Man Fined for Taking Photograph

so every time the fly on the wall cop shows shove a camera in your face "when you is under the influence sir" are the camera men going to be fined
"cause i only wanted me privacy when i was spewing in the gutter your lordship"
 
"I'm going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it."
Click to expand...

So going by that statement, your not allowed to help someone in need, just leave them to it lol.
 
It is a load of rubbish, its not illegal to take a picture of anyone - so how the court can rule that is wrong, its not like he harrased her, he probably didnt even talk to her - if he used a zoom lens and was miles away, i bet nothing would of happened, he would have a shot, and no one would be any wiser.

Silly courts.
 
combat squirrel said:
It is a load of rubbish, its not illegal to take a picture of anyone - so how the court can rule that is wrong, its not like he harrased her, he probably didnt even talk to her - if he used a zoom lens and was miles away, i bet nothing would of happened, he would have a shot, and no one would be any wiser.

Silly courts.
Click to expand...
Yes they would ....ME .... but like you SO WHAT:clap:
 
Well I never open doors for women so Sheriff Kenneth Hogg is going to empty my bank account in fines.

I actually think Sheriff Kenneth Hogg should lose his job, as his personal moral beliefs should not allow him to make up laws willy nilly.
 
combat squirrel said:
It is a load of rubbish, its not illegal to take a picture of anyone - so how the court can rule that is wrong, its not like he harassed her, he probably didn't even talk to her - if he used a zoom lens and was miles away, i bet nothing would of happened, he would have a shot, and no one would be any wiser.

Silly courts.
Click to expand...

Could be charged as harassment, although it wouldn't it have to be on two separate occasions? And using a zoom lens would be even more reason to take it as harassment.

But I'm sure if you were the one drunk and vomiting then you'd be pretty inclined to call the cops as well. I'm wondering why he didn't just walk away?

And of all people, why did it have to be a Polish guy? :bang:
 
I have spent a lot of time in scotland over the years meeting many very nice people but there is a problem with outsiders I do wonder if it had been a scots man photographing would the out come have been the same ?? to the judge :razz: No offence to the scots
 
As a Sassenach living up here, if it had been a Scot that took the pic there'd have been a 50-50 chance he'd have been done for racist behaviour as well.

I think there is more to this story than has been printed, but the legal decision is about the normal standard for Sherrif courts.
 
The women was most likly ashamed of her position, thats why she was upset.
Would this have happened in England, as i understand there are different laws ?
 
He should appeal that the law says that it is legal to take a photograph in a public place as long as you are not breaking any other laws such as causing an obstruction or committing a breach of the peace.Being unchivalrous was not a crime last time I looked although chivalry is an attribute all of us should have
 
Personally I would not have taken the picture, firstly because I dont think its an interesting subject, secondly I think its not the right thing to do.

Some people just don't like to have their picture taken, if i ever take a picture of someone I don't know, I always, always ask first.

I dont think photographers have the right to take photos of people in distress. That leads into the Princess of Wales debate about what the paps did to her whilst she laid dying. Its all about morals I suppose.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
He should appeal that the law says that it is legal to take a photograph in a public place as long as you are not breaking any other laws such as causing an obstruction or committing a breach of the peace.Being unchivalrous was not a crime last time I looked although chivalry is an attribute all of us should have
Click to expand...

Right or wrong that's what they charged and convicted him on.
'He was arrested and charged with breach of the peace, and pleaded guilty to the offence at Edinburgh Sheriff Court.'
 
i suspect "under the weather" means pi***d as a fart, lying spreadeagle on the pavement with her credentials on display....... and young gentleman gets his camera phone out.
NOT, lets take a shot of her kebab with my 1Dmk11S.
probably not in the best taste, but knicked for being a pillock , rather than the actual act of photography as such.


previously being a taxi driver for 12 years, sadly , ive seen a lot of "kebab" in the early hours outside pubs n clubs.usualy sat against a wall, knees pulled in to chest, too p****d to be aware of anything.
its a sad world.
 
Do you think Sheriff Hogg is any relation to Boss Hogg :lol:
 
I'm sure there must be something more to this story than has been let on. The law can't hand out fines left, right and centre just because someone is ****ed and "distressed".
 
alexkidd said:
the sherriff is a tool, simple as
Click to expand...

Yeah, because everything you read on the internet is the truth and gives the whole story :thinking:

P.S - Proclamations are more believable when spelled correctly imo :razz:
 
POAH said:
he pleaded guilty thats why he was fined lol
Click to expand...

How's about you don't call everyone morons? you might not agree but maybe a more helpful reply stating your reasons or not posting at all might be more well taken.
 
jimmy_lemon and everything we read on the internet is a lie as well yeah?

based on what i've read the guy is a tool and from your response i'd gather the same about you?
 
If a tog came up to take my pic while I was feeling ill I'd do my best to chuck on his camera. But other than that if I was in a public place getting drunk it's my look out and I can't complaint about it.

Then again if I was the one with the camera - why why why would I even want to get a picture of that?

Silly debate really though given that what you read in the paper may be the truth - but not the while truth. We cant debate right or wrong without the full facts.
 
true, but surely this sets a precedent against reportage style photography capturing life in general
 
It would if it were that simple. But like I was trying to say - there might be parts to the story we haven't seen so it's impossible to say if it is something likely to cause future issues.

