In message , Phil Stovell
writes
>On Wed, 14 May 2008 21:49:55 +0100, 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 tried to video a friend's child being christened. I wasn't allowed - the
>reason given was that it is a sacrament. I didn't bother to ask what that
>is.
>
Surely, whether you can - or can't - photograph weddings, christenings
and the like, purely depends on the whim of the person in charge of the
event. Maybe a generous donation to the church roof restoration fund
(prior to the event, of course) might help?
--
Ian |