On Thu, 15 May 2008 10:46:44 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> 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?
This was a high church - whatever that means. The priests seemed to get
stuck into the blood of christ, so I guess that's it.
--
Phil Stovell, Hampshire, UK
|