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.

Joanne279 Fri 22-Nov-13 21:33:51

I think its a bit inappropriate tbh x

MyPrettyToes Fri 22-Nov-13 21:37:11

YANBU. This man was in vulnerable position, it seems a violation of sorts. I would actually tell her it is very tasteless and/or report to FB.

Completely agree, very inappropriate

humphryscorner Fri 22-Nov-13 22:12:15

Very inappropriate ! What is she expecting , around of applause for her effort !

gross invasion of privacy. really disconnected attitude to take a photo and then post it.

BuzzardBird Fri 22-Nov-13 22:17:00

Reporting to fb is a futile effort ime

HaroldTheGoat Fri 22-Nov-13 22:22:45

Yeah thats really bad, she might have been in total shock afterwards and not thought it through at all. I would mention it.

FortyDoorsToNowhere Fri 22-Nov-13 22:28:49

I think it's a good reminder that texting and driving is dangerous.

caketinrosie Fri 22-Nov-13 22:30:16

It's shocking but sadly not unusual. I work for the emergency services and we had to waste time recently racing after a motorist who had taken a picture of the corpse in a recent car crash! I kid you not. It was the saddest day. Strangely he couldn't understand why we were so angry with him. Tell your friend to take it off fb and delete it. sad

YouAreMyRain Fri 22-Nov-13 22:32:40

Tasteless but people process trauma in different ways. I guess it was stressful for your friend but maybe its her way of dealing with it and sharing her stressful experience in a way that words cant express.

Canthaveitall Fri 22-Nov-13 22:36:21

YANBU but then I am old fashioned. People are odd though and I think FB and the like have altered boundaries. I was shock recently when I saw people videoing a funeral I was at on their phones. One was the daughter of the deceased who videoed the coffin going into the church and posted it on FB. How odd. And why.

azzbiscuit Fri 22-Nov-13 22:39:16

It isn't just face book, media outlets like the BBC actively encourage people to go out of their way to take pictures of tragic events and send them in so they can be broadcast in the news.

intitgrand Fri 22-Nov-13 22:50:43

a fb friend of mine posted a photo of her son on a stretcher being rushed by ambulance to a&e!!

AKAK81 Fri 22-Nov-13 23:02:21

caketin surely there's no law against photographing the recently deceased in public. I hope he told you to fuck the fuck off.

BookFairy Fri 22-Nov-13 23:03:44

Such a violation. Why would someone think that is an acceptable thing to do? confused

FrameyMcFrame Fri 22-Nov-13 23:08:25

Agree, it's inappropriate.

When ex DP died some idiots posted photos of his coffin at the funeral on Facebook.
I felt it was so wrong. Surely some things are sacred?

caketinrosie Fri 22-Nov-13 23:10:31

Akak81 actually there is a law. And no he didn't.

ReluctantBeing Fri 22-Nov-13 23:11:33

It is wrong, but it it might just shock people enough to use their phones when driving.

erm isn't that essentially what newspapers do?

I think it is tasteless personally and that journalists shouldn't do it either, but it's actually perfectly normal behaviour in the UK and most places.

caketinrosie, I have no idea on what basis you were chasing the person. perhaps you could explain what part of the emergency services. What law were you acting under?

Goldmandra Fri 22-Nov-13 23:12:57

I can understand people wanting a visual record of funerals just because it's a day they might take comfort in remembering later on or they might be sending it to someone who was unable to attend.

It's vile to photograph the distress of others and to put it on FB is appalling IMO.

Sallyingforth Fri 22-Nov-13 23:13:55

The picture was inappropriate and disrespectful to post in a public place.

As far as FB is concerned, nothing seems to be inappropriate.

Canthaveitall Fri 22-Nov-13 23:17:20

AKAK81 - If someone you loved has just been killed in a road accident would you want someone taking a photo on their phone of their body? I think most people in that situation would not want that. It's just common decency.

Floggingmolly Fri 22-Nov-13 23:21:43

Shockingly poor taste. She's an attention seeking idiot.

MrsOakenshield Fri 22-Nov-13 23:23:54

hold on, you said she took a picture 'of the emergency team at work'. Not the victim?

Floggingmolly Fri 22-Nov-13 23:25:16

It's still shameless attention seeking, MrsOak

Tslade123 Fri 22-Nov-13 23:27:04

Ive done this. I used to a work as a journalist on a local paper. A car crashed in my road. There was a large crowd that had gathered to gawp, so i joined them and I started taking pics. Some of the onlookers took offencse.
BUt is see it as no differnt to the people stop and stair. People are naturally curious about things like this and will want to look. Its like when People always slow down to rubberneck on the motorway.
Why is it ok for someone who is a by stander to gawp but not ok for someone to take a pic.

caketinrosie Fri 22-Nov-13 23:29:45

Hi back only briefly. I'm the police officer who watched him die. I'm the police officer who told his wife. And I'm the police officer who had to break the speed limit to catch up with the tosser who thought it acceptable to photograph a road crash victim at the end of his life in order to show others/ keep as a trophy. Or would you prefer I let him go off and instead hope he did neither? What would you do.

AdmiralData Fri 22-Nov-13 23:30:04

YANBU OP, and whoever thinks it is ok to take photographs of the departed victim needs to get a grip. Shame on you previous poster. Think of the families of the victim.

Purple2012 Fri 22-Nov-13 23:35:18

caketin I agree with you. Someone insensitive enough to take a photo like to that is insensitive enough to put it on FB or something.

Floggingmolly Fri 22-Nov-13 23:35:18

Why is it ok for someone to gawp but not ok for someone to take a pic
You seriously have to ask? hmm. Neither is particularly ok, but taking a picture of a complete stranger who is injured or dying / dead to satisfy your own morbid curiosity contravenes every accepted rule of human decency. you vampire

ah so it was just your personal agenda then I suspected as much. What I would like is for even police officers to stick to the law. Can you tell me which law that was and how often you chase newspaper photographers?

And I'm the police officer who had to break the speed limit to catch up

Good thing you didn't kill someone else in your chase.

Floggingmolly Fri 22-Nov-13 23:37:17

Stop and stair, eh? Let's hope you used a spell check for your journalistic pieces.

caketinrosie Fri 22-Nov-13 23:38:09

Shame on you Tslade123 but frankly, I'm more offended by your shocking spelling....

SinisterBuggyMonth Fri 22-Nov-13 23:43:45

Yanbu OP, but if she didn't photograph the driver, only the medical team it's not as bad. Still, it's a grose invasion of the medics privacy and I hope she asked for their permission.

caketinrosie Fri 22-Nov-13 23:47:52

Back only briefly. I have no agenda. I merely began with my thoughts on ops original question, and was asked to elaborate by another op. He was not a newspaper journalist. He was simply a voyeur with no sense of decency. I do follow the law and have exemptions when necessary and justifiable. The law is sec 127 communications act 2003.

MurderOfGelth Fri 22-Nov-13 23:48:27

caketinrosie What that person did was tasteless, stupid and needless, but was it actually illegal?

Belize Fri 22-Nov-13 23:51:58

Well I'm very glad that caketinerosie chased after the ghoul who took a photograph of somebody who had literally just died. That is beyond awful sad. How would the detractors feel if that was their father or brother who had just died??

Some people just don't have any common decency whatsoever.

EugenesAxe Fri 22-Nov-13 23:54:35

YANBU - I find that very poor taste and just sensationalist. It almost invalidates her act of kindness in staying with him, by making it appear all she did was to self-aggrandise / get attention.

Belize Fri 22-Nov-13 23:54:40

Tslade, your grammar and spelling are appalling for a hack.

Of course it is different to take photographs as opposed to shocked bystanders looking on.

