Concerned mum wants law changed

Brazo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok so are you accepting the right to remain silent without a court making any inference from it has been removed?
 
Baloo said:
Ok so are you accepting the right to remain silent without a court making any inference from it has been removed?
Click to expand...
No I’m not and I have direct professional experience of such.

It’s not and never has been some magical get out of jail free card to play.
 
Brazo said:
No I’m not and I have direct personal experience of such.

It’s not and never has been some magical get out of jail free card to play.
Click to expand...
So you still have the right that a court may not by law make inference from your silence since 1994?
 
The problem is "inference" The law may have stated I could not infer anything from the defendants silence, but inference isn't something you can't measure. I would suggest that most people would naturally suspect a defendant more likely to be guilty, than if they had "engaged" in the process. Provided I didn't actually say "he is guilty because he remained silent" how do you prove inference. By changing the wording it has removed that almost impossible thing (inference) to define.

To me the law has evolved, my rights at trial have not been taken away.
 
Exactly as this woman has inferred that,
munch said:
I have no evidence but feel like they were watching us to try grab her and that's why they took her picture.
Click to expand...
But thanks for confirming that you would of ignored the law and taken away my rights in doing so, just as this woman seeks to do!
 
Baloo said:
So you still have the right that a court may not by law make inference from your silence since 1994?
Click to expand...
It’s not so much the silence it’s what people choose to do in the meantime i.e stay silent now and then have time to ‘come up’ with a more favourable version of events before attending court and after prosecution bundles are served. Doing this rather than giving your version of events up front may be viewed poorly by a court but then again it may not.

Staying silent and then letting your barrister do the talking is still not a bad way to go about things!
 
Baloo said:
Exactly as this woman has inferred that,

But thanks for confirming that you would of ignored the law and taken away my rights in doing so, just as this woman seeks to do!
Click to expand...

I have said no such thing.
 
Last edited:
Brazo said:
It’s not so much the silence it’s what people choose to do in the meantime i.e stay silent now and then have time to ‘come up’ with a more favourable version of events before attending court and after prosecution bundles are served. Doing this rather than giving your version of events up front may be viewed poorly by a court but then again it may not.

Staying silent and then letting your barrister do the talking is still not a bad way to go about things!
Click to expand...
Again and for the last time, do you still have the right that a court may not by law make inference from your silence since 1994?
Simple question yes or no, if no then a right has been removed.
 
Baloo said:
Again and for the last time, do you still have the right that a court may not by law make inference from your silence since 1994?
Simple question yes or no, if no then a right has been removed.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the law isn’t black/white and cases have to be judged on their individual merits. The answer in my experience is yes and no!
 
jonbeeza said:
Not sure if this has already been posted. But a news story goes on to say, a mum wants the law changed, to protect the most vulnerable in society. This was after a group of photographers were spotted taking photos of her daughter, and with a zoom lens too. It was done sneakily she goes on to say.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle...at-shopping-centre/ar-BBZDhSS?ocid=spartanntp

As I said, not sure if anyone else has spotted it, and posted it.

I wonder what law she wants bringing in, no photography of children, or not done sneakily, with a zoom lens? This was in Scotland.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence in the report or in her Facebook post that a “zoom“ lens was used. The cameras are described as ”phones”. The “zooming in” she described is likely “pinch-spreading” on the phone screen. She asked these ”foreign men” about photos of her daughter. One interpretation of this account is that they thought, having poor English, she was hoping they had some nice photos of her daughter to share and, though most had none, one chap helpfully found one and embiggened it for her ;).
 
munch said:
I have said no such thing.
Click to expand...
On the contrary that is exactly what you said,
munch said:
I would suggest that most people would naturally suspect a defendant more likely to be guilty, than if they had "engaged" in the process. Provided I didn't actually say "he is guilty because he remained silent" how do you prove inference.
Click to expand...
 
