What utter, utter nonsense. It’s true that everyone has the article 8 Convention right to have their private life respected, and that in some Ray Ban outlet circumstances widely publishing a picture of someone might be a breach of that right. For instance, if the government were to insert hidden cameras in hotel bedrooms and publish on the web photographs of honeymoon-style activity. Clearly private life, and a definite lack of respect.
But publishing fugitive prisoners’ photos in circumstances like these is clearly justified in terms of the article 8 right, for the purpose of preventing crime, to protect public safety and to protect the rights and freedoms of others. There really is no human rights issue. But there would be if the prisoners were dangerous – in a case like that, a stupid refusal to issue photos for daft, imaginary human rights reasons might well risk a real breach of the police’s duty under the article 2 Convention right to do what it can to secure our right to life.
The government was right in its review of the http://www.gooakley.com/ Human Rights Act, over the summer (downloadable here): the Act is being blamed, ridiculously, for all kinds of stupidities which it has nothing whatever to do with. I actually suspect the police of conniving in this: no doubt many police officers hate the Act for reasons both daft (they imagine it stops them doing things when it doesn’t) and rational (it does stop them doing some things they’d like to do) and I think some police officers enjoy sowing confusion about it and bringing it into disrepute.
Leave a comment