The Hidden Glasgow Forums

Here is a LINK to an article in pdf form written by Linda MacPherson, a law lecturer at Heriot-Watt University, which sets out your rights when taking pictures in public places in the UK.

The site I got the link from advise anyone who takes pictures in public places to print off a copy and keep it with them when out and about, just in case.

A good solid platform to be standing on and a cracking read
Thank you After my troubles lately it's what the doctor ordered.

Cheers Graham, i think this could be sticky'd

gawd ..it's been so long since I got in

Nah, you just need to be a good runner...

conn75 wrote:Nah, you just need to be a good runner...

I don't think I know many fit photographers!

Hmm, find this a somewhat worrying precedent....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 651107.stm

gap74 wrote:Hmm, find this a somewhat worrying precedent....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scot ... 651107.stm

The bint was pished and barft a bit. She must have clocked his big camera

Indeed - if it's a crime to lack chivalry, then I'm in for a life sentence....

The guy plead guilty and as such I wouldn't read too much into it.

AlanM wrote:The guy plead guilty and as such I wouldn't read too much into it.

Can you explain that?

We're not talking about someone that smashed a bottle in someone's face and admitted it - this is a Breach of the Peace charge, which is down to someone's opinion as it is little more than a catch-all charge when they can't find an actual offence on the books nowadays.

The chap is a Polish immigrant, arrested by the police after taking a photograph in a public place, presumably carted off to jail, or at least a police station for a period, then made to appear in court.

He may or may not be a fluent English speaker, and probably doesn't understand Scots Law.

His lawyer was probably assigned and saw nothing of merit (money/fee) in the case and wanted rid of it as quick a she could so advised his client to plead Guilty and get a quick fine and be done with it. Pleading Not Guilty could have started a crusade, and there's no money in crusades unless you attract sponsors and donations.

Maybe there's something more serious here, and the Sheriff is one of that happy band that sees Polish immigrants as job-stealers or similar, and got a chance to teach one a lesson, and has abused his position.

I personally think much can be read into this, and more than I have mentioned.

As the chap plead guilty there was no legal test, and with a guilty plea the Sheriff had to impose some form of punishment and make a statement condemning his actions.

If he'd plead not guilty and as he hadn't actually done anything wrong the chances were that he would have been found not guilty as the prosecution would have had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had placed the victim "in a state of fear and alarm" - not an easy task

I'm sure that he wasn't fully aware of Scot's Law and was poorly advised but I meant that from a photographer's point of view that we shouldn't read too much into this conviction

AlanM wrote:As the chap plead guilty there was no legal test, and with a guilty plea the Sheriff had to impose some form of punishment and make a statement condemning his actions.

If he'd plead not guilty and as he hadn't actually done anything wrong the chances were that he would have been found not guilty as the prosecution would have had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had placed the victim "in a state of fear and alarm" - not an easy task

I'm sure that he wasn't fully aware of Scot's Law and was poorly advised but I meant that from a photographer's point of view that we shouldn't read too much into this conviction

I'm not so sure. Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said.............. "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,".


That sounds as if anyone else dischuffed at having their picture taken could make the same complaint and expect the courts to be supportive.

onyirtodd wrote:I'm not so sure. Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said.............. "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,".


That sounds as if anyone else dischuffed at having their picture taken could make the same complaint and expect the courts to be supportive.

And it's all thanks to max mosley

onyirtodd wrote:

AlanM wrote:As the chap plead guilty there was no legal test, and with a guilty plea the Sheriff had to impose some form of punishment and make a statement condemning his actions.

If he'd plead not guilty and as he hadn't actually done anything wrong the chances were that he would have been found not guilty as the prosecution would have had to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he had placed the victim "in a state of fear and alarm" - not an easy task

I'm sure that he wasn't fully aware of Scot's Law and was poorly advised but I meant that from a photographer's point of view that we shouldn't read too much into this conviction

I'm not so sure. Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said.............. "The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,".


That sounds as if anyone else dischuffed at having their picture taken could make the same complaint and expect the courts to be supportive.

Surely in a public place your privacy means fuck all. It's not like the guy was doing an upskirt or jumping up and down in front of her face (I hope he wasn't anyway). It's a strange one. Won't stop me from capturing some drunk arsehole right enough.