To think this photo was inappropriate for Facebook?

(77 Posts)
ThereWasOnceAGirl Fri 22-Nov-13 21:32:43

(Yes sorry Facebook)

My friend was walking to work this morning and witnessed a car accident, the man in the accident had been texting and crash, he was trapped in the car and she held his hand through the car window until emergency services arrived.

Once they arrived obviously they got everyone to move far back.

My friend then took a photo of the emergency team at work which she then posted on facebook with the story behind it.

Aibu to think this was bad taste? Obviously what she did initially was amazing and I'd love to think I would have done the same, but I think taking a photo of it and posting it on FB is just .... odd.

I'd hate to think someone I loved was in an accident and having their photo taken by a stranger and put on FB.

Actually, I have met members of the Force with interpersonal skills and who were decent Human Beings, just not any "Beat/Patrol" Officers.

AuntieBrenda Sat 23-Nov-13 10:35:06

Jeez, all the morons out in force on this thread hey.

"The police are often very good at using their interpersonal skills to persuade idiots like this to do the right thing without resorting to demands or force."

I've never met a Police Officer with interpersonal skills. However I agree with what Cakeinatin did and it should be part of the Police's remit to stop such an act.

People should be told when they are behaving in a moral reprehensible manner. It depends on how it is handled and what the photo was going to be used for. I think that pictures of Joe Bloggs should be as protected as pictures if Lady Diana, for example.

Is consent ever obtained for the images of dead children sent to the UK, by UK citizens, though?

It's a grey area what makes something "In the interests of the public", a family member of mine was wrongly accused of murder (of a child) and their picture was put on the front page of a Newspaper, which ended with them having to leave the UK, no compensation was ever given.

There are aspects of the Hillsborough disaster and press involvement that is certainly morally reprehensible, so I can understand the points that unless an individual is doing something illegal, the Police shouldn't use their powers, they certainly wouldn't if it was anyone in a position of power that was doing so.

Who would want to open FB and see a picture of their dead friend or relative, unless they were caught up in a disaster and you were looking for them?

But then what family wants a suspects face in the press for them to also suffer a backlash (as happened in my family).

In the OP's situation, if it was just the emergency personal in the picture and it was put on with a warning, then I think that, that is acceptable.

azzbiscuit Sat 23-Nov-13 07:58:06

Outraging public decency is an offence. Couldn't taking pictures of victims of fatal road accidents come under that?

Hogwash Sat 23-Nov-13 01:14:05

Some bizarre responses on this thread. Night too!

caketinrosie Sat 23-Nov-13 00:46:48

Going to bed night....grin

caketinrosie Sat 23-Nov-13 00:45:59

Hi murder, it's subjective, re Kevin carter it seems to me his intent is to tell a story with impact and meaning. A story that will raise awareness and maybe change things. This is, to me, what good journalism is all about.

Gold: thanks!

Goldmandra Sat 23-Nov-13 00:34:44

Gold The point is that all they can do is ask and if the person refuses then that's the end of it.

Well clearly caketin handled it very well then smile

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:33:59

Gold The point is that all they can do is ask and if the person refuses then that's the end of it.

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:33:13

It's a tricky line though isn't it? There've been some incredibly gory and horrific photos taken by journalists through the decades, I know when I was searching for the photo by Kevin Carter I came across one I hadn't seen before that made my heart lurch. And in the moment when he pointed his camera it would have been hard for anyone to know his intent. In fact even after his "intent" was questioned heavily. I'm sure people then (possibly even now) would happily have seen him punished up for even thinking about taking that photo.

Goldmandra Sat 23-Nov-13 00:30:13

AFAIK the police can't actually demand someone delete a photo

They are perfectly free to stop the person and suggest that they delete the photo out of common decency.