Brazo said:
Unfortunately the law isn’t black/white and cases have to be judged on their individual merits. The answer in my experience is yes and no!
Click to expand...
Then when ever the answer is no a right has been removed and my original point stands.
 
munch said:
This is what she put on her facebook page. (and there are no photos on her page)
So I have thought long and hard before posting this but feel people need to be made aware of the dangers that surround our children every day. On Sunday myself Paul and Grace were out in the town, Grace had gotten a build a bear and while in the Buchanan Galleries asked if she could have a Burger King for lunch, we went up to the food court, had lunch then went to have a look around next, we went down the stair in next and a very kind lady who actually knows Paul's family took Paul to the side to tell him that a group of men also sitting in the food court had been taking Pictures of Grace, Paul then told me and I asked him to stay in the shop with Grace, when myself and the woman left the shop the 5 men were standing waiting outside next, I approached them and asked if they had been taking pictures of my child, they said no and I asked them to show me their phones 2 men didn't have pictures but another one of the men had 3 pictures of Grace on his phone, he had zoomed right in to her to take, there was nothing else in the images just a really close up of her. I became upset and started shouting asking him why he had pictures of my daughter he replied that he always took pictures of children I told him that this is not ok and delete her pictures Paul had come out by this point and asked security to come over who removed the men from the centre. My imidiate thought for Grace's safety she knew something was wrong and could see I was upset so she started crying, we just got a taxi and took her straight home. We called the police who came out to see us, however the scary scary thing is there is no law in place that prevents anyone from taking pictures of children in public without concent!!!! So basically anyone can take pictures of our children and theres nothing that can be done about it, this sickened me. Please please keep your kids close don't take your eyes of them. I have no evidence but feel like they were watching us to try grab her and that's why they took her picture.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! She may have no photos on her Facebook (haven’t seen it) but her husband Paul, who is linked in your post, has photos of Grace all over his Facebook pages :oops: :$ :D:D:D.
https://www.facebook.com/pmcmenemy1...nc9hXnsAf0e2ESrXbrCv8Cc4SLnfacV&fref=mentions
 
sphexx said:
There is no evidence in the report or in her Facebook post that a “zoom“ lens was used. The cameras are described as ”phones”. The “zooming in” she described is likely “pinch-spreading” on the phone screen. She asked these ”foreign men” about photos of her daughter. One interpretation of this account is that they thought, having poor English, she was hoping they had some nice photos of her daughter to share and, though most had none, one chap helpfully found one and embiggened it for her ;).
Click to expand...

Ahh I see, I assumed it was a zoom lens. Digital zoom would knacker the image anyway.
 
Baloo said:
And there is nothing to stop you copying those images! Amazing when you think about it!
Click to expand...
And Paul gets admirers of Grace asking “where are you based” and reply’s “Edinburgh“.you coul not make this stuf up :D:D:D.
 
jonbeeza said:
You mean you have viewed photos of the woman's daughter? She would be horrified if she knew that. o_O
Click to expand...
I hope she calls the police about her husbands actions, or maybe someone else will!:runaway:
 
And one of the admirers of the photos (Steph Carrick) writes ”Good stuff Paul ;..wits it like through there guessing its jumping mate” and his FB page features a naked backside as his profile picture (female, though he claims to be male) :(
 
While it does not relate to the taking of photographs of other peoples children I remember several years ago I noticed a pram abandoned in a strange area. The pram was in very good conditioned so I started to walk towards it and just as I got halfway I thought 'what am I doing, what if someone sees (the mother) sees me'. At the same time my wife said 'come on, just leave it'.

A sign of the times? My wife didn't want me to go near and I was worried that if there was a baby in it and the mother saw me would she involve the police? Just to be safe I called for someone in a nearby bingo hall to come out as a witness to my actions. We had just got to the pram to see a baby fast asleep in the pram when around the corner came a lady who told us a baby had been snatched for outside a shop and the police were there to commence a search.

