By way of diffusing things with a little self depreciating humour...
Tazi - I can't direct you to any 'law' that says it's ok for me to wear fishnets on the weekend. For things that are allowed and perfectly reasonable, there isn't a set of written statutes. We can just get on with it.
If I lived in Saudi Arabia, then there probably is a law that would criminalise me for doing so. And maybe have me tarred and stoned at dawn.
And of course, it definitely makes courier drivers think twice about taking photos of me...
Tazi - I can't direct you to any 'law' that says it's ok for me to wear fishnets on the weekend. For things that are allowed and perfectly reasonable, there isn't a set of written statutes. We can just get on with it.
If I lived in Saudi Arabia, then there probably is a law that would criminalise me for doing so. And maybe have me tarred and stoned at dawn.
And of course, it definitely makes courier drivers think twice about taking photos of me...
In reply to Post #90
If they are filming from a public place then they are breaking no law.If they are filming your house they don't need permission but they could be charged with causing distress and harassment but would normally have to be doing it on more than one occasion.The law needs making clearer on what is allowed and not,you cannot record or photograph on private property without the landowners permission that is law.Go have a walk around a shopping centre and record,you will be thrown out.If you have cctv installed on your home you cannot have it recording into your neighbours gardens as you have to respect their privacy,I can't even have mine facing a public access walkway at the side of my house but it can record the pavement at the front of my house.Try to work that one out,the pavement joins the walkway but it can not be recorded
If they are filming from a public place then they are breaking no law.If they are filming your house they don't need permission but they could be charged with causing distress and harassment but would normally have to be doing it on more than one occasion.The law needs making clearer on what is allowed and not,you cannot record or photograph on private property without the landowners permission that is law.Go have a walk around a shopping centre and record,you will be thrown out.If you have cctv installed on your home you cannot have it recording into your neighbours gardens as you have to respect their privacy,I can't even have mine facing a public access walkway at the side of my house but it can record the pavement at the front of my house.Try to work that one out,the pavement joins the walkway but it can not be recorded
In reply to Post #90
A courier or any joe public requires permission from the land owner to take photographs of the occupant when on their land. If they want to take a photograph of the doorstep with a parcel on it ‘they can even photograph the door too if they so wish' as proof that they have delivered as that to me doesn't give cause for concern as I do not see it as an issue. Quite why a courier believes taking a photo of a person inside their own home is acceptable or even required is beyond me.
The circumstances I describe, perhaps you can expand a little on that one as the only circumstance that I've described is of a courier taking a photograph of my wife.
Now you have made it clear that the auditor is on a public footpath, and ‘not on my land' taking photographs of my house. First of all my response to this in short is that there is nothing I could do about it.
Got to love when officers approach an auditor that is filming a public building ‘namely a police station'' from a public place ‘breaking no law' that they throw into the discussion about how suspicious it looks ‘suspicion isn't a crime' to be taking photos of a police building and how it would look to them if someone photographed their house. As soon as they come out with this which isn't relevant, they then proceed to come out with other stuff that has no relevance and just delaying their inevitable walk of shame. If the police have an issue with any of the above then they have a right to lobby their MP in seeking to get the law changed, and should not impinge on a photographers lawful rights as own personal opinions do not trump their rights.
As for auditing I believe they do a great job in exposing tyrants and those that violate people's rights. I got no problem with police, just the bad ones.
A courier or any joe public requires permission from the land owner to take photographs of the occupant when on their land. If they want to take a photograph of the doorstep with a parcel on it ‘they can even photograph the door too if they so wish' as proof that they have delivered as that to me doesn't give cause for concern as I do not see it as an issue. Quite why a courier believes taking a photo of a person inside their own home is acceptable or even required is beyond me.
The circumstances I describe, perhaps you can expand a little on that one as the only circumstance that I've described is of a courier taking a photograph of my wife.
Now you have made it clear that the auditor is on a public footpath, and ‘not on my land' taking photographs of my house. First of all my response to this in short is that there is nothing I could do about it.
Got to love when officers approach an auditor that is filming a public building ‘namely a police station'' from a public place ‘breaking no law' that they throw into the discussion about how suspicious it looks ‘suspicion isn't a crime' to be taking photos of a police building and how it would look to them if someone photographed their house. As soon as they come out with this which isn't relevant, they then proceed to come out with other stuff that has no relevance and just delaying their inevitable walk of shame. If the police have an issue with any of the above then they have a right to lobby their MP in seeking to get the law changed, and should not impinge on a photographers lawful rights as own personal opinions do not trump their rights.
As for auditing I believe they do a great job in exposing tyrants and those that violate people's rights. I got no problem with police, just the bad ones.
In reply to Post #92
One thing I would say ‘I'll gladly be corrected' is that you can legally film in a shopping centre without fear of being kicked out, unless of course you're breaking a law'. A shopping centre can indeed be privately owned land but it is also publicly accessible so legally you're allowed to film and security cannot prevent or kick you out.
