Ouch

Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment. I don't always take the side of the photographer. Not when they're being leeches.
 
Cagey75 said:
Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment. I don't always take the side of the photographer. Not when they're being leeches.
Click to expand...

This. Though I do think there is a large divide between press photographers and everyone else other than we share the same skill set.
 
Cagey75 said:
Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment. I don't always take the side of the photographer. Not when they're being leeches.
Click to expand...
Public figures should expect to be scrutinised and photographers expect to go about their business without being assaulted.
 
Should they? should they expect people hanging outside their homes? I don't think so. And it's very rare a photographer gets assaulted for no reason.

Everyone's free to their opinion of course. I gave mine, that's how I see it ;)
 
Cagey75 said:
Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment. I don't always take the side of the photographer. Not when they're being leeches.
Click to expand...

So you don't think the press, or presumably anyone else, have a right to photograph in public places? Interesting view to put on this forum!
 
Is there really enough in that article to form any kind of opinion? The photographer may have been keeping his distance and the other guy started being aggressive unnecessarily or he might have been provoked by the photographer making a right pain in the arse of himself. We just don't know.

It always amazes me how people are so quick to form judgements either way based on so little information.
 
Cagey75 said:
Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment
Click to expand...

Not within the legal definition, though, I suspect.

ss 1 and 7 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997

1 Prohibition of harassment.

(1) A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and​

(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.

7 Interpretation of this group of sections.

(3) A “course of conduct” must involve conduct on at least two occasions.​
Click to expand...

[emphasis added]

Besides, it's no justification for an assault.
 
Last edited:
You guys are treating this as if it was some guy on a stroll to take some mundane pictures of a bird to show people on this forum.

If people are standing outside your home waiting for you to leave or make a mistake you are obviously going to be a little distressed about it. I don't show any sympathy towards this guy, get lamped one every now and again comes with the job. It would be like applying to be a police officer and then acting surprised that someone spat on you or assaulted you as you tried to arrest them.

To be honest at least it gave them something to write about and a picture to go with it. Couldn't ask for a better result.
 
jon ryan said:
So you don't think the press, or presumably anyone else, have a right to photograph in public places? Interesting view to put on this forum!
Click to expand...


Do you always twist people's words like that?

I'm only talking about this incident, get a grip ;)

It's one thing photographing inpublic, minding your own business - it's a completely different story to specifically hang about someone's home with the intention of selling the pics to a newspaper.

try harder to make me look bad for my thoughts on a short article and video ... :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jin
PMN said:
Is there really enough in that article to form any kind of opinion? The photographer may have been keeping his distance and the other guy started being aggressive unnecessarily or he might have been provoked by the photographer making a right pain in the arse of himself. We just don't know.

It always amazes me how people are so quick to form judgements either way based on so little information.
Click to expand...


If we didn't form some kind of opinion on it, what would be the point of even discussing it?
 
Cagey75 said:
If we didn't form some kind of opinion on it, what would be the point of even discussing it?
Click to expand...

Discussing it is one thing, starting to say who's the 'culprit' on so little information is another. Personally I'd want a hell of a lot more info than is contained in that small article to form a judgement but hey, that's just me.
 
There's a right way and a wrong way to deal with nuisance/harassment (if indeed that's what it was) and swinging punches isn't the right way ... hence the police taking him away :)
 
Cagey75 said:
Do you always twist people's words like that?

I'm only talking about this incident, get a grip ;)

It's one thing photographing inpublic, minding your own business - it's a completely different story to specifically hang about someone's home with the intention of selling the pics to a newspaper.

try harder to make me look bad for my thoughts on a short article and video ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How do you think press photographers get press photos? There is a legitimate public interest story here - the man's father is a sitting MP facing some serious accusations - and anyway, the point here is that anyone may take photos in a public place. Do you have a problem with that? We don't know the full story, but unless some acting and make-up was involved, an assault seems to have taken place. Perhaps you think that punching photographers is acceptable if you don't want them taking your photo? Perhaps you never take photos of people in public placers, but I can assure you that it is a legal activity.

And assault isn't.
 
Apparently the photographer was trying to photograph the chaps mother as she got into a car - speculating but perhaps the chap felt the photographer was being too intrusive or perhaps the chap was being over protective? He could of course just had brain failure and decided to hit out ... either way assaulting someone is rarely if ever the right solution (even if for a very brief moment it may make you feel better).
 
Regardless of the tog provoking anything, the chap (son) has still committed a crime. We can all point the finger but we weren't there, end of.
 
The lens looks like a 70-200, so it seems likely he was shooting from some distance. Had he been sticking a 24mm in her face there MAY have been some justification, but I reckon he'll have a hard time should he want to argue that.

Anyway, think I'll nip off and spend the evening photographing children I've never met, and see if I can sell the shots to to newspapers. ;)
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment. I don't always take the side of the photographer. Not when they're being leeches.
Click to expand...

Cagey75 said:
Should they? should they expect people hanging outside their homes? I don't think so. And it's very rare a photographer gets assaulted for no reason.

Everyone's free to their opinion of course. I gave mine, that's how I see it ;)
Click to expand...