I took the pram round to them and told them where I found it, the parents were distraught and breathed a sigh of relief when they saw me. Situation could have been viewed completely different had I been pushing the pram and it was the police who came round the corner.

What would/could have happened if I walked on without checking. Sad to think it has come to 'think the worst of people' I am not a street photographer but I wouldn't delete a photo of a scene just because there was a child it it but the child would not be the main subject the vast majority of times.
 
sphexx said:
And one of the admirers of the photos (Steph Carrick) writes ”Good stuff Paul ;..wits it like through there guessing its jumping mate” and his FB page features a naked backside as his profile picture (female, though he claims to be male) :(
Click to expand...
I am not even going to look. o_O
 
Dangerous said:
While it does not relate to the taking of photographs of other peoples children I remember several years ago I noticed a pram abandoned in a strange area. The pram was in very good conditioned so I started to walk towards it and just as I got halfway I thought 'what am I doing, what if someone sees (the mother) sees me'. At the same time my wife said 'come on, just leave it'.

A sign of the times? My wife didn't want me to go near and I was worried that if there was a baby in it and the mother saw me would she involve the police? Just to be safe I called for someone in a nearby bingo hall to come out as a witness to my actions. We had just got to the pram to see a baby fast asleep in the pram when around the corner came a lady who told us a baby had been snatched for outside a shop and the police were there to commence a search.

I took the pram round to them and told them where I found it, the parents were distraught and breathed a sigh of relief when they saw me. Situation could have been viewed completely different had I been pushing the pram and it was the police who came round the corner.

What would/could have happened if I walked on without checking. Sad to think it has come to 'think the worst of people' I am not a street photographer but I wouldn't delete a photo of a scene just because there was a child it it but the child would not be the main subject the vast majority of times.
Click to expand...
Glad it turned out OK. Interestingly even being with you wife may not have helped in that case if police appeared first since most baby snatching (AFAIK) is done by females.
 
Dangerous said:
While it does not relate to the taking of photographs of other peoples children I remember several years ago I noticed a pram abandoned in a strange area. The pram was in very good conditioned so I started to walk towards it and just as I got halfway I thought 'what am I doing, what if someone sees (the mother) sees me'. At the same time my wife said 'come on, just leave it'.

A sign of the times? My wife didn't want me to go near and I was worried that if there was a baby in it and the mother saw me would she involve the police? Just to be safe I called for someone in a nearby bingo hall to come out as a witness to my actions. We had just got to the pram to see a baby fast asleep in the pram when around the corner came a lady who told us a baby had been snatched for outside a shop and the police were there to commence a search.

I took the pram round to them and told them where I found it, the parents were distraught and breathed a sigh of relief when they saw me. Situation could have been viewed completely different had I been pushing the pram and it was the police who came round the corner.

What would/could have happened if I walked on without checking. Sad to think it has come to 'think the worst of people' I am not a street photographer but I wouldn't delete a photo of a scene just because there was a child it it but the child would not be the main subject the vast majority of times.
Click to expand...

When I see incidents like this, I always worry that I will be the one accused, if I were to report it.
 
This problem is not going away.

Slight tangent question: do stock photography libraries have a policy on accepting street photography featuring children?
 
sirch said:
I find it slightly curious that people think it’s fine to take portraits of strangers and argue they are doing nothing wrong but then often don’t have the courage of their convictions to go and ask the subject if they mind being photographed. If my hobby was just randomly knocking on people’s doors, would that be OK? There’s no law against it after all.

I know people like Bruce Gilden and Dougie Wallace produce good work but they are kind of in the “knocking on your door” camp in that they get in the subject’s face and even use flash, so whilst there is no permission sought it is obvious what they are doing. Still pretty disturbing for the subjects though.

I suppose, for me, you either need to be open and honest about what you are doing one way or another, or don’t do it.
Click to expand...
Difficulty with that being if you ask them then you don’t capture natural “social reportage” you capture staged.
 
goldtop said:
This problem is not going away.

