Taking photos without consent - a hate crime now

According to this article, at least:


This is happening in Nottingham but it is also being considered in London:


It could be just fake news - they could be criminalizing taking photos in particular circumstances which the journalists do not bother to explain. There are certain types illegal even now. On the other hand, this law clearly elevates it to a new level.

I guess next time I visit the UK I might get arrested for taking this photo:

J A C S said:

According to this article, at least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ce-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/

This is happening in Nottingham but it is also being considered in London:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lon...d-become-a-hate-crime-in-london-a3713291.html

It could be just fake news - they could be criminalizing taking photos in particular circumstances which the journalists do not bother to explain. There are certain types illegal even now. On the other hand, this law clearly elevates it to a new level.

I guess next time I visit the UK I might get arrested for taking this photo:

Click to expand...

No, you won't. The police here are not that daft. Not by a long way.

Have a look at this, for the the police being interested in photographs taken without consent: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40897934

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
Photography is about light, not light-proof boxes.

Dutch Newchurch said:

No, you won't. The police here are not that daft. Not by a long way.

Click to expand...

So this is fake news?

J A C S said:

Dutch Newchurch said:

No, you won't. The police here are not that daft. Not by a long way.

Click to expand...

So this is fake news?

Click to expand...

How you have interpreted it is.

“A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”

Did your photograph fall into the that category?

Good, now you can sleep at night.

J A C S said:

According to this article, at least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ce-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/

Click to expand...

The "Torygraph" is a blatantly right-wing news outlet. This doesn't mean they are wrong, but does mean they spin articles like this as hard as possible, to inflame their audience.

They're not worried about some guy snapping photos of random people on the street. They're trying to block street harassment.

tko said:

“A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”

Did your photograph fall into the that category?

Click to expand...

Well, tall that to the Nottingham police. Are you saying that their law/ordinance makes no sense?

SpinOne said:

J A C S said:

According to this article, at least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ce-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/

Click to expand...

The "Torygraph" is a blatantly right-wing news outlet.

Click to expand...

So is the Guardian, right?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...mshire-police-count-wolf-whistling-hate-crime

It is all over the UK press, you could have saved some internet bandwidth by googling it first.

SpinOne said:

This doesn't mean they are wrong, but does mean they spin articles like this as hard as possible, to inflame their audience.

Click to expand...

The right wing Huffingtonpost.uk is more specific:

Nottinghamshire Police described their new definition of misogyny hate crime as:

Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission.

J A C S said:

tko said:

“A hate crime is simply any incident, which may or may not be deemed as a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hatred.”

Did your photograph fall into the that category?

Click to expand...

Well, tall that to the Nottingham police. Are you saying that their law/ordinance makes no sense?

Click to expand...

If they arrest someone with the legal means for taking a picture, it will be an interesting court case to say the least.

J A C S said:

SpinOne said:

J A C S said:

According to this article, at least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ce-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/

Click to expand...

The "Torygraph" is a blatantly right-wing news outlet.

Click to expand...

So is the Guardian, right?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. UK media are quite open about their biases.

J A C S said:

It is all over the UK press, you could have saved some internet bandwidth by googling it first.

Click to expand...

You could have also actually read my post. I didn't say that the article was wrong, what I said is that they tend to be very biased about these kinds of things.

Moreover, nothing in any article I've seen indicates that this will be targeted at ordinary everyday street photographers. (And no, half a line in an article or two doesn't justify that claim.) The concern again is harassment, not geeks with camera gear.

You are very welcome to visit the UK and take as many public photos as you like.

It is not problem.

However British Police take a dim view of harassment, be it women, men, children etc.

Behave, be nice and there will be no problems.

--
Stupidity is far more fascinating than intelligence. Intelligence has its limits...

I think you might just be starting to get it. Each time you post here, turning it into a question attempting to place us in a position of agreeing with your interpretation of it, you seem to learn a bit more about the topic. So, that's a salutary development.

The main thing to understand is that the behavior is directed and unwanted. What makes it sexual is the wolf whistle, calling attention to one person when none of the others are apparently worthy of the wolf whistle. Even if the construction crew whistles to a passing male, it can still be directed and unwanted..............................correct?

Holding a camera between a woman's legs, she wearing a skirt or dress, is an attempt to see a part of her person that she has not consented to display. Otherwise, she'd be in a bikini, or in her underwear, and willing to display herself that way. It's smarm. Nothing more. It's an attempt to gain an advantage at someone else's expense, and in this case, it's a sexual advantage. It is intended to degrade, to humiliate, to put in place, and in the circles of those who do this type of thing, a way to exchange puerile high fives.

