Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> posted
>That has always been my experience. But given this outcry I did wonder
>what the legal position actually was and why the actual signing is not
>supposed to be photographed. Is it a legal restriction (a bit like not
>being allowed to say the exact invocation of the marriage ceremony at
>the practice) or something else?
Certainly the custom pre-dates the Data Protection Act even in its 1984
version, so it can't be that.
Very often these things are not allowed because, er, they're not
allowed. 'Ere, we can't let you photograph that there register, or 'oo
knows where it would all end. My father afore me never allowed that sort
of thing, nor his father afore him. Etc etc.
--
Les Invalides |