Concerned mum wants law changed

Messages
3,003
Edit My Images
No
It may not be illegal but it may be discourteous.
Your courtesy is not my courtesy. That, to reiterate, is why we have laws.

The difference is that one is optional and the other not. I am not obliged to hold the door open for you and there is no legal penalty for my not doing so. You are obliged not to make me fearful and if you do so you may find yourself in court and end up with a criminal record.

To answer the inevitable question: if you could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that my taking a picture of you had made you fearful and that I did or should have known such would be the consequence of my action then I too could end up in court.

EDIT: I just noticed that @jamesev wrote it already and much more concisely.
 
Last edited:
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
I was pleased to get the same instruction at our granddaughter's nativity play - free to take photos/video (and everybody did) but don't post on social media. Seems reasonable (y)
Isn't it sad in this day and age that we have had to resort to such things, it is indicitive in my eyes of how far society has sunk.
I totally agree with the policy and can totally understand why it's in place, it is just so sad we have come to that.
 
Messages
992
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I was pleased to get the same instruction at our granddaughter's nativity play - free to take photos/video (and everybody did) but don't post on social media. Seems reasonable (y)
and also enforceable as its a private space not a public one so the school can set the terms.
 
Messages
5,363
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
and also enforceable as its a private space not a public one so the school can set the terms.
Yes and no. Mother takes video of kids, emails it to relative in Australia (or wherever), relative posts on social media. Once anything has been digitised and on a phone/computer it has escaped :).
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
and also enforceable as its a private space not a public one so the school can set the terms.
Although the legal definition is, "a private place is Where the public have no access to". I was looking this up, it was to do with insurance.
 
Messages
586
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
I was just stating what the head teacher told us, as we all came in. A lot of the parents were doing video, and probably most would post to social media sites anyway.
What I find very sad is that people spend the whole performance staring at a little screen whilst videoing instead of enjoying and taking in the whole thing which would never be replicated on any screen, small or large, Also very irritating to those sitting behind them having to suffer a bright screen waving about or the parent jumping up and down so as not to miss little Tarquin's/Tamsin's moment of perceived glory.

When my kids were at school a pro-outfit was hired with several cameras and a decent sound system so the resulting DVD was well worth the £10 they were sold for.
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
What I find very sad is that people spend the whole performance staring at a little screen whilst videoing instead of enjoying and taking in the whole thing which would never be replicated on any screen, small or large, Also very irritating to those sitting behind them having to suffer a bright screen waving about or the parent jumping up and down so as not to miss little Tarquin's/Tamsin's moment of perceived glory.

When my kids were at school a pro-outfit was hired with several cameras and a decent sound system so the resulting DVD was well worth the £10 they were sold for.
Most of those doing video, were the women, you know they can multitask. ;)
 
Messages
438
Edit My Images
Yes
Although the legal definition is, "a private place is Where the public have no access to". I was looking this up, it was to do with insurance.
Yes - that's the definition for insurance. So, for example, if you have no car insurance and you drive around Tesco's car park, you are breaking the law.

But it's still private property and Tesco can sets its own terms and conditions to your being there. With photography, the obvious example is taking photos at many spaces which seem to be public, but which are owned by a private developer/landholder. I've been kicked out of the Grand Arcade by a security guard* who didn't want to listen to my protestations that there were people taking smartphone shots and videos all over the place.

* it does seem like I have a rep for being challenged on the street. Maybe I look creepy? :eek: Although that wouldn't explain the dreadlocked guy who didn't want his photo taken at the skate park on the South Bank :)
 
Messages
992
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
I’ve been kicked out of the Grand Arcade by a security guard who didn't want to listen to my protestations that there were people taking smartphone shots and videos all over the place.
Well they can do that if the security guard has the authority to permit or deny any photographer
 
Messages
414
Edit My Images
No
I have heard that some schools do prohibit the taking of photos and videos of school plays etc. and do so because they do a professional video to sell and raise funds for the school.

