In message t
"MB" wrote:


"MB" wrote in message
. net...

"furnessvale" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 6:09 pm, 1506 wrote:

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.

Does anyone know the facts of this case? It seems highly unlikely
that a straightforward photo of the child would result in a court
appearance even if the parents did get upset.

I have no knowledge of this case but, for example, if a photographer
lowered his camera to obtain a shot up the childs skirt, would that
affect the situation. I think so, others may differ.

George


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



http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...ws_282766.html

MB




This is a very strange reply to the question


"Asked whether police confiscated the photographer's camera, the BTP
spokesman told us: 'As is standard police procedure, items would have been
removed from him prior to him being placed into a cell. They would have
been securely stored and then returned to him.' "


You would think a simple "Yes" or "No" would be sufficient.


Neither would be aacurate, his camera wasn't confiscated but to say No would
be misleading as it was taken away from him, along with his other possesions.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail