedy is for Parliament to call an emergency session and debate the issue and pass the necessary legislation.

Given Harriet Harman’s display of contempt of court in favour of the court of public opinion, perhaps we should also ask the court to remind the government of the court’s power and also remind government ministers that the court’s will not tolerate such conduct.

Thanks for that link and for your comment, that’s very interesting.

Here is another example of a lack of response to an adverse judgement, relating to the DNA database.