Concerned mum wants law changed

steve_lyt said:
the only time I have ever deleted a picture is when I took a photo of some police at an event. one of them ask if I would delete it , due to them doing undercover work , in the area , . this was a reasonable request , so I deleted it. on the other side of the coin a child ran into the frame , so I deleted it , but recovered it later
Click to expand...

Had it of been of a very serious delicate nature, wonder if they would have taken the memory card. As I am sure they must know, files can be recovered.
 
the police I wouldn't have recovered it . out of respect . thay asked. and it was the right thing to do. it was at a publc event so I didn't know about the undercover work , that was fair enough, the parent of the child got abusive , hence my action
 
Baloo said:
We have lost far to many of our rights because people are too polite to fight for them, if someone accuses me of being a p*** they had best be prepared for a less than polite answer!
If this woman had started shouting at me in a cafe whilst I was breaking no law she would of got her answer in no uncertain terms, we have far too many accusations without any evidence in our society, we are fast becoming intolerant of anybody who does not conform to the social norms and apparently taking photos in public may be the next next target for a hysterical public attack.
Click to expand...

Care to name what rights we have lost?
 
Many years ago at Eastbourne airshow the police were called, nearly every person was taking shots of the display but some creep was taking shots of the many children on the beach. To me you go to an airshow to watch or take shots of said display NOT children as that is just creepy as hell. Four police talked to him and when they had a look at his camera, they took him away. If you want to take photos of someones children go and stand outside a school and do it, as I`m sure the person would get told to move by the police.
 
Dave70D said:
Many years ago at Eastbourne airshow the police were called, nearly every person was taking shots of the display but some creep was taking shots of the many children on the beach. To me you go to an airshow to watch or take shots of said display NOT children as that is just creepy as hell. Four police talked to him and when they had a look at his camera, they took him away. If you want to take photos of someones children go and stand outside a school and do it, as I`m sure the person would get told to move by the police.
Click to expand...

Some do like taking people shots, of both adults and children. I did manage to get a few people photos at an air show once, yes and some planes. I wanted to capture the whole thing, the planes and people watching the planes. It is a good opportunity to get people shots at such a place, as people are too busy watching planes, rather than being worried about getting photographed.
 
I wonder how many children, who now all have smart phones, take pictures of other children and post them, for good and bad reasons, on facebook for the world to see?
 
Dave70D said:
Yes that might be true, but this bloke ended up in court as he had 1,000s of children images on his PC so it was good they got him imo.
Click to expand...

Not trying to get into an argument, but the likes of Nick Hedges and Phil Maxwell, could also have lots of images of children on their computers. It sounds bad, by simply saying the words, they have images of children on their computer.

Nick Hedges and Phil Maxwell were among many photographers, who liked taking photos of children, back in the day. And some lovely memorable photos they have produced too. :)
 
Last edited:
jonbeeza said:
Not trying to get into an argument, but the likes of Nick Hedges and Phil Maxwell, could also have lots of images of children on their computer. It sounds bad, by simply saying the words, they have images of children on their computer.

Nick Hedges and Phil Maxwell were among many photographers, who liked taking photos of children, back in the day. And some lovely memorable photos they have produced too. :)
Click to expand...


I love taking photos of people out and about on the street, I just stay away from kids unless they ask me to take a shot of them doing a wheelie on a bike. I let them ask but just don`t take it upon my self to shoot and not be asked.
 
jonbeeza said:
Not trying to get into an argument, but the likes of Nick Hedges and Phil Maxwell, could also have lots of images of children on their computer. It sounds bad, by simply saying the words, they have images of children on their computer.

Nick Hedges and Phil Maxwell were among many photographers, who liked taking photos of children, back in the day. And some lovely memorable photos they have produced too. :)
Click to expand...

Like so many other things. context is everything. As much as many on here are trying to brush away any concerns people may have about taking photographs of children in everyday situations. There are some sick people out their who do get sexual gratification from looking at photos of children.
 
