Stupid Local Council

If the park is a public place, he can ignore the council's email. I certainly would, in fact, I probably wouldn't have asked for permission in the first place.

Curently, in a public place, there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, hence all the council run CCTV systems in town and city centres, including in some parks too. All operators of such systems are required, by law, to display clear signage indicating the use of CCTV.
Same goes with any prohibitions such as, in this case, photography in a public place. If there is no clear signage indicating prohibition of photography, then the council has no right to try and ban it or enforce prohibition without first making it clear to the public.

I used to get this a lot at a building I once worked in, which was a very modern and whacky design. We often used to get people, many of them design / architecture students, on the street outside our campus taking photos. The security manager made it clear that if seen, the on-site security officers were to immediately challenge them. My counter argument was that they were free to do so from the public street, where we had zero jurisdiction - much to his annoyance, I backed this up with an email from our legal director!
I have been stopped also on the business park where I work by an over-zeaous security officer, who came running from a building telling me to stop taking photos - it's a beautiful lanscaped area with a large lake and full of wildlife. I simply pointed out the signs a few feet away, bearing the borough council logo and the words "Public Footpath" and educated him on his lack of jurisdiction outside his assigned private property.
Bottom line is, I get the feeling that many people, including those working at local authorities (I use that word loosely), are completely ignorant of the laws and just like to assert their little bit of power.

Of course, this is nothing new...

I just loved the story of the NW Council that fined a person for allowing their dog to foul the land. They used RIPA - quite outside the bounds of what the regulations are meant to be for - to use cameras to spy on dog owners! (Hate owners that don't clean up after their dogs - poor training, of Dog and Owner :twisted

Beware - they are out there - everywhere...

link

Much as I miss Britain at times, this sort of thing makes me glad I'm in the Netherlands.

Really? I think it's a really really bad thing. I occasionally walk through parks. And yes I do take pics of kids if they're in the park. Kids make for great candids.

It's a bad thing for society to fall foul of peado-paranoia.

Oh for god's sake. So paranoid.


They shouldn't stop people taking photographs of people. I love taking photographs of people. In fact after reading your post, the next time I go out shooting, I am going to photograph even more people. Including children.

It's up to us to fight back against this paranoid nonsense.

As I said in my earlier post there is NO law against us photographing people in public places.
David

I'm always interested in the law as quoted by people. I'm unaware of any laws that deal with the issues you raise in respectof notices, and I wonder if you would be kind enough to help me out by giving an act, and possibly a section of that act which deals with these issues. Either that, or any case law perhaps?

Another person who hasn't the faintest idea of RIPA, it intentions, it's effects, and it's obligations, never mind the practicalities of law enforcement in respect of dog fouling or other 'minor offences'.

Here, BTW, is an example of the consequences of such a 'minor offence'.

link

...but there are lots of people to enforce them.

I wonder if these authorities are getting to a point where they will automatically say "No" to anyone asking permission for anything lest by saying "Yes", they are in some way accepting liability.

For example you sit on the bench to take pictures and after a while, you decide to break the bench so you start head butting it. In the subsequent lawsuit your brief (from those altruistic people at lawyers4u) sites the fact that there wasn't a "Don't head butt the bench" sign (or indeed that the bench was not made of something soft enough that should you decide to ignore the sign you cannot hurt yourself) and the council has to pay lots of compo.

[/rant]

This is not news, it is sensationalist tripe.

Children have been loosing their eyesight from dog mess for decades. Its why my mum told me it was dirty and not to eat it, and why I have a pathological dislike of it. And why I leave my shoes at the door and wash my hands.

The specious argument that the ends justify the means is often trotted out and should be shot down whenever it appears. The fear or terrorism should not make it easier to prosecute people for allowing their dogs to mess. Society should make it unacceptable for people to allow their dogs to mess.

Create a large enough fear in the minds of the population of "terrorists" and you can then enact anything you want in the name of freedom. (and end up with none).

The mawkish, puerile example of one poor child who might loose its eyesight is not an argument for tracking dog owners with CCTV. It has nothing to do with arguments about taking photos in public.

If you want to pass laws that allow councils to snoop on terrorists then by all means do it but not to CCTV little old ladies who don't notice their Yorkie has dropped a nugget and then send in the Met's tactical support unit to "sort granny out".

Tell you what, best just burn all the dogs and their owners along the the photographers, just to be sure eh?

That way there will be no paedophiles or toddlers losing their eyesight ever again.

Don't get me going about selfish bloody minded dog owners!!!


Just because a sign isn't at that particular spot is no defence for breaking ANY law.

Up holding the laws is a serious job and one best handled in a calm manner, sometimes people just don't know!

But when pit bulls are taken into play areas to fight each other (yes I have seen the blood) then their owners should be put in a deep dark hole and forgotten about.

Rant over.

The RIPA act is a useful tool, but not for tracking doggy foulers, school applications and any of the many other uses idiot managers seem to think it's for.

I have a video on my works vehicle, it gets used to deter vandals and wrong doers. In only one case in six years has the footage been used by the police, that was to identify a mugger (who was caught and prosecuted)

When used correctly any camera can be a valuable tool for enforcement but too many councils think they have the right to snoop on our everyday life.