Cameras are not unlawful, usually

After an unconscionably long rest from blogging, what drove me back to the keyboard was nothing more momentous than a television documentary of the fly-on-the-wall genre. This one broadcast on Thursday evening was about motorway police and showed a remarkable incident where two Swedish sisters took a walk along the central reservation of the M6. Both were badly injured running away from police across the carriageway. The programme in allowing the police to speak for themselves showed them in a sympathetic light in very difficult circumstances. One thing that struck me however was that one policeman told members of the public - drivers whose vehicles had been stopped - to stop taking photographs or filming, and that otherwise he would take away their cameras.

I cannot think what powers he would have to do this. I can well understand that members of the public could be so close as to interfere with operations, but it seemed to be the photography rather than the proximity of the members of the public to which he objected. The whole incident was of course being professionally filmed in any event.

To me, this is an example of the way in which a perfectly lawful activity in most circumstances - photography - apppears to have become an object of suspicion to the police. Mr Austin Mitchell MP has I believe drawn attention to this development. To me it is all the more remarkable that one of the few legal restrictions on photography - photography immediately outside a court - is flouted in most news bulletins with impunity.