A video by the name of Reggie photo uploaded to YouTube titled BURY VLOG PT 1 is an interesting educational watch.
One thing I would say ‘I'll gladly be corrected' is that you can legally film in a shopping centre without fear of being kicked out, unless of course you're breaking a law'. A shopping centre can indeed be privately owned land but it is also publicly accessible so legally you're allowed to film and security cannot prevent or kick you out.
A video by the name of Reggie photo uploaded to YouTube titled BURY VLOG PT 1 is an interesting educational watch.
In reply to Post #91
I'm certain that the poster in question would have no problem pointing me to a link where it states what I am saying. I do admit that it is the posters right to choose not to look too hard though.
I'm certain that the poster in question would have no problem pointing me to a link where it states what I am saying. I do admit that it is the posters right to choose not to look too hard though.
Interesting to see that a PCSO on duty goes into a shopping centre which is patrolled by security staff after it is brought to his attention that he has no right to be in here after claiming that this was his patch. It's not his patch as he is paid from the taxpayers and should be serving the public outside.
Businesses totally oblivious that by having their computer screens facing outwards towards the public with personal information on are breaking DATA protection laws.
The thing I hate about these idiots filming police stations etc is that they are doing it purely to get a rise out of people. Just because something like filming or taking photos of a police station isn't illegal doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged/questioned. What possible reason could you have for wanting to film police stations, schools, hospitals etc? Apart from to stand there like a cock just saying “iM noT DOinG anYThInG iLlEgaL”
Take this scenario for example.
Some weirdo is filming a school, hospital or whatever for weeks and weeks and because it's “legal” they are not challenged or questioned then this weirdo goes on to blow up the hospital or shoot up the school killing untolds of people
Do you think people would be happy when the police come out and say “well we saw them scouting the place out for weeks but because we didn't want to cause offence and what they were doing isn't illegal we decided not to act on it”
There would be uproar!!
Take this scenario for example.
Some weirdo is filming a school, hospital or whatever for weeks and weeks and because it's “legal” they are not challenged or questioned then this weirdo goes on to blow up the hospital or shoot up the school killing untolds of people
Do you think people would be happy when the police come out and say “well we saw them scouting the place out for weeks but because we didn't want to cause offence and what they were doing isn't illegal we decided not to act on it”
There would be uproar!!
In reply to Post #98
The problem you have got is the chief of police sent a memo out to all police stations regarding this.The memo told the police not to challenge these auditors and to leave them be
The problem you have got is the chief of police sent a memo out to all police stations regarding this.The memo told the police not to challenge these auditors and to leave them be
In reply to Post #98
If they left them alone then they wouldn't get a rise. However, when they do and an officer doesn't even understand the law then they get an education, hopefully learn from it and move on. Unfortunately some don't.
Officers copsplaining about this and that over terrorism and that information gained ‘which once again can even be gained from a dash cam' can be used for a terrorism attack ‘so can a dash cam but the drivers aren't confronted' and yet there is nothing to confirm their opinion. That's all it is an opinion so shouldn't abuse their powers by attempting to stop what auditors have a legal right to do. Paranoia at its finest. It's good fun though watching those officers getting tied up in knots due to not knowing the law. I wonder just how many rights of the unsuspected public are actually infringed upon by police because they do not know them?.
A lad on his way to work gets pulled over by police officers, proceeds to demand his name and address and before he knew it he was arrested and bundled into the back of the police car.. Thankfully it was caught on film and the police admitted that they were bang out of order. Hopefully that tyrant lost his job.
If they left them alone then they wouldn't get a rise. However, when they do and an officer doesn't even understand the law then they get an education, hopefully learn from it and move on. Unfortunately some don't.
Officers copsplaining about this and that over terrorism and that information gained ‘which once again can even be gained from a dash cam' can be used for a terrorism attack ‘so can a dash cam but the drivers aren't confronted' and yet there is nothing to confirm their opinion. That's all it is an opinion so shouldn't abuse their powers by attempting to stop what auditors have a legal right to do. Paranoia at its finest. It's good fun though watching those officers getting tied up in knots due to not knowing the law. I wonder just how many rights of the unsuspected public are actually infringed upon by police because they do not know them?.
A lad on his way to work gets pulled over by police officers, proceeds to demand his name and address and before he knew it he was arrested and bundled into the back of the police car.. Thankfully it was caught on film and the police admitted that they were bang out of order. Hopefully that tyrant lost his job.
In reply to Post #93
How can I expand on the circumstances you describe when you are the one that told the story?
As I've explained to you, there is no law that prevents the courier from taking a photograph of your wife at the open door showing the successful delivery of your parcel. If you don't like it, don't order online as it seems to be a widespread practice nowadays for the company to protect themselves from vexatious claims and couriers being less than professional when delivering.
