elansprint72 Posted May 8, 2008 Share #241 Posted May 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Here we go: JK Rowling wins ban on photos of her son | Media | The Guardian This will turn up the heat on more of us snappers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 8, 2008 Posted May 8, 2008 Hi elansprint72, Take a look here Advice to photographers in Uk. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
spylaw4 Posted May 8, 2008 Share #242 Posted May 8, 2008 Worrying indeed Pete! I suppose that this case specifically refers to paparazzi and the media and one does have a degree of sympathy for the parents' point of view. What is more interesting and alarming is this - Hugh Tomlinson QC, an expert on privacy law, said: "In this case an English court has held, for the first time, that the publication of an inoffensive photograph of an everyday activity in the street could amount to an invasion of privacy. This brings English privacy law more closely into line with the position in France. This case puts in place another building block in the gradual construction by the courts of a fully developed law of privacy." A case of judges making up the law "on the hoof"? Time to bring it to the attention of Austin Mitchell? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 8, 2008 Share #243 Posted May 8, 2008 Here we go: JK Rowling wins ban on photos of her son | Media | The Guardian This will turn up the heat on more of us snappers. Uh-oh. Welcome, folks, to the start of the 'slippery slope': "Come one, Come all, and ride it all the way to the end" where you won't even be allowed to take a picture of yourself! Incidentally, since no pictures have/will be published of the boy and I've never met him how would I know if I was committing an offence by photographing him? ON A BRIGHTER NOTE, however, I note that Austin Mitchell's early day motion now has 200 MPs' signatures!!! And it's up to 14th place by number of signatures of all 1,613 early day motions. This is cause for celebration so I shall stand myself a large vodka; will anyone join me? (It's on me. ) Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted May 8, 2008 Share #244 Posted May 8, 2008 Oh well if it's on you I could be persuaded to a large gin & tonic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 8, 2008 Author Share #245 Posted May 8, 2008 Tanqueary for me, please Regards, Bill Oh well if it's on you I could be persuaded to a large gin & tonic Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted May 8, 2008 Share #246 Posted May 8, 2008 I'm on my second Brakspear's Triple...... and the night is but young. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 8, 2008 Share #247 Posted May 8, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Aw go on ... force yourself, Pete. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 8, 2008 Share #248 Posted May 8, 2008 Tanqueary for me, please Regards, Bill Would you like fries with that, Sir? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted May 8, 2008 Share #249 Posted May 8, 2008 Would you like fries with that, Sir? Fries :eek: Must be a poncy southern bar this! We ave chips up north the soggier the better Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted May 8, 2008 Share #250 Posted May 8, 2008 Fries :eek: Must be a poncy southern bar this! We ave chips up north the soggier the better More of a tongue-in-cheek 'ommage to nice people at MacDonalds, Keith. A portion of chips'n'gravy for Mr Cocker please, Barkeep! Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted May 8, 2008 Share #251 Posted May 8, 2008 More of a tongue-in-cheek 'ommage to nice people at MacDonalds, Keith. A portion of chips'n'gravy for Mr Cocker please, Barkeep! Pete. Good job its not Friday night - I'd want Curry Sauce on em :D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted May 8, 2008 Share #252 Posted May 8, 2008 Good job its not Friday night - I'd want Curry Sauce on em :D And Sarsens vinegar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spylaw4 Posted May 15, 2008 Share #253 Posted May 15, 2008 Now that we've a few days to sober up, I would like to inform you of a letter I have received today (via my MP who wrote to Michael Wills) from Tony McNulty, Minister of State at the Home Office. I quote: Thank you for your letter of 14 April to Michael Wills at the Ministry of Justice on behalf of a number of your constituents about photography in public places. Your letter has been passed to me for reply. There is no legal restriction on photography in public places, and there is no presumption of privacy for individuals in a public place. It is for the Chief Constable to ensure that Officers and PCSOs are acting appropriately with regards to photography in public places and any queries regarding this should be addressed to the Chief Constable. However, decisions may be made locally to restrict photography, for example to protect children. Any questions on such local decisions should also be addressed to the force concerned Y/f etc. If anyone at any time wants a copy of this letter I can scan it in and email it as a pdf. I am unaware of any other Hackney constituents who have written to Meg Hillier, but if they have - good - the more the merrier! Paras. # 2&3 are heartening and pretty definite IMO. However it seems to me in respect of para. #4 that any local force could well take a draconian and paranoid view with regards to restrictions. As an aside I was coming home by bus yesterday and saw a guy + assistant with a large camcorder (TV sized) on a tripod at Ludgate circus being approached and presumably interrogated by a couple of PCSOs on bicycles. Regrettably I was not able to get off and the bus moved on - I might have got a couple of shots of this from a discreet distance as I had a 90 on the M7. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted May 19, 2008 Share #254 Posted May 19, 2008 BBC local TV news this evening- Manchester Police are to capture and retain for FIVE YEARS images of the number plates of 600,000 cars entering/leaving the city using their existing number plate recognition cameras. Of course if you have not done anything wrong, so what bu the bloke form the "privacy watchdog" (mad world?) was very sniffy about keeping the records for five years. Presumably the Chief Constable has a very liberal attitude to photographers on his manor? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted May 19, 2008 Share #255 Posted May 19, 2008 Presumably the Chief Constable has a very liberal attitude to photographers on his manor? I'm sure he did as long as they didn't photograph him with the Chief Exec of the Chamber of Commerce. Sadly he is no longer in a position to bother. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted May 19, 2008 Author Share #256 Posted May 19, 2008 The inside of your car is a private place under the terms and provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998. That's why when as a registered keeper you receive a NIP you have to declare who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. Photographic evidence of you driving the car is not admissable as proof of guilt, only as an aid to identification. Approximately 80% of CCTV footage is inadmissable in court due primarily to lack of secure storage or audit trailing. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted May 19, 2008 Share #257 Posted May 19, 2008 I'm sure he did as long as they didn't photograph him with the Chief Exec of the Chamber of Commerce. Sadly he is no longer in a position to bother. Bring back James Appleton James Anderton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia now he was a copper's copper; beard like Moses, spoke with God every day and, "Land o' Goshen", the Lord spake back to him each and every time. Yessir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cocker Posted May 20, 2008 Share #258 Posted May 20, 2008 Bring back James Appleton James Anderton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia now he was a copper's copper; beard like Moses, spoke with God every day and, "Land o' Goshen", the Lord spake back to him each and every time. Yessir. Absolutley - now he WAS a carpering omi! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest darkstar2004 Posted May 20, 2008 Share #259 Posted May 20, 2008 Perhaps the next advertisement will read: THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WEAR BEARDS EVERY DAY WHAT IF ONE OF THEM SEEMS ODD? Terrorists wear beards to help plan attacks, stroking them and making notes about security measures like the location of CCTV cameras. If you see someone wearing a beard, we need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take. Pete. Saddened by the seriousness and short-sightedness. Or: "Thousands of people use the bathroom every day. What if one of them seems odd?" [sen. Larry Craig notwithstanding, of course] This has gone way beyond asinine, paranoid and ridiculous... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted May 20, 2008 Share #260 Posted May 20, 2008 Bring back James Appleton James Anderton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia now he was a copper's copper; beard like Moses, spoke with God every day and, "Land o' Goshen", the Lord spake back to him each and every time. Yessir. Please, please not. However if you want to get really worried take a look at this proposal... Alarm at plan for central store of telecoms records | Politics | guardian.co.uk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.