I don't normally mention my "real" life as it's normally irrelevant, but by profession I am a lawyer so can clarify things a bit. In THIS instance, the photo I used for a joke is not from the UK. This means that whilst strictly speaking I shouldn't have posted it because of copyright, no laws pertaining to the safety of Children have been broken because it was not taken here. It's a bit different in Scotland but you get the gist.

p.s I made all that up.

Well it was obvious to me as I watch Judge John Deed and' have always been a big fan of Rumpole of the Bailey.

Yes Frank but watching them in the pub does not make you a member of the bar.

I thought you were a Fan of Within These Walls as you have pics of Google Withers on yer bedroom wall.

Wa wa waaaah

Google

Derek I meant Googie Withers , but knowing Frank I could be right first tome.

That will be a wrong assumption.. But displaying a random photo on this forum is wrong IMO

Errr no as it is their parents choice... The kids parents above not sure they chose the Leyther RL fans...

Lighten up Ste! Your entitled to your opinion but in mine it was just a joke. Quite a funny one I thought



Better than arguing about who punched who first and who got dragged down to whose level.

All entitled your opinion....

But just think if your kids were but of jokes on random forums??

tome

Ian are you taking the right amount of medication.

Your not really a lawyer pump

Were they though?

Have we had a thread drift?

Steve, can you please point me at this 'law' about which you know, and which I - in my capacity as a semi-professional photographer - have never heard of, nor (after some searching before coming back to this, just to make sure) can I find any trace of?

Thanks, appreciated

..In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that the sign that you are acknowledging actually destroys your argument as there is nowhere to sign anything.

It wasn't the kids in the photo that was causing all the anguish, it was the Chairman. All but one saw it for the joke that was intended.

I understand the nature of the joke but don't agree with it. It's just an opinion...

Son of Les wonder through Howe bridge taking photos, penny flash and a school nativity all of kids and see what happens...

Whats Mike Norris been up to?

Dodgy bloke is that Norris, Fred. Once seen crowd surfing at a Jonathan Richman concert in Morecambe

Brain fart.

It is not against the law to photograph children in the general public the only places you can't is like a school playground or swimming baths but in general public it's perfectly fine

did you know any photos you put on facebook are theirs to use after they've been posted on

is there such a specific law? I do not think so, I stand to be corrected if anyone can point out the Act and section.

One would think it would depend on the circumstances whether a breach of the peace would be likely to occur (for instance someone in a public park taking pictures of children and has been asked to stop and fails to do so causing parents to be upset and angry) then an arrest by a Police Constable in uniform COULD be made but the circumstances to cover a breach of the peace or any public order offence would have to be right.
Even signs prohibiting the taking of photographs are strictly NOT lawful, unless there is a local by-law governing the site where the signs refer to.

Whether it SHOULD be allowed is different than NOT BEING allowed.

There endeth todays lesson



Yiou are wrong Lynda any illegal photos are NOT allowed to be used ie copyright ones.