EJB said:
I wonder how many children, who now all have smart phones, take pictures of other children and post them, for good and bad reasons, on facebook for the world to see?
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
Dave70D said:
I love taking photos of people out and about on the street, I just stay away from kids unless they ask me to take a shot of them doing a wheelie on a bike. I let them ask but just don`t take it upon my self to shoot and not be asked.
Click to expand...
I tend not to, or rather I don't take photos of children. I am even very wary of taking photos of adults. But I will take photos of an event, like a parade or such, and if people stumble into the frame, then that is different. Especially if the un intended people inclusion adds to the photo, then I will keep it.
 
Baloo said:
Lets start off with the right to remain silent!
Click to expand...

Nope, still there

“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
Click to expand...
 
jonbeeza said:
I tend not to, or rather I don't take photos of children. I am even very wary of taking photos of adults. But I will take photos of an event, like a parade or such, and if people stumble into the frame, then that is different. Especially if the un intended people inclusion adds to the photo, then I will keep it.
Click to expand...


Every year here in Brighton I have shot the Gay Pride parade, that is the only time I would get a child in the frame as everyone does them selves up for it.
 
Marc said:
Nope, still there
Click to expand...
Nope modified in 1994 from,
"You do not have to say anything but anything you do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence."
Then reduced further by the road traffic act, try not telling the police who was driving your car if it is seen speeding.
 
I'm female and when I have taken photos of children I have asked first.

When I was 15 I was approached by a photographer who wanted to take my photo. I took it as a compliment, but I did feel it was slightly creepy and declined. This was in film days. Now I'm a photographer I do see things a little differently but I'm glad he asked.
 
Baloo said:
Nope modified in 1994 from,
"You do not have to say anything but anything you do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence."
Then reduced further by the road traffic act, try not telling the police who was driving your car if it is seen speeding.
Click to expand...

You still have the right to silence, just that it has consequences. Don't see an issue.

What other rights have we lost?
 
Baloo said:
Nope modified in 1994 from,
"You do not have to say anything but anything you do say will be taken down and may be given in evidence."
Then reduced further by the road traffic act, try not telling the police who was driving your car if it is seen speeding.
Click to expand...

They changed the wording, not your rights. You haven't lost anything
 
munch said:
You still have the right to silence, just that it has consequences. Don't see an issue.

What other rights have we lost?
Click to expand...
An excellent example of what I was speaking of, you do not see anything wrong with it and were happy to see it be drastically modified however the Royal Commission of 1991 did!

You want other rights, what about the right to face your accuser and know what you accused of and the evidence against you, before you answer consider Control Orders or how about a really simple one, the right not to be tried twice for the same offence?
 
Marc said:
They changed the wording, not your rights. You haven't lost anything
Click to expand...
Yes you have you have lost the right that no inference may be drawn from your silence!
 
Dave70D said:
Every year here in Brighton I have shot the Gay Pride parade, that is the only time I would get a child in the frame as everyone does them selves up for it.
Click to expand...
I have always been unlucky photographing carnivals, it has always rained. I would love to photograph a really colourful parade. :)
 
Baloo said:
An excellent example of what I was speaking of, you do not see anything wrong with it and were happy to see it be drastically modified however the Royal Commission of 1991 did!

You want other rights, what about the right to face your accuser and know what you accused of and the evidence against you, before you answer consider Control Orders or how about a really simple one, the right not to be tried twice for the same offence?
Click to expand...

Control order is a specific instance. Many believe that the "right" tried twice for the same event is welcome. Bare in mind there are specific instances when it can be applied. The police/CPS cant just rock up and say we are taking you to trial again for an offence you were acquitted of 15 years ago.
 
Last edited:
Bebop said:
I'm female and when I have taken photos of children I have asked first.

When I was 15 I was approached by a photographer who wanted to take my photo. I took it as a compliment, but I did feel it was slightly creepy and declined. This was in film days. Now I'm a photographer I do see things a little differently but I'm glad he asked.
Click to expand...

I recall a photographer asking me and my brother if he could take a photo of us, we were in our early twenties at the time. We were in a scrapyard as we called them then, it was a car breakers, and you would take the part from the car yourself, not like today, were all car parts are already removed and shelved.

