grim news for photographers tourism and rights
nigel
As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
appear that he did anything wrong.
tony cooper
wrote:
>http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>
>As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>appear that he did anything wrong.
>
The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
concerned.
As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
actually erased.
I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he was
intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Ofnuts
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>
>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>> appear that he did anything wrong.
>>
> The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
> would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
> policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
> concerned.
>
> As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
> camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
> actually erased.
They weren't... recovering them would be quite easy provided there are
now further write operations to the card.
--
Bertrand
Justin C
The train and stations, though open to the public (for a fee) are
private property[1], and, as such, there is no right to take
photographs. However, it is not, AFAIAA, forbidden either.
It's cases like this which may force TFL to change the rules and
actually say something specifically about photography, and you can bet
that if they say anything about it it will be that it is forbidden.
Justin.
1. Makes me really mad that anything that's state run can be considered
private property, who the f*** do they think owns it? .... London
Tansport (or TFL) hasn't been sold off has it?
--
Justin C, by the sea.
tony cooper
The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
Paul Bartram
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote
> The photographer was charged with public harassment and
> causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
They should also arrest the owners of the tabloid media for artificially
*creating* the alarm and distress that the father claimed he felt. Take
exactly the same shots in a run-down area of Bangkok and the kids and their
parents would be lining up to be in the frame - but then they don't read
alarmist junk in tabloids, too busy staying alive.
Paul
pawihte
Sometimes it makes me gag to hear about the extent to which citizens of the
so-called more advanced western countries have been spoilt.
eNo
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>
> >As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
> >appear that he did anything wrong.
>
> The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
> would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
> policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
> concerned.
>
> As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
> camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
> actually erased.
And a technically savvy person knows the images, though erased, can be
recovered fairly easily.
> I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he was
> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
I must say that if I were that father's girl, I would have reacted
equally... know your boundaries and the laws of the countries you're
visiting.
pawihte
unfamiliar place make sure he knows every quirk of local law (or
custom) that may affect him? Saying "ask first" is not the answer
because one wouldn't always know what needs to be asked.
tony cooper
How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
catches you, that there will be some law involved?
The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
slobbered over on the net.
The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
Paul Furman
Sure, that's common courtesy and just plain smart, but is it the law?
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
tony cooper
wrote:
The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
man claiming to be the girl�s father pursued the Greek photographer
and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
�public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
If you cause some sort of disturbance, there's going be a law against
it. It doesn't matter what law. The father was evidently able to
make his case to the arresting officer that the event was disturbing.
You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
We never really have a full understanding of events like this reported
in the newspaper. You'd think that this could have been settled by a
calm conversation between the father and the photographer, but
evidently not. Either the photographer got stroppy with the policeman
or the father was very insistent that the man be charged. Or the
policeman's piles were acting up that day. We don't know.
I haven't had much interaction with the police, but I can't see an
officer wasting his time making an arrest on an incident like this
unless there was some factor not reported in the paper. The policeman
would rather be nipping off for a doughnut than filling out the
paperwork, but something escalated the situation.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>
>>> The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>>
>> Sure, that's common courtesy and just plain smart, but is it the law?
>
> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
>
> If you cause some sort of disturbance, there's going be a law against
> it. It doesn't matter what law. The father was evidently able to
> make his case to the arresting officer that the event was disturbing.
>
> You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
> some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
> expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
>
> We never really have a full understanding of events like this reported
> in the newspaper.
Yep. The article says the photog understood their complaint and deleted
the pictures. Who knows, maybe the photog was a pedophile, or the father
created the disturbance while the polite photog complied.
The UK seems much more restrictive about this sort of thing though
compared to Saudi Arabia, the UK probably looks like pure anarchy.
> You'd think that this could have been settled by a
> calm conversation between the father and the photographer, but
> evidently not. Either the photographer got stroppy with the policeman
> or the father was very insistent that the man be charged. Or the
> policeman's piles were acting up that day. We don't know.
>
> I haven't had much interaction with the police, but I can't see an
> officer wasting his time making an arrest on an incident like this
> unless there was some factor not reported in the paper. The policeman
> would rather be nipping off for a doughnut than filling out the
> paperwork, but something escalated the situation.
>
>
>
>
>
--
Ray Fischer
Paul Heslop
>
> what was family's ethnic background?
why?
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Dimitris M
Antoniou says with the letter to the British Ambassador. The source is here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85334727050
--
Dimitris M
_____________________________________________________________________
The Greek photographer Pericles Antoniou from Athens Greece, was arrested in
London England during the Greek Orthodox Easter for taking photographs of a
girl in the London Metro.
Mr. Antoniou, who has a 25-year experience in artistic photography, was sent
to jail, shoeless and was not allowed to communicate with any of his family;
he is expected on a hearing soon this month.
Mr. Antoniou is also a member of Greek Caravan of Solidarity, which was
featured in www.tvxs.gr
As he claims in his letter to the Greek Ambassador in England, he was
visiting London England due to the Greek Easter seasons, and as a �tourist�
he took his camera and rushed to the streets of the British capital city
seeking themes to shoot. While on the subway, the mother of a child
complained about the fact that he was taking photos of her underage
daughter. Mr. Antoniou apologised to the mother and erased all photos which
depicted her daughter. However, the father of the youngster was not
satisfied with this, and on the next train station asked for the help of
police officers, who arrested the Greek visitor.
�They arrested me and locked me up on the cell of the local Police Station,
they deprived of every rights I had; they neither allow my wife to visit me
on the cell nor my 14 year old son and his friends; and I was under a strict
solitary confinement during the night. After taking all my personal
belongings: my watch, my shoes, and my cell phone, they finally seized my
camera�, Mr. Antoniou explains.
The next day, Good Friday, the Greek photographer was brought on court where
he was told that he is accused under the Public Order Act 1986 (sections 5,1
and of Act 6) because he might have caused �public harassment, alarm or
distress�. The 53 year old man confirmed that he did not have anything to do
with all these. The hearing is on 18th May.
Below is the statement letter of Mr. Pericles Antoniou who sent a copy also
to the Ambassador of Britain in Greece.
�Dear Mr Ambassador,
I was in London during the Greek Orthodox Easter Vacations with my family
and friends and I m writing this letter to impeach what has happened to me
asking you, after you have confirmed all these, to make the necessary
procedures so as to stop my humiliation and to restore my reputation. Above
all, I would like to ask you that no other incidents happen in the future,
because I think they have no place in today�s society, and especially among
ourselves as citizens in the European Union.
My name is Pericles Antoniou, I am 53 years old and my hobby is Photography
during the past 25 years.
On Thursday 17th April 2009, around 11:30 am, on the Jubillee line of London
Metro, I was heading towards Modern Tate Gallery to visit the photo
exhibition of the Russian photographer and painter Rochenko. On route and
being fascinated by the fabulous themes, as I was starting taking
photographs on the Metro of the people being present there, a lady
complained about the fact that I was taking photos of her daughter. I
apologized immediately, as the ethics and common practice of photographers
dictates, I showed the lady the photos I had taken of her daughter, and I
erased every photo which contained her. Thinking that the whole situation
was over, an unknown man claiming to be the father of the child, followed me
to the exit and approached some policemen, who were asked to arrest me.
From this point onwards everything was like a nightmare: they arrested me,
the locked me up in a cell, they deprived me of every rights I had while
being in custody, they did not allow me to communicate with anyone, they
neither allow my wife to visit me nor my 14 year old son or any of my
friends, they kept me isolated and barred knowing that I would not escape in
any way, they took all my personal belongings such as my wristwatch, they
took my shoes off and kept my camera. I was not even accused of anything
formally and my relatives did not even know any of this. I, also, note that
not even the Greek authorities in the UK know anything about this incident
at that time, and they have been informed about it from my relatives.
Finally, after having been kept in custody on Thursday, they brought me to
court on Friday handcuffed, and I was told that I am accused according to
the 1986 Act 5, section 1 and 6 that I �might have caused fear and stress to
the people around me�. Naturally, I pled innocent and there was a recess
until the 18th of May 2009, where, as I have been told, I have to be present
because I will be condemned as guilty in absentia.
