Guidance for asylum seekers (and street photographers!)

benc98 said:
The point of this thread is to get the legal position straight. Harassment has a specific legal meaning, and it shouldn't be used as a catch-all for photography that someone just finds rude or ethically dodgy.
Click to expand...

Photography isn't harassment, but photos could be made in a harassing manner, and this is the thing - the camera is largely immaterial other than being a tool used, rather it is the action and intent.

There's more details on harassment here:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Not so sure. What is "indecent", and considered to be by who?
I think it shows how difficult it is to frame the law or advice.
Click to expand...
Any photographer who doesn't know what's indecent should have their camera taken from them, perhaps? Sexualised images of children, upskirting, concealed camera / photos of intimate areas , etc.. lets start using some common sense
 
benc98 said:
Any photographer who doesn't know what's indecent should have their camera taken from them, perhaps? Sexualised images of children, upskirting, concealed camera / photos of intimate areas , etc.. lets start using some common sense
Click to expand...
Not everything is cut and dried. Ask people whether they think photos of nudity in bike rides or people flashing their genitals at pride events, or trans women baring their breasts at demonstrations is indecent or not, I think you will get a variety of answers.
Thats why I asked who decides (considers). The photographer, the subject, the police, a bystander?
I'm just pointing out the difficulty in framing these statements.
 
Last edited:
benc98 said:
Any photographer who doesn't know what's indecent should have their camera taken from them, perhaps? Sexualised images of children, upskirting, concealed camera / photos of intimate areas , etc.. lets start using some common sense
Click to expand...

Actually this gets complicated as well.

It can also change over time.

There is stuff that is obvious. There is stuff that changes. An example might be a young girl posing in costume, A generation or two ago an image that would maybe have been seen as cute might today be seen as being slightly dodgy - or worse.

If you are well to the side of a boundary then objectivity and obviousness are straightforward.

Closer to where the boundary lies becomes more subjective. And if the boundary is itself something that is subject change that complicates things.

An alternative way of looking at this is what is acceptable on the moving screen. We see levels of blood and violence that are significantly higher. Some types of casual nudity have reduced but other more explicit material is dropped in to shows. Medical drama shows have less and less to hold back.
 
Jonny Guitar. said:
Not everything is cut and dried. Ask people whether they think photos of nudity in bike rides or people flashing their genitals at pride events, or trans women baring their breasts at demonstrations is indecent or not, I think you will get a variety of answers.
Thats why I asked who decides (considers). The photographer, the subject, the police, a bystander?
I'm just pointing out the difficulty in framing these statements.
Click to expand...

Dryce said:
Actually this gets complicated as well.

It can also change over time.

There is stuff that is obvious. There is stuff that changes. An example might be a young girl posing in costume, A generation or two ago an image that would maybe have been seen as cute might today be seen as being slightly dodgy - or worse.

If you are well to the side of a boundary then objectivity and obviousness are straightforward.

Closer to where the boundary lies becomes more subjective. And if the boundary is itself something that is subject change that complicates things.

An alternative way of looking at this is what is acceptable on the moving screen. We see levels of blood and violence that are significantly higher. Some types of casual nudity have reduced but other more explicit material is dropped in to shows. Medical drama shows have less and less to hold back.
Click to expand...
IMO you’re both overthinking here, convictions around creating indecent images involving photographers are mostly centred around covert sexualised recording, happy to be corrected on this. Not young women / girls in a costume or consenting adults at a protest.
 
benc98 said:
IMO you’re both overthinking here, convictions around creating indecent images involving photographers are mostly centred around covert sexualised recording, happy to be corrected on this. Not young women / girls in a costume or consenting adults at a protest.
Click to expand...
Like @Dryce and @Jonny Guitar. I think there are always grey areas within the law, which is why the police are allowed to make judgment calls, and we have the CPS (Procurator Fiscal in Scotland), magistrates, juries and Judges. A barrister once told me that laws are deliberately ambiguous, so they can cast a very wide net on what "might" be an offence, and then let the courts decide if it is.

While there are examples that we will all probably agree are indecent, by intent, you just need to consider the varying opinions on things like women breastfeeding in public or Sally Mann's pictures of her children, to realise that a definition of indecent can vary a lot.

The problem for photographers is not necessarily being convicted of an offence, but avoiding accusations of attempting to take indecent photographs when the intentions are perfectly innocent.

There is, for example, something really heartwarming and joyful about children playing together, but many (most) of us are now too scared to include children in our photographs, even though, (indeed especially so) when parents are happy enough to let their children play naked in a public water feature.
 
