Copper charged

[Manwë]

5 minutes ago, LiamAP22D said:

But it's the CPS that decide what your going to be charged with.

 

Yes I know, but if the CPS decide to start with murder, then a jury could find for it too or lower it to manslaughter or acquital.

 

The CPS would look at the defendant, handling a weapon they've been trained to use, with procedures in place as to when to use it, and where to use them on the body and decide that the PC acted against all training, for no reason relating to their own safety or another person whatsoever.

Remember, murder isn't only about killing someone with the intention to kill.  It's killing someone with the intention to do serious harm also.  

 

A blow to the head of a child with an object trained to use?  That would quite possibly sit in the criteria of intention to do serious harm.  

[LiamAP22D]

4 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

Yes I know, but if the CPS decide to start with murder, then a jury could find for it too or lower it to manslaughter or acquital.

 

The CPS would look at the defendant, handling a weapon they've been trained to use, with procedures in place as to when to use it, and where to use them on the body and decide that the PC acted against all training, for no reason relating to their own safety or another person whatsoever.

Remember, murder isn't only about killing someone with the intention to kill.  It's killing someone with the intention to do serious harm also.  

 

A blow to the head of a child with an object trained to use?  That would quite possibly sit in the criteria of intention to do serious harm.  

The CPS would go with whatever charge had the best chance of conviction.

 

i'd argue there would have been a 100% chance of a manslaughter conviction had it been fatal & a very low chance of a jury concluding it was intentional to end the boys life.

Edited November 13, 2020 by LiamAP22D

[LiamAP22D]

2 minutes ago, LiamAP22D said:

The CPS would go with whatever charge had the best chance of conviction.

 

i'd argue there would have been a 100% chance of a manslaughter conviction had it been fatal & a very low chance of a jury concluding it was intentional to end the boys life.

FWIW I don't think the copper will be jailed. weather that's wrong or right that's not for me to say. But i'd be surprised to see him go to prison.

[LiamAP22D]

19 minutes ago, markowl said:

Did I?

 

Where?

 

If you were a copper you'd be suspended for gross incompetence.

In your post I quoted.  another guy thought the same and answered your post too  

 

People make comments on here with no knowledge of anyone they're talking to at all, its funny.

 

Your the kind of person that, if you knew what my career was you'd have more hate for me than this Copper for sure.

[markowl]

2 minutes ago, LiamAP22D said:

In your post I quoted.  another guy thought the same and answered your post too  

 

People make comments on here with no knowledge of anyone they're talking to at all, its funny.

 

Your the kind of person that, if you knew what my career was you'd have more hate for me than this Copper for sure.

The only post I made was "what's funny about that".

 

You made a hell of a lot of assumptions from that one sentence.

 

 

[LiamAP22D]

Just now, markowl said:

The only post I made was "what's funny about that".

 

You made a hell of a lot of assumptions from that one sentence.

 

 

Before that! Are you that stupid you can't realise what you wrote? Bless you. No Helping some folk.

[markowl]

2 minutes ago, LiamAP22D said:

Before that! Are you that stupid you can't realise what you wrote? Bless you. No Helping some folk.

Have you been drinking?

 

My first post in this thread today was "what was funny about that"

 

Which post are you referring to?

[Inspector Lestrade]

6 hours ago, Manwë said:

 

I had to have a google about this claim;

 

France : I"t's fine to photograph people in the street as long as it doesn't harm them (as in ridiculing them, giving away trade secrets, etc.)"

Germany: "You can take photos of people in the street, however for personal things such as funerals or at the beach, you must ask permission first"

New Zealand: "It is generally lawful to take photographs of people in public places without their consent. However, you must not film or take photos of people if they are in a place where they can expect privacy (such as a public changing area or toilet)"

Ireland: "Taking photographs of people in public is generally allowed – however, an exception is made where the subject would have a reasonable expectation of privacy"

 

There are differences in all these countries, and the UK, about taking photos of specific individuals and the UK pretty much mirrors the countries above.  If you want to photograph an individual, then it's not allowed without permission.  If you are photographing a street and there are people in that street, it's entirely legal in the UK and those countries above.

