Reply to post: Re: No, it does have to do with government

Re: No, it does have to do with government

"Yes, the Idiots With A Badge phenomena is why he was treated that way, but it is the ridiculous response of governments because they have to be seen "doing something" about terrorism is why the supposed need for heightened security at ports, so where a guy on public land is seen as a threat."

Utterly incorrect, as the text and URL from which below it was culled demonstrate:

"Freedom to photograph and film

The power to stop and search someone under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 no longer exists."

http://content.met.police.uk/Site/photographyadvice

Note the second paragraph, with which it would seem the attending police are familiar.

This is not government (the legislature) but the executive and assorted peripheral clones. Were I the photographer in question I would press charges for assault. These individuals were in a public place and therefore out of their jurisdiction. That the police were happy says enough.

In respect of drones the situation is different. For example, flying drones amidst air traffic is causing problems likely to clarify existing legislation and draw more legislation forth. Further, flying a drone over someone else's property may constitute harassment. Indeed, in the US a man shot one down for flying over his property. There is more to this than meets the eye; it would be an ideal tool for paedophiles to use, for people to intrude on the lives of private citizens and even their confidential business lives (espionage), by commercial or government-commercial espionage agencies.