On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:16:36 +0000, Ian Jelf
wrote:

In message
, The
Real Doctor writes
On 23 Feb, 22:57, Ian Jelf wrote:
In message
, The
Real Doctor writes

The toilets in Euston Station are a public place. Do users of them
have a reasonable expectation of privacy?

I suspect in this case they're *not* a "public place" insofar as they
are private land and the owners can allow entry on condition of not
participating in certain activities.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. We can't have degenerated to this
already?

No, we haven't. I think you've just misunderstood what I meant or else
I put it badly.

I fully understand that private property can be a public place. That -
for example - is how non-smoking legislation can be extended to
privately owned premises, even if the owner would be willing to permit
it.

Incorrect. The legislation can apply to a private place which is a
workplace, as applies to most offices.

What I meant here was that places like the toilets at Euston could have
restrictions placed on them by their owners which are independent of any
legislation or lack of it prohibiting photography in the street.

As it happens, I wonder vaguely about taking photographs in public parks
now, too, since they;re public places but private property and the
owners (local authorities) could restrict what goes on there.

Summary: just because somewhere is private property does not rule it
out from being a public place. This arises about 86 times per year in
discussion of photography at stations ...

Why do you think all those pretty young policemen get sent into public
toilets ... ?

I have no idea! ;-)