 

 

You can photo anything in public the eye  can see within decency/harassment  boundaries. 

 

If I was to photo you walking down the street what could you do realistically do?  If challenged out of courtesy I would respect your wishes but an ignorant person could ignore your request.  The press photo people all the time without their consent.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, vulva said:

Film me all day if they want. I don’t break the law and if filming helps keep the peace and catch criminals I’m all for it. Crack on. 

 

Everybody shits but I'll still shut the door while I'm doing it.

[stanningtonowl]

4 hours ago, LiamAP22D said:

 

Your the kind of person that, if you knew what my career was you'd have more hate for me than this Copper for sure.

Are you Tony  Pulis?

[cross owl]

10 hours ago, vulva said:

Film me all day if they want. I don’t break the law and if filming helps keep the peace and catch criminals I’m all for it. Crack on. 

 

 

  Filming doesn't keep the peace or crimes wouldn't be more more now than before cctv was popular , criminals wear items to conceal their identity from detection by filming . We are the most spied on country on the planet so we should have virtually no crime . 

[Inspector Lestrade]

12 hours ago, cross owl said:

 

 

  Filming doesn't keep the peace or crimes wouldn't be more more now than before cctv was popular , criminals wear items to conceal their identity from detection by filming . We are the most spied on country on the planet so we should have virtually no crime . 

 

 

How has it impacted your actions?   

 

 

[Inspector Lestrade]

Photographers’ rights

This is a general guide to the main legal restrictions on the right to take photographs and the right to publish photographs that have been taken. It is not a complete or definitive guide on the law. If you are faced with unusual circumstances, specific issues, concerns or difficulties we suggest you seek legal advice.

These links give further information.

Urban 75 Photographers rights - street shooting, people, privacy and children

UK Photographers Rights and Guide by Linda Macpherson (download a PDF of this guidance here)

Editorial Photographers United Kingdom and Ireland (EPUK)

British Photographic Council (BPC)

The British Press Photographers' Association (BPPA)

Wikipedia: Photography and the Law

I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist

Police National Legal Database advice page

UK Law

On the whole, UK law doesn't prevent photography in public places. The UK has relatively liberal laws regarding photography compared with many countries. Although there are some exceptions, the key principle is that you can photograph people and buildings without needing permission, providing you are in a public place.

As long as you're not causing any harassment, you're allowed to photograph other people if they are in a public place.

Public vs. Private

Many of the incidents in which photographers come into difficulty is that many places which you instinctively think are public are in fact privately controlled. This includes some shopping centres, car parks, some parks and play areas (depending on the attitude of the landowner) and various private structures, for example, Millennium Wheel on the South Bank in London. There is a trend for public places to become private, particularly in town centres which are developed with new shopping centres.

In a public place

Taking photos in a public place is not illegal. The only time an offence is committed is if the photographs being taken are considered to be indecent. There is no law stating that you can't take photographs in public. This includes taking photos that include other people's children or taking photos of children directly. An offence will, however, have been committed if the photographs taken are indecent.

"Public Place" is not defined in legislation. A public place is usually a place to which the public are allowed to have access freely and without payment or permission. This includes any public highway or footpath. The inside of a car is also considered as a public place, unless it is parked on private property.

You may take photographs of people or objects (including buildings) whilst in a public place. With a few exceptions the owners of the property cannot prevent you from doing so and people cannot generally object to having their photographs taken.

In the UK you do not have to get the permission from people you photograph whilst they are in a public place. Using and selling images of people in a public place is usually acceptable if undertaken with a view to being used for any journalistic or artistic material.

However if you intend to sell the image commercially or use it for a commercial purpose (for example to promote a product) it is normally recommended to get people to sign a model release form - see below for more about why this is important.

On Private Property

If the person you're photographing is on private land, they could claim a right to privacy, and if you're on private land, then the owner of the land has the right to restrict photography on their property.

How you choose to use the photos later may well be restricted by whether you have a model release or property release, but this is a different matter.

If you are asked to stop taking photographs on private property then it is advisable to do so. The person asking might not have the legal right to do so but it is likely that the actual landowner will side with them rather than you. Additionally you could be accused of trespass.

Property owners or their employees and security staff have no right whatsoever to confiscate, inspect or damage a photographer's camera or insist that images are deleted.

Railways and tube stations generally allow people to take non-commercial photographs as long as you don't cause an obstruction (more likely to happen if you are using a tripod). However asking station staff first is probably a good idea.

Harassment and Invasion of Privacy

It is illegal to harass another person and taking photographs could amount to harassment. This isn't to say that someone could claim they were being harassed just because they were being photographed when they didn't want to be. Harassment is essentially behaviour that causes another person alarm or distress and it refers to a course of conduct, not a single incident. (A "course of conduct" means at least two occasions.) If a photographer stalks a subject in order to get a photograph of them, or repeatedly thrusts a camera in someone’s face, this might be harassment.

The law is not the same throughout the UK. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, harassment is a criminal offence, for which the penalty is up to 6 months in prison, or a fine, or both. A victim of harassment can also bring a legal action for an injunction against the person who is harassing him, and a claim for damages. Breaching the injunction is also a criminal offence. In Scotland, harassment itself is not a criminal offence, but the victim can ask the court for a "non-harassment order" against the person who is harassing them. Breach of the order is a criminal offence.

Invasion of Privacy

Invasion of privacy is a difficult thing to determine in UK law. The UK has never recognised a general right of privacy, but the European Convention on Human Rights gives everyone the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

It is not always easy for a photographer to know whether taking or publishing a photograph might amount to an invasion of privacy.

Taking photographs of a person in a public place would not normally be regarded as an invasion of privacy. The key seems to be whether the place is one where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So using a telephoto lens to take a photo of someone in a private place, such as their home, without their consent, is probably an invasion of privacy even though the photo is taken from a public place.

The lack of any coherent law of privacy in the UK means that photographers are not only free to take photographs of people in public places, but they can use those photos as they wish, including for commercial gain. In some countries, individuals have rights over the commercial use of their images, hence the importance of obtaining a model release for the use of an image that contains a recognisable person.

UK law does not, at present, recognise this right. But failure to obtain a model release will seriously impair the commercial use of an image because most photo libraries, stock agencies and the like have an international customer base and will not accept an image of a recognisable person without a release.

Data Protection Act

There is also a possibility that photographs of people may be subject to the Data Protection Act, which controls the "processing" of"personal data", that is, data relating to an individual from which the individual can be identified. The definitions of these terms are complex, but taking a photograph of a recognisable person would appear to fit within them. The Act contains an exemption (section 32) which applies where you are "processing" personal data for journalistic or artistic purposes; you are doing so with a view to publication; and it would be incompatible with your journalistic or artistic purposes to be required to comply with the Act (for example, it would be incompatible if you had to put down your camera in order to ask consent of everyone captured in a street scene). Much photography will probably be protected by this exception.

[cross owl]

46 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 

How has it impacted your actions?   

 

 

 

 

  Just because something has no impact has no bearing on the hierarchy of any country spying on its people or allowing its people to be filmed and broadcast on whatever medium they choose . Now that it is in place whatever government we have can use them for whatever means they like . We pay no attention to cctv and being filmed under some notion that it makes us safer, which it doesn't . You've posted all the rights but so what . Like it says Britain is far more liberal than most countries who believe their people should be afforded more protection . We accept it because it is a case of , these are your rights and that's that , don't like it then tough . We will never agree . I believe people in a free country should be able to go about their business and not be filmed all day every day or have any chance of it ending up going viral on some medium and you don't . 