The fact breach of the peac was mentioned makes me wonder if the incident got out of hand in terms of people getting upset and tempers flaring. In that case the charge was perhaps justified.

If the photographer was asked to stop but refused to do so then that would constitute a possible breach of the peace.

The newspapers simply make a more interesting story out of it all.
 
AndyB is making the common sense response here. ;)

Breach of The Peace is a Common Law offence and there are actually two offences... either causing a BoP or conduct whereby a BoP is likely to be occasioned.

We're not hearing the full story here I'm sure, but reading between the lines, this is a party of people outside a pub all the worse for a few tipples, one of them throwing up, who've got more than a little upset about this guy taking pics of the incident, and probably not being too discreet about it by the look of it. Most sensible people would not expect a favourable reaction from the group in this situation, and that's the POV which the Sherrif seems to have taken.
 
Err CT what was that wink for? Don't I always talk sense? :thinking::)
 
LOL.I dunno - but you did on this occasion.
 
Grockle said:
As a Sassenach living up here, if it had been a Scot that took the pic there'd have been a 50-50 chance he'd have been done for racist behaviour as well.

I think there is more to this story than has been printed, but the legal decision is about the normal standard for Sherrif courts.
Click to expand...

I hope my comment were not taken wrong you sassenach's have always welcomed me and fed me very well, but the racist thing is a global problem :thumbs:
 
CT said:
AndyB is making the common sense response here. ;)

Breach of The Peace is a Common Law offence and there are actually two offences... either causing a BoP or conduct whereby a BoP is likely to be occasioned.

We're not hearing the full story here I'm sure, but reading between the lines, this is a party of people outside a pub all the worse for a few tipples, one of them throwing up, who've got more than a little upset about this guy taking pics of the incident, and probably not being too discreet about it by the look of it. Most sensible people would not expect a favourable reaction from the group in this situation, and that's the POV which the Sherrif seems to have taken.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
Right, I'll try and clear up a few things here, without replying to the many posts on this thread which are either wrong or inaccurate.

Here's the definition of Breach of the Peace in Scotland, it differs from England and there is no direct crime of Harrassment in Scotland either (there is legislation for certain instances but I'll not go into that here).

Breach of the Peace is a Crime at Common Law, constituted when one or more persons conducts himself (or herself) or themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner , anywhere, to the alarm, annoyance or disturbance of the lieges (ie anybody else).

The basis of the crime is any mode of conduct which has caused either alarm, annoyance or dusturbance to anybody else. It's important too, to be aware you can commit a BoP ANYWHERE, even in yor own living room. The public place argument is irrelivant.

Tecnichally, anything you you do which p*sses anybody else off can fall under the realms of a Breach of the Peace up here. Mostly, common sense prevails but if a person reports to the Police an instance of a BoP, the Police are duty bound to take action and investigate it. There are several courses of action the Police can take without someone going to Court though.

For what it's worth, I think this particular incident was over reacted to but that was not necessarily the Police's fault and the Sheriff was just handing out a sentence he deemed fit on the evidence presented in front of him.

That is the Law up here I'm afraid, you don't have to agree with it but that's how it is.
 
grumpy69 - no probs. I've never had a major problem yet but over here on the west coast nearly every other crime report in the local paper has racial parts to it. From what I've seen most of it is Scot on Scot, is more bigotry than anything else and gets classed in law as racial.
 
Grockle said:
grumpy69 - no probs. I've never had a major problem yet but over here on the west coast nearly every other crime report in the local paper has racial parts to it. From what I've seen most of it is Scot on Scot, is more bigotry than anything else and gets classed in law as racial.
Click to expand...

Seem like it would be easy to get in trouble up there :eek: changing the subject a bit, when heating up a meat pie in a chip shop WHY do they throw in in the fryer :gag: it was a bit greasy :lol: this was in Ayr.
 
Scottish and English/Welsh law is different in many respects.

BOP is NOT a statutory offence in its own right and in England/Wales you can only be bound over to keep the peace. If you then cause another BOP you are then in breach of the binding over from the court.

There are a number of offences that have been mentioned or that it skirts close to but none of them really fit and any good solicitor would have this thrown out south of the border.

Harrassment - Nope, requires more than one incident
Section 5 public order act - This is about the closest but it would be rather flimsey and I doubt it would get past CPS/supervision before even getting to court.
 
grumpy69 said:
when heating up a meat pie in a chip shop WHY do they throw in in the fryer :gag: it was a bit greasy :lol: this was in Ayr.
Click to expand...

They do the same with pizza here. Deep fried pizza and chips covered with gravy. I can just about take the deep fried pie but not the pizza. :D
 
He should appeal, techncally he was allowed to shoot that photo, he wasn't the one causing a breach of the peace, the people giving him a hard time would have been the ones doing that.
As for the chivalry bit, that was a knights code of honor, was the Polish chap a knight? I doubt it, therefore he's not obliged to follow an outdated code of behaviour once used by Knights (not a legal code you understand, just good practice) Personally I think the judge need to be brough into the 21 century, I'm supprised he wasn't sent to the workhouse or the tredmill by this prat! Wayne
 
I guess it would have been ok if it were Charlotte Church or Lily Allen!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top