Just for a bit of context; the laws in France give anyone who can be identified in a photograph the right not to have it published;

Photography in a Public Place

Discover the legal rules of photography in public place in France: image rights, exceptions, and best practices.
retines.fr retines.fr

Personally I don't feel comfortable taking photographs of strangers going about their business 'street style' so don't do it and I wouldn't be happy about being photographed eating, drinking, etc.
 
Last edited:
Clive K said:
Just for a bit of content; the laws in France give anyone who can be identified in a photograph the right not to have it published;
Click to expand...
As the French probably would not say: "Si une chose vaut la peine d'être faite, elle vaut la peine d'être faite à l'excès." but when it comes to their laws, that's what they seem to do anyway.

There are many advantages to being a British photographer and in my opinion, one of the best is not being a French photographer! :exit:
 
ancient_mariner said:
Photography isn't harassment, but photos could be made in a harassing manner, and this is the thing - the camera is largely immaterial other than being a tool used, rather it is the action and intent.

There's more details on harassment here:

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

An Act to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct.
www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...


Welcome to 2026 when things changed dramatically back in April when this became law:

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023

www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
 
myotis said:
Like @Dryce and @Jonny Guitar. I think there are always grey areas within the law, which is why the police are allowed to make judgment calls, and we have the CPS (Procurator Fiscal in Scotland), magistrates, juries and Judges. A barrister once told me that laws are deliberately ambiguous, so they can cast a very wide net on what "might" be an offence, and then let the courts decide if it is.

While there are examples that we will all probably agree are indecent, by intent, you just need to consider the varying opinions on things like women breastfeeding in public or Sally Mann's pictures of her children, to realise that a definition of indecent can vary a lot.
Click to expand...
Breastfeeding's already covered in legislation, and Sally Mann's a pretty complex example, not really relevant to a discussion about photography in public.


I'm definitely not an expert! but I'm not seeing the level of nuance in these last few posts that's being suggested. I didn't want to spend ages googling case law, but most of the convictions for indecent photography in public that I could find were pretty extreme cases. Those are probably the best guide to what judges and juries actually count as indecent.

myotis said:
Like @Dryce and @Jonny Guitar.

The problem for photographers is not necessarily being convicted of an offence, but avoiding accusations of attempting to take indecent photographs when the intentions are perfectly innocent.

There is, for example, something really heartwarming and joyful about children playing together, but many (most) of us are now too scared to include children in our photographs, even though, (indeed especially so) when parents are happy enough to let their children play naked in a public water feature.
Click to expand...

If convictions are rare and reserved for extreme cases, the fear of false accusation is probably overstated too.

I've kept my own ethics out of this, because they're not really relevant to a discussion about how the Home Office guidance contradicts UK law, and what that does to photographers. There are definitely photos I wouldn't take, not because they're indecent, but because they don't sit right with my own values. Bringing ethics into it just muddies the waters, and it adds to the confusion this thread was trying to clear up in the first place. We all set the bar different, but that doesn't make it law.


This thread started out about the Home Office advice contradicting UK law on photography in public, and how that confuses photographers and the public about what's actually legal. Now we're adding to that by suggesting girls in costumes, or photos of consenting adults at a public protest, could be indecent. That's just adding fuel to the fire. Next it'll be someone doing flower photography in the park getting challenged by a worried parent because there are kids nearby. We need some common sense and pragmatism here.

As we keep getting drawn into the ethics of public photography, I'll probably leave the thread for now until the conversation moves on, otherwise we're going round in circles.
 
Clive K said:
Just for a bit of context; the laws in France give anyone who can be identified in a photograph the right not to have it published;

Photography in a Public Place

Discover the legal rules of photography in public place in France: image rights, exceptions, and best practices.
retines.fr retines.fr

Personally I don't feel comfortable taking photographs of strangers going about their business 'street style' so don't do it and I wouldn't be happy about being photographed eating, drinking, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe @DemiLion can comment, but I'm not sure how different that is from the situation in the UK.
 
To be quite clear, the "Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023", as I read it, only creates an offence where there is proof that there was an intent to cause "intentional harassment, alarm or distress" and this was "because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex)."

Unfortunately, as is the way with lawyers, it then gets a little more messy in section 3...

For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) it does not matter whether or not—​
(a) A also carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) because of any other factor not mentioned in subsection (1)(b), or​
(b) A carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1) for the purposes of sexual gratification.​

British law would probably make more sense if lawyers were kept out of the process of writing it.
 
benc98 said:
Breastfeeding's already covered in legislation, and Sally Mann's a pretty complex example, not really relevant to a discussion about photography in public.


