Pixiq

Well if it is, The Sun has already violated it by posting that giant picture of the power plant on top of the story.

I believe the complaint here is about the law. So I'm not sure what the relevance of your comment is.

If Great Britain were still a true monarchy, protests would mean nothing. The queen could simply turn her nose up at them and walk back inside. The fact of the matter is that it is a parliamentary monarchy. The government is democratically elected, and even though the PM technically has to run matters of state past the queen, it is by courtesy only. Obviously there is a lot more to it than this, but it is more a democracy than a monarchy or republic.

Let's not forget that the reigning monarch in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland has no political power, the last time a British monarch dabbled in politics was when George VI got Ramsay MacDonald, Britain's first Labour Prime Minister, to dissolve his second government and enter a coalition with the Liberals and the Tories.

This was in 1931, the King persuading his first minister to resolve parliament. MacDonald is remembered as a traitor by Labour to this day. But one thing we need to keep in mind is that King George VI didn't have any autority to do this, he was excerting influence. MacDonald would not have had to follow his instructions.

The British monarch follow constitutional practice, which is a funny term in the United Kingdom, as there is no actual constitution, but one part of it is that while the monarch appoints the head of government, the monarch can not pick and choose as he or she pleases. There is a parliamentary election, and the party with a majority gets called the Buckingham Palace where the monarch ask him or her to form a government. In the case of a hung parliament, like in the last election, the monarch will consult with the current Prime Minister, and look at what alliances are being made (in this case, it became obvious that the Tories and the LibDems would form a majority together), and then give their candidate a call.

There are big issues with the election system in the United Kingdom, first past the post has given very inaccurate results, for instance, the Liberal Democrats gained 1 % over the last result, polling 23 % of the votes. They got 8 % of the representation in the Commons. But that has nothing to do with the monarchy. I really don't see how the monarchy has anything to do with this.

In comparison, Norway is also a monarchy. However, it is, like Britiain, a constitutional monarchy, which means the monarch has no real power (great exception was during WW2, when King Haakon VII told his government he would have nothing to do with a capitulation). In Norway, we have strong legal practice that absolutely protects things like secret press sources, the press in general, and we have legal practice literally prohibiting the police from looking at your photos, asking you to stop photographing, taking your camera or deleting your photos.

If we are talking about Saudi Arabia, then it is of concequence that the head of state is a monarch.

I'm sorry, this got a little wrong. But you just got that so wrong.

:)

Yeah, because Bin Laden was such an upstanding guy... Shovel that shit somewhere else. That piece of shit should have been wrapped in bacon rather than a burial shroud.

I think you should live in North Korea, China, or Vietnam.

This law is interesting. Firstly, the law was recently struck down by the European Human Rights Court, which means it is technically no longer the law of the land.

Secondly, if you're not a terrorist, it is never illegal to photograph a power plant, or a reprocessing plant. In other words, there is no reason why a reasonable person should expect he or she was breaking the law. In effect, if you're not a terrorist, you are not breaking the law.

It is not a question of breaking the law, like when you steal a car, it is a question of the police on the ground making an arrest over suspicious activity, there has at no point been broken any laws.

I suggest you read up on things before commenting.

The United Kingdom doesn't really have a constitution. They have the Magna Carta, but their constitution is, in a manner of speech, constitutional practice. How they've done it before, is how it's done now, if they don't change things for some reason.

However, a constitution is not worth the paper it's written on if it's not respected. For instance, the Soviet Union enacted a very expansive constitution in 1921, with loads of civil liberties. Which is fine, but it didn't stop Lenin and Stalin from doing as they pleased.

I tend to think Americans put a little too much trust into the constitution itself. It's not the constitution that's kept America free, it's the absence of powerful men with the wish to make it really unfree. The Supreme Court has ruled differently over the years on a number of cases, it's not because the constitution has changed significantly, it's because the men who pass judgement change.

But this is a digression, I appologize.

Because there's always some excuse to violate civil liberties.

Because, for the millionth time, photography alone, absent other behavior, is not a suspicious activity.