"1506" wrote in message
...
On May 15, 3:19 pm, "MB" wrote:
"1506" wrote in message

...
On May 15, 7:54 am, furnessvale wrote:





On May 15, 3:24 pm, MIG wrote:

On 15 May, 15:17, Alistair Gunn wrote:

Theo Markettos twisted the electrons to say:

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w...0_15/05/2009_1...

Interestingly it's claimed that he deleted the photos before the
Police
ever got involved ... So where's the actual evidence to prove his
"crime" actually occured?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

The evidence is the distress.

So all that's needed now is to produce a witness who claims to be
distressed to make anything illegal.

Except for certain specific offences (speeding in a motor vehicle
being one of them), the uncorroberated evidence of a single witness
can be enough for most offences, provided the court believes them.

George

what ever happened to "on the evidence of two or three witnesses a
matter shall be confirmed."?

---------------------------------

Haven't you noticerd, everyone is now guilty unless proved innocent and
even then still considered probably a criminal. Some of the interviews
with police and Home Office people about the keeping of DNA records of
innocent people were illuminating. They just did not understand the
concept, one even admitted that he would have to look up in the
dictionary.
One aspect was that if you are innocent of most crimes they want to keep
your DNA for six years but if you are innocent of a more serious crime
then
they want to keep it for twelve years.

Let me be clear that obtrusively photographing someone else’s child is
entirely unacceptable. It is a sad day when the courts have to deal
with a matter this trivial. The photographer should have known
better.

In the wider context, photography in the streets has been acceptable
for decades. Indeed it is a normal activity for tourists. I dislike
the notion that somehow that has ceased to be the case.

If it is so, prepare for lots of incidents involving tourists,
especially those from Japan.



------------------------------



Depends on the circumstances where the child was photographed.

There have been cases where any children have been in the background but
someone has complained and of course the classic case of a lady being
prevented taking a picture of an empty paddling pool because there could be
children in the distance.

I have taken pictures of friends' children when other children have been
around and no one had bothered but people are being brainwashed into
believing that you cannot even do that or even "take pictures of children".