I'm definitely not an expert! but I'm not seeing the level of nuance in these last few posts that's being suggested. I didn't want to spend ages googling case law, but most of the convictions for indecent photography in public that I could find were pretty extreme cases. Those are probably the best guide to what judges and juries actually count as indecent.



If convictions are rare and reserved for extreme cases, the fear of false accusation is probably overstated too.

I've kept my own ethics out of this, because they're not really relevant to a discussion about how the Home Office guidance contradicts UK law, and what that does to photographers. There are definitely photos I wouldn't take, not because they're indecent, but because they don't sit right with my own values. Bringing ethics into it just muddies the waters, and it adds to the confusion this thread was trying to clear up in the first place. We all set the bar different, but that doesn't make it law.


This thread started out about the Home Office advice contradicting UK law on photography in public, and how that confuses photographers and the public about what's actually legal. Now we're adding to that by suggesting girls in costumes, or photos of consenting adults at a public protest, could be indecent. That's just adding fuel to the fire. Next it'll be someone doing flower photography in the park getting challenged by a worried parent because there are kids nearby. We need some common sense and pragmatism here.

As we keep getting drawn into the ethics of public photography, I'll probably leave the thread for now until the conversation moves on, otherwise we're going round in circles.
Click to expand...
I think you possibly missed my point, or I explained it badly, which was essentially, that just because something is covered by a law, doesn't necessarily make it simple to understand what is or isn't legal, especially when it comes to something like "decency".
 
Last edited:
DemiLion said:
Welcome to 2026 when things changed dramatically back in April when this became law:

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023

www.legislation.gov.uk www.legislation.gov.uk
Click to expand...

Is that a 'dramatic' change?

This act is based on the 1986 act and only applies if that act would already apply. So if having committed an offence under the 1986 act the police and prosecution might decide that the 2023 act also applies - and this gives them the facility to charge and prosecute where a person "carried out the conduct referred to in section 4A(1)" [of the 1986 act] " because of the relevant person’s sex (or presumed sex)"
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
British law would probably make more sense if lawyers were kept out of the process of writing it.
Click to expand...

I have some sympathy for the lawyers drafting these things -- it's like a huge complex IT system that can't be replaced and people keep adding bits to it and making it ever more tangled and more complex - rather than rewriting it from scratch.
 
Dryce said:
...it's like a huge complex IT system that can't be replaced and people keep adding bits to it and making it ever more tangled and more complex - rather than rewriting it from scratch.
Click to expand...
Having a fair amount of experience with IT software, both mainframe and otherwise, I agree with you.

However, where the software was correctly written in the first place; for instance, the code using sensible section and variable names; and where the design and implementation documents have been stored safely and referred to for subsequent changes; big systems are as easy to maintain as small ones.

As a consumer, it seems to me that every law has been written to obfuscate and keep the parliamentary draughtsmen (AKA Parliamentary Counsel) in lucrative business. As a customer, it seems to me that they should concentrate on making the law simple to understand and easy to implement.
 
Having done 25 years in the police service I am firmly convinced that laws are deliberately written by lawyers to be subject to interpretation in order to keep lawyers in work.

Look at something like the 1968 Theft Act. To prove the offence you had to show that the suspect: "Dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive."

So you have to prove each and every element: dishonesty, appropriation, property, the ownership not being theirs, intention to permanently deprive.

There is little wonder Legal Aid costs the Government so much. Thee was a group of solicitors in Barnsley who collectively owned racehorses, one of which was named Legal Aid.
 
I had an issue while me and my wife were in London at the weekend, we were just doing the tourist thing, walking around and seeing the sights, I took my Hasselblad X2D II with me, it wasn't a photography trip so I was only taking general snaps really.

While my wife was taking a shot of Big Ben I took a picture of people walking past a tourist stand opposite Westminster, and I noticed the guy was giving me a single finger, then put 2 fingers up and then his wife started screaming at me, so I walked over to speak to them.

I was met with instant abuse, "You're breaking the law, it's illegal for you to take our picture without our consent, delete them now", I tried to calmly explain that as I am standing in a public place I don't need permission to take any pictures, they pointed to a sign they have that said no photography was allowed, they wouldn't listen to me so I pulled Google up and showed them a web page from Metropolitan Police that explains it's legal, they changed stance then saying it was immoral. Ended up with the guy saying he wasn't too old to come out of his stand and have a 'straightener' with me, pretty pathetic really, I just told him to have a nice day and walked away.

They couldn't understand the irony that they don't want to appear in any pictures yet they are stood by one of the most photographed spots in London. :ROFLMAO:

2026-09-05 17.12.31.jpg2026-09-05 17.12.48.jpg
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Having a fair amount of experience with IT software, both mainframe and otherwise, I agree with you.

