Breach of Human Rights to take a photo?

[Crackle]

Gone mate, went out of fashion along with Lebanese blonde hash, 12" dub reggae records and other stuff...

....blunt humour and comprehension.....

 

[Crackle]

Oh don't worry we think the same of the older lot.

Speak up, we can't hear you.

 

[Dayvo]

Gone mate, went out of fashion along with Lebanese blonde hash, 12" dub reggae records and other stuff...

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYbYEywKLzk

 

[Peteaud]

Words fail me.

 

[vernon]

Oh don't worry we think the same of the older lot.

But we don't care.

 

[MarkF]

You forgot people who believe you are stealing their souls, for them, your behaviour is not on, they will definitely smack your chops. You don't steal souls without permission.

These are the only cases which I believe you cannot take a picture:

• In a private building or on private property.
• A public building where photography is not allowed.
• Taking a picture of a child without the parent/guardians consent.
• Targeting one person and following them around (Harassment).
• Taking an indecent picture of someone.
• Taking a picture breaching someones privacy (personal details, etc).

Anymore then please add to the list.
There were no kid in the car BTW. The vehicle is used by a local pizza delivery company (posters in back window). The driver was on the phone and had a passenger who was more than capable of taking the call or at least notifying the driver of what he was doing was illegal (if he had known).

 

[craigwend]

Doesn't the HRA only apply to public (govt) bodies ?

 

[on the road]

I was walking through town today and noticed a driver on the phone so I took a picture of him. I then saw a police officer soon afterwards and wanted to just notify him to keep a look out for the car, I wasnt expecting him to do anything, just keep an eye out.
So I approached the officer and the convo went something like this:

Me: Hello, I have just seen a white Mazda drive on the phone stopped at the traffic lights just up the road a minute ago. I have taken a picture of him on his phone and a picture of his license plate.
Officer: Unfortunately unless I see him I cannot do anything. Its a negligible offence, which means that I must see him doing it to be able to do something.
M: But I took a picture of him. I can report it to 101 anyway.
O: There's no point. We still cannot do anything. Whats the license number of the vehicle?
M: I'll show you on the picture.
*I hand him the phone*
O: Sorry, I cannot do anything with this. As I said, I need to see the person on the phone.
M: Okay then.

O: BTW, you need to be careful when taking pictures of people.
M: Why?
O: Because it could be a breach of their human rights.
M: But we are in a public place.
O: Did the driver see you?
M: No.
O: Well if he had, he could have requested that you delete the photo and you must do that.
M: But we are in a public place, there is no expectation of privacy. When I am cycling I wear a helmet camera, and that is perfectly legal.
O: Yes, because that is used for recreational and sporting activities. You see these CCTV cameras and the cameras the police use, well we need permission to film in these areas and we cannot distribute the film without the persons consent. Taking a picture of someone is still a breach of their human rights.
M: I could understand if I was targeting the person or following them around because that would be harassment but I was simply taking one picture.
O: You can check it out online if you are not sure. Human Rights Act, Article 8 I believe.
M: Okay, I will check that out when I get home.
O: Okay then, goodbye.
M: Goodbye.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 reads:

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourri...t-to-respect-for-private-and-family-life.html

From what I have read, it seems that the officer was referring to the police and council taking pictures of people. If this is incorrect can someone please correct me because from what I believe, the officer was talking rubbish.

If taking a photo of someone in public space is a breach of their human rights then what about the press taking photos of celebrities, members of the royal family and even suspects in court cases in a public space, isn't that a breach of their human rights?

 

[rich p]

I'm not actually having a pop at him, I guess I just used to have a different idea of fun when I was his age, takes all sorts...

Spanking the monkey is not a hobby.

 

[Cubist]

Depends on the monkey iirc

 

[classic33]

You forgot people who believe you are stealing their souls, for them, your behaviour is not on, they will definitely smack your chops. You don't steal souls without permission.

Offer them a doughnut. Worked for Homer.

 

[Matthew_T]

[QUOTE 2500262, member: 9609"]So the car wasn't even moving ? I know it's technically an offence but FFS get a life.[/quote]
I want to keep my life for as long as possible, and dont want to become another statistic because some selfish prick feels the need to drive whilst on the phone.
I saw him drive up to the lights on the phone and stop. Doesnt matter if he is stopped or not, his engine was running, the keys were in the car, and he was in control of the vehicle (what little control he had).

 

[PRob]

Apart from the misguided rubbish about 'human rights'.... my question to the OP is what did you expect to be done about it? The only option that would of been available to the Pc (after tracking them down) would of been to have voluntary interviewed the driver, inform them that they are being reported for the consideration of prosecuting them for the offence of using a handheld telecommunications device whilst driving a motor vehicle before then submitting a file to the CPS. Your phones memory card will also have been seized in order for the electronic data to be downloaded, along with a lengthy statement from yourself. In the very unlikely event that he CPS decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, then you could have your day in court and see what the magistrates think....

That's before you get switched on defence lawyers involved..... possible ID parades if he denied being the driver, denies being on the phone therefore requiring his phone to be seized and work being done to verify incoming/outgoing calls/ data usage/sms. What if the driver was not a local and was just passing through your town and lived the other end of the country?

Its not as straightforward as saying to the driver 'this bloke said you were on the phone' so here's an £80 fine and 3 points on your license.... It would be challenged (quite rightly) and the ticket would be cancelled and/or the above process would have to happen! Not really very practicable is it?

 

[Cycling Dan]

Apart from the misguided rubbish about 'human rights'.... my question to the OP is what did you expect to be done about it? The only option that would of been available to the Pc (after tracking them down) would of been to have voluntary interviewed the driver, inform them that they are being reported for the consideration of prosecuting them for the offence of using a handheld telecommunications device whilst driving a motor vehicle before then submitting a file to the CPS. Your phones memory card will also have been seized in order for the electronic data to be downloaded, along with a lengthy statement from yourself. In the very unlikely event that he CPS decided that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute, then you could have your day in court and see what the magistrates think....

That's before you get switched on defence lawyers involved..... possible ID parades if he denied being the driver, denies being on the phone therefore requiring his phone to be seized and work being done to verify incoming/outgoing calls/ data usage/sms. What if the driver was not a local and was just passing through your town and lived the other end of the country?

Its not as straightforward as saying to the driver 'this bloke said you were on the phone' so here's an £80 fine and 3 points on your license.... It would be challenged (quite rightly) and the ticket would be cancelled and/or the above process would have to happen! Not really very practicable is it?

A on site ticket can be issued of £60 and 3 points. Not sure if the £100 fine has come in yet if the officer spots the driver doing it. The above could follow.as far as I know if a ticket is issued the driver has to prove they were not on the phone however I could be wrong in this. Although one thing for sure If its issues on site by an officer, that officers word weights more than that of the driver refuting the ticket.
Anyhow you talk to Matthew in the manner above this taking about getting a life but clearly your willing to argue the toss about this. Seems hypocritical to me. As you put it "FFs get a life"

 

[PRob]

You are correct its £60 not £80 (typo on my part)... but you can only get the ticket if its seen being committed by the officer. You can't issue an FPN for something you haven't seen yourself (certain caveats do apply). You have to go down the NIP (notice of intended prosecution) route. There is also a statutory defence to using a mobile whilst driving.