Fined for photo

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Kevin - 03 Oct 2008 17:35 GMT

A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
outside a bar.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

Reply to this Message

Firey Bird - 03 Oct 2008 20:23 GMT

> A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
> outside a bar.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

<quote>
But Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said the matter "could be best described as
exceptionally unchivalrous".
"The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing
stranger take a photograph," said the sheriff.
</quote>

So Sherriff Hogg has introduced 2 new laws to Scotland: we must be
chivalrous, and we no longer have the right to photograph people in public.
Unless he's saying that the inside of a car is *not* a public place - in
which case all those people prosecuted for "dogging" should appeal asap.

Signature

If you're posting thru Google Groups - I can't see you! :p
Firey Bird brought to you by Eris and motzarella.org
Email me at thefireybird{who nests in} gmail.communist
- remove the blatant obfuscation.
(Is "blatant obfuscation an oxymoron?)

Reply to this Message

(used to be) Fat Sam - 03 Oct 2008 20:35 GMT

>> A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
>> outside a bar.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Unless he's saying that the inside of a car is *not* a public place - in
> which case all those people prosecuted for "dogging" should appeal asap.

Also notice that he says people should just walk on by and mind theor own
business if they see someone in distress.
Hardly sounds very chivalrous does it?

To summarise, the sherrif in this case was an idiot who should not be
allowed to make a cup of tea unsupervised, let alone pass judgements.

Reply to this Message

Cats - 04 Oct 2008 09:01 GMT

On Oct 3, 8:35 pm, "$used to be$ Fat Sam"
<samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>

> Also notice that he says people should just walk on by and mind theor own
> business if they see someone in distress.
> Hardly sounds very chivalrous does it?

It's the right thing to do when they already have their friends with
them looking after them, as this woman did. The last thing anyone in
distress needs it a load of strangers stopping. Also, this chap took
a photo, the woman and her friends objected and called the police, and
he was still around when they turned up. Unless there was a policeman
passing, or one had noticed something going on and was already taking
an interest, why did the guy hang around?

I was taken ill at home in April this year. I called 999, and during
the wait for the ambulance would have been deeply upset if it had
happened in a public place and some photographer decided that my agony
was worth a shot. I too would have complained to the police.

Personally I would never dream of taking photos of people who are ill,
wounded or otherwise in distress. Having the right to take photos in
the street doesn't confer the right to abandon all sensitivity to what
other people might think and feel, and remember also that people in
distress are inclined to be irrational. In fact I wouldn't take
photos where people are anything more than anonymous props without
asking first.

How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
your family?

Reply to this Message

(used to be) Fat Sam - 04 Oct 2008 10:54 GMT

> Also, this chap took a photo,

Not a crime.

> the woman and her friends objected and called the police, and
> he was still around when they turned up. Unless there was a policeman
> passing, or one had noticed something going on and was already taking
> an interest, why did the guy hang around?

If you read the report, you'll notice that her friends "collared" him.
I don't know about you, but that sounds to me like they restrained him in
some way.
That means he was probably unable to leave, and was therefore forced to hang
around.
It is they who should have been charged.
I also believe the UK still has laws against being drunk and incapable,
which this young lady clearly seemed to be.

> I was taken ill at home in April this year. I called 999, and during
> the wait for the ambulance would have been deeply upset if it had
> happened in a public place and some photographer decided that my agony
> was worth a shot. I too would have complained to the police.

Were you genuinely ill, or had you been drinking all day with your friends
and then suddenly realised you had acute alcohol poisoning like this young
lady quite obviously did?

> Personally I would never dream of taking photos of people who are ill,
> wounded or otherwise in distress. Having the right to take photos in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> photos where people are anything more than anonymous props without
> asking first.

Neither would I, but the fact remains that this man has committed no crime,
yet he got punished by a judge who decided to invent one.
Would you impose those same rules on a photo journalist who turns up at the
scene of an accident or disaster?

> How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
> photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
> your family?

In a public place, there is NO expectation of privacy.
The two word contradict each other.
If you want privacy, stay at home and close the curtians.
Simple as that.

Reply to this Message

The Royal Spam - 04 Oct 2008 10:58 GMT

> Were you genuinely ill, or had you been drinking all day with your friends
> and then suddenly realised you had acute alcohol poisoning like this young
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> photos where people are anything more than anonymous props without
>> asking first.

In 20 years when alcohol and enjoyment is banned we can look back on those
pictures and have a good laugh.

Reply to this Message

Peter - 04 Oct 2008 14:06 GMT

>> Also, this chap took a photo,
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
> If you want privacy, stay at home and close the curtians.
> Simple as that.

Interestingly, you are both right and both wrong.

I think that, with the exception of public figures in a public place, it is
morally wrong to take someone's picture without their consent.

Likewise, in most jurisdictions it is not legally wrong to do so.

On occasion I admit to having taken candid shots of some folks without their
consent, especially at museums and zoos. If the person was recognizable I
have showed them the shot after would.and if they objected, destroyed the
image.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

Floyd L. Davidson - 04 Oct 2008 16:17 GMT

>> In a public place, there is NO expectation of privacy.
>> The two word contradict each other.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>I think that, with the exception of public figures in a public place, it is
>morally wrong to take someone's picture without their consent.

When you think differently than what the rest of society
has decided, it's an opinion. It is *NOT* the
definition of morality.

>Likewise, in most jurisdictions it is not legally wrong to do so.

Society, in virtually all jurisdictions in the "Free
World", have indeed decided that it is not immoral, and
have not made it illegal.

>On occasion I admit to having taken candid shots of some folks without their
>consent, especially at museums and zoos. If the person was recognizable I
>have showed them the shot after would.and if they objected, destroyed the
>image.

