LETTER: Falling foul of film processors and the police
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Mr Michael Taylor
Sir: I agree with most of Claire Rayner's article (Another View, 6 November) about Julia Somerville's persecution, but I see little point in increasing Boots' profits on developing and printing by getting them to process more entirely innocent pictures of naked children. Especially as there would still be a risk of some over-zealous operative going to the police.
A few years ago the manager of our local Boots wanted to refuse to print a lovely, though scarcely erotic, let alone "pornographic", photograph of a beautiful woman. After getting the print I had asked for, I have never been near Boots for processing since.
I suggest a more effective form of protest would be for your readers to go somewhere else for their photographic work, first checking that there is no fundamentalist processor at work.
Yours faithfully,
Michael Taylor
Logiealmond, Perthshire
6 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments