If you feel you've been ripped-off in some way it's a police matter if you refuse to pay entirely but if you pay something it becomes a civil matter instead.
The most common example of this is in restaurants.
If your meal is crap and you refuse to pay the restaurant can call the cops but if you give them 50p you can walk out with impunity and it's up to the restaurant to sue you if they feel it neccesary.
Interestingly enough, we hear a lot about "cowboy builders" etc but it's now becoming quite common for builders to be ripped off by customers using this law.
A mate of mine is a roofer and he'll quote £1,500 for a job (for example), complete the work and then the customer will offer to pay £500 because that's all they feel the job was worth and force my mate to sue them in SCC for the remainder.
Interestingly enough, we hear a lot about "cowboy builders" etc but it's now becoming quite common for builders to be ripped off by customers using this law.
A mate of mine is a roofer and he'll quote £1,500 for a job (for example), complete the work and then the customer will offer to pay £500 because that's all they feel the job was worth and force my mate to sue them in SCC for the remainder.
Hope you don't ask your mate if you need a new roof:D:o
My point is as per the thread title. People are often ignorant as to what their rights are - or what the law states.
Read the link I posted. You have no automatic right to privacy if you are out in a public place - regardless of what you think you have.
How about reigning you neck in and not make unfounded assumptions about people.
I havent made any unfounded assumptions, so why dont you make your point clearly in the first place rather than making posts purely to wind people up?
I never stated it was absolute law, all I said is many consider it a gross invasion of their privacy to have a lens stuck in your face. I never mentioned any legal proceedings and instead said how some may feel about it.
If the price tag is next to the name or description of a product, then it has to be sold at that price regardless of whether it is right or not. Trading standards can be brought in, under false advertisement accusations on that one (trust me, I've seen it happen in my time in retail).
However, if a price was simply moved around by some idiot...and the item either isn't described or named on the price tag...then yes the store can sell it at the proper price, and no complaint can be made.
I havent made any unfounded assumptions, so why dont you make your point clearly in the first place rather than making posts purely to wind people up?
I never stated it was absolute law, all I said is many consider it a gross invasion of their privacy to have a lens stuck in your face. I never mentioned any legal proceedings and instead said how some may feel about it.
Please bother to read before hammering reply.
So you didnt say:
"People like you sicken me."
What exactly are you assuming I have done that sickens you so - other than to post a simple fact?
As for the point I was making - it was evident from the thread tile. What additional point do I have to make beyond that?
You appear to be the one hammering out replies - ranting about paedophiles, sticking lenses in peoples faces, harrassment, hounding people, begging for money, assaulting people etc, all without considering my post for what it was - a simple fact.
As others have pointed out - most photographers are likely to be civil with regards to photographing people in the street, especially if they have an intended (and possibly commercial) use in mind for the photographs - but there are separate rules governing publishing of photographs anyway.
What exactly are you assuming I have done that sickens you so - other than to post a simple fact?
The point I was making is you're just as pathetic as a child that waves their fist in another childs face going "not touching, cant get mad".
Just because the law doesnt back the victims up, I find it disgusting that you seem to think singling out members of society to antagonise, is ok, because technically, its legal, so they have no right to be upset.
The point I was making is you're just as pathetic as a child that waves their fist in another childs face going "not touching, cant get mad".
Just because the law doesnt back the victims up, I find it disgusting that you seem to think singling out members of society to antagonise, is ok, because technically, its legal, so they have no right to be upset.
Seriously, grow up.
Wow......really........ you get all that from a post whereby I am simply pointing out what the law says with regards to taking photographs in a public place................:rolleyes:
Perhaps you should have a word with the guy whose website I linked to then - he must piss you off even more than I seem to be doing, since he goes into far more details about photographers rights that I could ever hope to do on DS.
Hope you don't ask your mate if you need a new roof:D:o
He's actually really, really good.
Last week, for example, he was on a job where the customer was waiting for tiles to be delivered but when the bad weather kicked off, he made the point of going around in the evening with a load of plywood and timber to temporarily reinforce the temporary roof in case of storms.
