Is this inappropriate ?

[BillsBayou]

According to the article:
" ' It's been a matter of severe regret for him. He's extremely anxious and very contrite about the affair.' "

I guess that means he's not going to be sharing the photo with anyone. If it were me, I'd be making it into postcards. "Visit Lovely Edinburgh!"

After all, the photo cost him £100. He may as well try to get his money's worth. I don't see how he owes the people of Edinburgh any good will.

Yes. I'm serious.

[LowriderS10]

Originally Posted by gjl711

There is a big difference between moral right and legal right. I cant see how the guy got fined. Taking a picture of someone on the street shouldn't be against the law. She gets drunk, staggers out into the street to throw up and expects the right to privacy? Makes no sense.

BINGO...legally you can shoot whatever the hell you want in a public space...the fact that he got fined is a serious violation of his basic rights. I can't believe he apologized and pleaded guilty to it (if the story is even true). As a reporter/photographer, I get threatened with crap like that all the time...it's BS, but at least the law is on my side

[dogfood]

Reminds me of the last episodes of Seinfeld, where they all went to jail for laughing at the guy being carjacked. Unchivalrous indeed!

[Miyagi-san]

It's really hard to say without being there/seeing how it all really went down. This story makes me want to go do my 2 favorite things though...have a few drinks and take pictures or strangers. Weird...

[thekid24]

Seeing as how it is in another country with different standards, laws etc etc.

"U break the law of the land U get punished by man."

[mrbojangles13]

i agree this is bs... i want to see the picture tho lol

[cryforashadow]

I wouldn't want anyone to take a picture of me while I'm throwing up. Would you?

[adrian5127]

I don't see how taking a picture of someone throwing up amount to a breach of the peace in England anyway. If the woman and her friends were getting out of hand then they my be liable to being arrested. I have included both the English and Scottish definitions, the Scottish one is very broad. For those who don't know the law is the same in England and Wales but different in Scotland.

English one
Definition of breach of the peace "Where: (1) a breach of the peace is committed in the presence of a person making the arrest or (2) the arrestor believes that such a breach will be committed in the immediate future by the person arrested although he has not yet committed any breach or (3) where a breach has been committed and it is reasonably believed that a renewal of it is threatened"
http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2001/issue2...html#Heading64

Scottish one

Breach of the Peace

Source: Common Law
Offence: "When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people).

Arrest: Common law powers of arrest.

Notes:
This offence can take place anywhere i.e. a house, a public street or a private office.

Riotous:
There is normally an element of noise, or 'rowdiness' or 'brawling' which is clearly causing concern to other members of the public e.g. swearing, challenging people to fight.

Disorderly:
There is a more subtle element. The behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include: 'Peeping Tom' type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident.


Breach of the Peace

Source: Common Law

Offence: "When one or more persons conduct themselves in a riotous, or disorderly manner, anywhere, which alarms, annoys or disturbs the lieges (other people).

Arrest: Common law powers of arrest.

Notes:
This offence can take place anywhere i.e. a house, a public street or a private office.

Riotous:
There is normally an element of noise, or 'rowdiness' or 'brawling' which is clearly causing concern to other members of the public e.g. swearing, challenging people to fight.

Disorderly:
There is a more subtle element. The behaviour doesn't have to be noisy but still of a nature that would cause concern to other people. Examples include: 'Peeping Tom' type behaviour, persistently following someone, delivering 'threatening' letters and 'streaking' or 'mooning'.

To prove a Breach of the Peace the most important things to prove is that someone was Alarmed, Annoyed or Disturbed by the incident

http://www.police-information.co.uk/...co.html#Breach

So under the Scottish version you can see how it could be included but then so could almost anything !!!!!

Regards

Just realised it is my 100th post and it is definitely my longest

[neil_r]

Originally Posted by Lester Wareham

I suspect the fact he was a foreign national may have had some effect, perhapse his visa was at risk.

You don't need a Visa if you are from a country that is within the EEC, which Poland is.

If people were fined for lack of chivalry every time it occurred in the UK, a large chunk of the population would be short of cash and the government could afford to scrap the duty on petrol (gas).

[aebrown]

I do see some right in the law. Personally, as human beings, I think it is proper for us to ask if someone needs some help, a ride, if we see them in that condition--not take a photograph.

Just like those who take accident scene photographs, I don't think they're out there trying to get a good shot in before they call 911 just because it looks better. Albeit, gjl711 you are right: the woman did choose to get drunk, at least ask if she needs help first, if she says no,take the shot and remind her not to drive anywhere

I know the article says she had friend with her, but sometimes friends don't know the difference (especially with consumption of alcohol) between a little drunk, and blackout alcohol poisoning drunk...

That's my 2 cents worth

[Karl Johnston]

He was stupid to plead guilty...then again I don't know the law over there, but really that is a crock of ****e fine.

[neil_r]

Look at this, it makes me proud to be a photographer. (That is ironic for those that don't do Irony)

Photographers take pictures of an injured man during clashes believed to be linked to recent anti-foreigner violence in Reiger Park informal settlement in South Africa on May 20, 2008. South African police fired rubber bullets at hundreds of shantytown residents on Tuesday in a crackdown on violence against foreigners which ended up killing over 60 people and injuring hundreds more. (REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko) #

Not my photograph so linked..

http://cache.boston.com/universal/si...1_17229065.jpg

[nuffi]

Surely paparazzi would be outta business pretty quick if it was illegal to photograph people on a public street...?

[LWK]

If a scene presents itself in public, I believe the first order of business ought to be to assist where assistance is called for. If noone is in distress, then shoot away.

[AustinRoepke]

Originally Posted by Pete

I think it's pretty clear about what's appropriate and what's not. If you see someone in the street who's obviously in distress, then it's just not on to stand there and photograph them in that state.

Having a camera doesn't give you the moral right to photograph everything you see.

Has anyone here ever seen the movie 'Paparazzi'?? lol