Photography is more than just a hobby for many people, and can be a lucrative career. There are different areas of photography you can work in, with wedding photography as one of the most popular. Wedding photography can be incredibly stressful, as you get hired to capture memories for the most special day of a couple's lives. They are not going to get this day back, and are expecting you to take beautiful pictures they can treasure forever.

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
o.uk...
MB wrote:
"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:
On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:





On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...
Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The evidence is the distress.
So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.
Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------


Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal.

Don't a lot of people who follow rules like the one above believe that
everyone born *is* guilty, by definition?

Some of the interviews with police and Home Office people about the
keeping of DNA records of innocent people were illuminating. They just
did not understand the concept, one even admitted that he would have to
look up in the dictionary. One aspect was that if you are innocent of
most crimes they want to keep your DNA for six years but if you are
innocent of a more serious crime then they want to keep it for twelve
years.

Radio 4 recently had a minister(?) saying they had to keep your DNA
because even if you are found not guilty you might offend *again*. They
gave him a couple of explicit opportunities to correct this, but he was
quite clear that anyone arrested is guilty, even if a mere court finds
them not guilty.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK




There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a house
and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I don't
think most people have any objection to criminal's money being confiscated
but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained through
criminal activities.

MB wrote

There is the other recent case where the police found some money in a
house
and are keeping it unless the owner can prove where he got it. I
don't
think most people have any objection to criminal's money being
confiscated
but you would expect at least some evidence that it was obtained
through
criminal activities.

Depends on the size of the sum in question. Given that no legal job or
business existed an inference that criminal activities were the source
seems rational.

If the police found £100,000 in the bread-bin, would you as a juryman
vote to convict, assuming no explanation ?

£1,000,000 ?

£5,000,000 ?

|| A man who was cleared of drugs charges last year has two flats and a
Rolex watch seized under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4563603.stm

|| A woman who claims she funded a lavish lifestyle with bingo and a
"penny
pinching" husband is convicted of possessing criminal property.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3962259.stm


--
Mike D

On May 15, 3:19*pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:

On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...

Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. *Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. *They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

If it is so, prepare for lots of incidents involving tourists,
especially those from Japan.

"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 3:19 pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:

On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...

Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the
dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime
then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

If it is so, prepare for lots of incidents involving tourists,
especially those from Japan.



------------------------------



Depends on the circumstances where the child was photographed.

There have been cases where any children have been in the background but
someone has complained and of course the classic case of a lady being
prevented taking a picture of an empty paddling pool because there could be
children in the distance.

I have taken pictures of friends' children when other children have been
around and no one had bothered but people are being brainwashed into
believing that you cannot even do that or even "take pictures of children".

"MB" wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.


Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable". When I was a kid in the 1950s and
60s, no-one thought anything of it. Children were just as acceptable a
subject for photography as landscapes, street scenes, wildlife, sports,
architecture etc..

Candid pictures of children were a cornerstone of the portfolios of many
of the great Victorian photographers, for example Frank Meadow Sutcliffe
of Whitby. Presumably, no-one gave a moment's thought to the possibility
that there might have been any suspicious intent, although his pictures
of young boys were criticised by churchmen of the time, not for any
corrupting influence on the subjects but for their potential effect on
young women*.

All this changed significantly, probably from the 1970s onwards with the
emergence of paedophilia as a subject widely discussed by people in
general as well as in the media. Public awareness of paedophilia has
probably reached an all-time high and that shows no signs of going away.

My point is that it wasn't always like that.

I don't think other countries entirely share our very British obsession
with the risk of paedophilia being closely associated with photography.
Perhaps the Greek photographer was slightly bemused by the reaction of
the (presumably British) parents?


*Frank Meadow Sutcliffe's gallery "Children" is online he
http://www.sutcliffe-gallery.co.uk/gallery_194448.html

The pictures were mostly posed, and Sutcliife is known to have given
children some small change in return for allowing him to take
photographs of them.

Presumably you would also consider this to be "entirely unacceptable"?
I know I would - I certainly wouldn't find it in any way acceptable for
a child of mine to be involved in anything like this. But it serves to
illustrate my point that things have changed significantly.

Tony Polson writes:
Photographing other people's children has only relatively recently been
considered "entirely unacceptable".

I know there are insane and/or stupid people like the "distressed" woman
in the story, and one can never know what bizarre charges they will
bring -- but one shouldn't make generalizations based on the actions of
the extreme fringe. Is it really the case that merely taking a picture
of a child on the street is "socially unacceptable"?

I'm skeptical...

-Miles

--
Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.

1506 wrote:
On May 15, 3:19 pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:
On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:
Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:
http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...
Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...
The evidence is the distress.
So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.
Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.
George
what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable.


But why? Simply because a tabloid told you anyone with a camera is a
peeedo/terrorist/MP/insert hate figure of the month?

Does that mean no more CCTV?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On May 18, 6:09*pm, 1506 wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. *It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. *The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. *Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George

"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 6:09 pm, 1506 wrote:

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George


-------------------------------------



http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_282766.html

MB