G20 demonstrations

I used the word 'effectively' purposefully.

"As from 16th February this year it is effectively illegal to take pictures of the police."

It is up to the courts and the police to interpret this law - and we already have endless examples of previous terror laws being routinely abused for ends they were never intended for - as each additional power is granted under terrorism laws ministers give assurances that these new laws will not be used outside their intended remit and - each time they are - routinely so. Not isolated cases, but as a matter of course.

In a culture that already sees policemen intimidating photographers working entirely within the law I don't think it is naive or alarmist to see that this law will be routinely employed in situations where it has no place. Like it has already been said, once you have been arrested and thrown in the back of a van, it's all good and well to point out that no law has been breached, but no one has ever talked their way out of a police van regardless of your knowledge of the law and how word perfect you can quote section 76, the police are not interested.

Your point is techincally right, I might be better rewording what I said to:

"As from 16th February this year taking pictures of the police puts you in real peril of arrest."

The thing is, photographers (journalists and otherwise) are not playing the same game as the police. The police are organised, co-ordinated and taking clearly defined and prescribed action. The other side is disorganised and not working together at all. There are pockets of organisation, but not nearly enough to match the scale of the police.

What really should happen is that photographers should consistently contest any unrealistic application of the law and make sure that the details of the proceedings and all results are distributed int he public domain.