Wonderful, but you said he was wrong... and you have
not been able to show anywhere that he was not right.

The *facts* are that photographing people in public
places is not illegal and not immoral in our society.
Claiming it is immoral indicates you have little
understanding of the topic. (Not that I don't agree
with Sonia Sontag about doing violence to people when
you photograph them. I do, and I fully intend to!)

Personally, I think this whole bit is phony. I
described it to a local lady who is a Brit from London,
and she laughed. We agreed that a judge could not
legally do what was described in the article. There are
no laws in England which would apply to what was
described, and a lack of chivalry is not illegal.
Either the real cause was not mentioned, or the whole
story is a fake.

Signature

Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Reply to this Message

Peter - 04 Oct 2008 18:36 GMT

>>> In a public place, there is NO expectation of privacy.
>>> The two word contradict each other.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> has decided, it's an opinion. It is *NOT* the
> definition of morality.

You and I may very ell have a different definition of morality. That's
perfectly OK

>>Likewise, in most jurisdictions it is not legally wrong to do so.
>
> Society, in virtually all jurisdictions in the "Free
> World", have indeed decided that it is not immoral, and
> have not made it illegal.

Thank you for bringing that point up. If we drift too far I would be happy
to either take this discussion off line or move it to another group where
the discussion would be more appropriate.
If I sound didactic it is because I used to teach a college course in the
difference between legality and morality. The course was nominally entitled
"Business Law for Accountants."

Morality is in the eyes of society, as a whole. Some may believe an act
immoral while to others it may be perfectly moral. e.g. nude bathing. (I
suppose there is less of that issue in Alaska than warmer climates. Some
believe breast feeding in public is immoral. In some places prostitution is
perfectly legal, yet in others it clearly is not.
Some acts are both universally immoral and illegal, while others may be
illegal, without being immoral. (Medical use of marijuana.)
Not all morality can be, nor should be legislated. It may be perfectly legal
for a doctor to charge whatever rate he thinks the patient will pay, But
depending on the circumstances, it may very well be immoral to do so.

It may be perfectly legal for me to take a picture of you picking your nose
in public, but it would be morally wrong for me to do so.
The question comes closer if you or I take a picture of a group of Inuit
skinning a whale.
If you are with them and do so in an obvious fashion, you would probably
have their tacit consent. That is different from me taking a picture, with a
long lens, of you adjusting your pants from half a block away.

>>On occasion I admit to having taken candid shots of some folks without
>>their
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Wonderful, but you said he was wrong... and you have
> not been able to show anywhere that he was not right.

Read above.

> The *facts* are that photographing people in public
> places is not illegal and not immoral in our society.

We differ. It depends.

> Claiming it is immoral indicates you have little
> understanding of the topic. (Not that I don't agree
> with Sonia Sontag about doing violence to people when
> you photograph them. I do, and I fully intend to!)

A personal attack on my intellect shows weakness in your argument.

> Personally, I think this whole bit is phony. I
> described it to a local lady who is a Brit from London,
> and she laughed. We agreed that a judge could not
> legally do what was described in the article. There are
> no laws in England which would apply to what was
> described, and a lack of chivalry is not illegal.

Is certainly was not illegal. Since we really do not know all the pertinent
facts, we cannot judge morality, or lack thereof.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 04 Oct 2008 20:25 GMT

>If I sound didactic it is because I used to teach a college course in the
>difference between legality and morality. The course was nominally entitled
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>believe breast feeding in public is immoral. In some places prostitution is
>perfectly legal, yet in others it clearly is not.

I hope you taught the course with more precision than you write. I've
never heard of anyone who thought that breast feeding is immoral. I
have heard of people who feel that breast feeding in the view of
strangers is immoral.

>It may be perfectly legal for me to take a picture of you picking your nose
>in public, but it would be morally wrong for me to do so.

Again, you lack precision. There is no immorality involved in taking
a picture of someone picking their nose in public. The immoral act,
if there is one, would be making the picture viewable to an audience.

This lack of precision, while it might seem minor, is disturbing when
it is the practice of someone who claims to have taught a course that
defined morality.

In the case in question, I see no immorality involved in taking a
picture of a sick - presumably sick from excessive consumption of
alcohol - woman. It might be an immoral act, though, to publish that
image in something like "Facebook" or "MySpace" where her friends and
family might see it.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 04 Oct 2008 21:25 GMT

>>If I sound didactic it is because I used to teach a college course in the
>>difference between legality and morality. The course was nominally
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> have heard of people who feel that breast feeding in the view of
> strangers is immoral.

Uhm! I did say "in public"

Also, what any individual might,or might not be aware of does not imply lack
of existence.

If you are going to nit pik my language, please be precise.

>>It may be perfectly legal for me to take a picture of you picking your
>>nose
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> a picture of someone picking their nose in public. The immoral act,
> if there is one, would be making the picture viewable to an audience.

Your opinion is ;quite different than mine. Morality is more amprphous than
language and law.

> This lack of precision, while it might seem minor, is disturbing when
> it is the practice of someone who claims to have taught a course that
> defined morality.

Just where did I make such a claim?

> In the case in question, I see no immorality involved in taking a
> picture of a sick - presumably sick from excessive consumption of
> alcohol - woman. It might be an immoral act, though, to publish that
> image in something like "Facebook" or "MySpace" where her friends and
> family might see it.

See above. With the exceptions I previously noted, while I may think it is
immoral to photograph a likeness without their permission, I also think it
would be immoral to enact legislation regulating your right to to so.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 04 Oct 2008 22:00 GMT

>>>If I sound didactic it is because I used to teach a college course in the
>>>difference between legality and morality. The course was nominally
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
>Uhm! I did say "in public"

"In public" is not "in public view". If you don't know the
difference, you should not attempt to teach your morality standards to
students.