However, where the software was correctly written in the first place; for instance, the code using sensible section and variable names; and where the design and implementation documents have been stored safely and referred to for subsequent changes; big systems are as easy to maintain as small ones.

As a consumer, it seems to me that every law has been written to obfuscate and keep the parliamentary draughtsmen (AKA Parliamentary Counsel) in lucrative business. As a customer, it seems to me that they should concentrate on making the law simple to understand and easy to implement.
Click to expand...
and that theres a change management framework / management system in place rather than doing things in a "faux-agile" way

Hanley said:
I had an issue while me and my wife were in London at the weekend, we were just doing the tourist thing, walking around and seeing the sights, I took my Hasselblad X2D II with me, it wasn't a photography trip so I was only taking general snaps really.

While my wife was taking a shot of Big Ben I took a picture of people walking part a tourist stand opposite Westminster, and I noticed the guy was giving me a single finger, then put 2 fingers up and then his wife started screaming at me, so I walked over to speak to them.

I was met with instant abuse, "You're breaking the law, it's illegal for you to take our picture without our consent, delete them now", I tried to calmly explain that as I am standing in a public place I don't need permission to take any pictures, they pointed to a sign they have that said no photography was allowed, they wouldn't listen to me so I pulled Google up and showed them a web page from Metropolitan Police that explains it's legal, they changed stance then saying it was immoral. Ended up with the guy saying he wasn't too old to come out of his stand and have a 'straightener' with me, pretty pathetic really, I just told him to have a nice day and walked away.

They couldn't understand the irony that they don't want to appear in any pictures yet they are stood by one of the photographed spots in London. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
I think I would have done it the other way and put the onus on them to 1) come and talk to you 2) show you where the law says its illegal.

Anyone can make things up on the spot to suit their purpose. but challenge them to evidence their claims and they tend to shrink back.

Also morality is very subjective (as opposed to most legislation). I think i'd have also batted back at him that he made initial claims that what you were doing was illegal, yet had no issues with the legal side of coming to give you a "straightener"
 
Last edited:
Hanley said:
I had an issue while me and my wife were in London at the weekend, we were just doing the tourist thing, walking around and seeing the sights, I took my Hasselblad X2D II with me, it wasn't a photography trip so I was only taking general snaps really.

While my wife was taking a shot of Big Ben I took a picture of people walking part a tourist stand opposite Westminster, and I noticed the guy was giving me a single finger, then put 2 fingers up and then his wife started screaming at me, so I walked over to speak to them.

I was met with instant abuse, "You're breaking the law, it's illegal for you to take our picture without our consent, delete them now", I tried to calmly explain that as I am standing in a public place I don't need permission to take any pictures, they pointed to a sign they have that said no photography was allowed, they wouldn't listen to me so I pulled Google up and showed them a web page from Metropolitan Police that explains it's legal, they changed stance then saying it was immoral. Ended up with the guy saying he wasn't too old to come out of his stand and have a 'straightener' with me, pretty pathetic really, I just told him to have a nice day and walked away.

They couldn't understand the irony that they don't want to appear in any pictures yet they are stood by one of the photographed spots in London. :ROFLMAO:

View attachment 492602View attachment 492603
Click to expand...

Shakes head in sorrow.........
 
Hanley said:
I had an issue while me and my wife were in London at the weekend, we were just doing the tourist thing, walking around and seeing the sights, I took my Hasselblad X2D II with me, it wasn't a photography trip so I was only taking general snaps really.

While my wife was taking a shot of Big Ben I took a picture of people walking part a tourist stand opposite Westminster, and I noticed the guy was giving me a single finger, then put 2 fingers up and then his wife started screaming at me, so I walked over to speak to them.

I was met with instant abuse, "You're breaking the law, it's illegal for you to take our picture without our consent, delete them now", I tried to calmly explain that as I am standing in a public place I don't need permission to take any pictures, they pointed to a sign they have that said no photography was allowed, they wouldn't listen to me so I pulled Google up and showed them a web page from Metropolitan Police that explains it's legal, they changed stance then saying it was immoral. Ended up with the guy saying he wasn't too old to come out of his stand and have a 'straightener' with me, pretty pathetic really, I just told him to have a nice day and walked away.

They couldn't understand the irony that they don't want to appear in any pictures yet they are stood by one of the photographed spots in London. :ROFLMAO:

View attachment 492602View attachment 492603
Click to expand...