[Inspector Lestrade]

2 minutes ago, cross owl said:

 

 

  Just because something has no impact has no bearing on the hierarchy of any country spying on its people or allowing its people to be filmed and broadcast on whatever medium they choose . Now that it is in place whatever government we have can use them for whatever means they like . We pay no attention to cctv and being filmed under some notion that it makes us safer, which it doesn't . You've posted all the rights but so what . Like it says Britain is far more liberal than most countries who believe their people should be afforded more protection . We accept it because it is a case of , these are your rights and that's that , don't like it then tough . We will never agree . I believe people in a free country should be able to go about their business and not be filmed all day every day or have any chance of it ending up going viral on some medium and you don't . 

 

 I never said I didn't agree with you, I would make some changes to the law so that companies are only allowed to film their property and not public areas. (so they couldn't film streets etc).

 

Other than that the law should be as it is

[Tommy Crawshaw]

18 hours ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

You can photo anything in public the eye  can see within decency/harassment  boundaries. 

 

If I was to photo you walking down the street what could you do realistically do?  If challenged out of courtesy I would respect your wishes but an ignorant person could ignore your request.  The press photo people all the time without their consent.

 

 

 

 

 

Inspector, I haven't read through all of the long post of yours that was after this one yet.

 

But since the introduction of GDPR this area of photographing people in public places has become a bit of a minefield.

 

A persons image can be considered  to be their personal data. Much depends on what the photograher does with the image but if they process that data i.e.store, file or publish it on social media etc. without the consent of the data subject, they could leave themselves open to a breach of GDPR and therefore a court claim by the subject.

 

Obviously taking a photo of a street scene with many people. It would be impossible to gain everyone's consent. If people are in the background, out of focus, have their back to the camera etc., there wouldn't be an issue.

 

I believe the criteria is if the subject can be identified then the image can be construed as personal data.

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 minute ago, Tommy Crawshaw said:

 

Inspector, I haven't read through all of the long post of yours that was after this one yet.

 

But since the introduction of GDPR this area of photographing people in public places has become a bit of a minefield.

 

A persons image can be considered  to be their personal data. Much depends on what the photograher does with the image but if they process that data i.e.store, file or publish it on social media etc. without the consent of the data subject, they could leave themselves open to a breach of GDPR and therefore a court claim by the subject.

 

Obviously taking a photo of a street scene with many people. It would be impossible to gain everyone's consent. If people are in the background, out of focus, have their back to the camera etc., there wouldn't be an issue.

 

I believe the criteria is if the subject can be identified then the image can be construed as personal data.

 

 My argument is that its not against taking a photo of someone.

 

But after a very quick reading up on it from what I can see this really aimed at large companies who have masses amount of data and shouldn't really affect the man in the street.  But I'm open to learning more.

[Tommy Crawshaw]

7 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 My argument is that its not against taking a photo of someone.

 

But after a very quick reading up on it from what I can see this really aimed at large companies who have masses amount of data and shouldn't really affect the man in the street.  But I'm open to learning more.

 

I have had previous dealings with GDPR issues and like you I'm learning more about it.

 

It has definitely made things like video and photography more complicated re processing someone's personal data, which an image is considered to be.

 

Some organisations have legitimate interests in processing such data i.e. law enforcement agencies. They would comply with GDPR.

 

I believe GDPR applies to everyone. 

If an individual took a picture with me in it, even if I wasn't the main subject but identifiable and published that image, I could ask them to remove it. If they didn't and carried on processing my data, I could sue for breach of GDPR.

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 hour ago, Tommy Crawshaw said:

 

I have had previous dealings with GDPR issues and like you I'm learning more about it.

 

It has definitely made things like video and photography more complicated re processing someone's personal data, which an image is considered to be.

