Arrested for taking a picture of the cops

[ColJack]

You might wanna check that link Eddie. Sommat about some fat kid in Harry Potter.

the link is correct.. he was originally arrested for taking picture of cops as he drove past, but they found pictures of his canabis plants on his camera.. ( twit )..

which leads me to think it might not be the "taking photo's of police" that got him arrested, rather the fact that he was "driving by" at the time..
undue care and attention whilst in control of a motorvehicle.?

 

[JohnD]

arrested for "doing something that annoyed the police"

 

[joe-90]

That was Harry Pothead that was.

 

[megawatt]

People are still legally entitled to take photo's of policemen and any that try to remove your equipment are acting illegally.

They have to have a very good cause to do so and using the prevention of terrorism laws must be used with care.

Merely taking a photo that has a policeman in it is not illegal, it must be shown that it can be used to terrorism purposes.

Even the met bigwigs say stuff along these lines.

AFAIK.

Nonsense ... Police officers have the same right to privacy as the rest of us.

If someone takes a picture of you without your consent they have breached your right to privacy ... Unless special circumstances apply such as public interest immunity.

Same reason you cannot have your home surveillance equipment scanning off your property.

MW

 

[sooey]

Yeah right, so how come you can't walk down a high street without having your picture taken hundreds of times?

 

[Goldberg]

High street crime running rife, or high street surveillance.

Who goes? You decide.

 

[libby lou lou]

High street crime running rife, or high street surveillance.

Who goes? You decide.

surveillance does not work, for the cost.

 

[ellal]

Nonsense ... Police officers have the same right to privacy as the rest of us.

If someone takes a picture of you without your consent they have breached your right to privacy ... Unless special circumstances apply such as public interest immunity.

Wrong I'm afraid..

No-one (including the police, except for the 'terrorist' reason) can claim privacy unless the photography is either:

covertly taken, or
taken in an inherently private place - i.e. inside a private building.

In a public place you have no right to privacy.

 

[Goldberg]

It's true that police officers have the same right to privacy as the rest of us, but that right is non-existent.

If someone takes a picture of you while they're positioned in a public place, then have not breached any right to privacy.

According to Percy -v- DPP (1994), the only circumstances, currently, in this country, that make the orderly and peaceful taking of a photograph an offence are where doing so is likely to lead directly to a breach of the peace involving violence or the threat of violence.

This means you could face a fine if you take a photo of someone who simply threatens to punch you if you take a photo of them. However, police officers are considered to be trained to not respond with violence to non-violent acts, so they cannot invoke this precedent.

See also the ECHR case Steel And Others -v- The United Kingdom (1998).

CCTV use is subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

[ColJack]

If someone takes a picture of you while they're positioned in a public place, then have not breached any right to privacy.

unless they are using a telephoto lense and talking pictures of you in your house...

 

[Goldberg]

If someone takes a picture of you while they're positioned in a public place, then have not breached any right to privacy.

unless they are using a telephoto lense and talking pictures of you in your house...

And if they did that, which law do you mistakenly think that they would be breaking?

 

[megawatt]

Now I know for sure Goldberg IS MOST DEFINITELY Softus.

No doubt at all folks.

Take a look back over prior Softus posts where anything legal is discussed ... You've been caught out Softy Boy.

Shame on you.

MW

 

[libby lou lou]

Now I know for sure Goldberg IS MOST DEFINITELY Softus.

No doubt at all folks.

Take a look back over prior Softus posts where anything legal is discussed ... You've been caught out Softy Boy.

Shame on you.

MW

Do you realise, you have just blown my operation, ordered by mod 5?

 

[ColJack]

And if they did that, which law do you mistakenly think that they would be breaking?

I never said law.. but they'd breach my right to privacy taking pictures of me i my own home without permission..
or is permission implied by leaving the curtains open?
then why can people be arrested for being a peeping tom then?

they would also be breaching my God given right of "what goes on in a mans bedroom is no ones business but his own"...

 

[joe-90]

If someone takes a picture of you while they're positioned in a public place, then have not breached any right to privacy.

unless they are using a telephoto lense and talking pictures of you in your house...

And if they did that, which law do you mistakenly think that they would be breaking?

The peeping tom laws.