My point is that, regardless of if the builder has done a superb job, a customer is legally entitled to say "The job isn't worth what you quoted so I'm only paying you half" and then the bulder is forced to sue for the outstanding payment.
Wow......really........ you get all that from a post whereby I simply pointing out what the law says with regards to taking photographs in a public place................:rolleyes:
Perhaps you should have a word with the guy whose website I linked to then - he must piss you off even more than I seem to be doing, since he goes into far more details about photographers rights that I could ever hope to do on DS.
Yes, because I feel it is just as henious, as walking up to someone and insulting their own mother with a "fat momma" joke.
We all have things we dislike, some people here may have a good relationship with their mother and instead of finding a "fat momma" joke funny, go berserk.
You have to be careful with strangers as we all have our triggers.
That is why photographers should ask first, or if they capture a spontaneous moment, tell the person and offer to delete it if they want. Then there wouldnt be an issue and no impedence on art either.
Yes, because I feel it is just as henious, as walking up to someone and insulting their own mother with a "fat momma" joke.
We all have things we dislike, some people here may have a good relationship with their mother and instead of finding a "fat momma" joke funny, go berserk.
You have to be careful with strangers as we all have our triggers.
That is why photographers should ask first, or if they capture a spontaneous moment, tell the person and offer to delete it if they want. Then there wouldnt be an issue and no impedence on art either.
Anyway, what was a "set" number of years meant to mean?
My mistook . They kept that quiet didn't they?
set just means that if they were living together and people "recognised them as such" then there was no particular length of time needed in law i.e could be 5 years could be 20 years
Apart from when you made the assumption that anyone taking photos of kids must be a paedo.
If parents at a sports day cant take photos of their own children under child protection laws, then a strangers taking unauthorised pictures of strangers children is highly questionable.
If I had posted that its perfectly legal for CCTV to be used in a public space - would you have still jumped on me?
CCTV can be seen as a tool by the government so it isnt the same issue at all. We are talking about one member of society, doing something which may be technically legal but can cause distress.
If you had said a similar thing such as "me and my friends like to put kool aid in our water pistols and spray each other in a crowded street with them" then yes I would have been just as disgusted. Yes it isnt illegal and you may not see the harm in it, but other people may not want to get any spray on them and have it ruin their clothes.
You really are a sociopath if you cant understand the basic principle of respect for your fellow citizen.
One I found our quite recently - if a person demands your name of the name of a member of staff to make a complaint, they have no legal right to have your full name, as in your surname as well as first name.
Note I am talking about a basic complaint here, obviously if the incident were more serious and went legal, the full name would be required.
And another very good reason these days why people should not have the right to demand a persons full name in such situations - social networking sites.
In my establishment, we used to have staff full names on the reciepts we give to people...and we had occasions of guys trying to contact female staff members on such sites...and I also had a guy recently who was able to find our certain information on the background of one of our managers, and try to use it to bolster his complaint.
Yes people have a right to complain, but staff members also have a right to privacy.
One I found our quite recently - if a person demands your name of the name of a member of staff to make a complaint, they have no legal right to have your full name, as in your surname as well as first name.
Note I am talking about a basic complaint here, obviously if the incident were more serious and went legal, the full name would be required.
And another very good reason these days why people should not have the right to demand a persons full name in such situations - social networking sites.
In my establishment, we used to have staff full names on the reciepts we give to people...and we had occasions of guys trying to contact female staff members on such sites...and I also had a guy recently who was able to find our certain information on the background of one of our managers, and try to use it to bolster his complaint.
Yes people have a right to complain, but staff members also have a right to privacy.
I always have a believable alias and ask many companies to let me use it.
Last week, for example, he was on a job where the customer was waiting for tiles to be delivered but when the bad weather kicked off, he made the point of going around in the evening with a load of plywood and timber to temporarily reinforce the temporary roof in case of storms.
My point is that, regardless of if the builder has done a superb job, a customer is legally entitled to say "The job isn't worth what you quoted so I'm only paying you half" and then the bulder is forced to sue for the outstanding payment.
Hadn't realised that at all.
These cowboy builder type programs tend to make me think they're all at it - which I know is unfair.
If parents at a sports day cant take photos of their own children under child protection laws, then a strangers taking unauthorised pictures of strangers children is highly questionable.
CCTV can be seen as a tool by the government so it isnt the same issue at all. We are talking about one member of society, doing something which may be technically legal but can cause distress.
If you had said a similar thing such as "me and my friends like to put kool aid in our water pistols and spray each other in a crowded street with them" then yes I would have been just as disgusted. Yes it isnt illegal and you may not see the harm in it, but other people may not want to get any spray on them and have it ruin their clothes.
You really are a sociopath if you cant understand the basic principle of respect for your fellow citizen.
If parents at a sports day cant take photos of their own children under child protection laws, then a strangers taking unauthorised pictures of strangers children is highly questionable.
CCTV can be seen as a tool by the government so it isnt the same issue at all.
We are talking about one member of society, doing something which may be technically legal but can cause distress.
If you had said a similar thing such as "me and my friends like to put kool aid in our water pistols and spray each other in a crowded street with them" then yes I would have been just as disgusted. Yes it isnt illegal and you may not see the harm in it, but other people may not want to get any spray on them and have it ruin their clothes.
You really are a sociopath if you cant understand the basic principle of respect for your fellow citizen.
If you ever did that to me, Id smash you round the head with your camera.
You have no right to invade peoples privacy. If you want to take a picture of someone, you should ask their permission instead of being such a lowly creep.
Also under child protection laws, you shouldnt be taking pictures of children. Says a lot about your character and if I ever saw you photographing a child without consent I would report you to the police.
People like you sicken me.
Someone elses child is in the background of a photograph of me and my brother as children on a beach back in the 1980's - quick, phone the police.........:eek:
What about the millions of people who are accidently caught on television cameras every year - such as members of the public who are in the background during sporting events? They've not been asked permission for their images to be shown on tele, perhaps you'd like to moan about that one too. :rolleyes:
Comments
If you feel you've been ripped-off in some way it's a police matter if you refuse to pay entirely but if you pay something it becomes a civil matter instead.
The most common example of this is in restaurants.
If your meal is crap and you refuse to pay the restaurant can call the cops but if you give them 50p you can walk out with impunity and it's up to the restaurant to sue you if they feel it neccesary.
Interestingly enough, we hear a lot about "cowboy builders" etc but it's now becoming quite common for builders to be ripped off by customers using this law.
A mate of mine is a roofer and he'll quote £1,500 for a job (for example), complete the work and then the customer will offer to pay £500 because that's all they feel the job was worth and force my mate to sue them in SCC for the remainder.
Hope you don't ask your mate if you need a new roof:D:o
I havent made any unfounded assumptions, so why dont you make your point clearly in the first place rather than making posts purely to wind people up?
I never stated it was absolute law, all I said is many consider it a gross invasion of their privacy to have a lens stuck in your face. I never mentioned any legal proceedings and instead said how some may feel about it.
Please bother to read before hammering reply.
Well it is, and it isn't.
If the price tag is next to the name or description of a product, then it has to be sold at that price regardless of whether it is right or not. Trading standards can be brought in, under false advertisement accusations on that one (trust me, I've seen it happen in my time in retail).
However, if a price was simply moved around by some idiot...and the item either isn't described or named on the price tag...then yes the store can sell it at the proper price, and no complaint can be made.
So you didnt say:
"People like you sicken me."
What exactly are you assuming I have done that sickens you so - other than to post a simple fact?
As for the point I was making - it was evident from the thread tile. What additional point do I have to make beyond that?
You appear to be the one hammering out replies - ranting about paedophiles, sticking lenses in peoples faces, harrassment, hounding people, begging for money, assaulting people etc, all without considering my post for what it was - a simple fact.
