Pixalo Photography Community

Go Back   Pixalo Photography Community > Photography Forums > General photography questions and answers

General photography questions and answers: Discuss Outraging public decency...I was watching one of those street crime type programmes last night, the ones where they splice together a load ...
Welcome to the Pixalo Photography Community. As a Guest you are free to browse the site, but see what extras you get as a Member here.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-11-2005, 14:07   #1 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Outraging public decency

I was watching one of those street crime type programmes last night, the ones where they splice together a load of CCTV footage mixed with camera crews following officers around. I don't know the name of the show but it was narrated by Jamie Theakston.

One of the crimes was to do with a young girl in a shopping centre. She was wearing a very short skirt and had bent over to pick something up. While she was doing this a guy took a photo on his mobile phone, presumably looking up her skirt (they didn't actually say) and she complained to security, who then called the police.

In the round-up at the end of the programme they said that the guy admitted taking the photo and was found guilty of outraging public decency. He was given a conditional discharge.

Now I don't condone that sort of behaviour, obviously, but what law has he actually broken? I realise he wasn't in a public place, what with shopping centres being private property, but taking photos on private property when asked not to do so counts as trespass. And he wasn't charged with trespass.

Given the nature of the charge I assume it would still have applied if he'd been in public. If the court considers him to have taken an indecent photo, and the photo he took was of the girl, then wasn't the girl commiting indecency too?

Paparazzi often go so far as to physically stick their lenses up the skirts of glamour models arriving at posh clubs/parties. How come they don't get charged with outraging public decency? The practice even has a name - upskirting.

As I said, I'm not condoning what the guy did, but I'm having trouble seeing where it's actually illegal. in the UK a photo is legal if you were standing* in a public place when you took it, the only exception I know of being the use of telephoto lenses to pry into private property, which still isn't technically illegal.

*By standing I assume the law covers crouching, sitting etc.
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 15:36   #2 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Arkady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire
Posts: 1,198
Arkady is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
I think you're right on the money here - obviously the guy's a perv and should know better, but I don't think he's done anything illegal - so he's been charged, OK.
Was he convicted?
His brief should be able to make mincemeat of that case.

Subject in a public place (privately-owned but frequented by the public also counts, i.e. gardens, parks etc) and in plain sight. If anything she should be done under the morality laws for inciting indecent behaviour.
It's the one thing I like about Arab countries, women don't get hassled on the streets.
__________________
"When I hold a camera, I Know no fear..." Alfred Eisenstadt

Nikon D2x Bodies x2
14mm f/2.8 Sigma; 17-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 28-80mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Nikkor; 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 600mm f/4 Nikkor
SB-800 Flash x2
Arkady is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 15:40   #3 (permalink)
GfK
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 861
GfK is on a distinguished roadGfK is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Probably the police took action because the 'subject' (quite rightly, in my opinion) wasn't happy about the circumstances and made a complaint.

Did you know that you can receive a hefty fine if you tell someone an English/Irish/Scotsman joke to somebody, and an Irishman overhears you and is offended. Its called a 'racially aggravated public order offence'.

Need to be very careful with what you say and do these days.
GfK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 15:43   #4 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
I don't think he had a brief. I think he admitted to it and probably just turned up in court looking humble and pleading guilty.
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 15:46   #5 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Arkady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire
Posts: 1,198
Arkady is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
Who cares what the Irish think? Or the Scots? Or anyone for that matter. Joke's a joke - there's always someone who'll be offended. Under the Law as it stands today, Monty Python's Life of Brian would be illegal to make. I think that's a sad state of affairs to be in.
Arkady is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 16:00   #6 (permalink)
GfK
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 861
GfK is on a distinguished roadGfK is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Quote:
Who cares what the Irish think? Or the Scots? Or anyone for that matter.
You should!

Quote:
Joke's a joke - there's always someone who'll be offended.
Yep and they'll sue you for it (and win, probably)

Quote:
Under the Law as it stands today, Monty Python's Life of Brian would be illegal to make. I think that's a sad state of affairs to be in.
It wouldn't be illegal but it would be cut very close to the bone. You'll observe that they don't seem to show movies such as Blazing Saddles on TV any more.

Society has gone slightly mad.
GfK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 16:05   #7 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
They do show movies like that but they cut large chunks. I sit next to the compliance unit at work (Red Bee Media, formerly BBC Broadcast) and their job is to do just that. They watch new shows (or repeats) before they go to air and make sure they're fine for the audience. If not they'll make cuts. Quite often something that's fine one year might need to be cut the next due to world events (eg a programme that mentioned the twin towers in a joke or something like that).
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 16:11   #8 (permalink)
dod
Feet under the table
 
dod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Nairn
Posts: 1,907
dod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura aboutdod has a spectacular aura about

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by GfK
Yep and they'll sue you for it (and win, probably)
That's the sad thing, once you stop laughing at yourself you tend to disappear right up your own a$$.
dod is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 17:53   #9 (permalink)
Pixalo Crew
 
Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 18,309
Dave is just really nice
Dave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really niceDave is just really nice

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Saw a program the other night celebrating sitcoms & how it has affected society. The old classic sketches of Alf Garnett racism come up which you shudder at these days. Great story though of years later Garnett having a yob say to him " great that you took the **** out of the C**ns" , to which Garnett replies " No , I was taking the **** out of people like you"
Dave is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 18:21   #10 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
There has to be more to this than meets the eye. Outraging Public Decency is an old Common Law Offence which tends to get used when they can't find any legislation to fit the circumstances. IIRC it's only triable on indictment ( Crown Court only). Whilst he's been treated fairly leniently by the court, I feel sure there must be some additional circumstances we're not hearing about, perhaps he said something to the girl of an indecent nature, or made an indecent gesture of some sort which together with his taking a photograph was enough to charge him.

A 'public place' for the purposes of most criminal law is 'Any premises or place to which at the material time the public have access whether on payment of money or otherwise' so the shopping centre would definitely qualify.

Trespass is just a common law infringement of the rights of the landowner and isn't an offence in itself unless accompanied for example by criminal damage or possession of firearms (poachers) in some cases. All those signs you see saying 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' are pretty meaningless and totally unenforceable. The situation is somewhat different in Scotland where there is an offence of Trespass.
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2005, 19:12   #11 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Steep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Inverness
Posts: 960
Steep is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by GfK
You'll observe that they don't seem to show movies such as Blazing Saddles on TV any more.
It's been shown on uk tv half a dozen times this year at least.

I think CT may be right, we are not hearing the whole story.
Steep is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 17:10   #12 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
According to a guy who saw this programme, the girl was wearing a short skirt, had "Phenomenal legs" but wasn't revealing any medical bits.

It seems our photographer friend lay on the floor to get his up-the-skirt shot and then ran off, so I suppose he got what he deserved.

Funny though! :lol:

Perhaps he'll turn up here asking for advice on processing the shot.
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 20:02   #13 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
SammyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 1,466
SammyC is on a distinguished roadSammyC is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
We can but hope!
SammyC is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 22:41   #14 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
So is lying on the floor a crime? I still don't really get what law he's broken.
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 23:14   #15 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerz
So is lying on the floor a crime? I still don't really get what law he's broken.
Come on mate - what if this had been your girl friend? If she was bending over and showing her assets in public then I'd say she was in play and I'd be the first to defend him, but lying on the floor to look up her clothes AND taking a picture....?
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2005, 23:48   #16 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
The girl was a little bit ditzy, for sure, but she wasn't so blind that she wouldn't notice a bloke lying between her legs. And I didn't see anything on the programme that even mentioned him lying down tbh so your mate must've been paying more attention than me. So if he was lying down somewhere a few feet away from her then what's the difference (legally) between that and lying down to get a shot of a squirrel in a park?

Morally it's different, yes, I understand that. But legally it really isn't. Unless you want to start introducing laws for squirrels.
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2005, 00:29   #17 (permalink)
Feet under the table
 
IanC_UK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northampton
Posts: 2,136
IanC_UK is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerz
The girl was a little bit ditzy, for sure, but she wasn't so blind that she wouldn't notice a bloke lying between her legs
She wasnt indeed, as stated in the original post

Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerz
One of the crimes was to do with a young girl in a shopping centre. She was wearing a very short skirt and had bent over to pick something up. While she was doing this a guy took a photo on his mobile phone, presumably looking up her skirt (they didn't actually say) and she complained to security, who then called the police.
How old was this girl by the way ? it says young in your original post ? What exactly was his purpose for the picture ?

I believe we either have some current or ex police officers on here who can shed light onto the legality of what this was up to, but taking pics of people in public, or taking pics up girls skirts in public are 2 quite different things in my book.

And i am sorry, you CANNOT compare laying on the floor taking pics of squirrels to laying on the floor and taking a picture up a girls skirt, unless you are an animal rights protester ?
__________________
Some of my pictures.
IanC_UK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2005, 00:38   #18 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Well the bloke wasn't charged with any offences involving minors so I'm assuming she wasn't that young. It's not like the police to miss a charge where minors are involved.

He also wasn't charged with 'lying down in a shopping centre' or any sort of obstruction charge, so I'm assuming that's not illegal.

