Re: Photography diplomatic incident
1506
> On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
>
> > > >http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_0_15/05/2009_1...
>
> > > Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the Police
> > > ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
> > > "crime" actually occured?
> > > --
> > > These opinions might not even be mine ...
> > > Let alone connected with my employer ...
>
> > The evidence is the distress.
>
> > So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
> > distressed to make anything illegal.
>
> Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
> being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
> can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
>
> George
what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?
1506
wrote:
> Found in a Greek newspaper (in English):
>
> "A 53-year-old Greek amateur photographer will be tried in a London court on
> Monday on charges of 'causing public harassment, alarm or distress' after
> photographing a young girl during a journey on the British capital's
> Underground, provoking protests from from the child's mother."
>
> http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_0_15/05/2009_1...
>
This does raise some interesting questions. Like: What about people,
especially children, who step into a photographer's viewfinder just as
he, or she, takes the shot? This is very likely to happen in transit
type of situations.
furnessvale
Never heard of that rule of evidence. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
George
MB
"1506" <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59a04a51-e1f1-41b6...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
---------------------------------
Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime then
they want to keep it for twelve years.
Charles Ellson
<adrian_a...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale <furnessv...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn <palmerspe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
>>
>> > > >http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_0_15/05/2009_1...
>>
>> > > Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the Police
>> > > ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
>> > > "crime" actually occured?
>> > > --
>> > > These opinions might not even be mine ...
>> > > Let alone connected with my employer ...
>>
>> > The evidence is the distress.
>>
>> > So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
>> > distressed to make anything illegal.
>>
"(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."
2 out of 3 in the defendant's favour if he was merely taking
photographs ?
>> Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
>> being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
>> can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
>>
>> George
>
>what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
>matter shall be confirmed."?
>
It doesn't count south of Hadrian's Wall.
1506
1506
Once again Scottish Law shows its virtue.
Charles Ellson
<furne...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 15, 9:57?pm, 1506 <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 15, 7:54?am, furnessvale <furnessv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
>> > being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
>> > can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
>>
>> > George
>>
>> what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
>> matter shall be confirmed."?
>
>Never heard of that rule of evidence. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
>
It is a biblical reference from Deuteronomy.
John Rowland
>
> Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent
> and even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the
> interviews with police and Home Office people about the keeping of
> DNA records of innocent people were illuminating. They just did not
> understand the concept, one even admitted that he would have to look
> up in the dictionary. One aspect was that if you are innocent of most
> crimes they want to keep your DNA for six years but if you are
> innocent of a more serious crime then they want to keep it for twelve
> years.
A Home Office bod even said on the news that the DNA of innocent people
should be kept "in case they offend again".
Arthur Figgis
Don't a lot of people who follow rules like the one above believe that
everyone born *is* guilty, by definition?
> Some of the interviews
> with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
> innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
> concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the dictionary.
> One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
> your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime then
> they want to keep it for twelve years.
Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK
Roland Perry
10:05:38 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Arthur Figgis
<afi...@example.com.invalid> remarked:
>Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
>because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
>gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
>quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
>them not guilty.
Vernon Coaker, the police minister, it seems.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/thomas-sutcliffe/tom-
sutcliffe-innocentish-ndash-an-essential-part-of-justice-1683146.html>
--
Roland Perry
MB
"Arthur Figgis" <afi...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Y7ydncl0no15HJPX...@brightview.co.uk...
There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a house
and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I don't
think most people have any objection to criminal's money being confiscated
but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained through
criminal activities.
Mizter T
On May 16, 10:36 am, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <Y7ydncl0no15HJPXnZ2dnUVZ8vidn...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 10:05:38 on Sat, 16 May 2009, Arthur Figgis
> <afig...@example.com.invalid> remarked:
>
> >Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
> >because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
> >gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
> >quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
> >them not guilty.
>
> Vernon Coaker, the police minister, it seems.
>
> <http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/thomas-sutcliffe/tom-
> sutcliffe-innocentish-ndash-an-essential-part-of-justice-1683146.html>
>
Interesting piece!
furnessvale
A side effect of taking DNA has been the fact that some close
relatives of innocent DNA sample givers have been caught due to the
relative giving a sample.
George
Bill Borland
.com>, 1506 <adrian_a...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>>
>> > The evidence is the distress.
>>
>> > So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
>> > distressed to make anything illegal.
>>
>> Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
>> being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
>> can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
>>
>>
to whether he or she was indeed distressed? Any other person's
opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
of fact.
--
Bill Borland
MB
"furnessvale" <furne...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7731ba60-afe0-4bf7...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On May 16, 12:36?pm, Mizter T <mizte...@gmail.com> wrote:
George
---------------------------
And in at least one case innocent close relatives were very nearly
convicted of murder, I would not be surprised if there are other cases
where the people were convicted.
