"MB" wrote in message
. net...

"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




This is a very strange reply to the question


"Asked whether police confiscated the photographer's camera, the BTP
spokesman told us: 'As is standard police procedure, items would have been
removed from him prior to him being placed into a cell. They would have
been securely stored and then returned to him.' "


You would think a simple "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient.


MB

MB wrote on Tue, 19 May 2009 12:19:36 +0100:


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

At least he wasn't "attacked by bandits with machetes"!

--
Alex
(imagining people keeping their .sigs to four lines)

On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT), 1506
wrote:

On May 15, 7:54Â*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.


"(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."

2 out of 3 in the defendant's favour if he was merely taking
photographs ?

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."?

It doesn't count south of Hadrian's Wall.

On May 15, 3:47*pm, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 13:57:52 -0700 (PDT), 1506





wrote:
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.

"(3) *It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within
hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or
distress, or
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the
words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible
representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside
that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable."

2 out of 3 in the defendant's favour if he was merely taking
photographs ?

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."?

It doesn't count south of Hadrian's Wall.

Once again Scottish Law shows its virtue.

In article
..com, 1506 writes


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.


But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
to whether he or she was indeed distressed? Any other person's
opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
of fact.

--
Bill Borland

On May 16, 4:31*pm, Bill Borland wrote:
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.

But who, other than the distressed person, can possibly testify as
to whether he or she was indeed distressed? *Any other person's
opinion would be just that - an opinion, not testimony on a matter
of fact.

Surely the test is 'could reasonably be expected to have caused
distress', not 'actually did cause distress'?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org