So all we're left with (in legal terms) is a man situated a few feet away from a girl, taking a picture of her. The law says you can do that for journalistic or artistic reasons. All he had to do is stand up in court and claim artistic reasons and I can't see much they would've been able to do about it.

As it is, he pleaded guilty and probably didn't know his rights. I'm not saying justice wasn't served, I'm saying what's to stop some perv from reading this thread and going "oh right... So all I have to do is claim it's artistic and I'll get off, interesting" and then doing it.

Either the law needs tightening or we have to accept some consequences of having freedoms like this (my preference being the latter). You can't have it both ways - the freedom to take pics but then turn round and complain when someone takes a shot you don't like.
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2005, 01:11   #19 (permalink)
Marcel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
User's Gallery
There is a real difference though, morally, and I suppose as a result, wrt legal application, between taking a shot of a womans face, or sticking your lens up her skirt.

I would suppose it comes to boundaries of privacy.
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2005, 01:24   #20 (permalink)
GfK
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 861
GfK is on a distinguished roadGfK is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerz
Well the bloke wasn't charged with any offences involving minors so I'm assuming she wasn't that young. It's not like the police to miss a charge where minors are involved.

He also wasn't charged with 'lying down in a shopping centre' or any sort of obstruction charge, so I'm assuming that's not illegal.

So all we're left with (in legal terms) is a man situated a few feet away from a girl, taking a picture of her. The law says you can do that for journalistic or artistic reasons. All he had to do is stand up in court and claim artistic reasons and I can't see much they would've been able to do about it.

As it is, he pleaded guilty and probably didn't know his rights. I'm not saying justice wasn't served, I'm saying what's to stop some perv from reading this thread and going "oh right... So all I have to do is claim it's artistic and I'll get off, interesting" and then doing it.

Either the law needs tightening or we have to accept some consequences of having freedoms like this (my preference being the latter). You can't have it both ways - the freedom to take pics but then turn round and complain when someone takes a shot you don't like.
I think you need to look at the situation as a whole, and not take it apart piece by piece and over-analyse it.
GfK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2005, 01:51   #21 (permalink)
CT
Feet under the table
 
CT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: West Mids UK
Posts: 3,368
CT is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
I think you're making way to many assumptions Jamey including the 'some distance away bit' We don't have the full facts anyway, but just reading between the lines, the fact that he ran off after doing the deed implies he did actually take the pic from right underneath the girl. I don't see him running away if he was some distance away.

This is an old Common Law Offence which is a sort of 'catch all' offence used when there isn't a more substantive offence, for example, indecently assulting the girl. Women can be publically sexually harassed in numerous ways without any actual assault taking place and it's only right that they should be protected, so it's great that this law still stands. I don't see any real danger to my rights as a photographer from some yobbo with a mobile phone acting as this guy did either.

I'm not sure how we got onto squirrels.?

No beaver jokes please.
CT is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2005, 10:30   #22 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Gandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: bath, somerserset
Posts: 965
Gandhi is on a distinguished roadGandhi is on a distinguished road

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
damn. beaten to it.

Outraging public decency was originally scheduled for inclusion into the revision of the sexual offences act. After much debate it was withdrawn as the clause was barldy drawn up and potentially could've caused confusion. Instead it was added to the criminal justice act. It was created so people who conduct lewd, offensive or disgusting acts in public could be tried in a magistrates court rather than having to crown court, as the case was before.

I think photographing up someones skirt would come under the description of lewd and disgusting behaviour. I think the crime is in the intent. Hence why journo's seem to get away with it. They're not doing it for their own pervy porpoises!

If you look at the context of it, he was blatantly invading this girls privacy for his own gratification, and if he was doing this in a public place then the police and courts would've had a duty of care to ensure it didn't go any further, happened again etc.


That's my take on it anyway.
Gandhi is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2005, 12:44   #23 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
Arkady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Aldershot, Hampshire
Posts: 1,198
Arkady is an unknown quantity at this point
User's Gallery
I'm sorry but the act of photographing someone, no matter what the situation, is not in itself 'lewd or offensive behaviour'.

He should have been charged with assault (you can be guilty of verbal and implied assault as well as the physical sort as you all know), as his act of photographing her in that manner constituted an assault on her person.

Check out the way the Japanese are dealing with this - loads of blokes photographing up womens' skirts on the Tokyo subways are now being prosecuted for assault instead of just ignored as in the bad old days. Same with reading explicict porn in public as a lot of Jap Pervs used to do (presumably for the reaction by offended women).

