It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man fined for taking photograph

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Man fined for taking photograph


news.bbc.co.uk

A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded "unchivalrous" by a sheriff.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I probably wouldn't like anyone taking a picture of me being ill outside a bar on a Friday night but I didn't think it was an offense to do so.

The woman and her friends called the police and the guy was arrested and charged with breach of the peace for taking a picture in what I assume was a public street as it was outside the bar.

The sherrif said that the lady was entitled to her privacy which is bizarre considering the number of CCTV cameras we have here.

I don't know the legalities of public photography, are there any members who know if this is a new law in the UK?






news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Oh man, I am flaberghasted. On one hand, yeah, I guess it is a bit "unchivalrous" if you look at it that way, but weather that should be a chargeable offense is certainly questionable.
I agree the statements about privacy are hypocritical considering the prevalence of CCTV cams.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:39 AM
link   
So its legal for the media to take picture of anyone they want, and post them how they want, but if someone takes a picture of someone else in a public area for his own entertainment, its illegal?

edit: this is friggin retarded, since when do you have privacy in a public bar?

[edit on 3-10-2008 by Snift]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
There maybe different laws for this in Scotland than England. I know theregister.co.uk has covered this a few times in the past with similar stories about photographers getting a rough deal regarding taking photos in a public place. I think there is some issue regarding whether people in the photograph are identifiable in some way, although generally taking pictures of public areas is OK.

I could be wrong, but I think some of the stories involved 'enthusiastic' police officers &c who didn't really know the the extent of the law they thought they were 'upholding'.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Friday night in Edinburgh, busy, full of drunks and violent people, what are the police doing? Handing out fines for taking photographs, what a GREAT use of police time.
The more this happens the more sick it makes me feel.
It's about time the police started NOT to enforce these stupid laws and actually do something constructive rather than just been another tax collecting arm of government.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by beefeater
 


Well said!

All I can say is, this is just silly, and a waste of police time. Looks like tourists should be careful what they take pictures of now haha.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
As I said in another post..public places are NOT private. When are these privacy advocates gonna wake up and realize the difference between private and public places????

Never I suppose.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I know, I wonder if the woman in question was aware how many cctv cameras were looking at her in her drunken state, bothered about that was she? The guy should of stood up for himself more, taking pictures in public is not illegal, and the womans face could not even be seen so she was not recognisable in the picture as her head was between her knees.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Although i think the man could have shown a little bit more decorum, i don't think he did anything that gave cause for him to be be arrested and fined.

The woman needs to understand the difference between public and private, she was not inside a private establishment she was outside on a public street.

IMO when you do something in public it becomes a public issue, not a private issue.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:21 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


Scottish law is different from English law.

There are no restrictions on photography in public places in England, despite what you might read in scaremongering articles.

The story as written doesn't have sufficient depth to be able to analyse the circumstances of why the Sheriff saw fit to charge the guy.



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Yes this did come to mind, maybe there was a huge argument and threats, maybe he reacted a bit too aggresive, who knows.

But if he really was some nice guy, why didn't they sort it out by just asking him not to print the pictures nicely, and then just forget about it.
I'm seeing a pattern of people not sorting things out among themselves anymore like real mature adults, they always want to sue or bring in the police etc into things, why can't people be mature enough to sort things out themselves.

Humans.... haha




[edit on 3-10-2008 by _Phoenix_]



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Indeed. Those cameras put up in public places are not to spy on people, they are to help authorities when trouble comes about and to thwart criminals from doing what they used to do in public places. They dont anymore.

You can bet the farm that if this woman was encountering a thief who tried to steal her purse or drag her into a dark corner of an ally, she would be the firs to shout "why didnt you send help, you have cameras plastered everywhere that you could see I needed help..why why why?!!!"

Pfft.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:34 PM
link   
As soon as it is a crime to be thoughtless, we are all screwed at some point or another...

This guy was rude, but within his rights.

How many powerful photographs have you seen that were taken without the subject's consent?

If a photographer always had to ask first, everything would be make-believe. Just a steady stream of poor actors...



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Scottish law is different from English law.

There are no restrictions on photography in public places in England, despite what you might read in scaremongering articles.


Thanks for clearing that up. As I mentioned in my own post, I was wondering whether this was the case or not as the coverage on theregister.co.uk made it fairly apparent that, despite some rumours, you could still take pictures in public &c.

The only thing I was unsure of was whether in light of a fairly notorious story involving a woman dying and someone filming it on their mobile phone, that the 'woman in distress' angle was being played to.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
What we have here is a modern day police state dilemma. Now the state loves all of their hi tech surveillance devices and uses them to their fullest perverted extent. The problem the state has... is that most peasants also have cameras, mp3 recorders, etc... The state does not like to be caught oppressing the slaves. So... start making statements/arrests that will make the slaves reticent to pull out those cameras and start documenting what the state denies ever happens. Solution = keep snapping and recording.



posted on Oct, 3 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
no expectation of privacy in public

CORE



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
I haven't been able to come up with any definate Scottish Law on public photography.

The more I looked into the story however, it would seem that the guy took a picture as he was passing the woman who was drunk and was 'being sick' in a public place.

Her friends physically 'took hold' of this guy and held him until the police arrived.

news.scotsman.com...

It seems to me that the woman and her friends broke more laws than the guy who took the picture. Maybe his £100 fine will pay for the cleaning up of what she brought up.

Again, I agree that his actions were unchivalrous but to end up out of pocket and a probably a criminal record for being so is fairly excessive in my books.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by 4N6310
On one hand, yeah, I guess it is a bit "unchivalrous" if you look at it that way, but weather that should be a chargeable offense is certainly questionable.


He may have been unchivalrous, but if she was so drunk she was vomiting in the street she certainly wasnt exactly being ladylike either, IMHO.

Perhaps to be fair, they should have both been fined for unseemly behavior.



posted on Oct, 4 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   
i was watching a news report today about a couple of 70 somting old ladies who were taking picture of an empty paddling pool in a park, they were arrested and charged as apparently its illegal to take picture where theres potentially gonna be children. the law may be wider ranging ill need to do a bit of research.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join