• TWeaK@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago
    1. You’re applying the technical terminology from The Highway Code, it’s not clear that this applies here.
    2. The leaflet itself shows no explanation of the terms “should” and “must” like there is in The Highway Code.
    3. That kind of nuanced language really isn’t appropriate in literature meant for people with a poor grasp of the English and English culture.
    4. “Should not” and “can not” are not “legally different” - the terms have no formal legal definition, they’re just used in The Highway Code like that. But The Highway Code is not written by the government, it’s written by a private business called The Stationary Office. They don’t come up with legal definitions, they provide a specific layman’s explanation of the rules of the road, as defined in both legislation and case law.
    • GiveOver@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ok so the upshot is that asylum seekers don’t take photos of people in public because they mistakenly think it’s illegal. Doesn’t seem like the worst outcome.

      • TWeaK@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        The worst outcome is someone reading it (not necessarily an asylum seeker), thinks it’s accurate because it’s from the government, then uses that to justify harassing people with cameras. People legally going about their day, taking photos in public legally, but contradicting the advice in this leaflet, being harassed due to this leaflet.

        The long term worst outcome is that this sentiment spreads until a new law is introduced that actually does prohibit taking photos without permission.