On 2008-05-11 11:54:19 +0100, Chris H said:
> In message <2008051109152643042-guig@yerawathamecom>, guig
> writes
>> On 2008-05-09 16:56:56 +0100, Chris H said:
>>>> While definitions may vary, for most purposes a "public place" is defined as
>>> Definitions in LAW do not vary and "what most people think" is usually wrong.
>>>
>>>> including any place to which the public have access as of right or by
>>>> invitation, express or implied.
>>> But for THIS Purpose a public place is somewhere that is not owned by
>>> some one who can state a preference for photography..
>>> The Churches are MOST DEFINITELY private property and can not permit
>>> the taking of photos.
>>> Actually I am cheating as the March 2009 Digital Camera Magazine have
>>> a many page article on UK law and photography and I am referring to
>>> that. So it is not idle speculation on my part.
>>
>> I wouldn't take that article as gospel as they solely used English law
>> and forgot to mention that there are slight differences to the law in
>> Scotland. I did point this out to them but got no response.
>
> Are there many differences to the photography law in Scotland
IIRC it is mainly to do with trespass and "harassment".
>
> (BTW Is Scotland that the bit of England north of Manchester... Isn't
> it somewhere in "the Lakes? :-)
And they wonder why the clamour for independence is growing, it's down
to you and Radio 2. :)
>
> I suggested that they do a separate "summer special" just on all
> aspects of photography and the law (for the UK not just England) I am
> sure it would be a sell out.
|