I was in London on Monday and took several photos in Leicester Square - I spotted one guy sitting in a pool of light surrounded by shadow so took the photo.
He asked, 'Why you take my photo?", so I told him that I was a street photographer and explained my rationale for taking the photo.
He told me I couldn't take his photo without his permission and I explained UK law, which he accepted but then asked me to delete the photo, so I did.
I showed him that I had done so, put my arm around his shoulder, told him my name and asked his, (which he told me), wished him a great day and went on my way.
IMO there are very few photos worth a confrontation. :)
 
gramps said:
I was in London on Monday and took several photos in Leicester Square - I spotted one guy sitting in a pool of light surrounded by shadow so took the photo.
He asked, 'Why you take my photo?", so I told him that I was a street photographer and explained my rationale for taking the photo.
He told me I couldn't take his photo without his permission and I explained UK law, which he accepted but then asked me to delete the photo, so I did.
I showed him that I had done so, put my arm around his shoulder, told him my name and asked his, (which he told me), wished him a great day and went on my way.
IMO there are very few photos worth a confrontation. :)
Click to expand...
I agree, once I showed them the met Police guidance they stopped asking me to delete the pictures, that's when he moved on to the 'straightener' :ROFLMAO:
 
Hanley said:
... that's when he moved on to the 'straightener' :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
He sounds like an idiot wanting to dump his venom on someone he perceives as weaker than himself. :(
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
He sounds like an idiot wanting to dump his venom on someone he perceives as weaker than himself. :(
Click to expand...
Yep, I did make a point of telling him that I certainly wasn't afraid of him, but I'm also not stupid and not going to risk my job / freedom getting into a fight with some idiot over a picture so the sensible thing to do was smile, tell him to have a nice day and walk away
 
gramps said:
I was in London on Monday and took several photos in Leicester Square - I spotted one guy sitting in a pool of light surrounded by shadow so took the photo.
He asked, 'Why you take my photo?", so I told him that I was a street photographer and explained my rationale for taking the photo.
He told me I couldn't take his photo without his permission and I explained UK law, which he accepted but then asked me to delete the photo, so I did.
I showed him that I had done so, put my arm around his shoulder, told him my name and asked his, (which he told me), wished him a great day and went on my way.
IMO there are very few photos worth a confrontation. :)
Click to expand...
did you point out all the CCTV cameras within Leicester square and mention the irony
 
jamesev said:
did you point out all the CCTV cameras within Leicester square and mention the irony
Click to expand...
.....but, but, but, they're official cameras and that's different from "ordinary" people invading his privacy!

Just you wait until the thickoids cotton on to spectacle cameras and then watch the fun and games, with the loonies saying "you can't look at me through your glasses because you're taking my picture" !
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
.....but, but, but, they're official cameras and that's different from "ordinary" people invading his privacy!

Just you wait until the thickoids cotton on to spectacle cameras and then watch the fun and games, with the loonies saying "you can't look at me through your glasses because you're taking my picture" !
Click to expand...
I think you might be a little behind here :thinking:

Smart glasses, particularly those made by Meta and Ray-Ban, are facing widespread bans in the UK and Australia due to privacy concerns, bullying risks, and piracy fears.

In the UK, the following entities have banned or restricted the devices:

  • Courts: His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has banned the glasses in England and Wales, confiscating them upon entry.
  • Private Schools: Institutions such as Haberdashers’ Boys’ School, Woodbridge School, and Shrewsbury School have prohibited students from wearing them to prevent secret recording and bullying.
  • Venues: Pub chain Wetherspoons, various theatres (including ATG Theatres), restaurants (such as Jeremy King’s venues), and cinemas have banned or restricted the glasses.
  • Workplaces: ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has barred employees from wearing them on duty, and various other employers have implemented similar bans.
  • Legislation: A UK parliamentary petition calling for an immediate ban on the sale and promotion of recording smart glasses is open until December 2026.
In Australia, the Greens party, supported by crossbenchers, is preparing to introduce a bill for a 12-month import ban on smart glasses to allow time for new privacy laws to be enacted.
Click to expand...
 
gramps said:
I think you might be a little behind here :thinking:
Click to expand...
The ban in the courts is, of course, simply the general rule on recording in British courts.

The schools and venues are similarly extensions of long running controls on behaviour in such places. There's possibly also an element of free advertising, while the idea is still unusual enough to gain some editorial favourable to those businesses.

The call for a legal ban had reached 8,991 signatures at the time of writing, so we shall have to wait and see whether it will get to the 10,000 signature mark for a response, let alone the 100,000 required to be considered for a debate. In the first year of the scheme, there were 23,232 petitions proposed and only 6,121 were put on the site. Of these, only 20 both reached the 100,000 "consideration" level and were accepted by the scrutiny committee. If I understand correctly, only 3 were put forward for further action.

In other words, the mention of legislation is somewhat premature.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top