Result: Our family holidays were ruined. We are suffering a post-trauma
effect from all this happened to us, i.e. financial loss and expenses. My
obligation to visit London once again and to pay for my own expenses, for
accommodation and for lawyer fees. Also, I have to oblige the people who
witnessed the incident to attend the court, as I have been advised to bring
them with me so as not to be condemned. Nevertheless, I am deprived of my
camera due to the fact that was confiscated by the police, and so I am not
able to create. Finally, I have to take 4 days off my job in order to be
present at court from 14 until 15th of May 2009.
Most important is that both my family I feel humiliated from all this
incident, and we feel insecure and afraid that we will not be through this
soon enough because of the red tape that�s been going on.
I fear that I am in the middle of a case � as if it was written by Kafka
himself for his novels - as a plain citizen, who is accused of exposing his
artistic sensitivity, against a huge governmental mechanism trying to weave
an absurd accusation against me. All this for a simple photo shoot taken
place in public places having stated to the police from the very beginning
that I did not have the intention to cause any harm, I did not cause any
harm eventually, and that the photos I have taken did not cause any ill
comments or any form of damage to anyone.
I trust that, apart from my ruined holidays, the expenses which I have
suffered to pay, and my family�s and friends� mental anguish, what has
troubled me the most is that the police tried to humiliate me in any way.
Yet, the abovementioned things I have suffered ever since I was taken to the
police station were the worst things in my life and will follow me for the
rest of my life.
I wonder why did you have to protest strongly to the Greek authorities and
media, when British tourists were arrested for taking photos of airplanes
years ago, while there was a sign that prohibited taking photos on that
particular place?
(Let it be known, that I would be on the British citizens� side because I
had sensed that they were on foreign ground without knowing our sensitive
issues about national air space! I repeat, though, that they were taking
photos next to the sign which prohibited taking of photos and later they
posted their photos!)
Also, why did you protest for the arrest of British citizens on Greek
islands, under the influence of alcohol when they swear at people, beat up
people and generally behave rudely to everyone? What is the Greek police
behaviour to all this? Did they lock them up in cells and humiliate them, as
I have suffered recently because I happened to take photos in public
place(!!!) ?
It is inconceivable for one to think, in the country where Bill Brandt,
Mar�in Parr, Killip were born and their works are based on street
photography, that I had to be humiliated and accused of taking photos (!!!)
while being in the Metro � subway. It is noted that in the National Portrait
Gallery there is a photo exhibition currently which is about photos taken of
people in streets!!!
And all this happening to a modern and civilized country with multicultural
issues and if anything else, it�s one of my favourite destinations for my
holidays.
I am writing this letter, reserving the right for any further action taken
to protect my dignity and rights, expecting your intervention against the
British authorities so that this outrageous case put to an end, let alone
that it does not give credit to the British Police. Above all, it is
necessary to put a stop on such incidents which degrade the notion of fair
justice from your country, which is supposed to respect the rights of
citizens as well as the artistic expressions.
I intend to notify this letter to the Greek media and also I intend to
inform the European, the Greek and the British Ombudsman; also I am going to
repost this letter to the Greek, European and International Artistic
Photographers Associations.
Pericles Antoniou,
April 21st 2009. �
translation by Frank Gimme
David J Taylor
> For the truth, read the following that describes what happens, as mr
> Antoniou says with the letter to the British Ambassador. The source
> is here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=85334727050
What "Recent News" item say?
Is his trial not over by now?
What was the outcome?
Dimitris M
back to Greece after the event and he comes back to London 2 days ago for
the trial.
BTW, Periklis Antoniou is a very respected person and amateur photographer
with many excibitions and big work and two published albums
http://photocircle.gr/component/option,com_uhp2/task,viewpage/Itemid,68/user_id,65/lang,el/
--
Dimitris M
David J Taylor
> The trial (hearing) is tomorrow Monday 18th of May. Mr Antoniou has
> come back to Greece after the event and he comes back to London 2
> days ago for the trial.
>
> BTW, Periklis Antoniou is a very respected person and amateur
> photographer with many excibitions and big work and two published
> albums
Thanks, I was a week ahead of myself!
Dimitris M
"Finally, I have to take 4 days off my job in order to be present at court
from 14 until 19th of May 2009"
--
Dimitris M
nigel
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote to be asked.
>>
> How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
> show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
> catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>
> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
> slobbered over on the net.
>
> The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
"Suspicious interest in someone elses child"..... This seems to mean one
thing in the UK/US and another in the rest of the world. My Italian female
friend who is a teacher was told off by the head teacher after picking up a
6 year old girl in the playground and hugging her (the child was crying
after having fallen over). Another female teacher, this time from Spain,
was given a hard time by a school care taker because she had stepped into
the playground to have a look around.
Something is seriously wrong in the UK, it appears that there are millions
of pervs imaginging themselves having dodgy sexual laisons with kids, with
another couple of million non pervs imagining other people having dodgy
sexual laisons with kids. Makes me want to throw up, at least the
indiscreet pervs are open about their fantasies....
Marvin
importance of a difference in cultures.
mianileng
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 02:48:27 +0530, "pawihte"
> <paw...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he
>>>> was
>>>> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be
>>>> alarmed.
>>>
>>> I must say that if I were that father's girl, I would have
>>> reacted
>>> equally... know your boundaries and the laws of the countries
>>> you're
>>> visiting.
>>>
>> That's easy for you to say. But how does a visitor to an
>> unfamiliar place make sure he knows every quirk of local law
>> (or
>> custom) that may affect him? Saying "ask first" is not the
>> answer
>> because one wouldn't always know what needs to be asked.
>>
> How much do you need to know about the law to understand that
> if you
> show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the
> parent
> catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>
suspicious in one place may not at all be regarded as such in
another place. If someone comes from a more easy-going
background, he may have no idea that what he's doing could cause
concern.
Did you know that blowing your nose or crossing your legs in the
presence of others is considered very rude in some cultures?
Where I'm from, a pat on the back is an insult - a mocking,
condescending compliment at best. But we wouldn't take serious
offence if some crass Caucasian did it because we'd understand
that he doesn't know better.
> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing
> lights,
> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your
> interest
> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude
> bodies and
> slobbered over on the net.
>
Neither does the parent know that the photo *will* be misused. He
has a right to be concerned of course. I don't think anyone will
contest that. But not to the extent of the harrassment and
humiliation that the photographer was forced to go through, and
is still being made to suffer.
> The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
That, again, is your own cultural background speaking. I agree
that it would have been better to ask first. *I* would have asked
first. But Antoniou was probably also shooting many other
subjects and it just didn't occur to him that what he was doing
might cause concern. An apology, an explanation of his intentions
and erasing the pictures - all of which he did - should have been
enough. What the alleged father did was extreme arrogance and
cultural conceit.
tony cooper
I don't see where the father was responsible for the harassment and
humiliation. The father lodged a complaint. It was the later
treatment by the police that was the source of the problems. The
father had no way of knowing how the police would treat the
photographer.
>> The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>
>That, again, is your own cultural background speaking. I agree
>that it would have been better to ask first. *I* would have asked
>first. But Antoniou was probably also shooting many other
>subjects and it just didn't occur to him that what he was doing
>might cause concern. An apology, an explanation of his intentions
>and erasing the pictures - all of which he did - should have been
>enough. What the alleged father did was extreme arrogance and
>cultural conceit.
>
This is what I don't get about people. You have pointed out that the
cultural background of people differ, but you label the father as
arrogant and with cultural conceit. The father may well believe it
was the photographer who was arrogant.
Why do you not recognize that the father's background may be such that
the photographer's actions were in horrific violation of his customs?
I don't see this as an issue of photography and the law or photography
and local custom. It's an issue of how the police treated an
arrestee. The photograph triggered the incident, but it was the
subsequent actions of the police that are the disturbing aspect.