 

Some organisations have legitimate interests in processing such data i.e. law enforcement agencies. They would comply with GDPR.

 

I believe GDPR applies to everyone. 

If an individual took a picture with me in it, even if I wasn't the main subject but identifiable and published that image, I could ask them to remove it. If they didn't and carried on processing my data, I could sue for breach of GDPR.

 

Found this Q&A 

 

I don’t have recorded consent for everyone I’ve ever taken photographs of. Should I be reaching out to get this retrospectively?

 

Oh that sounds like so much fun.

I’m sure you have better things to do - like earning a living!

 

Under the strictest letter of the law - maybe. But what do you think will happen if you don’t? Probably nothing!

 

If someone complains that you’re using an image of them on your website without their consent, just remove it. If they report you to the ICO, the worst that will happen is that someone will get in touch and ask you if you need any help becoming compliant with respect to the photographs you take.

 

The best thing you can do is protect yourself going forwards with consent to use images.

 

And don’t forget, there is scope to say that it’s impossible for you to run your business without being able to use the photographs you take of clients in your marketing. That old ‘legitimate interests’ chestnut again…

 

What about the ‘right to be forgotten’? Can a past client revoke consent and demand that I delete stored photographs of them?

 

They can try but deleting your intellectual property and your art is very different from deleting someone’s name and email address from your files, isn’t it?  it’s likely that you could cite legitimate interests as a basis to refuse that demand.

 

And honestly, how likely is this to happen?

 

What about taking photographs in public places - do I need clear consent from anyone who might appear in my photographs?

 

No. This is still ok within reason.

 

Using your common sense is essential here. If you’re going to capture and share controversial images or images that might cause offence to the people in them, you are leaving yourself open to hassle. Just be sensible.

 

I take photographs at large sporting events etc - do I need consent from everyone who might appear in my photographs?

I watched a great live video from lawyer, Suzanne Dibble on this. You should most definitely join her fantastic GDPR Facebook group by the way.

 

When people attend an event like this do they reasonably expect a photographer to be present?

 

Will the photographs have minimal privacy impact on the individuals at the event?

 

If the answer to these questions is, yes, then you should be able to use legitimate interests as a basis to go ahead without consent.

If you want to be uber cautious then simply put up some posters asking people to make themselves known to you if they do not want to be photographed. Personally, I’d assess the risk and plough ahead without that hassle.

 

If you’re taking photographs of people looking happy and enjoying the event then 99.99999% of people will have zero issue with these photographs being taken and shared. And if someone does get in touch with a concern and asks for a photograph to be removed. Just remove it.

However, if you’re taking photographs of passionate encounters or little old ladies with their skirts tucked into their knickers and sharing them online then you’re leaving yourself open to a complaint (and shame on you!).

What about private events like weddings? Do I have to get consent from everyone who attends to be able to photograph them and use those photographs?

 

Let’s get real. Exactly how on earth can you be expected to do that before, during or after a wedding?!

When people attend a wedding, do they reasonably expect a photographer to be present?

Will the photographs have minimal privacy impact on the guests at the wedding?

 

If the answer is yes - then you can use legitimate interests as a basis to capture, store and use those images.

Just make sure you have the consent we mentioned above from your client. It’s a good idea to ask your bride and groom to make it clear to guests that there will be a photographer capturing their day and if any of their guests do not wish to be photographed or do not wish to appear in any of the photographs online then they should make themselves known to you.

 

Remember, you have a contract with your bride and groom to fulfil. That should be your number one priority.

It’s worth mentioning again that using common sense is the way forward. Sharing images of drunk guests in compromising situations online is an open invitation to complaints. Sharing great photographs of the bride and groom and their guests looking like they’re having a blast is not going to land you in any trouble. And if someone reaches out and asks you to remove a certain photograph from your blog post for whatever reason, just do it.

[Guest The Claw]

Freedom to photograph and film

Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.