If you put up signs requesting no photos then you may be able to do something about if they continue to do so. This would be a tort and not a criminal matter.
I don't see why you have a hard time understanding why I can't link to something that doesn't exist. The Human Rights Act (1988) gives you a right to privacy but you asked for the delivery. I'd be amazed if you found a solicitor who'd go down that avenue with you but please, give one a ring.
You have requested a delivery, therefore the courier has implied consent to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the agreement you made when you clicked. Part of that service is to take a photograph and their terms for the use and storage of the images should be available to you if you look.
You cannot take images in a shopping centre without permission if their terms forbid it as it is private land. It isn't illegal, they will just ask you to leave. Refuse and they can ask the police to assist in your removal but there is no criminal element in the taking of photographs unless there is reasonable suspicion by the officer of terrorism, but let's not open that can of worms.
Lastly, are you sure that if a guy turned up and set up a big old camera and tripod on the pavement and starting live streaming the front of your house to YouTube you wouldn't be bothered in the slightest? Considering how upset you are by the courier I find that hard to believe.
How can I expand on the circumstances you describe when you are the one that told the story?
As I've explained to you, there is no law that prevents the courier from taking a photograph of your wife at the open door showing the successful delivery of your parcel. If you don't like it, don't order online as it seems to be a widespread practice nowadays for the company to protect themselves from vexatious claims and couriers being less than professional when delivering.
If you put up signs requesting no photos then you may be able to do something about if they continue to do so. This would be a tort and not a criminal matter.
I don't see why you have a hard time understanding why I can't link to something that doesn't exist. The Human Rights Act (1988) gives you a right to privacy but you asked for the delivery. I'd be amazed if you found a solicitor who'd go down that avenue with you but please, give one a ring.
You have requested a delivery, therefore the courier has implied consent to fulfil their obligation under the terms of the agreement you made when you clicked. Part of that service is to take a photograph and their terms for the use and storage of the images should be available to you if you look.
You cannot take images in a shopping centre without permission if their terms forbid it as it is private land. It isn't illegal, they will just ask you to leave. Refuse and they can ask the police to assist in your removal but there is no criminal element in the taking of photographs unless there is reasonable suspicion by the officer of terrorism, but let's not open that can of worms.
Lastly, are you sure that if a guy turned up and set up a big old camera and tripod on the pavement and starting live streaming the front of your house to YouTube you wouldn't be bothered in the slightest? Considering how upset you are by the courier I find that hard to believe.
In reply to Post #101
In legal terms I couldn't do anything, could phone the police claiming that I'm alarmed and distressed. In illegal terms I never said it wouldn't bother me just that legally standing I can't really do anything.
Edit - If it isn't illegal ‘which it isn't in a shopping centre' there terms does not over ride' what is legal. Call the police by all means but even they unless you're causing a disturbance can't make you leave. You do not need the owners permission to film as it is publicly assessable. Edit - I do stand to be corrected but I'm sure it would be a civil and not legal matter.
Edit - I'm not asking you to find something that doesn't exist but to find something which states that it's against the law. It's out there but I cannot do links.
What is tort?. In the context of it I assume you meant civil?.
In legal terms I couldn't do anything, could phone the police claiming that I'm alarmed and distressed. In illegal terms I never said it wouldn't bother me just that legally standing I can't really do anything.
Edit - If it isn't illegal ‘which it isn't in a shopping centre' there terms does not over ride' what is legal. Call the police by all means but even they unless you're causing a disturbance can't make you leave. You do not need the owners permission to film as it is publicly assessable. Edit - I do stand to be corrected but I'm sure it would be a civil and not legal matter.
Edit - I'm not asking you to find something that doesn't exist but to find something which states that it's against the law. It's out there but I cannot do links.
What is tort?. In the context of it I assume you meant civil?.
Are these 'auditors' just a bunch of you tube plicks intentionally looking for confrontation?
If so that's a stupid and shortsighted thing to do, it seems likely to lead to new legislation that further restricts our rights and freedoms.
If so that's a stupid and shortsighted thing to do, it seems likely to lead to new legislation that further restricts our rights and freedoms.
In reply to Post #103
They do a pretty good job of that themselves without an auditors input.
They do a pretty good job of that themselves without an auditors input.
In reply to Post #104
Ive been less than impressed with most of my dealings with them, but if you intentionally look for confrontation with them you deserve to get pepper sprayed imo.
It's not illegal for me to give my front garden a prune with a machete, but I know doing so will likely see me getting a visit.
I really don't get how your so impressed with these auditors while crying about the postman knocking one out over your wife's slippers
Ive been less than impressed with most of my dealings with them, but if you intentionally look for confrontation with them you deserve to get pepper sprayed imo.
It's not illegal for me to give my front garden a prune with a machete, but I know doing so will likely see me getting a visit.
I really don't get how your so impressed with these auditors while crying about the postman knocking one out over your wife's slippers