The father did not request that the photographer be mistreated or
humiliated. The father made a complaint to the police, and whatever
happened after that was entirely a police matter. The father was
probably not even aware of how the photographer was treated by the
police. Certainly, the father had no control of how the photographer
was treated by the police.
mianileng
actions of the police were at least partly caused by the way the
father framed his accusations?
>>> The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>>
>> That, again, is your own cultural background speaking. I agree
>> that it would have been better to ask first. *I* would have
>> asked
>> first. But Antoniou was probably also shooting many other
>> subjects and it just didn't occur to him that what he was
>> doing
>> might cause concern. An apology, an explanation of his
>> intentions
>> and erasing the pictures - all of which he did - should have
>> been
>> enough. What the alleged father did was extreme arrogance and
>> cultural conceit.
>>
> This is what I don't get about people. You have pointed out
> that the
> cultural background of people differ, but you label the father
> as
> arrogant and with cultural conceit. The father may well
> believe it
> was the photographer who was arrogant.
>
It was cultural conceit on the father's part because he obviously
made no attempt to understand the the photographer's ignorance of
the possible consequences of his actions and arrogance because he
refused to accept what must surely have been a contrite apology.
> Why do you not recognize that the father's background may be
> such that
> the photographer's actions were in horrific violation of his
> customs?
>
A methematical possibility, but highly unlikely. From the way the
father sought the help of the police, he is probably a British
citizen or that of another civilized country and he should be
aware that photography enthusiasts take pictures of all kinds of
subjects, regardless of his ethnic background. A timid visitor
from a third-world nation is unlikely to demand the arrest of a
stranger even after the latter had tried to make amends.
> I don't see this as an issue of photography and the law or
> photography
> and local custom. It's an issue of how the police treated an
> arrestee. The photograph triggered the incident, but it was
> the
> subsequent actions of the police that are the disturbing
> aspect.
>
> The father did not request that the photographer be mistreated
> or
> humiliated. The father made a complaint to the police, and
> whatever
> happened after that was entirely a police matter. The father
> was
> probably not even aware of how the photographer was treated by
> the
> police. Certainly, the father had no control of how the
> photographer
> was treated by the police.
I'm not saying that the police are innocent, but, as I said
before, they must surely have been influenced by the the severity
of the charges made
by the child's father.
Paul Furman
Sounds like both of them were arrogant in turn.
I don't see the crime if the photog apologized & deleted the photos.
Regardless, the photog would never be arrested in the US because it's
not illegal to photograph people in public. If they get into a
fistfight, there's a crime. People disagree all the time, that's not a
crime. If the photog raised his voice at some point, maybe some kind of
harrassment... even then, there would have to be some kind of pattern,
not a single impolite incident. If it was some other impolite act not
involving a camera, would the guy have been hauled off to jail?
you wrote above:
>> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
>> man claiming to be the girl�s father pursued the Greek photographer
>> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
>> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
>> �public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
>>
>> If you cause some sort of disturbance, there's going be a law against
>> it. It doesn't matter what law.
It does matter what law. That's why they are written down and agreed on.
>> The father was evidently able to
>> make his case to the arresting officer that the event was disturbing.
>>
>> You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>> some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>> expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
> Why do you not recognize that the father's background may be such that
> the photographer's actions were in horrific violation of his customs?
>
> I don't see this as an issue of photography and the law or photography
> and local custom. It's an issue of how the police treated an
> arrestee. The photograph triggered the incident, but it was the
> subsequent actions of the police that are the disturbing aspect.
>
> The father did not request that the photographer be mistreated or
> humiliated. The father made a complaint to the police, and whatever
> happened after that was entirely a police matter. The father was
> probably not even aware of how the photographer was treated by the
> police. Certainly, the father had no control of how the photographer
> was treated by the police.
>
>
--
tony cooper
<mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 22:11:30 +0530, "mianileng"
>> <mian...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> I don't see where the father was responsible for the harassment
>> and
>> humiliation. The father lodged a complaint. It was the later
>> treatment by the police that was the source of the problems.
>> The
>> father had no way of knowing how the police would treat the
>> photographer.
>>
>Don't you think it's a reasonable deduction to think that the
>actions of the police were at least partly caused by the way the
>father framed his accusations?
No, not at all. The charge was a minor one as charges go. The
alleged mistreatment occurred at the police station, and not by the
arresting officer.
>> Why do you not recognize that the father's background may be
>> such that
>> the photographer's actions were in horrific violation of his
>> customs?
>>
>A methematical possibility, but highly unlikely. From the way the
>father sought the help of the police, he is probably a British
>citizen or that of another civilized country and he should be
>aware that photography enthusiasts take pictures of all kinds of
>subjects, regardless of his ethnic background.
Why should any British citizen necessarily be aware of what street
photographers feel is fair game? Or care?
>> I don't see this as an issue of photography and the law or
>> photography
>> and local custom. It's an issue of how the police treated an
>> arrestee. The photograph triggered the incident, but it was
>> the
>> subsequent actions of the police that are the disturbing
>> aspect.
>>
>> The father did not request that the photographer be mistreated
>> or
>> humiliated. The father made a complaint to the police, and
>> whatever
>> happened after that was entirely a police matter. The father
>> was
>> probably not even aware of how the photographer was treated by
>> the
>> police. Certainly, the father had no control of how the
>> photographer
>> was treated by the police.
>
>I'm not saying that the police are innocent,
I would hope not. All of the alleged impropriety was by the police
and happened after the actual arrest.
>but, as I said
>before, they must surely have been influenced by the the severity
>of the charges made
>by the child's father.
The charge was a modest one; one that would be a misdemeanor in the
US. (I don't know how the UK classifies charges) The father would
not determine what charge was leveled. The arresting officer
determines what offense - if any - is charged.
tony cooper
wrote:
>>> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
>>> man claiming to be the girl�s father pursued the Greek photographer
>>> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
>>> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
>>> �public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
>>>
>>> If you cause some sort of disturbance, there's going be a law against
>>> it. It doesn't matter what law.
>
>It does matter what law. That's why they are written down and agreed on.
You don't need to know what law, though. If you cause a disturbance,
you should know that there is *a* law against it, but you don't need
to know *which* law. You don't need to know "every quirk of local
law" as the poster suggested.
whisky-dave
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:m85v05hi9id6cpbek...@4ax.com...
Was this person that claimed to be her father her father.
I find it strange they use this term.
Why not just say the father complained.
Even so does the law limit this to a complaint by a parent.
I'm sure we all know that sometimes the parents themselves
are responsible for taking indecent pictures of their children is that OK.
At what age can a child decide for themselves whether or not a photo
can be taken of them ?
If the photographer was harrassing and/or causing distress,.......
but 'we' don't know that.
> If you cause some sort of disturbance, there's going be a law against
> it. It doesn't matter what law. The father was evidently able to
> make his case to the arresting officer that the event was disturbing.
What's the claiming to be the father all about then.
> You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
> some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
> expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
I guess it is dodgy taking pictures of kids.
But I can;t blame a photographer for wanting to take a picture of a kid
that has say the makeup on their face that makes them look like a tiger
or other fun stuff.
> We never really have a full understanding of events like this reported
> in the newspaper.
Where's the CCTV footage.
We might get a better idea of the photgraphers intentions.
>You'd think that this could have been settled by a
> calm conversation between the father and the photographer, but
> evidently not.
The person claiming to be the father ;-)
> Either the photographer got stroppy with the policeman
> or the father was very insistent that the man be charged. Or the
> policeman's piles were acting up that day. We don't know.
could have been a language problem too.
> I haven't had much interaction with the police, but I can't see an
> officer wasting his time making an arrest on an incident like this
> unless there was some factor not reported in the paper. The policeman
> would rather be nipping off for a doughnut than filling out the
> paperwork, but something escalated the situation.
I think language difficulties and perhaps being on the tube.
Was this on the actual train or the platform neither are the best places to
have
a conversation.
bugbear
> nailer wrote:
>> what was family's ethnic background?
