Photographing a traffic warden

Stroma

The reality is that a CEO is in uniform doing a job , if someone videos him/her doing their job then it's not going go anywhere, if they follow the CEO for a little bit it's hardly harassment . If you think it is, well best of luck with that

matttye

Stroma wrote: »

The reality is that a CEO is in uniform doing a job , if someone videos him/her doing their job then it's not going go anywhere, if they follow the CEO for a little bit it's hardly harassment . If you think it is, well best of luck with that

You're taking a layman's view on it rather than applying the law.

I'm done, there's no point in discussing it further.

Cheers

pogofish

matttye wrote: »

You have to be saying one or the other

No - Intent is a large factor here - someone taking/recording in order to harass an ex partner would unquestionably be illegal but the same of an iffy warden going about their work would not.

Then there are a number of established defences and parking operations in the OP's manner could most often come under "newsworthy" IMO

I took 80-odd images of two coppers at work in public yesterday. Today five are in various newspapers. Neither of them batted an eyelid.

pogofish

matttye wrote: »

I didn't say it would happen I said that the police would have to take a report of serious harassment, well, seriously, no matter who the report maker is, because of the potential consequences if they don't.

The law doesn't say that it's not harassment if it's a CEO you're harassing!

This has happened and the police got egg on their face yet again - you are talking complete and utter rubbish.

matttye

pogofish wrote: »

No - Intent is a large factor here - someone taking/recording in order to harass an ex partner would unquestionably be illegal but the same of an iffy warden going about their work would not.

Then there are a number of established defences and parking operations in the OP's manner could most often come under "newsworthy" IMO

I took 80-odd images of two coppers at work in public yesterday. Today five are in various newspapers. Neither of them batted an eyelid.

Pursuing a course of conduct that amounts to harassment of another and that you know (subjective test) or ought to know (objective test) amounts to harassment is an offence.

You don't need to intend for your conduct to be harassment, it's enough that you know or ought to know that it is harassment.

It's a defence to show the course of conduct is reasonable but that would have to be determined on a case by case basis.

Nodding_Donkey

Just as well we know that videoing/photographic a parking parasite isn't harassment then isn't it.

Glad that's sorted.

Stroma

These are offences as well

1. It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27%)
2. It is an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British monarch upside-down (7%)
3. In Liverpool, it is illegal for a woman to be topless except as a clerk in a tropical fish store (6%)
4. Mince pies cannot be eaten on Christmas Day (5%)
5. In Scotland, if someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your toilet, you must let them enter (4%)
6. In the UK a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants, including in a policeman's helmet (4%)
7. The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen (3.5%)
8. It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3%)
9. It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament in a suit of armour
10. In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow (2%)

matttye

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

Just as well we know that videoing/photographic a parking parasite isn't harassment then isn't it.

Glad that's sorted.

If you follow them around and continually photograph or film them then it could be harassment.

"St Ives man cautioned for 'harassing' parking officer"
http://www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/westcornwall/11251484.St_Ives_man_cautioned_for__harassing__parking_warden/?ref=rss

"Dover businessman, John Rose, won appeal against conviction of harassing traffic warden"
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dover/news/justice-as-last-says-shop-21692/

This just goes to show that the police and courts are willing to treat the videoing/photographing of officials seriously, albeit in the latter link the conviction was quashed on appeal. I expect this is because he only seems to have filmed the parking warden on a single occasion and that wouldn't constitute a "course of conduct" of harassment (two or more occasions).

Likewise, the caution given out in Cornwall for a single incident should not stand either.

Man informally warned by police about harassing parking wardens.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/li/districtnews/9296520.Pensioner_given_police_warning_over_harassment_of_traffic_wardens/?ref=arc

Photographing or filming parking wardens COULD BE harassment but it depends on each case.

Coupon-mad

This is getting silly.

The OP could have video'd the CEO. No probs.

And the OP will probably get the PCN cancelled with pepipoo's help as they get almost every Council PCN sorted out on appeal.

No need for this thread to proceed beyond (a ridiculous) 40 posts surely?