To be shocked to discover

[Junipercrumble]

Apparently, it is NOT illegal for a stranger to take photographs or video clips of people, including their children in a public place. 😵

I, like many of my friends are astonished if this is true.

I wonder how many people are aware of this?

He is charged with sexual exploitation of three girls, along with seven counts of producing child pornography at a swimming pool.

He's a pervert. And he was in a swimming pool (which has rules around photographs being taken)

Are you genuinely not getting it?

@TeapotTitties that being legal includes a breastfeeding mother (something that weighs heavily on my own mind as to whether I’ll breastfeed in public or end up going half and half).
someone who may be having a seizure. Or someone involved in an accident and being badly hurt, or had their clothes torn away from them.
why do people want pictures of non consenting strangers?
it seems like one of those things where the law hasn’t caught up with the realities of the time.
in the case of BF I believe Stella Creasy started a campaign after being filmed bf her infant on a train by a * teenager

@Oiduntbelieveit

You have just labelled a man as being a sex offender and linked to a story saying that he’s been accused, not found guilty. You have libelled someone in your continued dishonest and stupid postings. Post reported.

And yes. This too. He has not as yet been convicted.

Imagine these people having to decide on something serious with this level of brains ? The country would be in a right old state.

Sex offenders don't just make extreme pornography. Paedophiles have been known to rate first day of school photographs on facebook. You don't know what the intentions are of people in public taking photos. The perverts need to be stopped taking photographs of semi nude people at the beach.

If the parents didn't share the photos on sic Facebook the perverts couldn't rate them.

There are laws to deal with perverts. The average man or woman taking pictures in public is not a pervert.

Why did you think it was illegal, OP - have you ever heard of anyone being arrested for it in this country?

Lots of things that are not particularly nice are still legal.

There needs to be legal protection to safeguard society from idiots.

This might be an unpopular opinion but someone getting pleasure from a picture doesn't actually harm the person in the photo. It could be disgusting, but what damage is actually being done to the child? None I would say.

Well, yes. But bearing in mind it's illegal to possess indecent drawings where nobody exists, has ever existed, or will ever exist, you probably won't get far with that line of reasoning. And I use the word "reason" quite wrongly here.

Sorry, I know I'm being thick but I don't follow what you're saying here. Can you rephrase?

I'm confused. Could you explain?

I thought it was common knowledge too.

the indecent pictures comments relate to things like cartoons or CGI images (of child related sexual abuse).

its still illegal even if clearly there was no child ever used in the creation of those images.

But we are talking about people taking pictures of kids in public? Not manufactured indecent images?

This

That's probably a hangover from Puritanical laws. Something like outraging public decency or whatever (which used to be the reason it was illegal for same sex couples to kiss in public). I just can't get worked up by a drawing someone made, no matter how disgusting and abhorrent it is to me personally. That shouldn't be an issue for the state.

Home Office & ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidance - confirmed by NPCC (National Police Chiefs Council - the replacement for ACPO):

Police may not prevent someone from taking photographs in public places unless they justifiably suspect criminal intent. It is not an offence to take photographs in public places. This includes photographs of children, police officers or PCSOs. You do not need someone's permission to take their photograph, but you may need their permission to publish it commercially. There is no licence for photography. Once an image has been recorded, police have no powers to delete or confiscate it without a court order.
^^

UK law is based on the idea that anything that isn't specified as illegal in law is legal.

If someone is shooting pictures of another person and making them uncomfortable then that is covered by harrassment.

You can't make it illegal to take a picture of someone you don't know - as PP's have said, there would be hardly any photos if this were the case.

why do people want pictures of non consenting strangers?

Not allowing any photography of non-consenting strangers would be utterly bonkers. How on earth would you enforce it?

Someone takes a picture of their friend/ family member/ child. landmark etc., and another family happen to be in the background. So they have now committed a crime and you want the police to come out and fine them? Ridiculous. Do you know how often that happens? It is absolutely unrealistic - the police are stretched and have a million more pressing things to be worrying about.

Laws around harrassment and paedophilia already cover everything that people are worried about on this thread.

I had this situation where a random man was very obviously snapping pictures of my (then) 2yr DD. I did ask him to stop, to delete the picture and questioned why he was photographing her. It was at an event and a police officer was there so I reported what happened and he took the camera, went through the images and deleted the ones of DD. Was all very odd.

My mother (1980s) used to take lots of pictures of people, including unobserved. She loved people. She loved to capture the atmosphere & ordinary people in a place. Little old men in berets & black outfits in a dusty French town playing boules. Or formidable Babushkas in exUSSR. Plump mamas hanging out their washing in Italy. Laughing children in fountains. I suppose you don't get it if you aren't interested in people.