If you want to photograph up women's skirts, hire a model and do it properly - or failing that - ASK.
Arkady is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2005, 21:40   #24 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Sorry if I've come across as supporting the offender in this post, I don't.

There are two things that essentially bothered me:

1) I don't like the idea that someone can be convicted of any offence simply because "it looks like they might have been doing it for dodgy reasons." I like the idea that people get convicted when there is good, strong, factual evidence that they have broken a law. This seemed a bit wishy washy to me and I'd hate to ever find myself in court and know that the judge (or whoever) could convict me because they felt like it, rather than because there was proper evidence.

2) Paps get away with upskirting every night of the week outside London clubs. I just figured that if it was illegal, surely someone would've complained about it over the years. If it does come down to intent, as gandhi suggests, then would he have got away with it if he'd pleaded not guilty and claimed it was for artistic or journalistic reasons? Surely they would've had to let him go?
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 13-11-2005, 23:29   #25 (permalink)
Feet under the table
 
IanC_UK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northampton
Posts: 2,136
IanC_UK is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerz
1) I don't like the idea that someone can be convicted of any offence simply because "it looks like they might have been doing it for dodgy reasons." I like the idea that people get convicted when there is good, strong, factual evidence that they have broken a law. This seemed a bit wishy washy to me and I'd hate to ever find myself in court and know that the judge (or whoever) could convict me because they felt like it, rather than because there was proper evidence.
But there was proper evidence, he was caught, complained about, arrested, prosecuted ! The only complaint i can see here, is that the charge may not cover the offence to the word of the law, but he was outraging public decency on this day, he wasnt just taking a picture of a young girl in a shopping centre, he was taking a picture up the girls skirt in a shopping centre, for whatever reason, it is wrong, and he got what he deserved.

Where do you draw the line ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fingerz
2) Paps get away with upskirting every night of the week outside London clubs. I just figured that if it was illegal, surely someone would've complained about it over the years. If it does come down to intent, as gandhi suggests, then would he have got away with it if he'd pleaded not guilty and claimed it was for artistic or journalistic reasons? Surely they would've had to let him go?
Cant comment on that one as have never witnessed it, but dare say they would get the same treatment if they had a complaint against them.

It has reached the point in Japan where they are making and selling phones with circuitry in them, that allow mobile phone cameras to be disabled by a transmitter installed in public places.
IanC_UK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2005, 00:19   #26 (permalink)
Marcel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
User's Gallery
I can see what fingerz is getting at. Basically he's saying yes, the bloke got what he deserved, but what he sees as fishy is the law that was applied to bring this man to justice.

Basically it looks like they have operated outside the remit of the law, for want of a better phrase, and although in this case it is seemingly justified, what's to say that such a thought process can't be applied elsewhere? Not upskirt photos, but, say, photos of a nice semiiclad lady walking past (as they do in summer), etc etc....Where would you draw the line there?
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2005, 09:26   #27 (permalink)
Feet under the table
 
IanC_UK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northampton
Posts: 2,136
IanC_UK is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
To cover your backside, you go over and ask if she minds ?
IanC_UK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2005, 12:46   #28 (permalink)
Rep Point Winner 07
 
Gary Bagshawe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sheffield UK
Posts: 2,746
Gary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of light
Gary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of lightGary Bagshawe is a glorious beacon of light

Image edit - ASK
User's Gallery
Users Camera Equipment List
Maybe if she had covered her backside properly none of this would have happened, "agent provocateur"
Gary Bagshawe is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2005, 13:48   #29 (permalink)
Forum Regular
 
fingerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 790
fingerz is on a distinguished roadfingerz is on a distinguished road
User's Gallery
Stepping outside the narrow confines of photographing ladies and looking at the bigger picture... If it's getting to the point where you feel like you have to ask permission to avoid prosecution then we might as well not bother having laws that protect our freedom as photographers.
fingerz is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Old 14-11-2005, 14:33   #30 (permalink)
Feet under the table
 
IanC_UK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Northampton
Posts: 2,136
IanC_UK is an unknown quantity at this point

Image editing O.K.
User's Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Bagshawe
Maybe if she had covered her backside properly none of this would have happened, "agent provocateur"
Heheheh yeah ! lol
IanC_UK is offline  
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Just a little public service announcement Matty General photography questions and answers 11 11-12-2005 16:27
Public Highway - Missed deadline - Doh Dave Photos for fun 22 05-12-2005 14:54
Public Highway, my other pictures Steve Photos for fun 4 05-12-2005 13:27


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:36.


vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ReviewPost & PhotoPost vB3 Enhanced, Copyright 2003-2014 All Enthusiast, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.0
Copyright 2006 - 2017 Pixalo.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196