He asked us to pose, taking a part from a vehicle, which we did. He said he wanted a photo for an article in the local paper. It was only afterwards when me and my brother thought about it after the event. We thought the photo would be captioned with the heading, youths vandal car. It was probably to accompany a news story of some sort.
 
Baloo said:
Yes you have you have lost the right that no inference may be drawn from your silence!
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on that. To me all that has happened is the suspect is now told that an inference may be made, if they refuse to talk. In reality then as now most people would be more likely to see an accused who refused to say anything as having something to hide.
 
munch said:
Control order is a specific instance. Many believe that the "right" tried twice for the same event is welcome. Bear in mind there are specific instances when it can be applied. The police/CPS cant just rock up and say we are taking you to trial again for an offence you were acquitted of 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
Thank you we are now in agreement that rights have been removed whether that be in "specific instances" or that "many believe" the removal of those rights is welcome, which is exactly what I said in the first place. No doubt in the future "many will believe" the right to take pictures of children in public should be removed!
 
munch said:
I disagree with you on that. To me all that has happened is the suspect is now told that an inference may be made, if they refuse to talk. In reality then as now most people would be more likely to see an accused who refused to say anything as having something to hide.
Click to expand...
That is correct, the law that stated you could not infer something from my silence has been removed, because you "believe" that my silence means I have something to hide and so do "most" people! Of course there used to be a right to being proved guilty, rather than my having to prove I am innocent! Perhaps you can see that?
 
Baloo said:
Thank you we are now in agreement that rights have been removed whether that be in "specific instances" or that "many believe" the removal of those rights is welcome, which is exactly what I said in the first place. No doubt in the future "many will believe" the right to take pictures of children in public should be removed!
Click to expand...

No I am not in agreement with you. I do not see how anything you have said actually affects my rights.

Laws have always changed and evolved.
 
Baloo said:
Yes you have you have lost the right that no inference may be drawn from your silence!
Click to expand...

The only thing that changed was the wording of the caution, no change was made to any law. The change was made as a clarification as to what a police officer has to say to a suspect when cautioning them.
 
Baloo said:
Yes you have you have lost the right that no inference may be drawn from your silence!
Click to expand...
No you haven’t at all. As someone who cautions people and has taken them to court I have had people exercise their right to remain silent and yet the court chose not to read anything into that. They wanted their day in court rather than than deal with matters pre court. So it’s very much down to individual circumstances, as it should be! I think your digging yourself a bit of a hole here.
 
jonbeeza said:
Probably worried about the images being viewed in a sexual manner, I would have thought. Otherwise, what other worry could there be?
Click to expand...
Rule 34
 
For the purpose of clarity: the English caution is “You are under arrest on suspicion of (offence). You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.".

In other words: if you stay silent now, saying it later might be a bad idea. There has been no change of which I am aware to the requirement on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
 
munch said:
No I am not in agreement with you. I do not see how anything you have said actually affects my rights.

Laws have always changed and evolved.
Click to expand...
Brazo said:
No you haven’t at all. As someone who cautions people and has taken them to court I have had people exercise their right to remain silent and yet the court chose not to read anything into that. They wanted their day in court rather than than deal with matters pre court. So it’s very much down to individual circumstances, as it should be! I think your digging yourself a bit of a hole here.
Click to expand...
Do you have the right to remain silent without any inference being made since 1994?
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
For the purpose of clarity: the English caution is “You are under arrest on suspicion of (offence). You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.".

In other words: if you stay silent now, saying it later might be a bad idea. There has been no change of which I am aware to the requirement on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...
Assuming you get the right to a trial!
 
Baloo said:
Do you have the right to remain silent without any inference being made since 1994?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t get worked up about it.

if your invited to an interview under caution it’s for one of two reasons. Firstly the enforcing agency haven’t got enough evidence and they are hoping for an admission. Staying silent won’t harm you ;)

Secondly they have enough to nail you but have to ‘offer you the opportunity to say anything you would like before they nail you. Staying silent is kinda irrelevant.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
For the purpose of clarity: the English caution is “You are under arrest on suspicion of (offence). You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.".

In other words: if you stay silent now, saying it later might be a bad idea. There has been no change of which I am aware to the requirement on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

I have often wondered about that bit, what sort of scenario might that be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top