>
> why?
Because if you're trying to be sensitive to someone's
cultural mores, you have to know WHICH culture they belong to.
Bugbear
whisky-dave
It would be nice to know what constituted the disturbance .
Was the child distressed by having her photo taken, was the mother
distressed,
or was it 'sorted' before the man "claiming" to be her father arrived on the
scene.
Perhaps the person claiming to be her father was really her pimp
and asked for money . ;-)
tony cooper
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
>> man claiming to be the girl's father pursued the Greek photographer
>> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
>> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
>> 'public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
>
>Was this person that claimed to be her father her father.
That's standard newspaper practice: using "alleged" or "claiming to
be" when they don't know for sure. The man said he was the father,
but the newspaper couldn't verify this, so they used "claiming to be".
It's not really indicative of anything shady. It protects them if the
man is just the partner of the mother and the real - biological -
father makes a fuss about someone else being identified as the father.
Newspapers are silly this way. They'll write "The alleged thief was
arrested..." even if there are 100 witnesses and the act was caught on
film. Their reasoning is that the person is not a thief until he is
convicted in court.
Paul Heslop
ah... but some of us don't worry about these things, we just try to
get along with everyone on an even surface. it would be nice to not
have to wonder who or what we are going to upset every time we do
something.
chrisj...@proemail.co.uk
> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>
> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
> appear that he did anything wrong.
The case was thrown out:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Greek_photographer_Tube_photo_case_thrown_out_news_282766.html
But a disturbing link at the bottom of that article mention some
Austrian photographers being forced to delete all their photos, and
another that London Underground may now require amateur photographers
to buy permits when previously this applied only to professionals.
Chris
bugbear
> On 15 May, 21:20, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>
>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>> appear that he did anything wrong.
>
> The case was thrown out:
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Greek_photographer_Tube_photo_case_thrown_out_news_282766.html
Thanks for the followup.
BugBear
David J Taylor
Yes, thanks.
I sometimes wonder how I would deal with police, who perhaps have strong
local accents, and who were addressing me in a foreign language?
David
chrisj...@proemail.co.uk
part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> bugbear wrote:
> > chrisj.do...@proemail.co.uk wrote:
> >> On 15 May, 21:20, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com> wrote:
> >>>http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>
> >>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt
> >>> seem to appear that he did anything wrong.
>
> >> The case was thrown out:
>
> > Thanks for the followup.
>
> > BugBear
>
> Yes, thanks.
>
> I sometimes wonder how I would deal with police, who perhaps have strong
> local accents, and who were addressing me in a foreign language?
>
> David
When I was challenged, we played verbal ping-pong with: them, "It's
against the law to photograph children" and me, "There is no such law"
and they eventually let me go after giving me a PNC check and
verifying that I was one of the organisers of the public event I was
photographing (not that that mattered). But we were all speaking the
same language, and I knew the UK legal position. It would be a
different matter with a foreign language and unknown laws.
Chris
whisky-dave
Oh OK I understand that I wonder how the photographer knew that the women
that was complaining that he was taking photos of her daughter knew she was
indeed her daughter.
whisky-dave
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4A117BDE...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> bugbear wrote:
>>
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> > nailer wrote:
>> >> what was family's ethnic background?
>> >
>> > why?
>>
>> Because if you're trying to be sensitive to someone's
>> cultural mores, you have to know WHICH culture they belong to.
>>
>> Bugbear
>
> ah... but some of us don't worry about these things, we just try to
> get along with everyone on an even surface. it would be nice to not
> have to wonder who or what we are going to upset every time we do
> something.
>
yes it seems here in the UK in order to follow equality
you have to treat everyone differently according to their gender, racial
or religious background :)
james
>> The case was thrown out:
>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Greek_photographer_Tube_photo_case_thrown_out_news_282766.html
>
Thank god the judge can still reason.
A few months ago a man was arrested in mexico because he asked a mother to
let him photograph her daughter.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/28/washington.grandfather.freed/
So asking for permission to take photo does NOT work either.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
>illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
>wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
>arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
>causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
Who arrested him?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
and that is the problem...
>We never really have a full understanding of events like this reported
>in the newspaper.
True
>I haven't had much interaction with the police, but I can't see an
>officer wasting his time making an arrest on an incident like this
>unless there was some factor not reported in the paper. The policeman
>would rather be nipping off for a doughnut than filling out the
>paperwork, but something escalated the situation.
You haven't met UK Policemen recently :-) Several UK photographers
magazines have over the last 12 months started "know your rights" and
legal sections due to harassment of photographers by police.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
>show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
>catches you, that there will be some law involved?
There isn't a law for that in a public place.
>The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
The parents have no idea about the law any more than the PCSO's or
Police.
HEMI-Powered
>>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if
>>you show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and
>>the parent catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>
> There isn't a law for that in a public place.
Oh, I wouldn't be too sure about that. In the US, I'm certain that
ordinary assault charges could be filed as could child molestation or
other nasty state or even federal offenses, including but not limited
to violating the civil rights of the parent(s) or child(ren). Once a
photographer crosses over into violating someone else's rights,
freedoms, and protections of not only the law, but the Bill of
Rights, then their right to do as they damn well please is severely
limited.
>>The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>
> The parents have no idea about the law any more than the PCSO's
> or Police.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas Prices
and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
Chris H
<no...@none.gn> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>>>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if
>>>you show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and
>>>the parent catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>>
>> There isn't a law for that in a public place.
>
>Oh, I wouldn't be too sure about that.
I am for the UK
>In the US,
That is another matter. The case in question was in the UK
nospam
<no...@none.gn> wrote:
> >>How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if
> >>you show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and
> >>the parent catches you, that there will be some law involved?
> >
> > There isn't a law for that in a public place.
>
> Oh, I wouldn't be too sure about that. In the US, I'm certain that
> ordinary assault charges could be filed as could child molestation or
> other nasty state or even federal offenses, including but not limited
> to violating the civil rights of the parent(s) or child(ren). Once a
> photographer crosses over into violating someone else's rights,
> freedoms, and protections of not only the law, but the Bill of
> Rights, then their right to do as they damn well please is severely
> limited.
nonsense. taking a photo in a public place is legal and does not
violate anyone's civil rights. it's also absurd to call it molestation
or assault.
J. Clarke
> In message <1bhu05h8hkf0joes3...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
> <tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>
>> How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
>> show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the
>> parent catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>
> There isn't a law for that in a public place.
Are you that freaking naive? If the police want to arrest you they'll find
some charge or other. The laws in most "free" societies are so complex
these days that just standing in a public place minding your own business
you're usually committing some infraction or other. Usually the police have
more important things to do than enforcing every minute infraction, but if
they want to get you they will.
The charge doesn't have to have the slighest relationship to what you
actually did that set them off.
>> The "ask first" should be "ask the parent first".
>
> The parents have no idea about the law any more than the PCSO's or
> Police.
Regardless of the law, you should ask the parent first.
There's no law that allows an irate parent to pick you up and toss you in
front of a train either, but that's small consolation to your survivors.
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <m85v05hi9id6cpbek...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>>some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>>expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
>
>and that is the problem...
>
You snipped out that I said "If you cause some kind of disturbance".
Don't be involved in a disturbance, and the policeman won't have to
find an applicable law.
We all want the police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we
think are our rights. The photographers want to be able to take
photographs without being harassed or worse. Parents want to be able
to feel their children are safe and not exposed to dangers. The poor
damn policeman is right in the middle.
In this case, I think the father felt that there was something
inappropriate about the photographers actions and policeman did what
he had to do when a complaint was lodged. It was the boys at the
station house that behaved badly.
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <hn9s05ltlsf56vuos...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>
>>The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
>>illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
>>wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
>>arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
>>causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
>
>Who arrested him?
I don't understand the question or why you would ask.
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>
>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>> appear that he did anything wrong.
>>
> would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
> policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
> concerned.
