Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So was mine, and at least I had exactly the same situation, but changed it to a child for added effect. You invented an entirely new scenario.


You cannot go around photographing people's genitals without their consent, whatever the situation. As you say, you either accept the law or you don't, you can't pick and choose what is legal and what isn't.

The OP was photographing an act of law breaking. The OP was not setting out to photograph genitals. The display of genitals was an act of that law breaking. That's how the law would see it. When you break the law you lose the right to consent to reasonable acts to catch you committing that crime. In the absence of a law enforcer (i.e. police) use of photography and CCTV is perfectly reasonable.


It's blatently clear to all why the OP was offended and why the OP took that picture. To suggest otherwise is nonsense. Equally, to challenge the right to confront those behaving in an unlawful way is also nonsense.


I do think location is key here. We are not talking about some discreet alley in the dead of night. We are talking about an open space, next to a children's playground, a busy throughfare for pedestrians, and ironically the wall of an open bar/ restaurant that has toilets inside. Put all of that together and I see very little in terms of defense of this guy, and fail to see anything to criticise in the actions of the OP.

Have you been to Charing Cross recently after 8PM


Open air toilets is the new thing, :)




Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Don't know if I read the OP wrong but to me the

> most offensive part is that he apparently chose to

> pee on a piece of street art.

>

> Peeing openly in the street is unarguably

> antisocial. I accept there are mitigating

> circumstances sometimes but it's certainly not

> acceptable social behaviour or people would do it

> totally openly, wouldn't they. If a man walked up

> to the entrance of Sainsbury's on a Saturday

> morning and casually peed against the glass he'd

> be arrested before he'd zipped his trousers up. It

> seems that as long as a man makes a half-hearted

> attempt to conceal what he's doing then some

> people think it's OK, which is a bit strange when

> you think about it.

Well here's the list if you're caught out and don't want to buy a half in the pub or a coffee in Nero's.


http://www.southwark.gov.uk/a_to_z/service/405/public_toilets


So as a society we get what we deserve maybe.



PokerTime Wrote:

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

> The OP was photographing an act of law breaking.

> The OP was not setting out to photograph genitals.

> The display of genitals was an act of that law

> breaking. That's how the law would see it. When

> you break the law you lose the right to consent to

> reasonable acts to catch you committing that

> crime. In the absence of a law enforcer (i.e.

> police) use of photography and CCTV is perfectly

> reasonable.

>

> It's blatently clear to all why the OP was

> offended and why the OP took that picture. To

> suggest otherwise is nonsense. Equally, to

> challenge the right to confront those behaving in

> an unlawful way is also nonsense.

>

> I do think location is key here. We are not

> talking about some discreet alley in the dead of

> night. We are talking about an open space, next to

> a children's playground, a busy throughfare for

> pedestrians, and ironically the wall of an open

> bar/ restaurant that has toilets inside. Put all

> of that together and I see very little in terms of

> defense of this guy, and fail to see anything to

> criticise in the actions of the OP.

'Having asked to use the pubs toilet and they declined i had little option with my bladder problem but to go outside. There seemed little cover in the area so used a wall and was startled by someone shouting at me and taking pictures. I tried to laugh it off to show that i wasnt dangerous or intimidating, shook myself dry and then just walked away to avoid confrontation'.

Actually I've known a few people who stopped going out when they had

issues such as this or if they did planned every movement around the

availability of a WC. You don't even think about it if you don't.


It's worse if you have a stoma or such.


mako Wrote:

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

> 'Having asked to use the pubs toilet and they

> declined i had little option with my bladder

> problem but to go outside. There seemed little

> cover in the area so used a wall and was startled

> by someone shouting at me and taking pictures. I

> tried to laugh it off to show that i wasnt

> dangerous or intimidating, shook myself dry and

> then just walked away to avoid confrontation'.

adonirum Wrote:

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

> sean dillion Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Am taking bets on our many pages we get on

> this,l

> > say 8 do l hear a 9?

>

> Nearly there Sean was a good guess

>

> Despair not, Steveo, should stop soon.


Thank you kind sir/lady

Lilliers HQ, 1914


...We all waited about in the lane outside the chateau. There were perhaps two or three hundred of us and we made a large crowd. Whilst standing about, a French courting couple came down the lane arm in arm. They were talking one with the other and walked past us on their way to the village. When they had got about fifty yards past us, the chap stopped and passed water in the gutter, his girl still having her arm through his and quite unconcerned, was chatting away to him.


This of course, the men could not help noticing and they acted in different ways. Some turned away their heads, others roared with laughter, while others called out to the couple that they ought to be ashamed of themselves. The couple, who took not much notice of any of it, perhaps wondered what it was all about for the French sense of decency was far different from out own.


Extract from "Harry's War: a Tommy's experiences in World War One"



Plus ca change

She's a killer qu....::


"you don't. You can't pick and choose what is legal and what isn't."


Sounds reasonable. Know ANYONE who is that holy? You don't knowingly break any laws? None?


Unrelated sidenote. Ivy house is doing well. Many said it wouldn't you know

StraferJack Wrote:

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

> She's a killer qu....::

>

> "you don't. You can't pick and choose what is

> legal and what isn't."

>

> Sounds reasonable. Know ANYONE who is that holy?

> You don't knowingly break any laws? None?

>

> Unrelated sidenote. Ivy house is doing well. Many

> said it wouldn't you know


xxxxxxx


Very naughty, Strafer Jack :))

If they are in a public space you can photograph them without consent


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


> You cannot go around photographing people's

> genitals without their consent, whatever the

> situation. As you say, you either accept the law

> or you don't, you can't pick and choose what is

> legal and what isn't.

dennis Wrote:

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

> If they are in a public space you can photograph

> them without consent


You can photograph them, but purposely photographing their genitals is an entirely different offence to simple photographic consent. See all the cases of 'upskirt' offences.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym
    • Ah, thanks,  it all comes flooding back. I've actually been to the Hastings shop, I'd forgotten all about it, along with her name! Didn't she (in between?)  take over what  was then The Magnolia, previously The Magdala, now The Lordship, with her then partner? Or is that some figment of my imagination?  In fact, didn't they transform it from The Magdala (much missed) to The Magnolia? With flowery wallpaper covering the front of the bar? Which reminds me of the pub's brief period after The Magnolia  as the ill-conceived and ill-fated The Patch.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...