Camera phone user conviction

iain67 said:
Just read this about a bloke taking pictures on his mobile phone, Yet no one ever stops anybody taking shots with these but the minute you pull a dslr out there could be hell up,Dosen't make sense.

http://www.thisisstaffordshire.co.u...otos-women-s/story-13953293-detail/story.html
Click to expand...

How do you figure that?

My read of the story is that he was arrested and jailed, held on remand for 12 months and now has a 2 year supervision order. I doubt the type of camera would/did make a difference.

Mackie, who has repeatedly breached a Sexual Offences Prevention Order, admitted breaching it again and was yesterday placed under supervision for two years.

Judge David Hale pointed out that the 41-year-old has spent the equivalent of at least 12 months in prison while on remand.
Click to expand...
 
Iain, have you ever paused to think that it's only when you get your DSLR out that everyone gets all hell up?

I can't say it's ever been something I've experienced, although the RB67 has been known to scare cattle..
 
I think i've worded the thread wrong:bonk:,What i mean't was you read threads on here about photographer (DSLR) v Security with police etc but rarely do you ever read about people with camera phones been stopped,God knows how much of this goes un-noticed.
 
iain67 said:
I think i've worded the thread wrong:bonk:,What i mean't was you read threads on here about photographer (DSLR) v Security with police etc but rarely do you ever read about people with camera phones been stopped,God knows how much of this goes un-noticed.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you there, I suppose people are just so used to seeing people walking around with a phone in their hand that they pay little notice. It's pretty easy to get close to another person and then snap them with a mobile camera, and will be very difficult to detect as well.
 
Daryl said:
Never in 24 years has any one come up to me and said squat... even at school footy events..... but then 6.4 and built like a brick privey
Click to expand...

same here but I'm 5.7 and the opposite build to you lol
 
If he's perving at bottoms now, won't be long before he moves onto other things, sure we could afford a single bullet well placed in his cranium.
 
SteveH40 said:
If he's perving at bottoms now, won't be long before he moves onto other things, sure we could afford a single bullet well placed in his cranium.
Click to expand...

You want to apply that same logic to those participating in the various "rears" threads running in the porn tits'n'ass nude and glamour section of this forum?
 
Alastair - the thought of using an RB67 as 'covert surveilance' makes me laugh:.....


"Hold there miss while I just do a polaroid. Now can you just stay still while I focus manually?" :lol:
 
Alastair said:
You want to apply that same logic to those participating in the various "rears" threads running in the porn tits'n'ass nude and glamour section of this forum?
Click to expand...

Good point :),and what about the paps and their up the skirt shots.
 
Last edited:
You may scoff Pat.. but the last wedding I was at, I was laying out on a table at the reception Polaroid prints of the bride and wedding party walking up/down the aisle whilst the digital monkeys were peering into 2" screens and didn't see prints for over a week ;)

The shutter slap was waking the bats in the bellfry, mind you..
 
Fair point - plus, there's something tangible about polaroid. Used to love working with it on MF and 5x4" and at times, those polaroids made fantastic images in their own rights :)

can remember the 'KER-CHUNK' of the mirror as it send vibrations through your body :D
 
Alastair said:
You want to apply that same logic to those participating in the various "rears" threads running in the porn tits'n'ass nude and glamour section of this forum?
Click to expand...

Think you've taken it a little out of context, point was he's a serial convicted pervert, most who take photos normally shouldn't be tarred with the same brush surely? :)
 
SteveH40 said:
Think you've taken it a little out of context, point was he's a serial convicted pervert, most who take photos normally shouldn't be tarred with the same brush surely? :)
Click to expand...

No, I was applying it to the context of your post. Your post only referred to, "perving at bottoms", and implied that this was sufficient to warrant a lynching in your opinion.

And I'm sure he was taking photographs in the "normal" manner, point camera (or cameraphone) at subject and press the shutter.

SteveH40 said:
If he's perving at bottoms now, won't be long before he moves onto other things, sure we could afford a single bullet well placed in his cranium.
Click to expand...
 
Alastair said:
No, I was applying it to the context of your post. Your post only referred to, "perving at bottoms", and implied that this was sufficient to warrant a lynching in your opinion.

And I'm sure he was taking photographs in the "normal" manner, point camera (or cameraphone) at subject and press the shutter.
Click to expand...

Well soooorry, had formed my opinion after reading the link from OP.
 
SteveH40 said:
Think you've taken it a little out of context, point was he's a serial convicted pervert, most who take photos normally shouldn't be tarred with the same brush surely? :)
Click to expand...

No we shouldnt,and hopfully were not,but no dout in some people mind we will be :(
 
hmmmm, I think I would be greatly offended if a bloke was taking pictures (specifically) of my rear, whether he was a 'photographer' or not.
 
If I caught someone taking upskirt photos of my wife, I would probably be arrested...
 
I've done a quick google and I'm finding it difficult to ascertain what he actually did - no mention of bums or upskirts - just taking pictures without knowledge or consent - and that the women were reported by police as being distressed when informed after the event.
Andrew Mackie was arrested after he was spotted by police following dozens of women through the centre of Sandbach, taking pictures of them from behind on May 25 this year

Officers found a total of 452 images on his mobile phone of women taken across Crewe, Manchester and Chester over a period of about five years [less than two per week]

"You have a penchant for taking photographs of women but they do not realise that they are being photographed while they are walking along the street.