It was his father's house, his father being under investigation for impropriety of some sort, hence the news interest. Pretty obvious from the photos from other photographers as well as the video that the photographer wasn't alone. I'm no fan of paparazzi but I think that this photographer was more legitimate than them and was just doing his job.
 
jon ryan said:
How do you think press photographers get press photos? There is a legitimate public interest story here - the man's father is a sitting MP facing some serious accusations - and anyway, the point here is that anyone may take photos in a public place. Do you have a problem with that? We don't know the full story, but unless some acting and make-up was involved, an assault seems to have taken place. Perhaps you think that punching photographers is acceptable if you don't want them taking your photo? Perhaps you never take photos of people in public placers, but I can assure you that it is a legal activity.

And assault isn't.
Click to expand...


I love posting my personal opinion on here, because you can be sure someone will make it their business to over analyse :D


You're talking nonsense, when you try to make out I have an issue with photographing in public. Did you not understand my last post? I'd spell it out for you more ... if I was bothered. You know less about me than either of us know on this story. I'd appreciate if you stop trying to make out I'm saying something that I'm clearly not. It's just weak, pointless, stirring for an argument.

I don't think it's right they hang about someone's home. I don't care what the rules or the law is. They could get pics of him out and about elsewhere. They look more like paps than enthusiastic photo-journalists to me.
 
Was the photographer in the wrong? Who knows, we don't see all of the incident from start to finish. If he was simply taking photos from a public place then no.

Was the son in the wrong for lumping the photographer? Yes.

/argument
 
Much much better. Do they really believe this was unexpected? She knew exactly what that dress would attract - fair play to her though, definitely has a natural cracking body compared to most celebs......
 
Regardless on the rights of the photographer, I love the great action shot of him taken a right hook..............I see his fellow tog didn't want to intervene but just wanted to get the shot, top bloke Jamie.

Ian
 
Last edited:
pamplemoose said:
Tell me more about how waiting outside an MPs house to stalk his wife as she gets into her car is in the public interest. (y)
Click to expand...
Sure. Not a problem. But first, perhaps you can provide some evidence that the wife was being 'stalked'?

NB: 'Stalking' is an offence under the The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Accusing someone of committing such an offence may well be construed as defamation, so perhaps you should be careful of what you are accusing a respected photographer of doing.
 
As always, it doesnt appear that the full story has been covered in this Daily Mail piece. I saw the footage of this incident last night on BBC news. The guy was actually knocked over by his own Mother as she sped away down the road, and the photographer appeared to be taking some photos of him whilst on his back in the road. The Son then got up and attacked the photographer.

Im not saying he was in the right to assault the photographer, but I think if that had just happened to me, I might be a 'tad' stressed, which would probably diminish any ounce of calm I may have had left.
 
Nipples clearly visible - when lit by a way too bright flash causing her "overexposure".

Hell, it you've got it, flaunt it! (And IMO, she's got it.)

News? Probably not. Sells papers? Indubitably!!!

She was in a situation where the press was being actively courted and was fairly obviously very happy to be snapped (and probably not that dismayed that the dress was rather less opaque when overlit!)
 
Cagey75 said:
Hanging about outside the man's house ... hmmm, some would say he got what was coming to him. That's harassment. I don't always take the side of the photographer. Not when they're being leeches.
Click to expand...

According to the law, a single incident can not be harassment. There is no detail in the article that could in anyway be construed as harassment, but you could have laid yourself open to claims of defamation.

The reason the press were there (as documented in many recent editions of the Private Eye) is most definitely in the public interest.
 
jon ryan said:
Sure. Not a problem. But first, perhaps you can provide some evidence that the wife was being 'stalked'?
Click to expand...

What would you call camping outside a person house and waiting for them to leave?

Edit: Also, I'm not saying that lamping a pain in the arse photographer was the correct course of action. Legally he's probably doing nothing wrong. Ethically though he's complete scum.
 
Last edited:
Jin said:
You guys are treating this as if it was some guy on a stroll to take some mundane pictures of a bird to show people on this forum.

If people are standing outside your home waiting for you to leave or make a mistake you are obviously going to be a little distressed about it. I don't show any sympathy towards this guy, get lamped one every now and again comes with the job. It would be like applying to be a police officer and then acting surprised that someone spat on you or assaulted you as you tried to arrest them.

To be honest at least it gave them something to write about and a picture to go with it. Couldn't ask for a better result.
Click to expand...

So if he opened the door, 'lamped' the police officer who came to arrest him, that would be fine would it?

I've had many a stressful, bleak, time in my life.. and I've had people stood inches from me actually trying to provoke me... but I've never 'lamped' anyone, deserving or not, who hasn't hit me or caused me to fear impending and immediate unlawful violence first.

It is understandable that in certain circumstances people may loose their temper and self-control, but it is not excusable.
 
MikeM said:
Public figures should expect to be scrutinised and photographers expect to go about their business without being assaulted.
Click to expand...

True, if this were the MP I think he could expect some press attention in this situation but from the sound of it this was his wife and son, people who are victims in this situation.
 
Getting back to the OP, the photographer had a right to be there, I don't think press photographers are scum I think we need a free press and without it who knows what our MP's and the rest of the 'great and the good' would get up to.
Having said that I can understand how someone or their family, being subject to continued press attention, would react in a robust manner, as Mr Hancock jnr appears to have.
However, press photographer or not, if someone attacked me and sent my full frame camera c/w 70-200m F2.8 lens to the ground my reaction would be less than 'reserved'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top