The word “LEGAL” has many connotations. After all it’s just one group inflicting pressure on another group expecting the weaker group to conform.

I’ve read in depth what you’ve written and whilst I profess to be no “Deanna Troi” there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that you’re one of the good guys in this world.

Like all who live in this polluted land – we’ve adopted certain traits and view points that belong to the “herd”

If you are to be the Jewel in the dirt (perceived by the public) don’t hide behind laws dictated to you by others… make your own assumptions and stand by them irrespective of the consequences.

I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from with your questions and statements to be honest. How some members of the public and tabloid media view Emma Watson doesn’t seem to have much to do with my thoughts on a group of protestors trying to impose non-legal limitations on news-gathering.

Opinions are never irrelevant. Confusing, maybe, but not irrelevant!

How are all the men (and some women no doubt) with the big lenses ensuring the safety of the under 16’s in public places? What guidelines are in place?

I’m sure many an honest punter has been hauled before a judge only to use the immortal defence: “Sorry your honour but she looked older and told me she was seventeen.”

At what point does self restriction and inner morality go out the window? To highlight this comment – I’m referring to the Emma Watson incident. Now she’s no longer jail bait – is she just bait?

My opinions are irrelevant – only answers are.

Photojournalists have always been under assault from all sides because of the power of images and their ability to cross boundaries of culture or language.

Now we face restrictions from the police who routinely break the law on the most spurious grounds to prevent photographers from working. So it saddens but does not surprise me to learn that even those who would outwardly espouse freedom lack the intellectual rigor to live with the consequences of those liberties.

The police must be laughing their socks off to know that they have a new ally in the fight against press freedom!

The Yahoo comments are depressing for the fact that they focus on your remarks rather than the restrictions but in the end, ours is not a business for those who seek popularity.

It is our job to be objective, honest, friendly where appropriate but not friends. Not to the police, not to the protestors, and certainly not to our bosses and editors.

Independence and integrity don’t win friends or thanks and yet it is pretty much the best thing about the job – go figure!

The majority of this country’s newspapers continue to behave as though they are in some desperate popularity contest. The knock on effects are that we are the ones who get the brunt of the public anger and suspicion – such is life.

In Iran, Zimbabwe and countless nations, people are risking their lives for what they believe. In Britain we can’t even risk having our picture taken if we can’t control how it will be used.

We are destined to become an irrelevant little island off the coast of France if we do not stand up for our basic freedoms and when that happens, all the protesting in the world will do us no good because we will have forfeited the right to be taken seriously.

However, of all the sections of journalism on this country, press photographers and photojournalists have been consistently the most objective, even-handed and self-regulated element. Photography is constrained in ways that text is not. The photographic community in the UK, whilst supportive of each other, is also the most outspoken critic of those who fabricate pictures or knowingly twist the situation to portray events misleadingly.

The problem in british journalism is higher up the “food chain” than reporters and photographers and consequently, any move made to restrict news-gatherers merely strengthens the hands of those who do not believe in fairness and objectivity.

Either one agrees with the basic principle of obeying the law, in which case, it is a public right of way and photographers should be free to document the protest as they see fit or one can choose to ignore the law in which case you would be hypocritical to expect photographers to abide by arbitrary rules.

I’m guessing I’m about to get an onslaught from the world’s eco-protesters.. :0

After reading this i don’t think il bother however.

I don’t think it’s worth that hassle really. Alot of the people who participate in those sorts of protests seem to think that us photographers are all earning a huge fortune covering those events and are somehow exploiting the situation for a big paycheck from the Times or something.

This is rarely the case, alot of us freelancers spend alot of time, energy, and effort on covering the huge amounts of protests that take place in London and rarely see much, if any at all, money from it.

I understand how staffers on a salary will have the energy to persist with these idiots enforcing there own laws on land that belongs to all of us (even the media, we are after all human beings aswell?.)

But as a freelance, who stands to make little money if any from covering climate camp, after all that i have heard from other togs and journalists about the hassle i’m not going to bother.

If it’s not the police, it’s the protesters. It’s all so boring, just let us do our job.

Hiring a venue ought to be a perfectly achievable objective. Yes, you may have to make a small charge, protesters will have to dip into their piggy banks, but if these supporters of your cause aren’t prepared to do this it starts to look like a freebie jolly.

Of course, holding the camp by squatting on public land does give you more publicity, which is obviously a major aim. So why not act more maturely by allowing ANYONE with a camera to excercise their right to take pictures of anyone in a public place (except under 16s).

It is the climate camp organisers who have violated ordinary citizens rights, not the other way round.

As an example, I belong to a small group of WordPress enthusiasts who democratically by consensus organised and ran Wordcamp UK 2009 in Cardiff. Everyone who attended paid a small fee. All costs were covered by the entrance fees. What I’m saying is please don’t use the excuse that you can’t afford a venue unlike “big bad corporations.”

I believe in your aims, but not the current methods of execution. I won’t use the phrase, “Grow up.”, but you know what I mean.