elrond

Taking photos of men entering brothels and publishing them. Is this legal?

19 posts in this topic

Look what the 'Croydon Community Against Trafficking' are planning for Croydon. I hope the get they sued if they go through with this, as Max did with the News or the World.

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/3716100.Croydon_s_brothels_to_be_named_and_shamed/

"We have thought about standing outside known brothels and taking pictures of car number plates and the men that visit and putting them up on a website like isthis-yourhusband.com."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look what the 'Croydon Community Against Trafficking' are planning for Croydon. I hope the get they sued if they go through with this, as Max did with the News or the World.

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/3716100.Croydon_s_brothels_to_be_named_and_shamed/

"We have thought about standing outside known brothels and taking pictures of car number plates and the men that visit and putting them up on a website like isthis-yourhusband.com."

I live near Croydon and I didn't even know there were so many brothels in the area. It's not going to make much difference though. There are also parlours in nearby Norbury and Streatham and further out the other way in South London. If they have to close down they'll shift out for a bit, then come back in when the bad publicity dies down.

I think part of the problem is that apart from Brighton, Croydon is the nearest biggest town to disappear into from Gatwick Airport. It's also where the UK Border Agency branch of the Home Office is, so it's easy for illegal immigrants to disappear into.

There was even a mini scandal about a year ago when it was reported that Gatwick Airport was used by pimps to pick up and trade trafficked girls with each other. Gatwick Airport was not happy with the negative publicity.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23388098-details/Women+for+sale+in+the+Gatwick+slave+auctions/article.do

And as usual they're making the blanket assumption that all the parlours/flats in the Croydon area are full of trafficked women. It's not so. Why they can't leave it up to the police and Immigration, I'm not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look what the 'Croydon Community Against Trafficking' are planning for Croydon. I hope the get they sued if they go through with this, as Max did with the News or the World.

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/3716100.Croydon_s_brothels_to_be_named_and_shamed/

“We have thought about standing outside known brothels and taking pictures of car number plates and the men that visit and putting them up on a website like isthis-yourhusband.com.”

Its difficult to give an answer whether this is illegal or not in the climate of it being used to curbing trafficking

which afterall is one off the social ills of our current society (sic)

On the punter's side you have 'right of privacy' (human rights) and 'intellectual property' (using your image for publication without permission)

Maybe if it is someone rich and famous caught on camera then it might be illegal :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was taught many years ago that your picture cant be taken without your permission. Obviously it doesnt apply to things like the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was taught many years ago that your picture cant be taken without your permission. Obviously it doesnt apply to things like the police.

Unfortunately this assumption is incorrect. Anyone can take a picture of you in a public place including that of you or one of us potentially entering a parlour/flat/brothel.

In photography circles it is considered polite to ask permission of your subject before taking pictures but it is unlikely such a vigilante group will do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in the news the other week, of the photography enthusiast who was banned from taking pictures outside in the park, after years of being able to. But I think that was more to do with the safety of children in the public places he was taking the picture of.

It seems a bit of a grey area. I don't think that this is something that will be taken lightly by the visiting public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately this assumption is incorrect. Anyone can take a picture of you in a public place including that of you or one of us potentially entering a parlour/flat/brothel.

In photography circles it is considered polite to ask permission of your subject before taking pictures but it is unlikely such a vigilante group will do so.

spot on , you get this a lot on tv in "road wars" and the old bill say "its a public place and he can film you"

just wear a HH mask as you walk to your local knocking shop :D;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have sent this religious group an email telling them to get their own house in order before preaching ie the many priests,vicars and reverends who abuse children.this week has seen child porn and sex abuse from the religious industry.

have posted a comment also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually a website already - calling itself PUNTERHUNT - doing just this.... there were some rumours that a rival parlour was behind it (most of the images being taken outside two of Manchester's most popular parlours... many felt the images from (Birmingham? or was it Stoke?) were a smoke screen...

Anyway - legality?

At present there is no right to privacy in the UK per s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is actually a website already - calling itself PUNTERHUNT - doing just this.... there were some rumours that a rival parlour was behind it (most of the images being taken outside two of Manchester's most popular parlours... many felt the images from (Birmingham? or was it Stoke?) were a smoke screen...

Anyway - legality?

At present there is no right to privacy in the UK per s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have sent this religious group an email telling them to get their own house in order before preaching ie the many priests,vicars and reverends who abuse children.this week has seen child porn and sex abuse from the religious industry.

have posted a comment also

There's nothing worse than hypocrisy.

See you in confession :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I did ask the information commissioner and the basically said it was OK to do this.

Whilst that may be the case, what would the answer be if someone were to be assaulted, by aggrieved relatives for example. Would not the party who published the information be guilty or vulnerable to accusation of incitement (to violence)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These vigilantes are walking a very dangerous tightrope.