I think it was David Davies who suggested that it might be more profitable
if they first collected DNA from people who had previously been convicted
of offences especially ones who were released early and so the authorities
can probably force them to do so.
I just dread the number of false matches there are going to be if they ever
get their way and have DNA from the whole population. We all know this
government's record with large databases.
Andrew Heenan
>>> > The evidence is the distress.
>>> > So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
>>> > distressed to make anything illegal.
>>> Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
>>> being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
>>> can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
> But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
> to whether he or she was indeed distressed? Any other person's
> opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
> of fact.
Assuming the facts are not in dispute, the court has to decide if the event
could *reasonably be described* as distressing - there may be precedent
cases that had set a standard for what constitutes 'distressing' in similar
circumstances.
There's certainly plenty of precedent to show that victims of assault who
are deemed to be affected by fear or threats will see the defendant getting
a stiffer sentence / paying higher damages.
Many offenses such as 'threatening behaviour', 'behaviour likely to cause a
breach of the peace' depend on the courts making fine judgements on what is
'reasonable'.
The claim of distress is not evidence in itself, though the explanation of
*why* it was felt to be distressing might highlight key aspects of the case
for the judge / magistrate / jury / meeja.
Michael R N Dolbear
> There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a
house
> and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I
don't
> think most people have any objection to criminal's money being
confiscated
> but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained
through
> criminal activities.
Depends on the size of the sum in question. Given that no legal job or
business existed an inference that criminal activities were the source
seems rational.
If the police found �100,000 in the bread-bin, would you as a juryman
vote to convict, assuming no explanation ?
�1,000,000 ?
�5,000,000 ?
|| A man who was cleared of drugs charges last year has two flats and a
Rolex watch seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4563603.stm
|| A woman who claims she funded a lavish lifestyle with bingo and a
"penny
pinching" husband is convicted of possessing criminal property.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3962259.stm
--
Mike D
sp...@johnband.org
> >> > The evidence is the distress.
>
> >> > So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
> >> > distressed to make anything illegal.
>
> >> Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
> >> being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
> >> can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
>
> But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
> to whether he or she was indeed distressed? Any other person's
> opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
> of fact.
Surely the test is 'could reasonably be expected to have caused
distress', not 'actually did cause distress'?
--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org
1506
> "1506" <adrian_auerhud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.
In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.
If it is so, prepare for lots of incidents involving tourists,
especially those from Japan.
MB
------------------------------
Depends on the circumstances where the child was photographed.
There have been cases where any children have been in the background but
someone has complained and of course the classic case of a lady being
prevented taking a picture of an empty paddling pool because there could be
children in the distance.
I have taken pictures of friends' children when other children have been
around and no one had bothered but people are being brainwashed into
believing that you cannot even do that or even "take pictures of children".
Arthur Figgis
> entirely unacceptable.
But why? Simply because a tabloid told you anyone with a camera is a
peeedo/terrorist/MP/<insert hate figure of the month>?
Does that mean no more CCTV?
furnessvale
> Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
> entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
> with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
> better.
>
> In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
> for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
> the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.
>
Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.
I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.
George
MB
George
-------------------------------------
MB
MB
"MB" <m...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:4a1295c9$0$17704$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
This is a very strange reply to the question
"Asked whether police confiscated the photographer's camera, the BTP
spokesman told us: 'As is standard police procedure, items would have been
removed from him prior to him being placed into a cell. They would have
been securely stored and then returned to him.' "
You would think a simple "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient.
MB
rail
"MB" <m...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Neither would be aacurate, his camera wasn't confiscated but to say No would
be misleading as it was taken away from him, along with his other possesions.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Alex Potter
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/
Photographers_Tube_photo_case_thrown_out_update_news_282766.html
At least he wasn't "attacked by bandits with machetes"!
--
Alex
(imagining people keeping their .sigs to four lines)
Tony Polson
>
>Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else�s child is
>entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
>with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
>better.
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable". When I was a kid in the 1950s and
60s, no-one thought anything of it. Children were just as acceptable a
subject for photography as landscapes, street scenes, wildlife, sports,
architecture etc..
Candid pictures of children were a cornerstone of the portfolios of many
of the great Victorian photographers, for example Frank Meadow Sutcliffe
of Whitby. Presumably, no-one gave a moment's thought to the possibility
that there might have been any suspicious intent, although his pictures
of young boys were criticised by churchmen of the time, not for any
corrupting influence on the subjects but for their potential effect on
young women*.
All this changed significantly, probably from the 1970s onwards with the
emergence of paedophilia as a subject widely discussed by people in
general as well as in the media. Public awareness of paedophilia has
probably reached an all-time high and that shows no signs of going away.
My point is that it wasn't always like that.
I don't think other countries entirely share our very British obsession
with the risk of paedophilia being closely associated with photography.
Perhaps the Greek photographer was slightly bemused by the reaction of
the (presumably British) parents?
*Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's gallery "Children" is online here:
http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/gallery_194448.html
The pictures were mostly posed, and Sutcliife is known to have given
children some small change in return for allowing him to take
photographs of them.
Presumably you would also consider this to be "entirely unacceptable"?
I know I would - I certainly wouldn't find it in any way acceptable for
a child of mine to be involved in anything like this. But it serves to
illustrate my point that things have changed significantly.
Theo Markettos
> At least he wasn't "attacked by bandits with machetes"!
The Jubilee Line isn't /that/ bad! ;-)
Theo
Miles Bader
> Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
> considered "entirely unacceptable".
I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe. Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?
I'm skeptical...
-Miles
--
Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.
Tony Polson
>Tony Polson <docne...@googlemail.com> writes:
>> Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
>> considered "entirely unacceptable".
>
>I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
>in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
>bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
>the extreme fringe.
Who says they are "the extreme fringe"? I would guess that the majority
of parents would be outraged at the idea of strangers photographing
their children, either without prior express permission, or at all.
>Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
>of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?
It wasn't in Victorian times, and according to someone I work with who
has been doing wedding and social photography since just after WW2, it
was fine in the 50s and 60s - candid pictures of children at play, or
'street urchins' in poor areas, apparently sold well. Most were taken
without permission.
But when the scandals of child abuse in various institutions and schools
first became more widely known in the 70s, things changed. And now we
have local council staff who have specifically been trained, in addition
to their everyday responsibilities, to detect and report (to the police)
instances of adults taking photos of other people's children in parks
and other public areas.
Greater awareness of paedophilia and the techniques paedophiles use to
befriend children had led to what is, perhaps, an over-reaction. But
where children's safety is concerned, parents do understandably tend to
err on the safe side.
I'm not sure that the reaction of the woman in the story we are
discussing justifies the terms "insane" or "stupid". I think hers was
an entirely predictable reaction in this country.
It may have seemed strange to the photographer, who presumably would
never have expected such a reaction if doing something similar in his
own country. However, this is Tabloid Britain, and what might seem like
paranoia to an outsider is perfectly understandable here.
>I'm skeptical...
Do you have any children of your own?
MIG
> Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
As was alluded to elsewhere, taking a snap doesn't really get a person
any closer to being able to target a particular child.
CCTV, on the other hand, does. Any low-paid worker in CCTV control
can spot a child waiting with a football kit bag at the same corner
every week and learn enough (to sell to whoever) to be able to say
"your dad's blue Mondeo broke down and he asked me to pick you up from
football; he said you won last week" etc etc.
So why all the fuss about taking snaps and not about the fact that
CCTV is a genuine threat to your children? Bizarre.
Adam Funk
> As was alluded to elsewhere, taking a snap doesn't really get a person
> any closer to being able to target a particular child.
>
> CCTV, on the other hand, does. Any low-paid worker in CCTV control
> can spot a child waiting with a football kit bag at the same corner
> every week and learn enough (to sell to whoever) to be able to say
> "your dad's blue Mondeo broke down and he asked me to pick you up from
> football; he said you won last week" etc etc.
>
> So why all the fuss about taking snaps and not about the fact that
> CCTV is a genuine threat to your children? Bizarre.
I suppose because CCTV seems impersonal: you don't see the person
"behind" the camera. That's irrational, of course; you can see the
photographer and judge whether he looks respectable, whereas you can't
tell whether there's a drooling menace in the surveillance room.
Envo
"Miles Bader" <mi...@gnu.org> wrote in message
news:871vqjm...@catnip.gol.com...
> Tony Polson <docne...@googlemail.com> writes:
>> Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
>> considered "entirely unacceptable".
>
> I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
> in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
> bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
> the extreme fringe. Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
> of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?
>
Does "socially unacceptable" = "illegal" ?!?!
Envo
Miles Bader
>> Is it really the case that merely taking a picture of a child on the
>> street is "socially unacceptable"?
>
> Does "socially unacceptable" = "illegal" ?!?!
Obviously not. Why do you ask?
-Miles
--
History, n. An account mostly false, of events mostly unimportant, which are
brought about by rulers mostly knaves, and soldiers mostly fools.
Tony Polson
It depends on how "unacceptable" it is. That's more or less the basis
of the Common Law, I think you will find.