>Also, what any individual might,or might not be aware of does not imply lack
>of existence.

I have no idea of what point this sentence makes in relation to your
position.

>If you are going to nit pik my language, please be precise.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Your opinion is ;quite different than mine. Morality is more amprphous than
>language and law.

More amorphous than the law, for the law is quite specific. Language,
though, can be quite amorphous in its use.

>> This lack of precision, while it might seem minor, is disturbing when
>> it is the practice of someone who claims to have taught a course that
>> defined morality.
>
>Just where did I make such a claim?

If you taught a course in the difference between legality and
morality, one would certainly hope that you defined the subjects. You
can't very well teach the difference if you don't define what they
are.

>> In the case in question, I see no immorality involved in taking a
>> picture of a sick - presumably sick from excessive consumption of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>immoral to photograph a likeness without their permission, I also think it
>would be immoral to enact legislation regulating your right to to so.

You are equating "immorality" to "against the public interest", and
that's wrong. A law that you disagree with, or a law that is to the
detriment of the public, is not an immoral law.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 05 Oct 2008 01:31 GMT

>>>>If I sound didactic it is because I used to teach a college course in
>>>>the
[quoted text clipped - 68 lines]
> that's wrong. A law that you disagree with, or a law that is to the
> detriment of the public, is not an immoral law.

I am not responding because we have drifted too far. If you want to believe
that the law is not amorphous, I have no incentive to teach you otherwise.
If you really believe what you wrote, stick to your photography. Some of
your shots are really fine. As I stated to Floyd, you I will be happy to
continue this in a more appropriate forum, provided you show a desire to
learn.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 05 Oct 2008 02:28 GMT

>>>>>If I sound didactic it is because I used to teach a college course in
>>>>>the
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
>I am not responding because we have drifted too far. If you want to believe
>that the law is not amorphous, I have no incentive to teach you otherwise.

Reading this, I'm beginning to have doubts about your grasp of the
meaning of "amorphous". The primary meaning is "lacking definite
form". Secondary meanings are "lacking shape", and "without
particular character".

The law can be ambiguous, but not amorphous. Laws are designed, set
out, and specific in intent. The law can be worded ambiguously, and
written in such a way that interpretation of intent is required, but
the law is never without form.

I have no interest in being taught by someone who doesn't have the
language facility to teach.

>If you really believe what you wrote, stick to your photography. Some of
>your shots are really fine. As I stated to Floyd, you I will be happy to
>continue this in a more appropriate forum, provided you show a desire to
>learn.

I have the feeling it would be like having Sarah Palin teaching me the
meaning of the term "Achilles' Heel".

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 05 Oct 2008 21:44 GMT

>>I am not responding because we have drifted too far. If you want to
>>believe
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> written in such a way that interpretation of intent is required, but
> the law is never without form.

That is a bootstrap argument. the law is constantly evolving.

If you have any doubts tell me whether Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S.
483 (1954), or UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265
(1978), had any effect on our society.

> I have no interest in being taught by someone who doesn't have the
> language facility to teach.

Try opening your mind instead of attacking. You just might learn something.

>>If you really believe what you wrote, stick to your photography. Some of
>>your shots are really fine. As I stated to Floyd, you I will be happy to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I have the feeling it would be like having Sarah Palin teaching me the
> meaning of the term "Achilles' Heel".

LOL

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 05 Oct 2008 22:49 GMT

>>>I am not responding because we have drifted too far. If you want to
>>>believe
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>That is a bootstrap argument. the law is constantly evolving.

The body of law evolves, but the components - the individual laws -
all have form. You are digging in and trying to justify the use of an
incorrect word to describe the nature of law and laws.

>If you have any doubts tell me whether Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S.
>483 (1954), or UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA REGENTS v. BAKKE, 438 U.S. 265
>(1978), had any effect on our society.

A non sequitur. The effect of any law on society does not, in any
way, go the point of the law being amorphous.

>> I have no interest in being taught by someone who doesn't have the
>> language facility to teach.
>
>Try opening your mind instead of attacking. You just might learn something.

And your mind is open? You are stubbornly clinging to the use of
"amorphus" to describe law. An open-minded person might look up the
word and make the necessary adjustment in wording.

Take the Second Amendment, for example: "A well regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Ratified
version)

Is this amorphous? Without form? Without particular character? Yet,
it has proved to be ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Some
interpret that to mean that only a well-regulated militia is assured
the right to keep and bear arms. Some interpret that to mean that all
citizens (the people) are assured the right to keep and bear arms.

(Citing the Constitution is allowable here because your example, Brown
v. Board of Education, was based on the equal protection provided in
the 14th Amendment.)

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 06 Oct 2008 00:58 GMT

>>>>I am not responding because we have drifted too far. If you want to
>>>>believe
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
> v. Board of Education, was based on the equal protection provided in
> the 14th Amendment.)

We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 06 Oct 2008 01:40 GMT

>>>>>I am not responding because we have drifted too far. If you want to
>>>>>believe
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
>We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Fine. It is noted, though, that you feel you can teach me something
but you make no attempt to defend your usage of "amorphous".

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 07 Oct 2008 00:23 GMT

>>We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
>
> Fine. It is noted, though, that you feel you can teach me something
> but you make no attempt to defend your usage of "amorphous".

Is the entire body of law the same today as it was 50 years ago?

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 07 Oct 2008 02:08 GMT

>>>We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
>>
>> Fine. It is noted, though, that you feel you can teach me something
>> but you make no attempt to defend your usage of "amorphous".
>
>Is the entire body of law the same today as it was 50 years ago?

