The problem with restricting civil liberties in the name of terrorist prevention is that there is always more you could do. If nobody left home, road deaths would stop overnight but all our lives would be immeasurably poorer.It's all about balancing the efficacy of any particular "anti-terror" measure with the impact it has on our lives. To use Kate's latter analogy, the impact of having to wear a seat belt in the car is minimal - perhaps a few seconds every journey and a couple of hundred pounds extra for a brand new car. Yet the benefits in terms of lives (and as any A&E nurse will know, faces) saved is immeasurable. No brainer (although it didn't stop the US car industry from fighting the cause).
So what about this case? Is the impact on our lives that huge? You don't get a huge amount of trainspotters at Macc - it's not a very nice station and there's not a great deal of traffic. Yet this "ban" extends to anyone who might whip out a camera or phone to take a photo of their friends on a night out, or a loved one as they depart for home after a weekend's stay.
And for what?
If I wanted photos of Macclesfield station to plan a terrorist attack or theft it would be easy to take them in a clandestine manner with a camera phone. I could write down a plan or map. It's not a huge station - I could probably remember all the details I needed to know.
There is no way in the world that this measure could reduce the threat from theft or terrorism.
"Security" is the new Health and Safety. It's what the jobsworth says when he wants to get his own way about something and can't come up with a decent reason for doing it. The sooner we stop using terrorism as an excuse to implement rules and regulations the better - and that also means that we need to stop using terrorist legislation to clamp down on protestors too.
1 comment:
The owner of private property may impose whatever conditions he wishes (within the law) upon those who visit his premises - including a condition that filming is prohibited.
HOWEVER
It is interesting to note that Macc station is described as 'Managed by' Virgin rail. This suggests to me that the station is public property leased to Virgin and I am unsure if they are as able to impose blanket bans as they think they are.
the existence of Entick v Carrington & Ors [1765] EWHC KB J98 remains authority for the contention that a Crown Subject may do anything except that which is expressly forbidden by law and that the state may do nothing but that which is expressly authorised by law,
This is the legal position and somewhat contrary to the view of officialdom that it is free to arbitrarily extend the bounds of it's authority.
Now as mentioned an owner of private property can make whatever rules he likes (assuming they are legal) Public property is somewhat different. Any prohibition on filming in public parks, for example, is governed by byelaws. Such byelaws are made in accordance with the provisions of 235-238 Local Government Act 1972.
Once confirmed via the statutory procedure a copy must be printed and deposited at the authority's offices. It must be open to public inspection without payment at all reasonable hours, and copies supplied on payment of such sum, not exceeding 20p per copy, as the authority may determine. Local authorities do not always seem to be aware of these obligations.
Post a Comment