Provided they are taking the pictures from a public place, there is not a lot a potential punter can do. It's no different to train companies naming and shaming fare dodgers as happens in the West Midlands, or in the case of Tyne & Wear Metro, including their mug shots.

However, if they mistakenly put on a website the photo of someone who is totally innocent and had not visited the brothel, then the laws of libel could be invoked if the person concerned pursued it.

I'd also question whether the action being taken breaches Human Rights legislation in which you are entitled to a private life, and find the view of the Information Commissioners office unhelpful.

And the press report trots out the usual misguided cliches on trafficking, etc, just to add justification to the vigilantes actions. As for the old crap on STIs....words fail me.

As a former press photographer, it's worth pointing out that position relating photography in public places in Britain is unambiguous. If you can see it, you can photograph it - and that includes children, as long as the images aren't considered indecent.

BTW, cant find the isthis-yourhusband.com website.....:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a former press photographer, it's worth pointing out that position relating photography in public places in Britain is unambiguous. If you can see it, you can photograph it - and that includes children, as long as the images aren't considered indecent.

But only in truly public places surely? "Public" parks and playgrounds are not public in that sense in that local councils etc. have ownership of and control over them and can make - and enforce - whatever rules they see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read in the news the other week, of the photography enthusiast who was banned from taking pictures outside in the park, after years of being able to. But I think that was more to do with the safety of children in the public places he was taking the picture of.

It seems a bit of a grey area. I don't think that this is something that will be taken lightly by the visiting public.

I think (but I'm not a lawyer) that the law is quite clear that you can photograph people in public. However, various people, including some police officers, think (or act like they think) that is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But only in truly public places surely? "Public" parks and playgrounds are not public in that sense in that local councils etc. have ownership of and control over them and can make - and enforce - whatever rules they see fit.

It's my understanding that everywhere in England (I think it might be different in Scotland) is owned by someone, be it the local council, the government, or a private individual.

That said, local councils have bye-laws, presumably they could have a bye-law that made it illegal to photograph children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's no different to train companies naming and shaming fare dodgers as happens in the West Midlands, or in the case of Tyne & Wear Metro, including their mug shots".

Surely its not the same? Fare dodgers are doing something illegal, punters are not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well said pestboy, perhaps there should be a :punters against paedophile priests,taking photos of priests outside churches & putting them on a website with the message: did this priest abuse you?

these religious fanatics have forgotten that jesus was married to mary magdalene(a prostitute) how did they meet? jesus may have paid for sex with mary initially before marriage so jesus was a punter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But only in truly public places surely? "Public" parks and playgrounds are not public in that sense in that local councils etc. have ownership of and control over them and can make - and enforce - whatever rules they see fit.

Taking this simply, what's the difference between standing on the pavement (which is maintained by a council) taking a photo of a famous public building to standing in a park or garden taking a photo, on land owned by the same council? None at all. Parks do have bylaws, but I bet none have been updated to say "no photographs".

The problem is that men + cameras = Paedophiles.

While I am not denying there is a problem with a very small minority of men who do have an unhealthy interest in young children, the general conception is that if you are in a park with a camera you have an ulterior motive.

I think most of us know it is a misconception, but these jobsworths in parks and the like are not particularly well trained, dont really understand, so take a broad brush approach.

It's worth asking, if you are ever stopped, for the person to produce their ID, note it down and make formal complaint. If they refuse to produce ID, then say that you dont believe they have the authority. If they get arsy and threaten the police, invite them to do so. Then if and when they arrive, tell said plod jobsworth refused to ID himself when invited.

The situation for a press photographer is vastly different, as they carry cards that can be checked with a Met Police number.

See this link: http://www.epuk.org/Resources/819/acpo-police-media-guidelines

A couple of key passages:

Members of the media are not only members of the public; they can influence the way the Metropolitan Police Service is portrayed. It is important that we build good relationships with them, even when the circumstances are difficult. They have a duty to report many of those things that we have to deal with - crime, demonstrations, accidents, major events and incidents.

Members of the media do not need a permit to photograph or film in public places.

Once images are recorded, we have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if we think they contain damaging or useful evidence.

Members of the media have a duty to take photographs and film incidents and we have no legal power or moral responsibility to prevent or restrict what they record.

One of the main problems is that the majority are not prepared to challenge anyone in authority, so it makes their job easier when people capitulate. I've told a few security bods that I'll hang around taking photos if they want to call the police, adding that they can decide who is wasting police time. Only once were they called, and after I showed the press card, jobsworth was given a talking to.

As for my comment on fare dodgers, it was not really a fair comparison, as they have broken the law, and walking in or out of a brothel is not illegal, but seen by some as immoral.

Sadly, my gut feeling is that police forces around the country are going to jump on the bandwagon of success of these brothel raids, and we'll see more of them, if only to appease local communities.

Hope the above passage may help anyone who has had problems taking photos in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now