Again, a non sequitur. The body of law changes over time because laws
are added and laws are revised. They body of law is not, and was not,
without form or substance.

Some examples may help you understand.

Smokestacks emit an amorphous cloud of smoke. The smoke has no
distinct form. The factory where the smokestack is located is not
amorphous even though buildings are added, torn down, and remodeled.
At each stage of construction, the factory has form and structure.

You have changed physically in the last 50 years (assuming you are
over 50 years-old). Yet, at no time were you amorphous. You always
had shape and you always had form. Yet, you changed.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 07 Oct 2008 02:29 GMT

>>>>We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> over 50 years-old). Yet, at no time were you amorphous. You always
> had shape and you always had form. Yet, you changed.

My last comment.

http://tinyurl.com/48kz25

Stop being such a strict constructionist. Look at the abstract concept.

If a tank travels at 35 mph how fast is the bottom of the tread travelling
at any given instant.

hint: if it was moving the imprint would be different.

Yes, at any instant the law is formal, just as the tank tread is moving at 0
mph at any given instant. But, over time the body of law changes. Sorry, I
cannot help you further.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 07 Oct 2008 05:27 GMT

>>>>>We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
>Stop being such a strict constructionist.

Is this the word you wanted? A person who considers the process of
learning to be an active process. If so, I don't want to stop.

Or, did you mean "prescriptivist"? A person who believes in the
enforcement of rules for language. Actually, I'm more of a
descriptivist who believes that language evolves and that the rules
can change. "Amorphous" is not a word that has changed in meaning or
in how it can be applied, though.

Honestly, Peter, a dictionary isn't a bad thing to consult once in a
while.

>Look at the abstract concept.

>http://tinyurl.com/48kz25

You claim to teach, but you use this an example? Did you actually
read it?

This is about Gypsy law. Harris, the author, starts out in her
Forward by talking about an invisible society and a law of oral
traditions. A society with laws hidden from the gadjie and a society
that excludes all outsiders from any knowledge of their society or
their law.

How can this be compared to American law? How can you possibly say
"the law is amorphous" when your example is the law of a secret
society where talking about any aspect of the society is "taboo within
the community" and a body of law that is contained only within the
memory of the Romani?

The usage of "amorphous" in this book is used to describe Gypsy law,
not law. It is used to point out the difference between the law as
most of society understands law and the law of this narrow sub-set of
society. The usage in this means this type of law is completely
different from law as the rest of us know it.

>If a tank travels at 35 mph how fast is the bottom of the tread travelling
>at any given instant.
>
>hint: if it was moving the imprint would be different.
>
>Yes, at any instant the law is formal,

The issue is form, not formality. Again, dictionary use is
recommended.

>just as the tank tread is moving at 0
>mph at any given instant. But, over time the body of law changes.

Yes, it changes because the components change. No, it is not
amorphous. Not at all, not ever, no way.

>Sorry, I cannot help you further.

That is because you are dealing with a word - a concept - that you
either have no understanding of, or a complete misunderstanding about.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 08 Oct 2008 14:49 GMT

>>>>>>We do not agree. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 79 lines]
> That is because you are dealing with a word - a concept - that you
> either have no understanding of, or a complete misunderstanding about.

I am not responding only because we have drifted too far for this group If
you have a suggestion for another group I will be happy to take this
conversation there.

My personal travel plans for the next year include Maine and Alaska. However
if you plan to be in the Metropolitan New York area I would be happy to meet
you and discuss this further.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 08 Oct 2008 15:04 GMT

>My personal travel plans for the next year include Maine and Alaska. However
>if you plan to be in the Metropolitan New York area I would be happy to meet
>you and discuss this further.

Let's meet in Alaska, sit on a bench in Wasilla, watch the Russians,
and discuss the meaning of the term "experienced in international
relations".

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 08 Oct 2008 20:57 GMT

>>My personal travel plans for the next year include Maine and Alaska.
>>However
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> and discuss the meaning of the term "experienced in international
> relations".

I live about 15 Mon from the ocean and see it at least four times a week. I
guess that qualifies me to be an admiral.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

Chris H - 09 Oct 2008 07:55 GMT

>>>My personal travel plans for the next year include Maine and Alaska.
>>>However
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>I live about 15 Mon from the ocean and see it at least four times a
>week. I guess that qualifies me to be an admiral.

I can see the moon... I am an Astronaught.

Back in topic I have a camera and had a picture published in the news
paper (right time right place and no one else there) Am I a journalist?

Signature

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Reply to this Message

Shiva Das - 09 Oct 2008 13:52 GMT

> Back in topic I have a camera and had a picture published in the news
> paper (right time right place and no one else there) Am I a journalist?

That depends -- was it news or a puff piece? :-D

Signature

Om Namah Sivaya

Reply to this Message

Floyd L. Davidson - 05 Oct 2008 02:06 GMT

>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>> Society, in virtually all jurisdictions in the "Free
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>Morality is in the eyes of society, as a whole. Some may believe an act

End of that discussion. The rest was obfuscation, and
I've snipped it because there is no point is furthering
that.

>It may be perfectly legal for me to take a picture of you picking your nose
>in public, but it would be morally wrong for me to do so.

To take a picture of it??? No. Absolutely not.

You could, however, do any number of things with the
picture that would not be moral. But taking the picture
in the first place is not immoral. (It might not be
smart, though...)

>The question comes closer if you or I take a picture of a group of Inuit
>skinning a whale.

Hmmm... I've never heard of an Inuit skinning a whale.