The police are often very good at using their interpersonal skills to persuade idiots like this to do the right thing without resorting to demands or force.

caketinrosie Sat 23-Nov-13 00:29:02

Murder, the issue to me is the intent behind the taking of the photo, photojournalists who turn up at scenes are usually really respectful and ethical and know a truly gory pic will never sell. Photos can be incredibly powerful and can make a real difference. My experience could never be in the same ball park as those who practice responsible journalism. And goldmandra I was a little cross but I can confirm no violence was needed! smile

SinisterBuggyMonth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:24:01

But a quiet word to suggest that this is morally, on pretty much everyone's scale, wrong, especially coming from someone in uniform.

I am guessing if he'd uploaded it to Facebook he wouldn't have prewarned his friends that "some of you might find the following pictures distressing".

I still don't get why anyone would rush to see/ photograph a dead person.

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:22:27

Oh yeah, oops, sorry OP for hijacking. I just find the whole photojournalism/law thing really fascinating.

K8Middleton Sat 23-Nov-13 00:21:28

YANBU.

What's the purpose of taking a photo? Usually it's for fun, to treasure a memory, or for reportage; to document something that happened.

I can't see why random people would need to do that with an RTA. It's not significant enough to be newsworthy and there is no personal relationship to document. And just why would you want to look at it later?

But I also don't understand why people gawk. Horrible.

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:21:19

Curious if you think any of the reportage photos I linked to earlier would have broken the law seeing as they were all sent on rather than kept to the photographers?

ChippingInLovesAutumn Sat 23-Nov-13 00:20:03

I think as long as it was a 'general photo' of the police, medics, banged up cars etc and not a close up of the man then it's not such a bad thing... it might save a few lives - people seeing an actual photo of what can happen if you text while you drive, rather than just 'being told not to'.

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:19:28

AFAIK the police can't actually demand someone delete a photo or hand over camera/film/memory card. Unless they believe the film/memory card contains evidence of a crime in which case they can seize it. But delete it? Not actually allowed. Just checked, nope they can't.

caketinrosie Sat 23-Nov-13 00:18:45

Hi murder, it's not illegal to take the photo it's what you intend to do with the photo that breaks the law. Although I am a little puzzled that I have inadvertently hijacked this post my apologies to initial op! There are other laws that it touches on such as obstruct police in lawful execution of their duties. And offences relating to the fire officers and paramedics that were also there. Sad that people seem to be focusing on my posts rather than the question in hand. Is it reasonable to want to take photos of a dead man? No of course not. And yes I could seize the phone if I felt it had evidence necessary for the investigation. There endoth the lesson sigh..hmm

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:16:11

But you can't use the power of the law to stop someone doing something that's actually legal. It's not really the best way to do things, just because something is morally reprehensible doesn't mean it is illegal.

Of course I'd fucking hate if it was one of my loved ones, who wouldn't? But it doesn't change the law.

Changing the law wrt photos of the dead is a very complicated issue though because of photojournalism.

SinisterBuggyMonth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:14:33

AKAK a complaint. Brilliant, as if the family of the deceased hadn't been through enough, knowing someone had taken a photo of their love one, and then had the gall to complain the couldn't keep their sick souvenir for whatever. FGFS get some empathy.

Goldmandra Sat 23-Nov-13 00:11:54

Taking a photo has nothing to do with sec 127 communications act 2003. I hope he made an official complaint against you.

Part of a police officer's role is crime prevention.

What basis would the photographer have to make a complaint? I don't suppose caketin threw him to the floor, ripped the camera from his hands and smashed it. I would imagine it was more of a suggestion that he do the decent thing there and then and delete the photo.

softlysoftly Sat 23-Nov-13 00:10:36

Snap!

Belize Sat 23-Nov-13 00:08:36

softlysoftly, we could have written each other's posts to the letter almost!

BatPenguin Sat 23-Nov-13 00:08:21

Sounds like she was attention seeking - ooh look here's a photo of a car that crashed. I held the mans hand, everyone praise me.

He was an idiot for texting and driving but I hope he's ok.

caketinrosie that is vile. Why would someone want a photo of a dead body?
To all those who think it's ok to take photos in these situations, how would you feel if it was your loved one lying dead in the road? Would they be fair game too?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now