Ask yourself this: would you think that not gaining consent, but taking the photo anyway, constitutes liking someone....or loving them? Or, if you don't bother to ask, but the person asks that you delete the image, would you decline to do so because you 'like' them? Because you respect them?

SpinOne said:

J A C S said:

SpinOne said:

J A C S said:

According to this article, at least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ce-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/

Click to expand...

The "Torygraph" is a blatantly right-wing news outlet.

Click to expand...

So is the Guardian, right?

Click to expand...

Pretty much. UK media are quite open about their biases.

Click to expand...

Huh? The Guardian - right-wing? Are you North Korean?

SpinOne said:

SpinOne said:

It is all over the UK press, you could have saved some internet bandwidth by googling it first.

Click to expand...

You could have also actually read my post. I didn't say that the article was wrong, what I said is that they tend to be very biased about these kinds of things.

Moreover, nothing in any article I've seen indicates that this will be targeted at ordinary everyday street photographers. (And no, half a line in an article or two doesn't justify that claim.) The concern again is harassment, not geeks with camera gear.

Click to expand...

I posted a quote from the police law or ordinance, or whatever that is, as reported by Huffingtonpost.uk (which is not right wing). The language is frightening. It is so general that you can be charged with a hate crime for ordinary street photography easily; or not, depending on how much the police likes you or hates you. This was the kind of "justice" practiced in the totalitarian societies - not that the law meant much there but they wanted to pretend that there were laws. Some laws were so fuzzy on purpose, so that pretty much everybody could be accused of violating some law, selectively, with the real reason being something completely different.

J A C S said:

SpinOne said:

J A C S said:

According to this article, at least:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ce-becomes-first-force-to-record-misogyny-as/

Click to expand...

The "Torygraph" is a blatantly right-wing news outlet.

Click to expand...

So is the Guardian, right?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...mshire-police-count-wolf-whistling-hate-crime

It is all over the UK press, you could have saved some internet bandwidth by googling it first.

J A C S said:

This doesn't mean they are wrong, but does mean they spin articles like this as hard as possible, to inflame their audience.

Click to expand...

The right wing Huffingtonpost.uk is more specific:

Nottinghamshire Police described their new definition of misogyny hate crime as:

Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission.

Click to expand...

You seem determined to misinterpret this.

For one thing, the law is not made by the police. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This is simply about how the police - in some forces - are going to record incidents.

So, taking photographs without permission, in circumstances that provoke a complaint, may be recorded as a hate crime.

Harassment - such as wolf-whistling - may be categorised as a hate crime, if it amounts to criminal harassment.

By the way, I've never wolf-whistled a woman. Do you feel that you should have the right to indulge in such boorish behaviour?

--
Dutch
forestmoonstudio.co.uk
Photography is about light, not light-proof boxes.

gloaming said:

I think you might just be starting to get it. Each time you post here, turning it into a question attempting to place us in a position of agreeing with your interpretation of it, you seem to learn a bit more about the topic. So, that's a salutary development.

The main thing to understand is that the behavior is directed and unwanted. What makes it sexual is the wolf whistle, calling attention to one person when none of the others are apparently worthy of the wolf whistle. Even if the construction crew whistles to a passing male, it can still be directed and unwanted..............................correct?

Holding a camera between a woman's legs, she wearing a skirt or dress, is an attempt to see a part of her person that she has not consented to display. Otherwise, she'd be in a bikini, or in her underwear, and willing to display herself that way. It's smarm. Nothing more. It's an attempt to gain an advantage at someone else's expense, and in this case, it's a sexual advantage. It is intended to degrade, to humiliate, to put in place, and in the circles of those who do this type of thing, a way to exchange puerile high fives.

Ask yourself this: would you think that not gaining consent, but taking the photo anyway, constitutes liking someone....or loving them? Or, if you don't bother to ask, but the person asks that you delete the image, would you decline to do so because you 'like' them? Because you respect them?

Click to expand...

Did you actually read my OP and the articles linked or started with the 2nd post here? Feel free to start a new thread about upskirt photography; this is not what I wanted to attract the attention to. My OP is about certain types of street photography declared not just a crime but a hate crime. Not about whistling, upskirt photography, etc. I even tried to explain that by saying that certain types of photography are illegal even now but well, this is dpreview, you can never underestimate the limited attention span of the readers here.

Sonyshine said:

You are very welcome to visit the UK and take as many public photos as you like.

Click to expand...

Except for "photographs without consent."