>
> As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
> camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
> actually erased.
>
> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
Being "intrusive" shouldn't be grounds for an arrest.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:49:44 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>> tony cooper wrote:
[...]
>>> How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
>>> show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
>>> catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>>>
>>> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
>>> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
>>> slobbered over on the net.
This argument is a load of crap. The idea that someone would go to the
trouble to take a photo of your kid & Photoshop it onto a nude image so
people can wank to it is sheerest paranoia. Any perv who's that
desperate for such photos could simply download as many pictures as they
want from any of a million G-rated websites. And before anyone asks,
yes, I am a parent myself.
> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
> man claiming to be the girl�s father pursued the Greek photographer
> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
> �public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
>
> If you cause some sort of disturbance, there's going be a law against
> it. It doesn't matter what law. The father was evidently able to
> make his case to the arresting officer that the event was disturbing.
>
> You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
> some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
> expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
Too true. If a cop wants to have a go at you, they have hundreds of
stupid, overly-broad laws they can use to harass you, even if you're
innocent of any actual crime.
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>>
>>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>>> appear that he did anything wrong.
>>>
>> The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
>> would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
>> policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
>> concerned.
>>
>> As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
>> camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
>> actually erased.
>>
>> I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he was
>> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
>
>Being "intrusive" shouldn't be grounds for an arrest.
"Intrusive" is defined as: "adjective 1. interfering, disturbing,
invasive, unwanted, presumptuous, uncalled-for, importunate"
The charge was public harassment and causing alarm and distress. The
charge meets the definition. Evidently, UK lawmakers decided such a
charge should exist.
Bob Larter
> The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
> illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
> wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
> arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
> causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
Laws like that really piss me off. There are so many paranoid idiots
who'll feel "alarmed & distressed" simply because they think you looked
at them funny. How are you supposed to prevent some total stranger from
feeling "alarmed & distressed"? Should we start locking up otherwise
innocent people based on them (for a real example) wearing a t-shirt
with Arabic words on it? Or for looking Middle-Eastern? That's something
that might well cause "alarm & distress" in some paranoid moron.
Bob Larter
> nigel <ni...@NOThereoday.com> wrote:
>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>
>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>> appear that he did anything wrong.
>
Yeah, my guess is that that's what all the "alarm & distress" was really
about.
tony cooper
wrote:
>>>> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
>>>> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
>>>> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
>>>> slobbered over on the net.
>
>This argument is a load of crap. The idea that someone would go to the
>trouble to take a photo of your kid & Photoshop it onto a nude image so
>people can wank to it is sheerest paranoia. Any perv who's that
>desperate for such photos could simply download as many pictures as they
>want from any of a million G-rated websites. And before anyone asks,
>yes, I am a parent myself.
Doesn't make any difference if the argument is a load of crap or not.
It's what the parent *thinks* that counts. If the parent thinks
something inappropriate has been done, the parent will react.
Your argument is a load of crap, too. If the photographer in question
posts his G-rated photo on a G-rated website as an example of his
street photography, and with the best of intentions, he's making it
available to the pervs you mention.
As a parent, don't you feel you should have some say-so about whether
or not your kid's picture is on some unknown-to-you photographer's
website? You think anyone should be able to snap your kid's picture
and post it on that person's gallery without your approval?
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>> The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
>> illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
>> wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
>> arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
>> causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
>
>Laws like that really piss me off.
Funny thing about laws. They piss us off when they are applied in
ways we don't approve of, but we sure want them around when we have a
personal gripe.
The US equivalent of that UK law might be "Disturbing the Peace". We
don't like to see some photographer hassled for taking photographs on
the subway, but we expect the police to apply whatever extant laws
there are when someone is disturbing us.
The other guy's a "paranoid moron" for calling the cops, but we're
just rightfully exercising our rights when we do.
I guess, anyway. I've never called the cops on anyone except when
I've been involved in a traffic accident. I'm sure that guy thought I
was a paranoid moron and an asshole even though he got the tickets.
Paul Furman
Let the kid go out in public and allow anyone on the street to just gawk
at them? Yes I'm being sarcastic.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Tue, 19 May 2009 19:45:49 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <hn9s05ltlsf56vuos...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>>
>>>The photographer wasn't arrested for taking photographs where it was
>>>illegal to do so or legal to do so and someone thought it wasn't. It
>>>wasn't *where* the photographs were taken that was the basis for the
>>>arrest. The photographer was charged with public harassment and
>>>causing alarm and distress based on the father's complaint.
>>
>>Who arrested him?
>
>I don't understand the question or why you would ask.
Then you should not be arguing in this thread.
There are police and there are police in the UK I think four main
types. They have different rules and regulations.
Having read a bit more it was not the normal civil police who did the
arrest but the BTP who have different rules and provisions compared to
the normal police.
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Tue, 19 May 2009 19:41:55 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <m85v05hi9id6cpbek...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>>You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>>>some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>>>expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
>>
>>and that is the problem...
>>
>You snipped out that I said "If you cause some kind of disturbance".
>Don't be involved in a disturbance, and the policeman won't have to
>find an applicable law.
Not been to the UK recently have you? The Police and PCSO's are getting
VERY stupid over photographers.
>We all want the police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we
>think are our rights.
No we don't. We want the police to protect our freedoms.
> The photographers want to be able to take
>photographs without being harassed or worse.
And at the moment they are being harassed. Several UK photography
magazines are now running regular "know your rights" columns because it
has got so bad.
> Parents want to be able
>to feel their children are safe and not exposed to dangers. The poor
>damn policeman is right in the middle.
No they are not. The majority of harassment of photographers comes from
the police and various poster campaigns designed to ramp up fear and
paranoia
>In this case, I think the father felt that there was something
>inappropriate about the photographers actions
Why? From the accounts we have seen the father was just trying to cause
a problem.
>and policeman did what
>he had to do when a complaint was lodged. It was the boys at the
>station house that behaved badly.
So some policemen are ok and others not?
Ron Hunter
under some girl's skirt, and snapping off a burst would probably result
in arrest, just about anywhere. Withe the current hysteria about child
molesters, it is pretty dangerous for a single man to even visit a
public park where children are playing, and just sit and watch them
play. Add a camera to that, and you can count on a visit from the local
law enforcement.
nospam
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> > nonsense. taking a photo in a public place is legal and does not
> > violate anyone's civil rights. it's also absurd to call it molestation
> > or assault.
> It depends on what you take a picture of, and how. Shoving your camera
> under some girl's skirt, and snapping off a burst would probably result
> in arrest, just about anywhere.
obviously. nobody is advocating upskirt photos.
anything in plain public view where there's no expectation of privacy
and where photography is not prohibited is fair game. period. if you
don't want to be photographed, stay home.
> Withe the current hysteria about child
> molesters, it is pretty dangerous for a single man to even visit a
> public park where children are playing, and just sit and watch them
> play. Add a camera to that, and you can count on a visit from the local
> law enforcement.
and that is the whole problem. sitting in a park is *legal*.
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
there is a no photography rule.
However the world is getting far too paranoid.
I would only worry if it was a Catholic Priest in the playground. See
the report focusing out of Ireland. Yet another "horrific" report of
systematic child abuse by the RC church. The worlds children have far
more to fear from the RC church than photographers.
nospam
<ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
> there is a no photography rule.
if so, it needs to be posted.
> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
yep.
Chris Malcolm
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2009 20:20:29 +0100, "nigel" <ni...@NOThereoday.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=856968
>>>
>>> As far as this article and the international press goes it does'nt seem to
>>> appear that he did anything wrong.
>>>
>> The father of the child thought so and lodged a complaint. The police
>> would have been obligated to follow-up on a complaint. It's not the
>> policeman's job to tell the parents that they have no right to be
>> concerned.
>>
>> As a photographer, you might know the images were erased from the
>> camera. A non-photographer might not understand that the images were
>> actually erased.
>>
>> I don't see that the photographer did anything wrong, but he was
>> intrusive. I don't think the parents were wrong to be alarmed.
> Being "intrusive" shouldn't be grounds for an arrest.
A recent court case in Edinburgh involved a photographer who took
photographs of a drunk woman being ill in the street. Her friends
detained the photographer and called the police. The judge ruled that
the photographer had been guilty of being annoyingly intrusive.
--
Chris Malcolm
nigel
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote> Doesn't make any
> It's what the parent *thinks* that counts. If the parent thinks
> something inappropriate has been done, the parent will react.
Might it be in the childs best interest to remove them from the parents in
these circumstances? Or at least investigate the fantasies of these
parents, they do afterall show an enhealthy level of parania assocoated
with paeophiliac fantasies.
>
> Your argument is a load of crap, too. If the photographer in question
> posts his G-rated photo on a G-rated website as an example of his
> street photography, and with the best of intentions, he's making it
> available to the pervs you mention.
>
> As a parent, don't you feel you should have some say-so about whether
> or not your kid's picture is on some unknown-to-you photographer's
> website? You think anyone should be able to snap your kid's picture
> and post it on that person's gallery without your approval?
Don't you have 6 cctv cameras per inhabitant in the US? Here in the UK
there are cctv cameras in school toilets. Approval?? Don't see that coming
into it.
Chris H
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
Yet the person who was drunk in public and vomiting is not a public
nuisance?
Actually the woman probably broke far more laws than the photographer
could.
Chris H
<nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <qPf8lSG5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
><ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
>> there is a no photography rule.
>
>if so, it needs to be posted.
As with railway tickets in VERY small print "terms and conditions apply
see park/station master"
>> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>
>yep.
People need to relax about it. There is far to much PC and people
demanding petty and stupid rights like you can't photograph my child in
the street and worry a more about the freedoms we are loosing... like
you can't take pictures on the street.
Fred
news:kZCdnfUW-t_SJY7X...@giganews.com...
>
> With the current hysteria about child molesters, it is pretty dangerous
> and just sit and watch them play. Add a camera to that, and you can count
> on a visit from the local law enforcement.
>
>
street alone with his own daughter!!
Chris H
<fred...@hotmail.com> writes
So how long have you had these guilt feelings about little girls?
Do you own a camera (all pedophiles are photographers)
Do you have an independent witness with you when you are alone with your
daughter?
Have you ever been to Salem? (sorry wrong inquisition :-)
It is getting VERY silly in the UK and it seems to be stoked up by the
government in a very 1984 way.
This week I saw an old chap passing a teenage girl siting alone at a
table in a cafe in the supermarket. He stopped touched he on the
shoulder and said "hello" ... then realise she was not Granddaughter,
nice or whatever said sorry and carried on.
Teenager had MP3 player plugged into both ears (and long hair so it was
not obvious) and did not hear what he had said.
30 seconds later mum and dad turn up with food. Teenager tell mum and
dad she had been assaulted and parents panic. Mother asked self and wife
at next table if we had seen the "assault".
We defused situation (wife has 30 years teaching experience) and told
parents there was no "assault" and had teenager not had both ears
plugged into MP3 player she would have been aware of what was said to
her by the "old pervert"
It is this sort of stupid reaction by parents and child that causes the
problems.
On the other side of things my son was mugged for his phone and wallet
last week. At least that is what was demanded of him. The reply was go
away. The mugger decide to try violence. My son (21 and being a rugby
player does not like pain) got the first punch in and laid out the
assailant and still has phone and wallet.
Apparently as my son hit first he is guilty of assault.... a demand
for money and phone with aggressive behaviour is no right to hit before
the mugger actually lands a blow. :-(
Savageduck
> In message <200520090212135419%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>> In article <qPf8lSG5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
>>> there is a no photography rule.
>>
>> if so, it needs to be posted.
>
> As with railway tickets in VERY small print "terms and conditions apply
> see park/station master"
>
>>> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>>
>> yep.
>
> People need to relax about it. There is far to much PC and people
> demanding petty and stupid rights like you can't photograph my child in
> the street and worry a more about the freedoms we are loosing... like
> you can't take pictures on the street.
Damn!
I can remember the days of the professional street photographers, who
would work a crowded street of pedestrians taking candid shots, and
then approaching the subject to hand him/her a numbered ticket to
redeem the finished photograph for the stated fee.
I also rcall that some of those photographers had studio shop windows,
where many unclaimed photographs were on public display.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Chris H
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> writes
Well there is harassment and assault... clearly a bunch of perverts and
pedophiles.
The answer is if any of your children show perverted tendencies such as
an interest in rock and roll, photography, the opposite sex, the same
sex send them round to the local catholic orphanage when they can have
it beaten out of them in the name of love, God and democracy.....
The chain of abuse must be broken... most children are started off on
smoking, drugs, drink, sex, and photography by their parents or
brothers and sisters.
Should you see any homes with heroin, cocaine, pornography, alcohol or
camera equipment report it to the police or a priest (unless it is the
priest or youth workers home) and get these perverts reported..
I feel better now....
platonic love and kisses from
The Moral Majority.
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>>and policeman did what
>>he had to do when a complaint was lodged. It was the boys at the
>>station house that behaved badly.
>
>So some policemen are ok and others not?
Of course.
Savageduck
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:40:19 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> and policeman did what
>>> he had to do when a complaint was lodged. It was the boys at the
>>> station house that behaved badly.
>>
>> So some policemen are ok and others not?
>
> Of course.
Thank you Tony.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
wrote:
>>We all want the police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we
>>think are our rights.
>
>No we don't. We want the police to protect our freedoms.
>
>> The photographers want to be able to take
>>photographs without being harassed or worse.
>
>And at the moment they are being harassed. Several UK photography
>magazines are now running regular "know your rights" columns because it
>has got so bad.
If "No we don't" is the correct response to "We all want the police to
do whatever is necessary to protect what we think are our rights",
then why are UK photography magazines running regular articles on
"know your rights"?
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>
I'm getting the impression that paranoia is a communicable disease
caught by the spread of germs from cameras in the UK. Read this
newsgroup, and you'd think that anyone carrying a camera or taking a
photograph will be harnessed and arrested in the UK and that all UK
police are focussed on the photographers.
tony cooper
Harnessing wrong-doers might be practiced in the UK, but I meant
"harassed".
Savageduck
Who would want to be saddled with that responsibility?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
I can't imagine why anyone would think differently. You have
competent and effective people in any group, and you have some bad
apples in any group.
I would have expected a competent police officer on the scene to try
to defuse this particular situation rather than making an arrest. I
would have expected him to take both parties aside and let them talk
it out until both parties were calmed down. Situations like this,
where there is no overt harm, are often resolved by an officer
enforcing a cooling off time or bringing the two parties together to
work out their differences.
The officer may have tried. Newspaper reports don't tell us all of
what went on; just the results. The newspaper reports don't tell us
who didn't back down or who didn't cooperate.
I'm not willing to assume that the unreasonable person in this
particular situation was the father, the photographer, or the
policeman. All we have to go on is a newspaper reporter's summary.
Newspaper reporters don't always bother to get the whole story or
report only what they think is newsworthy.
Besides, the major complaints of the photographer were not about being
arrested, but about how he was treated later. What he alleges he
endured later had nothing to do with photography. (Except that his
camera was confiscated) It had to do with how an arrestee on a minor
charge was treated in custody. That should be looked into.
Floyd L. Davidson
>I'm not willing to assume that the unreasonable person in this
>particular situation was the father, the photographer, or the
>policeman. All we have to go on is a newspaper reporter's summary.
>Newspaper reporters don't always bother to get the whole story or
>report only what they think is newsworthy.
Your statement that we only have the reporter's summary
to go on is not correct. The judge threw the case out
due to lack of evidence that he committed a crime at
all, not due to any mistreatment or other activities at
the police station.
Very clearly the arresting officer was absolutely in
error: no evidence!
>Besides, the major complaints of the photographer were not about being
>arrested, but about how he was treated later.