As for not not being obliged to hold the door open but it is common courtesy to do so, it is also courteous to say thank but many don't and some even scowl at you for doing so. It is so sad that this is the way things are going.

In the original incident they had moved out of the food court and in to a shop unaware of what had happened, when a lady told them she went out and confronted the men and started shouting and it was her reaction that prompted her statement of "My imidiate thought for xxxx's safety she knew something was wrong and could see I was upset so she started crying". Reading between the lines what she is saying is the girl knew nothing of the situation and was safe till she lost control at which point the child started crying. She goes on to say "I have no evidence but feel like they were watching us to try grab her and that's why they took her picture", IMHO she is expressing her unfounded fear to sensationalise the story to her everyone who reads her post. It is just possible that, if these men had bad intentions, they had targeted the child because they had seen all the posts her husband/partner had uploaded for the world & its brother to see.
 
Messages
992
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
As for not not being obliged to hold the door open but it is common courtesy to do so, it is also courteous to say thank but many don't and some even scowl at you for doing so. It is so sad that this is the way things are going.
then again I’ve seen some women be offended when men open the door for them because, and I’ve heard this “I can open my own damn door”. I was willing him to slam it in her face but alas he did not.
 
Messages
5,363
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
then again I’ve seen some women be offended when men open the door for them because, and I’ve heard this “I can open my own damn door”. I was willing him to slam it in her face but alas he did not.
Been there, mostly just scowls. I‘ve always held doors open, depending on circumstances, for men and women, but only had the scowls from women :(. The other similar case is giving way while driving, acknowledgements from men, rarely from women — of course they may be on the phone and not notice :) :exit:
 
Messages
4,763
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
I have heard that some schools do prohibit the taking of photos and videos of school plays etc. and do so because they do a professional video to sell and raise funds for the school.
Yeah it might be the case that some school's prohibit photographs etc. being taken because they have an event photographer and want to make some funds for the school but that wouldn't be the normal reason for photography not being allowed.

It may be different in other parts of the U.K but in Northern Ireland (well under the education boards my kids fall into anyway, may be different for different education boards) each school has to ask each parent for consent for photographs to be taken at the start of each school year. If consent is not given, even by one parent and their child is part of say a school play etc then photography won't be allowed. If the parents have given consent at the start of the school year, they can change their mind and opt out later on.

Also in one of my daughters school for example there are a few kids who can not be photographed for legal reasons. I know that one of them can't be photographed as there would be concerns about the child being identified by one of their parents. Another can't be photographed because of who their parents are, anything they take part in, photography is banned.

So there is lots of reasons why a school would go down that route not just to make extra money.

My youngest's school also prohibit any images taken on school grounds being shared online, although I have no idea how they could possibly enforce that and most of the parents ignore it.
 
Last edited:
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Yeah it might be the case that some school's prohibit photographs etc. being taken because they have an event photographer and want to make some funds for the school but that wouldn't be the normal reason for photography not being allowed.

It may be different in other parts of the U.K but in Northern Ireland (well under the education boards my kids fall into anyway, may be different for different education boards) each school has to ask each parent for consent for photographs to be taken at the start of each school year. If consent is not given, even by one parent and their child is part of say a school play etc then photography won't be allowed. If the parents have given consent at the start of the school year, they can change their mind and opt out later on.

Also in one of my daughters school for example there are a few kids who can not be photographed for legal reasons. I know that one of them can't be photographed as there would be concerns about the child being identified by one of their parents. Another can't be photographed because of who their parents are, anything they take part in, photography is banned.

So there is lots of reasons why a school would go down that route not just to make extra money.

My youngest's school also prohibit any images taken on school grounds being shared online, although I have no idea how they could possibly enforce that and most of the parents ignore it.
I could see why some would not want their child identified, as parents could be going through various issues.
 
