But what's to stop
the violent copper from deciding that you could be a terrorist who just happens to be taking photos of him while he's beating the shit out of someone?
There's a piece on this issue on theregister.co.uk which points out that
"In line with the model used in related laws, the offence itself is "strict liability": it is the gathering of information that will be deemed to be the offence, and a defence that the person had a "reasonable excuse for their action" is only allowed after the offence has been charged."
(
mr.dogshit The world's premier anthropomorphic canine faeces, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 14:59,
Reply)
guilty
until proven innocent, in direct contravention to human rights and public law (unless someone better informed can put me aright)?
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 15:54, Reply)