Clearly, he has learned his lesson ...
Skirt the law, and get your ugly mug in the press.
Free advertising is a GOOD thing for political campaigns ...
Tory incumbent David Tredinnick has angered parents and constituents in Bosworth and Hinckley for allegedly using photos of their children in campaign literature without permission or acknowledgment. In a move that might in other circumstances have had police beating down his door, it is alleged that Tredinnick’s companion …
".... it seems likely that no offence has been committed.". Which I'm guessing is "move along, nothing to see" rendered by someone who's just been upset to find that law is not made in the op-ed pages of the Faily Wail after all.
You're right, it is arse-covering. The problem is that while it's quite a common attitude, nobody's quite sure whether there is an arse, whether it needs covering or not and what sort of covering this particular potential* arse requires. It's a sort of generic covering that may or may not conceal one or more arses.
Straight out of the "you've got a camera so you must be up to no good" school (hah) of thinking.
*Presumably Shrödinger's cat must have had an arse, so the principle of potential arse existance is well established.
The problem is that he didn't establish with the parents that they're happy for their kids to be used to promote the tory party. If it had just appeared in the press as "candidate visits school" then people could see their friends kids just happened to be at school that day. Appearing on a leaflet is in danger of making it look as though the parents have taken leave of their senses.
The man's an annoying, smug, presumptive, arrogant git. Or Tory candidate for short.
(Although yes there's bound to be someone who tries to get him on the madeupbyneuroticparents "it is illegal to take photos of kids" law.)
between taking a photo of someone, and publishing a photo of someone.
Not just that it's children, done without the parents permission, that this implies political leanings which is classed as sensetive data, makes it even worse.
How would you like it if the BNP used a photo of you on all of their promotional leaflets, demostrating their proud supporters?
"How would you like it if the BNP used a photo of you on all of their promotional leaflets, demostrating their proud supporters?"
Given the libel suit friendly nature of British justice and the existance of Messrs Peter Carter-Ruck and Partners as an established fact, I for one would be made up were that to happen!
The sheer joy of being given a cast-iron excuse to sue the living shit out of those ersatz Fascist little wankers would be only exceeded by my pleasure at receiving a fat cheque in settlement whilst knowing that Messrs Carter-Ruck's bill in their in-tray would be of even more eye-watering proportions.
So, in summary, this Tory candidate is a git. Hasn't strictly done anything wrong, is likely to incite the ire of the "won't somebody think of the children" lobby, but is a git nonetheless.
So long as we can be clear on the "hasn't done anything wrong" aspect, I think we can all live with the proof of gittishness.
I saw two police review someone's video footage in what is a public place. I dropped the responsible police force a line asking if the police could do that (given the memo London's Met have passed out.) I was visited by a policeman. He said he couldn't talk about specifics but went on to say that the person in question had used his video camera in a shopping centre. Staff had complained and the police were called. The policeman who came around said that they can review video/perform a search.
I don't get it. PACE is about: going equipped/holding banned substances and RIPA is about terrorism. And then there's suspicious behaviour leading to a search related to PACE and RIPA. There is no definition of "suspicious behaviour" that I could find. PACE doesn't apply to video and it's very unlikely this guy was stopped because he might have been a terrorist.
He stood out because his camera was bigger than a mobile phone.
Was the policeman right when he said that they could review video? The police can ask for ID but we don't have to give it even if stopped under RIPA.
I should take a day off soon, record being a tourist, and see how far they can take it... Wasting police time probably.
It was a little embarrassing being visited by a policeman to have this "explained" when I'm sure there was something else for him to do.
On the charge of we'll arrest you for walking on the cracks of the pavement law, or the henious charge of "Looking at me funny"
(IIRC they need a warrant to check or review footage)
Call me paranoid, but sending a nice policeman round just smacks of "Nice place you have here, be a shame if something *Happened* to it
As for Tory-proofing your kids, either tell them to yell blue murder if someone is taking photos without parent permission, or send them to school in a politically embarrassing T-shirt - "Troops Out" and "Im Bakcing Britian" come to mind, or "Made In Germany", "You're The Reason My Dad's Unemployed", "Who is this stupid man" IN German, whatever that's going to be. ("Wer ist dieser dummer Mann" is my best guess, a quarter century after leaving school.) That one can even HAVE the candidate's picture on. Then you get the last laugh.
A T-Shirt with a big picture of Gordon Brown in top Nazi uniform (artistic licence) will also offend nearly everybody.
Nothing to do with ; "won't someone think of the children" everything to do with using someones image against their wishes to further your own ends. the children bit is relevant because they aren't old enough to give their consent to being published.
If one of my kids appeared in any sort of marketing bollocks as a result of pictures taken through school I'd be pissed off.
* Claimed for astrology software on expenses.
* Believes homeopathy can treat HIV and malaria
* Believes scientists disagree with him over alternative medicine because they're "racially prejudiced"
* Accepted a bribe to ask question in commons
How he has a majority is beyond me - wouldn't surprise me if he thought dunking for witches was a much maligned approach
Ok so he's a little deluded on the intellectual front. But it isn't like Gordon is going to win any nobel prizes for economics is he? As for dodgy expenses - he is barely on the list - look to some of the "people's politicians" Ed Balls - £310k a year on expenses? And don't get me on Jacqui "the porno" smith.
Why the teacher cos I think IQ tests should be put in place at polling stations any one sub 120 denied the vote.
About six years ago, if a copper looked up breach of the peace on their little legal database they'd be shown some case-law that established that if you're doing something lawful, it's the others that are breaching the peace (something to do with questionable preaching on the steps of a church I think).
Has that changed or is it just that the authorities can't be arsed to assert their authority properly these days?
AC 'cause I'll probably get nicked for breaching the official secrets act (whether there's an actual secret involved is probably irrelevant!)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019