Messages
3,003
Edit My Images
No
My youngest's school also prohibit any images taken on school grounds being shared online, although I have no idea how they could possibly enforce that and most of the parents ignore it.
I guess it's just self protection. "We told them not to do it so it's not our fault if they went and did it anyway". :naughty:
 
Messages
5,363
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
No
I guess it's just self protection. "We told them not to do it so it's not our fault if they went and did it anyway". :naughty:
It’s not just schools is it? Covering your back is everywhere, eg every electrical thingy has about 10 pages of ‘safety’ before you get to the instructions — you could argue it’s ‘unsafe’ to do it that way round :(
 
Messages
6,263
Edit My Images
Yes
I could see why some would not want their child identified, as parents could be going through various issues.
You never know these days, so to try to reduce the risk of accidentally revealing someone's whereabouts, if I'm taking some documentary style photos at a public event such as a country show, village fete, etc. I'm intentionally reasonably conspicuous. I use a Canon DSLR, complete with L spec lens with a bright red ring around the end, a red Canon branded camera strap, and a camera-mounted flash with a 'Fong style' dome diffuser on top of it (a similar set-up to that used by Martin Parr).

If I'm taking a photo that has a group of people in it, then I usually take my time and stand there for a moment or two before-hand to set up the shot; so people have chance to see what I'm doing and move out of the way if they don't want to be photographed. Rather than it killing 'the decisive moment' I find they soon get bored and go back to behaving naturally. I think most of them probably think I'm a photographer from the local paper or something like that. In fact, a few times I've had people come over to me and ask about what camera settings they should be using, or which camera to buy, etc.

I think by being obvious and courteous, and friendly if approached, it shows I'm not trying to do anything that isn't 100% above board. However, this approach might not work as well for city street photography, where standing out might make a target for thieves. Nor will it protect against someone who's in a bad mood and is looking for victim to pick an argument with.
 
Last edited:
Messages
25,010
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
If I'm taking a photo that has a group of people in it, then I usually take my time and stand there for a moment or two before-hand to set up the shot; so people have chance to see what I'm doing and move out of the way if they don't want to be photographed. Rather than it killing 'the decisive moment' I find they soon get bored and go back to behaving naturally. I think most of them probably think I'm a photographer from the local paper or something like that. In fact, a few times I've had people come over to me and ask about what camera settings they should be using, or which camera to buy, etc.
Many years ago I used to go to gigs with a Nikon SLR and this was my experience. I went from just turning up with my GF and the Nikon to being asked to take shots of this and that to photographing and videoing the band and even setting up the gear and introducing the act :D
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
You never know these days, so to try to reduce the risk of accidentally revealing someone's whereabouts, if I'm taking some documentary style photos at a public event such as a country show, village fete, etc. I'm intentionally reasonably conspicuous. I use a Canon DSLR, complete with L spec lens with a bright red ring around the end, a red Canon branded camera strap, and a camera-mounted flash with a 'Fong style' dome diffuser on top of it (a similar set-up to that used by Martin Parr).

If I'm taking a photo that has a group of people in it, then I usually take my time and stand there for a moment or two before-hand to set up the shot; so people have chance to see what I'm doing and move out of the way if they don't want to be photographed. Rather than it killing 'the decisive moment' I find they soon get bored and go back to behaving naturally. I think most of them probably think I'm a photographer from the local paper or something like that. In fact, a few times I've had people come over to me and ask about what camera settings they should be using, or which camera to buy, etc.

I think by being obvious and courteous, and friendly if approached, it shows I'm not trying to do anything that isn't 100% above board. However, this approach might not work as well for city street photography, where standing out might make a target for thieves. Nor will it protect against someone who's in a bad mood and is looking for victim to pick an argument with.
I know of a certain woman who was tracking her ex or something, she would trawl faceberk profiles, looking for her child when at parties and such. I am not sure of the ins and outs, but it is amazing what people post on such places.
 