"You managed for many months not to do it and then you got a telephone and within a week you were taking all these photographs."

Between 2002 and 2004 he received various community orders for harassment and anti-social behaviour, including filming women without their knowledge and consent.

In 2006, Mackie, of Washington, Tyne and Wear, breached his SOPO and was convicted of four charges of voyeurism for taking photos of women without their consent or knowledge.

He was then forbidden from owning a phone with a camera, a camera, or a video camera, or from taking pictures of women.
Click to expand...

Now I'm not suggesting that we have the full story and I would be surprised if there isn't some seriously bad behaviour behind this but from what has been reported, the harassment and voyeurism amounted to taking pictures without the subject's knowledge or consent - something that all of us have probably done at some time.

I tried googling SOPO as well and found that they are civil proceedings that can be made by a magistrate on complaint of a chief officer of police in relation to a 'qualifying offender' - and an offender can qualify by being cautioned for non sexual offences including harassment (which, from the article, might be following and taking pictures without the subject's knowledge).

It seems to me that there is a danger here of cries of 'pervert' being used to justify curtailing photographers freedoms in the same way that cries of 'terrorist' have been used in the past.
 
Last edited:
he sounds like a technology-rich peeping tom to me. CPS wouldn't have let it go to court unless they considered it to be serious
 
weybourne said:
It seems to me that there is a danger here of cries of 'pervert' being used to justify curtailing photographers freedoms in the same way that cries of 'terrorist' have been used in the past.
Click to expand...

I was thinking somewhat along the same lines, if he's photographing them in a public place I don't understand the problem.

This all reminds me of Miroslav Tichy, he rather obsessively took photographs of women without their knowledge using crude home made cameras, lots of people thought he was mad and the cameras were just toys.

He's now regarded by some as one of the most interesting Czech photographers of 1970's, and there is something rather beautiful about some of his photos.

See here: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mi...i&biw=1464&bih=904&sei=3x_RTte_McmphAeRzY3eBw
 
sturisoma said:
he sounds like a technology-rich peeping tom to me. CPS wouldn't have let it go to court unless they considered it to be serious
Click to expand...

The article reports that he went to court for and admitted breaching the SOPO (a civil proceeding) - an order forbidding him from owning a phone with a camera, a camera, or a video camera, or from taking pictures of women - so having a camera-phone with or without taking pictures was enough to take him to and successfully try him in court.

When I first read the article (linked by the OP), the only detail of what he'd actually done that I could find was
convicted of four charges of voyeurism for taking photos of women without their consent or knowledge
Click to expand...

I've just resorted to google again and have discovered that there is a criminal offence of voyeurism created by and defined within the 'Sexual Offences Act 2003' - which I wasn't aware of when I first read the article and made my post above. Reading section 67 of that act throws some more light on it.

I do still think that there is a danger of such incidents being used to support arguments or behaviours aimed at curtailing legitimate photographic activity.
 
you get the feeling that there is something more underneath than whats been written though, the police and magistrates let far more serious crimes go unpunished.
 
read the sub post people, "SEX OFFENDER" what would you do if you knew this guy ? lock him up and throw away the key, he`s using a cellfone camera trying to get images of who knows what/who on the sly, slimeball warrants locking up since he ignored warnings prior to his arrest !!
 
I think that the selection of pictures is disappointing, why can't we see some of the evidence from this case?
 
weybourne said:
I tried googling SOPO as well and found that they are civil proceedings that can be made by a magistrate on complaint of a chief officer of police in relation to a 'qualifying offender' - and an offender can qualify by being cautioned for non sexual offences including harassment (which, from the article, might be following and taking pictures without the subject's knowledge).
Click to expand...

Yup, AFAIK, it's similar to an Anti-Social Behaviour Order, which may result in criminal sanction for behaviour which is not itself criminal in statute law.

s67 of the 2003 act requires that the subject was photographed without consent while doing a 'private act', for the sexual gratification of the photographer. There's essentially a requirement of breach of intimate privacy (e.g. while in the toilet, etc.).

Neither of the stories suggest that the women were photographed in that situation, but that the offender breached a previous order.

The offender was previously jailed for two years for the same or a similar SOPO breach in 2009 ("taking snapshots of women’s cleavages and rears").

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/jailed_for_indecent_train_snaps_1_202329

Apparently the SOPO banned him from owning a camera for life after an offence under the 2003 Act, committed in 2006.
 
IMO, the key here is taking the photo without the subject's knowledge or consent.

I know there's an element of this in street photography but generally speaking a photographer doing this will be in plain sight carrying a large camera.

In this instance there would appear to be a deliberate attempt to conceal what this guy is doing giving the subject no chance see this and request him to stop.

On top of that it sounds like this guy is a serial offender so this is just one in a line of sanctions to try and stop him.

Sounds like a sick puppy to me and either needs proper help or putting down (again, just my opinion ;) )
 
Russ77 said:
IMO, the key here is taking the photo without the subject's knowledge or consent.

I know there's an element of this in street photography but generally speaking a photographer doing this will be in plain sight carrying a large camera.

In this instance there would appear to be a deliberate attempt to conceal what this guy is doing giving the subject no chance see this and request him to stop.
Click to expand...

Sick, well, maybe. But taking pics in a public place is not illegal, whether the photographer conceals the camera or not.
 
The specific problem here was that he was apparently already under a legal order preventing him from owning or using a camera.

That was the thing that got him sent back to prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top