But the problem is that he *was* arrested. The
arresting police officer, despite what you and others
have said, is *not* obligated to arrest someone only on
the word of a citizen that a crime was committed. (In
fact, in the US that is not allowed at all, but I have
no idea what the law is in England in that respect.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
It feels that way. It is very strange at the moment.
tony cooper
Someone with the bit in their mouth to persecute photographers. This
type of incident just spurs them on.
HEMI-Powered
...
>> People need to relax about it. There is far to much PC and
>> people demanding petty and stupid rights like you can't
>> photograph my child in the street and worry a more about the
>> freedoms we are loosing... like you can't take pictures on the
>> street.
>
> Damn!
> I can remember the days of the professional street
> photographers, who would work a crowded street of pedestrians
> taking candid shots, and then approaching the subject to hand
> him/her a numbered ticket to redeem the finished photograph for
> the stated fee. I also rcall that some of those photographers
> had studio shop windows, where many unclaimed photographs were
> on public display.
I remember seeing these people also, occasionally. In those days,
50 years ago I think, the photographers and the subjects didn't
worry much about copyrights or model releases and the subjects
didn't complain much about invasion of privacy.
A couple things changed all that. One was the ACLU's ludicrous
attempts at defending freedoms to the point where it DOES become
important to be PC else risk some bullshit lawshit. It seems that
there are just scands of special groups and special people
screaming about their rights, never mind about mine. The other
thing that changed everything was 9/11, where people all across
this great country are more aware than ever about systemic security
and even personal safety.
And then we have them who think the 2nd Amendment really does give
them the right to walk around with a Dirty Harry strapped on their
hip who've created an artificial shortage of guns and ammo which
are being bought up by gun nuts who fear our beloved president will
take away their guns, as if stocking up will help.
Swords cut with both edges so if we as a people want to assert all
of our freedoms, rights, and protections, no matter how silly, then
we need to expect that there are those who will attempt to violate
them and if we want to retain our rights, we must vigorously defend
them.
--
Jerry, aka HP
"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less: A Handbook for Slashing Gas
Prices and Solving Our Energy Crisis" - Newt Gingrich
HEMI-Powered
...
> If "No we don't" is the correct response to "We all want the
> police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we think are
> our rights", then why are UK photography magazines running
> regular articles on "know your rights"?
>
The UK has a fundamental problem: it has no equivalent to the US
Constitution and Bill of Rights to codify as the supreme law of the
land wrt what the government may or may not do, as well as what
citizens are free or not so free to do.
Every sovereign nation's citizens have the right to control their
own lives and destinies, so if there's a problem in the UK with
photographer's rights or the rights of the Bobbies, then change the
law.
tony cooper
Davidson) wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>I'm not willing to assume that the unreasonable person in this
>>particular situation was the father, the photographer, or the
>>policeman. All we have to go on is a newspaper reporter's summary.
>>Newspaper reporters don't always bother to get the whole story or
>>report only what they think is newsworthy.
>
>Your statement that we only have the reporter's summary
>to go on is not correct. The judge threw the case out
>due to lack of evidence that he committed a crime at
>all, not due to any mistreatment or other activities at
>the police station.
The statement is most certainly correct. The thread ran before any
court action was reported and the father and the policeman were
convicted in the newsgroup. The lack of evidence of a crime has
nothing do with my statement. I said there was no information about
who was acting unreasonably. The actions of the people at the scene
are often the difference between an arrest being made and a pass being
given in situations like this.
If you feel that when a case is dismissed for lack of evidence that
this is indication that no law was broken, you have a very incomplete
knowledge of the court system. There are thousands of *real*
criminals walking free today because their cases were dismissed due to
lack of evidence. (Not that I feel the photographer was a criminal in
any way)
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
They are enforcing peoples perceived rights to the detriment of general
freedoms
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
Pity..... I have seen a video where wrong doers were harnessed and
punished.... :-))))
tony cooper
wrote:
>In message <ta1815p2e1i0d6v50...@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:40:19 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>We all want the police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we
>>>>think are our rights.
>>>
>>>No we don't. We want the police to protect our freedoms.
>>>
>>>> The photographers want to be able to take
>>>>photographs without being harassed or worse.
>>>
>>>And at the moment they are being harassed. Several UK photography
>>>magazines are now running regular "know your rights" columns because it
>>>has got so bad.
>>
>>If "No we don't" is the correct response to "We all want the police to
>>do whatever is necessary to protect what we think are our rights",
>>then why are UK photography magazines running regular articles on
>>"know your rights"?
>
>They are enforcing peoples perceived rights to the detriment of general
>freedoms
If there is ever a competition in this group for Best Non Sequitur Of
The Year, you win hands down.
tony cooper
wrote:
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>> If "No we don't" is the correct response to "We all want the
>> police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we think are
>> our rights", then why are UK photography magazines running
>> regular articles on "know your rights"?
>>
>The UK has a fundamental problem: it has no equivalent to the US
>Constitution and Bill of Rights to codify as the supreme law of the
>land wrt what the government may or may not do, as well as what
>citizens are free or not so free to do.
>
If there is ever a contest in this group for The Most Idiotic
Statement of 2009, you will win hands down.
Ray Fischer
>tony cooper added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>...
>
>> If "No we don't" is the correct response to "We all want the
>> police to do whatever is necessary to protect what we think are
>> our rights", then why are UK photography magazines running
>> regular articles on "know your rights"?
>>
>The UK has a fundamental problem: it has no equivalent to the US
>Constitution and Bill of Rights to codify as the supreme law of the
>land wrt what the government may or may not do, as well as what
>citizens are free or not so free to do.
The Bill of Rights does not codify what people may or may not do.
It limits the powers of government in a few specific areas. Unless
the government is given the power to limit freedom, peopel have the
right to do as they please according to the US Constitution.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0n3815phs4onsmngo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 06:31:20 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-05-20 06:27:37 -0700, tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net>
>>said:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 May 2009 08:40:19 +0100, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and policeman did what
>>>>> he had to do when a complaint was lodged. It was the boys at the
>>>>> station house that behaved badly.
>>>>
>>>> So some policemen are ok and others not?
>>>
>>> Of course.
>>
>>Thank you Tony.
>
> I can't imagine why anyone would think differently. You have
> competent and effective people in any group, and you have some bad
> apples in any group.
>
> I would have expected a competent police officer on the scene to try
> to defuse this particular situation rather than making an arrest.
No there's a problem
A competent police officer .
>I would have expected him to take both parties aside and let them talk
> it out until both parties were calmed down. Situations like this,
> where there is no overt harm, are often resolved by an officer
> enforcing a cooling off time or bringing the two parties together to
> work out their differences.
yes, save all sorts of problems.
> The officer may have tried. Newspaper reports don't tell us all of
> what went on; just the results. The newspaper reports don't tell us
> who didn't back down or who didn't cooperate.
Pity no one was filmong the event, but then you're not suppose to
photograph the police are you.
>
> I'm not willing to assume that the unreasonable person in this
> particular situation was the father, the photographer, or the
> policeman. All we have to go on is a newspaper reporter's summary.
> Newspaper reporters don't always bother to get the whole story or
> report only what they think is newsworthy.
yes they want to sell the story, that's all.
>
> Besides, the major complaints of the photographer were not about being
> arrested, but about how he was treated later. What he alleges he
> endured later had nothing to do with photography. (Except that his
> camera was confiscated) It had to do with how an arrestee on a minor
> charge was treated in custody. That should be looked into.
I agree, we all hope these thing are delt with fairly, but sometimes
personalities and individaulity get in the way.
whisky-dave
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a137b45$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 20:49:44 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>> wrote:
>>> tony cooper wrote:
> [...]
>>>> How much do you need to know about the law to understand that if you
>>>> show suspicious interest in someone else's small child, and the parent
>>>> catches you, that there will be some law involved?
>>>>
>>>> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
>>>> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
>>>> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
>>>> slobbered over on the net.
