Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Aug 18, 2016.
So that which is not specifically permitted is prohibited? Sounds like we're falling through a space-time hole into 1930s Germany.
or 2016 Dubai.
As so often, whoever thought this up has not thought it through. Are we talking about "persistently" as in
However, a spokesperson said that should a photographer persist in taking ‘unwanted photographs’ of a woman, it would consider treating such behaviour as ‘verging on harassment’ – regardless of whether they had first been spoken to by an officer – depending on the circumstances.
or a single photograph as in
Pressed to clarify the policy, the force said that ‘should a photographer take an unwanted photograph of a woman which she felt intimidated by and reported, then – provided no criminal offence had taken place – the photographer would not be detained (as the usual powers around criminal offences would not apply)?
And are we talking about a "reasonable person", as in
The force added: ‘Ultimately, it comes down to what a reasonable person would understand to be harassment.’
or one (possibly mentally ill) person, as in
‘Ultimately the decision lies with the victim and their perception of the behaviour'.?
Note the use of the word "victim". An assumption of guilt on the part of the photographer is built into the spokesperson's mindset.
And what the hell is "explicit" in this context? Upskirt, well, yes. But what else?
Seems a bit sexist to me. What if a woman is persistently taking unwanted photo's of a man, or, say a gay man taking unwanted photo's of a man? How about making misandry a hate crime too? Or is that not headline grabbing enough nor appeasing to some womens group or another.
Heading down a slippery slope I think and one which I would imagine is hard to prove. As Roger mentioned above, up skirt filming is a different thing of which there are laws that cover that and similar occurrences.
Separate names with a comma.