Slight tangent question: do stock photography libraries have a policy on accepting street photography featuring children?
Click to expand...

and should theres libraries destroy any images of kids , they have on file unless permission has been granted by the child's parents
 
If we purposely don’t ask permission to photograph children would Steve McCurry ever have captured “the Afghan girl” or the photo of the Napalm Girl from the Vietnam conflict. Images that are iconic now.
 
jonbeeza said:
I have often wondered about that bit, what sort of scenario might that be?
Click to expand...
I think you'd have to ask a barrister. So far as I understand it the following is how it might play out...
  • Police arrest and caution a suspect.
  • Police ask the suspect "where were you"?
  • Suspect refuses to answer
  • In court: barrister asks the suspect "where were you"?
  • Suspect replies "having a drink with Fred"
  • In his summing up the judge says "Given that the suspect did not tell the police where he was but has now said he was having a drink with Fred you might well choose to ignore that answer in considering your verdict".
Not being a lawyer this is just what I've gathered from general reading.
 
Baloo said:
Extradition and the terrorist act are two that spring to mind.
Click to expand...
There would be a trial in both those cases. It would be held by a judge sitting alone and there would probably be reporting restrictions but there would definitely be a trial.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There would be a trial in both those cases. It would be held by a judge sitting alone and there would probably be reporting restrictions but there would definitely be a trial.
Click to expand...
No the powers are held by the Home Secretary who is not part of the judiciary.
 
Baloo said:
No the powers are held by the Home Secretary who is not part of the judiciary.
Click to expand...
You might want to check your facts before making statements like that...

"Terrorism crimes and terrorist-related offences are subject to the criminal justice system in the same way as all other crimes." https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorism

"Once arrested, the requested person must be brought to Westminster Magistrates’ Court (where all extradition proceedings in England & Wales are conducted). There are proceedings in all cases; extradition is not “automatic”, even under the EAW." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
You might want to check your facts before making statements like that...

"Terrorism crimes and terrorist-related offences are subject to the criminal justice system in the same way as all other crimes." https://www.cps.gov.uk/terrorism

"Once arrested, the requested person must be brought to Westminster Magistrates’ Court (where all extradition proceedings in England & Wales are conducted). There are proceedings in all cases; extradition is not “automatic”, even under the EAW." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/extradition
Click to expand...
No you might want to check your facts about TPIMS to start with.
 
Baloo said:
No you might want to check your facts about TPIMS to start with.
Click to expand...
As before, you should have read some source material before posting misleading information...

"What does the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act do? .... [Excerpt]
  • broad judicial oversight of the system
  • high court permission will be needed to impose the measures (or to immediately confirm measures imposed in urgent cases)
  • there will be a full automatic review of each case in which measures will be imposed
  • rights of appeal for the individual against refusal of a request to revoke or vary the measures
  • a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the prospects of prosecuting an individual before measures may be imposed, and a duty to keep the necessity of the measures under review while they are in force"
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/terrorism-prevention-and-investigation-measures-act

In the meantime, as you are clearly not concerned with accuracy or truth there's no point in discussing anything with you; so I'll put you on ignore.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
As before, you should have read some source material before posting misleading information...

"What does the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act do? .... [Excerpt]
  • broad judicial oversight of the system
  • high court permission will be needed to impose the measures (or to immediately confirm measures imposed in urgent cases)
  • there will be a full automatic review of each case in which measures will be imposed
  • rights of appeal for the individual against refusal of a request to revoke or vary the measures
  • a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the prospects of prosecuting an individual before measures may be imposed, and a duty to keep the necessity of the measures under review while they are in force"
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/terrorism-prevention-and-investigation-measures-act

In the meantime, as you are clearly not concerned with accuracy or truth there's no point in discussing anything with you; so I'll put you on ignore.
Click to expand...
So nothing about a trial then, nothing about the right to face your accuser or even know what you are charged with,but by all means put me on ignore at least then you will not make any more silly comments on my posts. Silence yourself.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top