As others have pointed out - most photographers are likely to be civil with regards to photographing people in the street, especially if they have an intended (and possibly commercial) use in mind for the photographs - but there are separate rules governing publishing of photographs anyway.
Are you confusing the word "sicken" with legality?
So in the above quote, have I said marmite is illegal? No of course I havent.
Just because the law doesnt back the victims up, I find it disgusting that you seem to think singling out members of society to antagonise, is ok, because technically, its legal, so they have no right to be upset.
Seriously, grow up.
Wow......really........ you get all that from a post whereby I am simply pointing out what the law says with regards to taking photographs in a public place................:rolleyes:
Perhaps you should have a word with the guy whose website I linked to then - he must piss you off even more than I seem to be doing, since he goes into far more details about photographers rights that I could ever hope to do on DS.
He's actually really, really good.
Last week, for example, he was on a job where the customer was waiting for tiles to be delivered but when the bad weather kicked off, he made the point of going around in the evening with a load of plywood and timber to temporarily reinforce the temporary roof in case of storms.
My point is that, regardless of if the builder has done a superb job, a customer is legally entitled to say "The job isn't worth what you quoted so I'm only paying you half" and then the bulder is forced to sue for the outstanding payment.
We all have things we dislike, some people here may have a good relationship with their mother and instead of finding a "fat momma" joke funny, go berserk.
You have to be careful with strangers as we all have our triggers.
That is why photographers should ask first, or if they capture a spontaneous moment, tell the person and offer to delete it if they want. Then there wouldnt be an issue and no impedence on art either.
Seems to be a case of you shooting the messenger.
Perhaps, but by the tone of the messengers post, they dont seem to see the intrusion .....
that's debatable
Even if that is the case - does everyone have to agree with your view on which laws are right and wrong?
Some people probably feel as strongly about CCTV as you appear to do about photography.
If I had posted that its perfectly legal for CCTV to be used in a public space - would you have still jumped on me?
Apart from when you made the assumption that anyone taking photos of kids must be a paedo.
Point proven.
My mistook . They kept that quiet didn't they?
set just means that if they were living together and people "recognised them as such" then there was no particular length of time needed in law i.e could be 5 years could be 20 years
If parents at a sports day cant take photos of their own children under child protection laws, then a strangers taking unauthorised pictures of strangers children is highly questionable.
CCTV can be seen as a tool by the government so it isnt the same issue at all. We are talking about one member of society, doing something which may be technically legal but can cause distress.
If you had said a similar thing such as "me and my friends like to put kool aid in our water pistols and spray each other in a crowded street with them" then yes I would have been just as disgusted. Yes it isnt illegal and you may not see the harm in it, but other people may not want to get any spray on them and have it ruin their clothes.
You really are a sociopath if you cant understand the basic principle of respect for your fellow citizen.
Note I am talking about a basic complaint here, obviously if the incident were more serious and went legal, the full name would be required.
And another very good reason these days why people should not have the right to demand a persons full name in such situations - social networking sites.
In my establishment, we used to have staff full names on the reciepts we give to people...and we had occasions of guys trying to contact female staff members on such sites...and I also had a guy recently who was able to find our certain information on the background of one of our managers, and try to use it to bolster his complaint.
Yes people have a right to complain, but staff members also have a right to privacy.
I always have a believable alias and ask many companies to let me use it.
Hadn't realised that at all.
These cowboy builder type programs tend to make me think they're all at it - which I know is unfair.
Your mate sounds like a decent sort though.:)
Cameras that ruin clothes? Whoa!
What are you talking about teacosy?
Try reading, it really works wonders. Does highlighting it help you?
Someone elses child is in the background of a photograph of me and my brother as children on a beach back in the 1980's - quick, phone the police.........:eek:
What about the millions of people who are accidently caught on television cameras every year - such as members of the public who are in the background during sporting events? They've not been asked permission for their images to be shown on tele, perhaps you'd like to moan about that one too. :rolleyes: