On May 14, 9:49=A0pm, Les Invalides wrote:
> 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.
I was hoping for either a specific Act of Parliament outlawing
photography when BMD records are being signed or some historic
catastrophic loss of data that caused them to act to prevent future
problems.
Perhaps in the days of flash powder on a wooden tray and celluloid
film an over enthusiastic professional set light to the register and
the church with it or something like that.
Why implementing the same rules that have existed in churches for as
far back as I can remember at register offices should cause the Mail
to go ballistic is something of a mystery....
Regards,
Martin Brown |