>
> This argument is a load of crap. The idea that someone would go to the
> trouble to take a photo of your kid & Photoshop it onto a nude image so
> people can wank to it is sheerest paranoia.
Not really, it's unlikely but people humans can and do have strange
fetishes.
I've heard some even want Sarah Paline or Marget thatcher.
> Any perv who's that desperate for such photos could simply download as
> many pictures as they want from any of a million G-rated websites. And
> before anyone asks, yes, I am a parent myself.
Some have 1000s and it's never enough.
It could be that someone wanted a picture of that particular girl for their
fantasies.
It's not exactly unusual to like to have pictures of people you find
attractive
wherher they are in your wallet bedroom walk of girlie calander.
It's even been know that women have such fantasies.
>>
>> You won't get away with saying "There's no law against photographing
>> some stranger's child without the permission of the parents" and
>> expect the policeman to let you walk. He'll find an applicable law.
>
> Too true. If a cop wants to have a go at you, they have hundreds of
> stupid, overly-broad laws they can use to harass you, even if you're
> innocent of any actual crime.
I and a friend have been in that situation, a group of girls were laughing
as me and a friend being searched in the street so the policeman
told my friend to go tell those silly bitches to shut the fuck up.
Of course if he' done they, we'd have been arrested for it.
>
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
> ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin C
> In message <77i06nF...@mid.individual.net>, Chris Malcolm
> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes
>>A recent court case in Edinburgh involved a photographer who took
>>photographs of a drunk woman being ill in the street. Her friends
>>detained the photographer and called the police. The judge ruled that
>>the photographer had been guilty of being annoyingly intrusive.
>
> Yet the person who was drunk in public and vomiting is not a public
> nuisance?
>
> Actually the woman probably broke far more laws than the photographer
> could.
Welcome to the free world.
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
Stormin Mormon
taboo in UK? You can be as Muslim as you want, and that's
protected. But take a photo, and off to the gaol house with
you!
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a137ef1$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Laws like that really piss me off. There are so many
paranoid idiots
who'll feel "alarmed & distressed" simply because they think
you looked
at them funny. How are you supposed to prevent some total
stranger from
feeling "alarmed & distressed"? Should we start locking up
otherwise
innocent people based on them (for a real example) wearing a
t-shirt
with Arabic words on it? Or for looking Middle-Eastern?
That's something
that might well cause "alarm & distress" in some paranoid
moron.
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
George Kerby
On 5/22/09 6:48 PM, in article gv7dji$gr2$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Oh, gosh, no! That would be racial profiling. Isn't that
> taboo in UK? You can be as Muslim as you want, and that's
> protected. But take a photo, and off to the gaol house with
> you!
<http://www.emmitsburg.net/humor/pictures/2006/whatsthepoint.jpg>
Paul Furman
> tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I'm not willing to assume that the unreasonable person in this
>> particular situation was the father, the photographer, or the
>> policeman. All we have to go on is a newspaper reporter's summary.
>> Newspaper reporters don't always bother to get the whole story or
>> report only what they think is newsworthy.
>
> Your statement that we only have the reporter's summary
> to go on is not correct. The judge threw the case out
> due to lack of evidence that he committed a crime at
> all, not due to any mistreatment or other activities at
> the police station.
>
> Very clearly the arresting officer was absolutely in
> error: no evidence!
>
>> Besides, the major complaints of the photographer were not about being
>> arrested, but about how he was treated later.
>
> But the problem is that he *was* arrested.
Agreed. The problem was being arrested, jailed, etc.
> The
> arresting police officer, despite what you and others
> have said, is *not* obligated to arrest someone only on
> the word of a citizen that a crime was committed. (In
> fact, in the US that is not allowed at all, but I have
> no idea what the law is in England in that respect.)
>
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 13:38:44 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>> The parent doesn't know whether your interest is in capturing lights,
>>>>> shadows, composition, and a beguiling expression or if your interest
>>>>> is in recording faces that will be Photoshopped onto nude bodies and
>>>>> slobbered over on the net.
>> This argument is a load of crap. The idea that someone would go to the
>> trouble to take a photo of your kid & Photoshop it onto a nude image so
>> want from any of a million G-rated websites. And before anyone asks,
>> yes, I am a parent myself.
>
> It's what the parent *thinks* that counts. If the parent thinks
> something inappropriate has been done, the parent will react.
Of course they will, but that doesn't make them right, nor does it mean
that the cops should take the parent's hysterics seriously.
> Your argument is a load of crap, too. If the photographer in question
> posts his G-rated photo on a G-rated website as an example of his
> street photography, and with the best of intentions, he's making it
> available to the pervs you mention.
So?
> As a parent, don't you feel you should have some say-so about whether
> or not your kid's picture is on some unknown-to-you photographer's
> website? You think anyone should be able to snap your kid's picture
> and post it on that person's gallery without your approval?
I might not like it, but that doesn't mean I can (or should) do anything
about it. Being paranoid about the possibility of someone snapping a
photo of my kid is just that, paranoid. If someone actually wants to
take a bunch of pictures of kids to put on the web, all they have to do
is slap a big tele on their camera & snap away to their hearts content,
& there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. If I'm going to worry
about perv's targeting my child, I'll worry about things that might
actually harm him, such as paedophile teachers, etc.
Bob Larter
> In message <200520090118412735%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>> In article <kZCdnfUW-t_SJY7X...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>> <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> nonsense. taking a photo in a public place is legal and does not
>>>> violate anyone's civil rights. it's also absurd to call it molestation
>>>> or assault.
>>> It depends on what you take a picture of, and how. Shoving your camera
>>> under some girl's skirt, and snapping off a burst would probably result
>>> in arrest, just about anywhere.
>> obviously. nobody is advocating upskirt photos.
>>
>> anything in plain public view where there's no expectation of privacy
>> and where photography is not prohibited is fair game. period. if you
>> don't want to be photographed, stay home.
>>
>>> Withe the current hysteria about child
>>> molesters, it is pretty dangerous for a single man to even visit a
>>> public park where children are playing, and just sit and watch them
>>> play. Add a camera to that, and you can count on a visit from the local
>>> law enforcement.
>> and that is the whole problem. sitting in a park is *legal*.
>
> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
> there is a no photography rule.
Not here in Australia.
> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>
> I would only worry if it was a Catholic Priest in the playground. See
> the report focusing out of Ireland. Yet another "horrific" report of
> systematic child abuse by the RC church. The worlds children have far
> more to fear from the RC church than photographers.
Absolutely true. How many priests have molested or otherwise abused
children? Now compare that to the "danger" of some perv drooling over a
picture of one of your kids. Sure, the latter is disgusting, but it's
very unlikely, & how does it actually harm the kid?
Bob Larter
> On 2009-05-20 02:39:58 -0700, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <200520090212135419%nos...@nospam.invalid>, nospam
>> <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes
>>> In article <qPf8lSG5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
>>> <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However as most "public" parks are owned there is a possibility that
>>>> there is a no photography rule.
>>>
>>
>> As with railway tickets in VERY small print "terms and conditions apply
>> see park/station master"
>>
>>>> However the world is getting far too paranoid.
>>>
>>
>> People need to relax about it. There is far to much PC and people
>> demanding petty and stupid rights like you can't photograph my child in
>> the street and worry a more about the freedoms we are loosing... like
>> you can't take pictures on the street.
>
> Damn!
> I can remember the days of the professional street photographers, who
> would work a crowded street of pedestrians taking candid shots, and then
> approaching the subject to hand him/her a numbered ticket to redeem the
> finished photograph for the stated fee.
> I also rcall that some of those photographers had studio shop windows,
> where many unclaimed photographs were on public display.
Exactly. And I for one really like doing that style of photography. I
photograph at nightclubs, & regularly photograph one or two hundred
people in one night. Every now & then you'll get someone who freaks out
at having a camera pointed in their direction, & if it was up to them,
candid photography would be outlawed. Never mind that 99.89% of people
are fine with being photographed, & love seeing the shots.
I don't think the whole of society should be constrained by the paranoia
of the few.