Do you not recall the uproar and disgust when Diana was photographed when she was dying in that tunnel? That ok too is it?

I checked the act and it's about sending by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character

The person you claim to have chased had only taken a picture.

BBC NEWS" I suggest you arrest the BBC.

You admit to speeding and therefore risking other road users and it seems to me that was about your personal feelings not the law.

Now if you read my first post you would know that I find it distasteful for anyone to take pictures like that including journalists, but the law isn't for enforcing personal wishes.

I hate all that kind of thing on Facebook. It seems that people can't see no worth in things unless they can post on Facebook. See so many things on Facebook that I would never consider appropriate to post.

Cake, I completely agree that the person taking a photo of the dead body was inappropriate and had no regard to the person's family or treating the person with respect. But is it actually illegal to take such a pic. Seems that section 127 is referring to sending of offensive images rather than taking of them. If that guy had refused would you have been legally able to take his phone?

Goldmandra Sat 23-Nov-13 00:00:27

I, too am glad that a police officer decided to follow a voyeur and ensure that a photo of a corpse didn't end up on FB. The possible distress that could have added to the family's nightmare doesn't bear thinking about.

A police officer can put pressure on someone to delete a photo for the sake of decency without breaking the law.

Good for you caketinrosie.

SinisterBuggyMonth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:00:50

Why would you want a picture of a dead stranger? Sick.

And sick of those on here defending it.

AKAK81 Sat 23-Nov-13 00:01:47

And I'm the police officer who had to break the speed limit to catch up

So you risked other peoples lives to catch someone for doing something perfectly legally. Taking a photo has nothing to do with sec 127 communications act 2003. I hope he made an official complaint against you.

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:03:26

Does that actually fit though? I mean, would that make (in your eyes) a lot of documentary/reportage photography illegal? Some of it is horrific to look at (eg. Kevin Carter, Nick Ut, Eddie Adams, Weegee - warning, some very upsetting photos here)

HaroldTheGoat Sat 23-Nov-13 00:04:44

Why on earth are you bothered that caketin did this? If it was a family member I would be eternally grateful.

And newsflash, sometimes police officers break the speed limit. They sort of have to.

SinisterBuggyMonth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:04:58

I'm not sure if legality really needs to be in question here. It's common decency. It's having a brain.

I'll bet there isn't a law saying your not allowed to dance the can can on the car bonnet while the medics are resuscitating the victim. Still, you wouldn't actually do that would you?

MurderOfGelth Sat 23-Nov-13 00:04:58

Just wanted to reiterate, I totally get why you'd want to chase them and make them delete it, but it's not actually illegal to take that photo - just extremely distasteful.

softlysoftly Sat 23-Nov-13 00:07:19

Backonlybriefly What's your agenda? It's highly likely he intended to break that law rather than keep the photo as a personal memento the sick fuck.

And actually even if it's not the letter of the law it's morally reprehensible. It takes 2 seconds to Facebook it. Another few moments for shares to be hit. And suddenly his wife, his child, his mother finds out their love is dead via a grisly Facebook image.

Belize Sat 23-Nov-13 00:07:58

It's morally reprehensible though and I for one am glad that a police officer would use their 'status' to apply pressure to somebody in this way.

BackOnly, he may well (and probably in all likelihood would have) posted that photo onto FB or sent it to god knows whom. Why else would he have taken it? I doubt he was going to sit in his living room and just have a look at every now and then.

AKAK81, presumably caketinrosie would have taken appropriate care in 'chasing' down the driver? Maybe it was 3 in the morning when the roads were completely clear? The police take considered decisions about these kind of things all the time.

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?

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

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

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


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.

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.

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.

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 00:19:28

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.

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 00:21:19

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?

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


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 00:22:27

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

Going to bed night....grin

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

Some bizarre responses on this thread. Night too!

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?

"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.

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

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

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

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