Part of comic's scooter missing after Stansted flight

[whole diary]

[WelshBluebird]

As a semi-pro photographer, one of the rules we adhere to (I think on police advice) is not to film children without parental consent.

My good lady wife works in Childcare and Rule #1 of Safeguarding is 'You cannot take/publish images of children without parental consent'. I recently attended a Safeguarding 'course' where one example given involved the image of a 'protected' child taken on an outing by another parent being published on social media. As a result, a parent of said child, who did not have visiting rights, tracked said child down through the published image.

None of that is law. Whilst in public you can take pictures of whatever the hell you like.
Now, in general cases, yes it is advisable to get parental consent, but it is not required.

And if the kids are acting like little toerags (like the ones in this case are) then sorry but any good will I may have to them goes out the window.

What you say definitely applies to *adults*, not sure about children.

It applies to everyone and everything.

Sometimes it is too easy to use the "disability card" - starting to believe there is no smoke without fire !

You messed up your quote, but I am assuming this is what you wrote.

In which case, the kids and mother where specifically abusing her based on her disability.
I fail to see how that is "using the disability card".

[JayMac]

What you say definitely applies to *adults*, not sure about children.

So how do CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) operators go about getting parental consent?

There is no such law.

[ChrisB]

ok, you go and stand outside a school & start taking photographs of the kids - you'll be surprised just how quickly the police will turn up & move you on.

re CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision), they probably are covered by their data protection policy in that it's necessary for security & footage only allowed to be accessed by the police.

[WelshBluebird]

ok, you go and stand outside a school & start taking photographs of the kids - you'll be surprised just how quickly the police will turn up & move you on.

re CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision), they probably are covered by their data protection policy in that it's necessary for security & footage only allowed to be accessed by the police.

That is more to do with the fact the police do not understand the law on photography either.
There are way too many cases of police officers either telling to or forcing people to delete photos despite the fact the police simply do not have that power.

Also, from a moral point of view, there is a bit of a difference between taking photos of kids whilst they are at school who you have no relation to or interaction with, and videoing kids giving you abuse because you are disabled.

Oh and photographs in public have literally nothing to do with the concept of data protection.

[ChrisB]

CCTV^▸ (Closed Circuit Tele Vision) footage does though....

[Phantom]

http://greatermanchesterscb.proceduresonline.com/chapters/p_photographing_ch.html

[ChrisB]

Oh and photographs in public have literally nothing to do with the concept of data protection.

From the link above

3. The Legal Position
Photographs and video images constitute "personal data" and the processing of such data is subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. Therefore using such images for school or other publicity purposes will require the consent of either the individuals concerned and in the case of children, those with Parental Responsibility.

It is a statutory requirement for childcare settings and childminders delivering EYSF (Early Years Foundation Stage) to cover the use of cameras and mobile phones in their safeguarding policies and procedures.

It is therefore recommended that explicit written consent is always obtained from the parent and child where photographs are to be used, in order to comply with these legal requirements.

Please note that separate consent is required if data is placed on a website

[JayMac]

Let's stop all the film-flam about children in schools, or indeed, going about their own business with their parents in a law abiding manner. Totally irrelevant to the issues faced by Tanyalee Davies.

The General Data Protection Regulations:

A person’s face is considered as biometric information or data. The GDPR defines biometric data as “personal data resulting from specific technical processing relating to the physical, physiological or behavioural characteristics of a natural person, which allow or confirm the unique identification of that natural person”.  It is one of the “special categories of personal data” that can only be processed if:

• The data subject has given explicit consent;

• Processing is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the obligations and exercising specific rights of the controller or of the data subject in the fields of employment and social security and social protection law;

• Processing is necessary to protect the vital interests of the data subject;

• Processing is necessary for the establishment and exercise of defence of legal claims; or

• Processing is necessary for reasons of public interest

Tanyalee Davies has an absolute defence in law for doing what she did based on than those highlighted points. The media has an absolute defence for showing the video based on the last point.

And no, you don't have to satisfy every point.

No one has broken any law, except maybe the littering children and the abusive mother.

Stop trying to come up with excuses for not being allowed to film such an incident. There are none. The video evidence could well lead to law breakers being prosecuted. Surely anything that results in anti-social behaviour on trains being prosecuted is a good thing.

It isn't very helpful to quote the Data Protection Act 1998 either. That has been replaced by the DPA 2018.

[WelshBluebird]

Also from that link: "The majority of occasions when people take photographs of children and young people are valid and do not provide any cause for concern"

Remember, that link is specific about safe guarding concerns in the context of a club, society or school.
Very different to the general public whilst in a public environment.

In terms of the law - from Avon & Somerset police - https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/neighbourhood-and-community/taking-photographs-in-a-public-place/:

There is no law preventing people from taking photographs in public. This includes taking photos of other people's children.

The myth that you need consent for a photograph in public is exactly that, a myth.

[Phil]

Blimey this woman gets some real bad luck using public transport - I am surprised she even bothers

Bad luck? Or a true reflection of how poor the provision is for such things when travelling?

Bringing this subject gently back on track and away from the school gate, I can't help but wonder if there isn't perhaps a third element in play here. Quite apart from bad luck and the poor provision for disabled persons when travelling (both of which I fully accept), isn't there perhaps a suggestion that the individual concerned, or agents acting on her behalf, might possibly be actively courting publicity? I can't help wondering to myself whether we'd be seeing quite as much of plain Ms. Davis and her travelling misadventures in the national and local news media if she wasn't also "Canadian comedian Tanyalee Davis"

[ChrisB]

hmmm. That's not illegal either.

[WelshBluebird]

Bringing this subject gently back on track and away from the school gate, I can't help but wonder if there isn't perhaps a third element in play here. Quite apart from bad luck and the poor provision for disabled persons when travelling (both of which I fully accept), isn't there perhaps a suggestion that the individual concerned, or agents acting on her behalf, might possibly be actively courting publicity? I can't help wondering to myself whether we'd be seeing quite as much of plain Ms. Davis and her travelling misadventures in the national and local news media if she wasn't also "Canadian comedian Tanyalee Davis"

I am discussing this on another forum and the same point has been made.
Whilst I wouldn't think someone would on purpose put themselves in such situations just to get publicity (as was suggested on that other forum), I do think you are right in that the only reason the media are bothering to report it is because she is a comedian.
But my reply to that is, so what? If someones profile means such issues are being talked about and reported, then why does it matter if she gets some publicity from it? I am sure she would have preferred to not have all these issues at all!

[JayMac]

if she wasn't also "Canadian comedian Tanyalee Davis"

Does this matter?

What if they are "BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) journalist Frank Gardner"? Or maybe "Paralympian Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson"? Or perhaps "Paralympian Anne Wafula Strike"?

All have 'used' their profile on numerous occasions to highlight in the media the incidences of discrimination they face in their daily lives due to their disabilities. Are they courting publicity too?

I find it distasteful that the subtext is that Tanyalee Davies is deliberately seeking out confrontation to boost her comedy career. isn't it more likely that she is highlighting these incidences (which are not of her own making) to boost her disability campaigning?

Perhaps the disabled should just put up and shut up, eh?