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
then again I’ve seen some women be offended when men open the door for them because, and I’ve heard this “I can open my own damn door”. I was willing him to slam it in her face but alas he did not.
That really does bug me, because I do it for anyone, any sex, any religion, any colour, heck I've even been know to do it for the odd American ;) it's just common courtesy..
 
Messages
407
Edit My Images
Yes
Funny thing happened, I took a photo of a lot of smiling kids of all ages and their parents, I got accosted leaving a hide with my 1dx and 500mm over my shoulder lol, I was told with that lot I must no what I was doing, woman thrust a phone in my hand with instructions to photograph group on a bench, (about 5 families) and then ran around the back to join in the shot :) they seemed pleased with the result.

I must admit I do try to be helpful, I was in a walk through bird aviary last year and family and little kid were standing near me, little kid kept sayin I want to be there where I was standing, thought I'd move but he meant looking through camera, so I told the dad if he lifts him up he is welcome to look at the birds through it, put it on live view and result was a happy family and hopefully a little future photographer nurtured.
 
Last edited:
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
I think some people don't like others taking photos of their property. I would at times take a photo of an interesting car, or motorbike, usually when the owners is not in or on the vehicle, so as not to offend. If I was spotted by the owner, if they were near by, they would either hurry back, or just glare. If it was a classic vehicle, you could probably get away with it, as it would be expected.
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
I suppose with the increase in the accessibility of 'photography', many more people are taking many more pictures of many more things. Including kids. In the early 90s, I and other student mates would regularly attend political demos, and take pics of all sorts of people, including kids. Most people didn't bat an eyelid, as you kind of 'consent' to being recorded in some way, if you're at a public demonstration. Goes with the activity. Media hysteria over 'peados' has led to increased public paranoia, which lead to parents being less comfortable with strangers taking photos of their kids etc. I really don't think peadophillia has increased though. Surely far more public scrutiny and understand means it's hopefully lower now? Regardless; those who are so concerned about someone overtly using a camera to record a scene, would be mindful to remember that there are increasingly fiendish ways to record images covertly, not to mention CCTV everywhere. And despite the best efforts of that disgusting old MP, 'upskirting' is now a criminal offence (thanks in no small part to the efforts of a brave victim of this disgusting abuse of the individual). I was confronted by an angry mum at a public event where loads of kids were playing (I asked any parents I saw for their permission before photographing their kids, most were fine, some asked polite questions which I answered), who tried insinuating I was some kind of pervert. This made me really angry; who the hell is she to assume anything? But there has to be a balance between the right to record facts, and sensitivity towards others. Personally, I don't feel things are going to get easier for photographers, sadly.
 
Messages
3,003
Edit My Images
No
But there has to be a balance between the right to record facts, and sensitivity towards others.
The problem with a certain type of person is that they expect others to be sensitive towards them but don't see the slightest reason to accord the same sensitivity to others. In my opinion, with people like that, the only thing you can do is ignore them where possible and stand up for your rights where it is not.
 
Messages
17,350
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I suppose with the increase in the accessibility of 'photography', many more people are taking many more pictures of many more things. Including kids. In the early 90s, I and other student mates would regularly attend political demos, and take pics of all sorts of people, including kids. Most people didn't bat an eyelid, as you kind of 'consent' to being recorded in some way, if you're at a public demonstration. Goes with the activity. Media hysteria over 'peados' has led to increased public paranoia, which lead to parents being less comfortable with strangers taking photos of their kids etc. I really don't think peadophillia has increased though. Surely far more public scrutiny and understand means it's hopefully lower now? Regardless; those who are so concerned about someone overtly using a camera to record a scene, would be mindful to remember that there are increasingly fiendish ways to record images covertly, not to mention CCTV everywhere. And despite the best efforts of that disgusting old MP, 'upskirting' is now a criminal offence (thanks in no small part to the efforts of a brave victim of this disgusting abuse of the individual). I was confronted by an angry mum at a public event where loads of kids were playing (I asked any parents I saw for their permission before photographing their kids, most were fine, some asked polite questions which I answered), who tried insinuating I was some kind of pervert. This made me really angry; who the hell is she to assume anything? But there has to be a balance between the right to record facts, and sensitivity towards others. Personally, I don't feel things are going to get easier for photographers, sadly.
I dont think its fair of peados. I think its more privacy. In the 90s even if someone took a pic of kids, it would be a print they have, nothing else. Now it can be shared in seconds on social media and the quality if images is also much better/clearer, Again, big difference between a general street shot in London at 24mm and a 90mm portrait
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
The problem with a certain type of person is that they expect others to be sensitive towards them but don't see the slightest reason to accord the same sensitivity to others. In my opinion, with people like that, the only thing you can do is ignore them where possible and stand up for your rights where it is not.
I agree. People seem to be very knowledgeable about their 'rights'. And often don't respond well to having actual law and their real rights explained to them. But ultimately, I don't want to p*** people off; I don't want my pics to be taken without someone's consent (unless the context demands that I do so, such as say police brutality at a demo etc). Balancing my desire to take a good pic has to be balanced against someone else's need, and right, to be respected. TBH I know enough people with kids to be able to happily take pics of them with their full consent, so don't 'need' to take pics of strangers' kids. What I find more of an issue is d******ds demanding I delete any pics I've taken, that they might happen to be in (had a bit of that at demos occasionally), I normally tell them to get lost, if they don't want to try to understand the concept of photography in public places. But, like kids in a playground in a local park; if they're not yours, or you don't know them, then praps chose a different subject. Life's easier if you avoid conflict.
 

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
I dont think its fair of peados. I think its more privacy. In the 90s even if someone took a pic of kids, it would be a print they have, nothing else. Now it can be shared in seconds on social media and the quality if images is also much better/clearer, Again, big difference between a general street shot in London at 24mm and a 90mm portrait
Well, I've encountered 'concerned' parents since before SM was such a thing. I agree that SM has exacerbated the issue, and brought into question the whole concept of 'privacy' etc, but I really do think it is media hysteria that has led us to where we are now.
 
Messages
25,010
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I can't remember where I read it but the best response is." I'm not holding the door open because you're a woman, I'm doing it because I'm a gentleman. "
I don't think I've ever had a woman object as such but maybe a few attractive women have shot me a "I know what you're thinking you perv" look and I've soooooo wanted to say "Relax. Yes you're a babe and you're maybe an 8/10 but sorry to burst you're bubble but I'm not interested as my wife is a total babe and off the scale."
 
Messages
5,123
Name
mike
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't think I've ever had a woman object as such but maybe a few attractive women have shot me a "I know what you're thinking you perv" look and I've soooooo wanted to say "Relax. Yes you're a babe and you're maybe an 8/10 but sorry to burst you're bubble but I'm not interested as my wife is a total babe and off the scale."
Going back 25 years now i sold a lady a 10lit bucket of paint, i said just a moment and i will carry it out to your car, she got very angry grabbed the paint started to walk out saying would you say that if i was a man.

I felt like saying if his t*ts were as nice as yours yes :exit: not really

Its my mother's fault i carry stuff, hold doors open, give my seat up for ladies, she taught me to do it, not because they are the weaker sex but just because it was good manners, in my 70s not very fit and young ladies often lift and carry for me.
 
Messages
1,651
Edit My Images
Yes
Going back 25 years now i sold a lady a 10lit bucket of paint, i said just a moment and i will carry it out to your car, she got very angry grabbed the paint started to walk out saying would you say that if i was a man.

I felt like saying if his t*ts were as nice as yours yes :exit: not really

Its my mother's fault i carry stuff, hold doors open, give my seat up for ladies, she taught me to do it, not because they are the weaker sex but just because it was good manners, in my 70s not very fit and young ladies often lift and carry for me.
I guess your tits are quite nice now :p:D
 
Messages
586
Name
Peter
Edit My Images
Yes
Its my mother's fault i carry stuff, hold doors open, give my seat up for ladies, she taught me to do it, not because they are the weaker sex but just because it was good manners, in my 70s not very fit and young ladies often lift and carry for me.
Also in me 70s and, for the first time ever, I had someone offer their seat at the front of the bus a couple of weeks ago. Well embarrassed I was (and TBH a bit p****d off that they thought I needed the seat) as I prefer to sit up the back and 'people watch' but took the seat out of thanks!
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
that disgusting old MP, 'upskirting' is now a criminal offence (thanks in no small part to the efforts of a brave victim of this disgusting abuse..
I wonder if taking a photo of a cleavage, would be an offence. I think there is also an offence of downblousing. I would always make sure of my subject, before I took the photo. In an earlier post I was saying, I wanted to get a photo of a canal boat, until I saw one person onboard wearing a bikini. I did not take the photo.
 
OP
jonbeeza
Messages
8,029
Name
Jon
Edit My Images
Yes
Going back 25 years now i sold a lady a 10lit bucket of paint, i said just a moment and i will carry it out to your car, she got very angry grabbed the paint started to walk out saying would you say that if i was a man.

I felt like saying if his t*ts were as nice as yours yes :exit: not really

Its my mother's fault i carry stuff, hold doors open, give my seat up for ladies, she taught me to do it, not because they are the weaker sex but just because it was good manners, in my 70s not very fit and young ladies often lift and carry for me.
I was in Argos the other day, and I was in the queue waiting to be served. The woman who had just been served, was trying to carry a large box. The sales person asked the woman if she could manage. The customer said "yes I should be able to manage". The customer looked at me beseechingly, and gave a little smile. You know that sort of secret look that people sometimes give you, asking for help without asking.

I was about to say to her, that I would give her a hand. But a big strong lad, from behind the counter, came out to carry the item for her. I think the woman did want help, but just thought twice about asking. I think the woman was a little older than me, so maybe from the generation when a male did come to the assistance of a woman.
 
Last edited:

AZ6

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,051
Edit My Images
No
I wonder if taking a photo of a cleavage, would be an offence. I think there is also an offence of downblousing. I would always make sure of my subject, before I took the photo. In an earlier post I was saying, I wanted to get a photo of a canal boat, until I saw one person onboard wearing a bikini. I did not take the photo.
Not so sure about 'downblousing'; I think it may come under the same offence as upskirting, but obviously a lot trickier to prove 'intent' in terms of invading someone's privacy and sexual gratification. I think accidental exposure would fall outside of the 'intent' remit, but then distribution of images may well fall under the voyeurism laws anyway. I think you could quite legally take pics of the boat, including the person in a bikini, as they would be 'incidental' to the shot rather than the prime subject of it. Even then, if you're in a public place, then you're not restricted anyway. It's all about the 'sexual gratification' bit, this is important. I know people who've been on the London Naked Bike Ride thing, and if you want to see some proper pervy blokes, go on one of those. Some ride along, others are just bystanders, but again; you're in a public place, and no-one can prevent someone taking your picture in most circumstances, no matter how immoral their intentions. There will always be the Judge Pickles' 'she was asking for it by dressing like that' kind of scummy ****s around, and they are the reason women and girls are still subject to dreadful sexism and abuse every single day. Don't be that scummy ****, is the answer. The most important word here, as you seem to understand anyway, is CONSENT.
 
Messages
17,350
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
Yes
I wonder if taking a photo of a cleavage, would be an offence. I think there is also an offence of downblousing. I would always make sure of my subject, before I took the photo. In an earlier post I was saying, I wanted to get a photo of a canal boat, until I saw one person onboard wearing a bikini. I did not take the photo.
I was thinking this. When I worked in London you would often see women sunbathing at lunch, occasionally in a bra but normally just with skirt rolled up a bit etc... As they are in a public place I guess its fine for people to just take photos of them?
 
Top