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...mshire-police-count-wolf-whistling-hate-crime

Which apparently would include photos like this shot which I took of a woman at a MLK parade:

Dutch Newchurch said:

Dutch Newchurch said:

The right wing Huffingtonpost.uk is more specific:

Nottinghamshire Police described their new definition of misogyny hate crime as:

Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission.

Click to expand...

You seem determined to misinterpret this.

For one thing, the law is not made by the police. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This is simply about how the police - in some forces - are going to record incidents.

Click to expand...

Not really, this is how the police if going to interpret the law. It is very different. I just quoted the left-wing Guardian who, supposedly, quote the police. How is that misrepresenting something?

You misrepresent my point.

J A C S said:

Dutch Newchurch said:

J A C S said:

The right wing Huffingtonpost.uk is more specific:

Nottinghamshire Police described their new definition of misogyny hate crime as:

Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission.

Click to expand...

You seem determined to misinterpret this.

For one thing, the law is not made by the police. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This is simply about how the police - in some forces - are going to record incidents.

Click to expand...

Not really, this is how the police if going to interpret the law. It is very different. I just quoted the left-wing Guardian who, supposedly, quote the police. How is that misrepresenting something?

You misrepresent my point.

Click to expand...

No.

Please don't edit my posts.

What I said is this:

You seem determined to misinterpret this.

For one thing, the law is not made by the police. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This is simply about how the police - in some forces - are going to record incidents.

So, taking photographs without permission, in circumstances that provoke a complaint, may be recorded as a hate crime.

Harassment - such as wolf-whistling - may be categorised as a hate crime, if it amounts to criminal harassment.

By the way, I've never wolf-whistled a woman. Do you feel that you should have the right to indulge in such boorish behaviour?

You also did not quote the part of the report which explained that this about how the police - in one county - are going to change the way they report incidents. That is all.

It does not mean that behaviour that is now legal will become illegal.

As well as being a parliamentary democracy, we also have an independent judiciary and the rule of law in the UK. The courts decide who has broken the law. Not the police.

Dutch Newchurch said:

J A C S said:

Dutch Newchurch said:

Dutch Newchurch said:

The right wing Huffingtonpost.uk is more specific:

Nottinghamshire Police described their new definition of misogyny hate crime as:

Incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman.

Examples of this may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances; physical or verbal assault; unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement; use of mobile devices to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent or permission.

Click to expand...

You seem determined to misinterpret this.

For one thing, the law is not made by the police. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This is simply about how the police - in some forces - are going to record incidents.

Click to expand...

Not really, this is how the police if going to interpret the law. It is very different. I just quoted the left-wing Guardian who, supposedly, quote the police. How is that misrepresenting something?

You misrepresent my point.

Click to expand...

No.

Please don't edit my posts.

What I said is this:

You seem determined to misinterpret this.

For one thing, the law is not made by the police. The UK is a parliamentary democracy.

This is simply about how the police - in some forces - are going to record incidents.

So, taking photographs without permission, in circumstances that provoke a complaint, may be recorded as a hate crime.

Harassment - such as wolf-whistling - may be categorised as a hate crime, if it amounts to criminal harassment.

By the way, I've never wolf-whistled a woman. Do you feel that you should have the right to indulge in such boorish behaviour?

You also did not quote the part of the report which explained that this about how the police - in one county - are going to change the way they report incidents. That is all.

Click to expand...

Let us see:

Misogyny hate crime is classed under the new policy as “incidents against women that are motivated by an attitude of a man towards a woman, and includes behaviour targeted towards a woman by men simply because they are a woman”.

Sounds more that just "recording" to me. It basically redefines the law.

Examples of such incidents may include unwanted or uninvited sexual advances, physical or verbal assault, unwanted or uninvited physical or verbal contact or engagement, and use of mobile phones to send unwanted or uninvited messages or take photographs without consent.

Right, just recording.

This means incidents ranging from street harassment to unwanted physical approaches can be reported to and investigated by the police, and support put in place for victims.

The force is the first in the country to adopt the separate misogyny hate crime category, and has provided specific training to selected officers in the past three months.

Sounds like much more than "recording" to me. They actually make their own laws without having the right do so, as you say, because UK is a parliamentary democracy and all that.

Dutch Newchurch said:

It does not mean that behaviour that is now legal will become illegal.

Click to expand...

It could very well mean that it will be classified as a hate crime which is quite a difference.

Dutch Newchurch said:

As well as being a parliamentary democracy, we also have an independent judiciary and the rule of law in the UK. The courts decide who has broken the law. Not the police.

Click to expand...

So the police can do whatever they want because, after all, there are courts?