>If you are with them and do so in an obvious fashion, you would probably
>have their tacit consent. That is different from me taking a picture, with a
>long lens, of you adjusting your pants from half a block away.

I do in fact take pictures of Eskimos butchering whales
(see my website listed below). I don't ask, it isn't
necessary for the particular images that I do take.

There are other circumstances where asking is necessary.
I'm thinking of one particular sequence that I may ask
about doing next spring. But there is a *very*
significant difference, because I am going to
specifically ask if I can invade the privacy of a number
of people.

If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
5 feet away.

>>>On occasion I admit to having taken candid shots of some folks without
>>>their
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Read above.

You have been able to show that your opinion is not in
agreement with law, that you are not necessarily
logical, and a number of other things about
yourself... but you have not shown that he was not
right.

>> The *facts* are that photographing people in public
>> places is not illegal and not immoral in our society.
>
>We differ. It depends.

Your opinion does not count. Society and Law do.
Your opinion of morality is a guide for you and you
alone. It does not pertain to me or to anyone else.
Societies idea of morality, and in particular as it
expresses that opinion in Law, counts.

>> Claiming it is immoral indicates you have little
>> understanding of the topic. (Not that I don't agree
>> with Sonia Sontag about doing violence to people when
>> you photograph them. I do, and I fully intend to!)
>
>A personal attack on my intellect shows weakness in your argument.

Oh, you call him wrong and that's wonderful, and I say
you are wrong and demonstrate the significance and that
is "a personal attack". Nice. But not logical.

>> Personally, I think this whole bit is phony. I
>> described it to a local lady who is a Brit from London,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Is certainly was not illegal. Since we really do not know all the pertinent
>facts, we cannot judge morality, or lack thereof.

Well turns out you are wrong again. And to a
significant degree so was I in the above paragraph. I
did a little more research, and discovered that the
article cited originally was not exactly wrong, but it
did not emphasize the significant legal aspects and instead
went for the emotional sound bites. The
judge may well have commented on chivalry, but the
charge was "Breach of the Peace", and it may not have
been necessary or even valid, but in fact under the laws
of Scotland the photographer was guilty of a "Breach of
the Peace". Or at least the judge thought he was, and
that is what counts.

Note that *any* activity which causes, or will cause if
continued, a disturbance is a "Breach of the Peace" in
Scotland. It is a catch all that allows police to
arrest virtually anyone for virtually anything at
virtually any place at virtually any time. Got that?
(You sneezed? Guilty!)

It actually had nothing to do with photography or privacy.
It may have had to do with annoying behavior of a Polish
person in Scotland... :-)

Signature

Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Reply to this Message

(used to be) Fat Sam - 05 Oct 2008 11:07 GMT

> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
> 5 feet away.

And that is the only relevant point in this whole discussion.
You've hit the nail firmly and squarely on the head.

The key here is that you were adjusting your pants in PUBLIC. a place where
privacy cannot by definition exist.
As soon as an expectation of privacy exists, it ceases to be a public place.

It occurs to me that some people struggle to understand the meaning of the
words "public" and "private".

People need to realise that if their privacy is that important to them, they
should stay indoors at home with the curtains closed.

Reply to this Message

Joel - 05 Oct 2008 11:39 GMT

"$used to be$ Fat Sam" <samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:

> > If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
> > moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> People need to realise that if their privacy is that important to them, they
> should stay indoors at home with the curtains closed.

Hahahaha it seems like Sam does like the word PUBLIC but against my PUBLIC
on other thread. Well, I response to this because I believe he has me
kill-filed (I think it start hurting my felling <bg>) so he won't see it.

Also, privacy does exist in public and privacy can be respected in public
as well. Or at least I do respect people privacy either in public or
private place.

Reply to this Message

Peter - 05 Oct 2008 21:22 GMT

>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> People need to realise that if their privacy is that important to them,
> they should stay indoors at home with the curtains closed.

The issue is not privacy, not legality, but morality.
In any society there is a balancing of needs. While there are quite a few
exceptions: in my view,, it would be immoral, not necessarily illegal, for
me to do something that has a reasonable probability of making another
uncomfortable, While Floyd might not be uncomfortable with me taking a
picture of him adjusting his pants, I think that would make many people
uncomfortable. The mere fact that he might have to adjust his pants in
public could very well be embarrassing. My point has nothing to do with
publishing the photo, invading his privacy, or violating any law.

Generally, it would be immoral for me to make another uncomfortable simply
for my own pleasure.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

(used to be) Fat Sam - 05 Oct 2008 21:54 GMT

>>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> The issue is not privacy, not legality,

So why was he fined by a court of law then if it had nothing to do with
legality?

> In any society there is a balancing of needs. While there are quite a
> few exceptions: in my view,, it would be immoral, not necessarily
> illegal, for me to do something that has a reasonable probability of
> making another uncomfortable,

So if it isn't illegal, it must be legal...right?
So in that case, why is the law prosecuting people for doing something that
is legal?

> Generally, it would be immoral for me to make another uncomfortable
> simply for my own pleasure.

But not illegal.
So why was this man prosecuted by a court of law for doing something that
was not illegal?

Forget morality.
Morality is not the point in this situation.
The point is that a man was prosecuted by the law when he had committed no
crime.

Now if you still want to talk about morals, and doing things that make other
people feel uncomfortable, lets look at the young *lady*.
Drunk and incapable.
Unable to hold her drink, she stumbled out of a pub with a mild done of
alcohol poisoning, possibly to throw up in a gutter.
If I'm entirely honest, that makes me uncomfortable.
I find it very offensive when I see the loutish out-of-control drunken
behaviour of the modern youths of this country.

So I ask you, if it was an issue of morality, and this man was prosecuted
and fined for acting in a way likey to make people feel uncomfortable, why
was this young *lady* not also prosecuted under those exact same terms?

You see, when you start outlawing actions that are likely to make people
feel uncomfortable, you start down a very slippery road to extremes of
prohibition.
Everybody is offended by something, and everything offends somebody.
So you find yourself in a state where you cannot do anything for fear that
somebody might be offended or upset by it.
Do you really want to live in a world where you can't fart because you're
afraid the long arm of the law will catch you and fine you?

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 05 Oct 2008 23:30 GMT

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:55:53 +0100, "$used to be$ Fat Sam"
<samandjanet@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:

>>>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>>>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>So why was he fined by a court of law then if it had nothing to do with
>legality?

Floyd answered that. He was fined for breaking a law by committing a
breach of the peace. In Scotland, this is "When one or more persons
conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which
alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people)."

>> In any society there is a balancing of needs. While there are quite a
>> few exceptions: in my view,, it would be immoral, not necessarily
>> illegal, for me to do something that has a reasonable probability of
>> making another uncomfortable,
>
>So if it isn't illegal, it must be legal...right?

Well, no. You are putting too fine a point on it. The law, for
example, does not state that is illegal to steal a camera. The law is
not that specific. You can't conclude that because the law doesn't
state that the theft of a camera is illegal, that it is therefore
legal to steal a camera. The charge of theft is a sufficient
umbrella.

In this case, the charge of breaching the peace is a sufficient
umbrella to include the action of the photographer. At least in the
mind of the judge on this case.

>Forget morality.
>Morality is not the point in this situation.

>The point is that a man was prosecuted by the law when he had committed no
>crime.

He had: breach of the peace.

>So I ask you, if it was an issue of morality,
>and this man was prosecuted
>and fined for acting in a way likey to make people feel uncomfortable, why
>was this young *lady* not also prosecuted under those exact same terms?

Presumably, because she was not charged. If you think she should have
been, then you think the arresting officer made an error. Prosecutors
don't prosecute where no charge is presented.

Don't, by the way, take my comments to mean that I agree with the
arresting officer, the prosector, or the judge. I don't. I don't
think the arresting officer should have filed a charge, I don't think
the prosecutor should have presented the case, and I think the judge
should have thrown the case out when it was presented.

Unless there's more to the story than was presented, I blame the
officer. An officer with a little more common sense would have said
to the photographer "Look, mate. Don't embarrass the lass. Delete
those pictures." and it would have ended there.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Floyd L. Davidson - 06 Oct 2008 00:02 GMT

>Floyd answered that. He was fined for breaking a law by committing a
>breach of the peace. In Scotland, this is "When one or more persons
>conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which
>alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people)."

It's even worse than that indicates. Here's a small quote, and I do
recommend reading the rest of it,

"If there is no proof of such disturbance, mischief or
alarm in fact, it is still possible to convict,
provided that the accused's conduct is thought
reasonably likely to have caused one of those three
things if it had been allowed to continue."

http://www.lemac.co.uk/resources/publication/Breach_of_the_Peace.htm

>Don't, by the way, take my comments to mean that I agree with the
>arresting officer, the prosector, or the judge. I don't. I don't
>think the arresting officer should have filed a charge, I don't think
>the prosecutor should have presented the case, and I think the judge
>should have thrown the case out when it was presented.

How true. It is astounding that three reasonably
credible people let the morality of the situation slide
right past them!

>Unless there's more to the story than was presented, I blame the
>officer. An officer with a little more common sense would have said
>to the photographer "Look, mate. Don't embarrass the lass. Delete
>those pictures." and it would have ended there.

How about, "Get the f*** out of here or I'll do something we'll all
regret!"

Who cares about the pictures... :-)

Signature

Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Reply to this Message

Peter - 06 Oct 2008 00:16 GMT

>>>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>>>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
> Do you really want to live in a world where you can't fart because you're
> afraid the long arm of the law will catch you and fine you?

I agree with what you say. Well almost.

We must have a definite standard of offense where the ill to society
outweighs the pleasure to any one individual. Legislation simply because an
act offends sensibilities should probably not be enacted. I think I
previously stated that the issue of taking a photo in public should not be
legislated. Floyd should never be prosecuted for adjusting his pants in
public. I personally have a sense of morals that you should be free to adapt
or reject, without fear of criminal consequences.

As to the issue as originally presented, the whole thing has the aroma of
some put up job, or some over zealous law enforcement type who abused an
ordinance for an unintended purpose. Based on my understanding of the facts
I agree that no prosecution should have taken place.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

Paul Furman - 11 Oct 2008 19:13 GMT

> Forget morality.
> Morality is not the point in this situation.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I find it very offensive when I see the loutish out-of-control drunken
> behaviour of the modern youths of this country.

One could easily argue she was the criminal, guilty of public
intoxication. He was just taking photos of interesting things he came
across.

> So I ask you, if it was an issue of morality, and this man was prosecuted
> and fined for acting in a way likey to make people feel uncomfortable, why
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Do you really want to live in a world where you can't fart because you're
> afraid the long arm of the law will catch you and fine you?

Signature

Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Reply to this Message

Floyd L. Davidson - 05 Oct 2008 23:51 GMT

>The issue is not privacy, not legality, but morality.

Only if you don't have a clue Peter. Nobody should
every be jailed for a question that is only one of
morality and not one of legality. NEVER.

>In any society there is a balancing of needs. While there are quite a few
>exceptions: in my view,, it would be immoral, not necessarily illegal, for
>me to do something that has a reasonable probability of making another
>uncomfortable,

Fine, then don't do it. It's that simple. But don't be
claiming that somebody else should be charged with a
made up criminal act just because it is against your
concept of morality.

>While Floyd might not be uncomfortable with me taking a
>picture of him adjusting his pants, I think that would make many people
>uncomfortable.

You still don't catch on. I did not say that I would be
comfortable, I just said it isn't immoral or illegal.
If I don't like being uncomfortable I should not adjust
my pants in public!

>The mere fact that he might have to adjust his pants in
>public could very well be embarrassing. My point has nothing to do with
>publishing the photo, invading his privacy, or violating any law.

And you don't seem to have a valid concept of what this
discussion is all about. Nobody cares one hoot what
*you* don't want to do. The question is what should the
State do. Just because you happen to think something is
immoral does not make it a criminal offense, nor does it
mean that absent a law some judge can make up a law to
charge someone.

It's called "Due Process". You need to research that.

Indeed, I am currently sitting on a Grand Jury, and am
well aware that the reason a Grand Jury exists is to
prevent felony charges from being trumped up in exactly
that way.

>Generally, it would be immoral for me to make another uncomfortable simply
>for my own pleasure.

Generally, who cares. That is neither here nor there.

Signature

Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

Reply to this Message

Chris H - 06 Oct 2008 17:07 GMT

>>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
>The issue is not privacy, not legality, but morality.

The issue is legality. Morality is flexible as is privacy.

>While Floyd might not be uncomfortable with me taking a picture of him
>adjusting his pants, I think that would make many people uncomfortable.

It may be that him adjusting his pants in public is not legal but
photographing him doing it would be.

>Generally, it would be immoral for me to make another uncomfortable
>simply for my own pleasure.

So 99% of stand up comedians are immoral? :-)

Signature

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Reply to this Message

Peter - 07 Oct 2008 00:22 GMT

>>>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>>>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> The issue is legality. Morality is flexible as is privacy.

Simce I am not an expert in the loaw of Scotland, I cannot farily comment on
them. I thought I was clear in referrng ony to morality, which I agree is
almost impossible to clearly define. Hence I am against attempts to
legislate morality.
Similarly, I have no right to impose my morality standards on you and you
have no right to try to impose your standards on me.

>>While Floyd might not be uncomfortable with me taking a picture of him
>>adjusting his pants, I think that would make many people uncomfortable.
>
> It may be that him adjusting his pants in public is not legal but
> photographing him doing it would be.

It depends. (no pun intended)

>>Generally, it would be immoral for me to make another uncomfortable simply
>>for my own pleasure.
>
> So 99% of stand up comedians are immoral? :-)

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 07 Oct 2008 02:24 GMT

>>>>> If I am adjusting my pants in public, a picture from the
>>>>> moon is not an invasion of my privacy. Nor is one from
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>Similarly, I have no right to impose my morality standards on you and you
>have no right to try to impose your standards on me.

And yet we do. One of the major points of contention in today's
society in the US is the allowability of same-sex marriage. Society
declares that marriage is between one man and one woman. That's a
decision based on morality, and that morality is enforced by law in
most states.

If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are attempting to impose your
morality on people who do not have the same standards. If you
advocate same-sex marriage, you are attempting to impose your morality
on people who do not have the same standards.

On a lesser level, we legislate morality by making it illegal to walk
down a public street in the nude. We have laws that impose
contradictory moral standards like allowing men to go to the beach
topless, but not women.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Nursey - 11 Oct 2008 14:28 GMT

>>> In a public place, there is NO expectation of privacy.
>>> The two word contradict each other.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Either the real cause was not mentioned, or the whole
> story is a fake.

Can I point out that this story is based in Scotland, and they do have
different laws to those of England. Whilst I think the privacy/public
laws are still the same, they *could* be different.

Signature

Nursey RN
ALS & APLS Provider
MIRTTH#6 IbW#09 4#COFF EFFA MOP#1
Honda CBF600 ABS
(nursey at ukrm dot net)
UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/
Shameless Plug: http://www.blakeley.co.uk

Reply to this Message

Joel - 04 Oct 2008 19:11 GMT

> >> Also, this chap took a photo,
> >
[quoted text clipped - 56 lines]
> have showed them the shot after would.and if they objected, destroyed the
> image.

    Me? it depends on the image to decide it's legal or illegal, or public or
private (whatever you call it).

- *If* the person (even you can recognize the person) is part of PUBLIC then
the whole image belong to public group.

- *If* even the person is a very small part of the whole image, but that
person is the focus point (main recognizable subject) then it may not be
treated as public. Then it may depend on how that person may look.

    - If the photo makes the person looks bad then it may not be right to
    publish it. I can't say release to public as many do with no $$$ involved

    - If the person looks fine, no posing, very normal then it could be ok to
    publish it. IOW, the person in the image is very normal as part of
    public (like a landscape ands the person is part of the whole landscape)

- I can't be able to list all small detail of everything, but if you
photograph something like sport, events etc. then you will have lot of
recognizable persons in the photo. Of course in sport, public events, or in
public etc. we have the right to photograph just about anything (not all but
almost all), but not all public photos can be published, and then some
commercial (magazine, news etc.) they may publish just aboout anything they
can get their hand on, even retouched photo. Then

    - Some photo may not be released to publish, but release to public as
    humor, weird capture etc. as we have seen all the time. Meaning no $$$
    involved

    - In events, I have used long zoom (800+mm) to photograph lot of people in
    closeup, retouched and released to public (for some special interest, or
    release to people who relate to the events, and you are looking at
    80-100+K of people in the event).

    And I usually don't photograph people to make them look bad, if it just
happen at wrong moment then I usually delete it. I know, someone may try to
pick some small thing to make some point, but that isn't what I try to do or
avoid. Or I just post my opinion to PUBLIC for discussing not fighting.

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 04 Oct 2008 13:50 GMT

>On Oct 3, 8:35 pm, "$used to be$ Fat Sam"
><samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
>your family?

The lady was more likely drunk and vomiting than ill from non-induced
causes. She was photographed outside a bar. The photographer said he
was "taking a photo of another view of Edinburgh". That strongly
suggests "sick" meaning "throwing up". The article wouldn't have
mentioned the bar unless it was germane.

When a person discards their personal dignity by staggering out of a
bar and vomiting on the street, it's quite different from having a
sudden attack of appendicitis.

I wouldn't take a photograph of you sleeping in your own bed, but if
you are sleeping in a downtown doorway because you have passed out,
it's another story.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Peter - 04 Oct 2008 14:10 GMT

> The lady was more likely drunk and vomiting than ill from non-induced
> causes. She was photographed outside a bar. The photographer said he
> was "taking a photo of another view of Edinburgh". That strongly
> suggests "sick" meaning "throwing up". The article wouldn't have
> mentioned the bar unless it was germane.

Youre assuming an idealistic integrity of the press. I am not certain that
stories are not slanted ot make the article more interesting. i.e. sell more
papers.

> When a person discards their personal dignity by staggering out of a
> bar and vomiting on the street, it's quite different from having a
> sudden attack of appendicitis.

See above.

Signature

Peter

Reply to this Message

tony cooper - 04 Oct 2008 20:10 GMT

>> The lady was more likely drunk and vomiting than ill from non-induced
>> causes. She was photographed outside a bar. The photographer said he
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>stories are not slanted ot make the article more interesting. i.e. sell more
>papers.

Evidently, you are claiming that the newspaper is outright lying. Not
slanting; lying. Was she, or was she not, photographed outside of a
bar? If she was, there is no "slanting" of the news. The article is
entirely factual.

If I choose to draw the conclusion that her illness was the result of
excessive consumption of alcohol, that is *my* slant.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message

Gary Charpentier - 04 Oct 2008 17:22 GMT

> How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
> photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
> your family?

There is a difference between taking a photo and publishing a photo. Is
everyone assuming she was going to be the next page 3 girl?

Reply to this Message

Joel - 04 Oct 2008 22:59 GMT

> > How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
> > photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
> > your family?
>
> There is a difference between taking a photo and publishing a photo. Is
> everyone assuming she was going to be the next page 3 girl?

You don't say much but I agree with you on this one. There are so many
good/bad, right/wrong, legal/illegal ways to deal with public photographing.

In general, it is not legal to take a closeup of someone then publish to
make $$$ without permission, but then again it can be legal to release to
public and even publish. Example, I release lot of my photos to public and
I allow anyone to use on their web sites or publish any of them (for free
like parish's newsletter or magazine but not for commercial use without my
permission).

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 04 Oct 2008 19:19 GMT

> On Oct 3, 8:35 pm, "$used to be$ Fat Sam"
> <samandja...@knox.orangehome.co.uk> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Also notice that he says people should just walk on by and mind theor own
>> business if they see someone in distress.
>> Hardly sounds very chivalrous does it?

> How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
> photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
> your family?

What happens in a public place is fair game for photo taking. This does
not imply publishing.

In effect, where does one draw the line?

While you or I might find such photo taking to be in poor taste, others
might have a legitimate reason to do so. And that includes ones own
entertainment.

As "The Royal Spam" pointed out, the streets of cities in England (and I
assume Scotland is similarly affected) are well covered with CCTV. Are
these agencies also being fined for photographing people in less than
flattering conditions?

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Reply to this Message

The Royal Spam - 05 Oct 2008 00:19 GMT

>> How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
>> photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> these agencies also being fined for photographing people in less than
> flattering conditions?

I think the problem here was that he was overtly taking pictures whereas a
CCTV operator covertly does the same thing unnoticed and unchallenged. I see
TV programmes that show endless footage of vomiting clubbers, punch ups and
flashers. Where did the TV company get these images?

Reply to this Message

(used to be) Fat Sam - 05 Oct 2008 11:13 GMT

>>> How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
>>> photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> whereas a CCTV operator covertly does the same thing unnoticed and
> unchallenged.

Personally, I think being covertly photographed is a whole lot more sinister
than being photographed by someone who isn't hiding.

Reply to this Message

Noons - 09 Oct 2008 02:14 GMT

> How many of you ranting about the stupidity of this would like your
> photo taken if you were taken ill in public? Or one of someone in
> your family?

It wouldn't even cross my mind as something I
would aks someone not to do. It's totally ludicrous.
And it is beyond stupid what this mayor has done.

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 03 Oct 2008 20:59 GMT

> A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
> outside a bar.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

Barbarous behaviour ... by the police, the court and the government.

Signature

Reply to this Message

Bryon Lape - 05 Oct 2008 01:22 GMT

>> A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Barbarous behaviour ... by the police, the court and the government.

What else is new? No one stands up for their rights anymore, in any
country.

Reply to this Message

The Royal Spam - 04 Oct 2008 11:03 GMT

> A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
> outside a bar.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7651107.stm

Presumably all of the CCTV operators in the area, including the local
authority, will also be charged and sentenced in the same unconstitutional
manner. I think I smell a rat, the powers that be don't want us to take
pictures or video unless they control them.

Reply to this Message

Alan Browne - 04 Oct 2008 14:53 GMT

>> A man in Edinburgh has been fined £100 for taking a photo of a woman
>> outside a bar.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> authority, will also be charged and sentenced in the same unconstitutional
> manner.

I neglected to add this point too...

Signature

Reply to this Message