Filming kids in park

pogofish

Rachel_murray wrote: »

Thank you :T I'll look more into this then as this certain bad neighbour has been threatening and following my other neighbour around!
Thanks

EDIT: Is this for photos or CCTV?

Primarily for still photography, although in a domestic context there is next to no difference as the CCTV regs under the data protection act don't apply to private individuals.

Part 4 of the Data Protection Act 1988 covers Domestic Use:

Domestic purposes: (36) "Personal data processed by an individual only for the purposes of that individual's personal, family or household affairs (including recreational purposes) are exempt from the data protection principles and the provisions of Parts II and III".

The Human Rights Act may be your only concern but this one is very much arguable both ways as you are equally entitled to live as you want, without fear and harrassment.

Saying all that, the evidential value of photos or video is still limited - You should still be keeping a written diary of all incidents as this would almost always be given first consideration in evidence.

james2012_2

To the OP, why don't you take a photo of the offending window and post it in here?

danothy

MackemPunk wrote: »

Well if that was true paparazzi wouldn't exist as their job revolves around targeting individuals in public, and they can do what the hell they want with the photos.

I believe they cite journalistic freedom and the fact that the public has a right to know. Personally I feel that applying this to celebrity interest is too far and what they do basically amounts to harassment in these cases, but some feel otherwise as the counter argument to this is that life in the public eye implicitly involves giving up your expectation of privacy like this.

Either way, a non journalist targeting an arbitrary person who would otherwise invoke no public interest (e.g. me photographing you or vice versa) is what I was referring to mainly. I just happen to think that paparazzi tactics are tolerated not for the sake of journalistic freedom, but because enough people are willing to overlook the harassment aspect in order to see the photos.

Enterprise_1701C

I was having some trouble with kids playing round the back of my house (there is a parking area for a group of house, and some damage had been caused to some cars and to our fence). I contacted the council to ask about taking pictures or filming them as proof for the relevant parents, I was told I could film/photograph anything so long as I was ON my own property, just to be careful about the "sort" of picture (obvious really) as I was targeting specific kids.

Would guess the same would apply to CCTV.

In the end did not have to do this as managed to quell the problem at that time.

xangeleyes

It could actually be the council or police who have put it in there for this man/womans safety?
We had a letter going around asking if residents would opt in for having CCTV attached to their homes to find the people guilty of fly tipping.
ALSO, did you see Neighbourhood Watched?
Two families living next to each other were so bad that the housing association (sp is rubbish!) went into a house opposite and set up a spy cam directing onto the two properties. He hid it on top or a cuddley toy bear.

geordieracer

Ionkontrol

Stop having sexy kids.

fishingcinema

To be honest it sounds as the man has been having problems and is using a camera to get proof of what is going on and for his own protection.

It is a shame that we now live in a world that if we see a camera facing the park we suddenly think perv, i have young kids myself and would have probably for a split second thought oh yes whats he doing then, but when you look at the other signs bars on the windows i would have thought it is probably for protection for himself.

The problem now is we are all to quick to jump on anyone without thinking it through properly, myself included as we are all fiercely protective over our childeren, who would'nt be, unfortunatly we do not live in a 100% safe place and we do need to take extra care and watch out for our children, but we also need to use some common sense and not jump to conclusions without thinking first.

diable

zoelouise88 wrote: »

[quote=[Deleted User];42278292]

yes i know all my friends on facebook otherwise they wouldnt be on my friends list

Thats a first......

Malory

biscit wrote: »

Molesting is quite emotive language, a more mature way of putting it is "accused of improper behaviour", as that is less specific. But yes in voluntary organisations it is often seen as good practice to never be alone on a one to one basis with a young person or vulnerable adult.

Not being alone on a one to one basis would be ideal.

However, the job involved caring for autistic children so that their parents could get a well-needed break.

Caring for an autistic child (possibly severely autistic) is not the same as taking care of a "normal" child.

You are lucky if you can find one person who is able and willing to do this.