BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67233737
**The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and faces a custodial sentence after he was found guilty of posting videos featuring people without their consent.
The prankster, real name Bacari-Bronze O'Garro, 19, was charged with four breaches of a criminal behaviour order.
It banned him from sharing videos of people without seeking their approval. He was found to have "deliberately flouted" the court order "within hours" of it being passed in May.
Judge Matthew Bone criticised O'Garro at Stratford Magistrates Court for "lacking all credibility" after he denied breaching the order.
[]
The court heard how O'Garro began sharing videos of people without their consent on the same day the criminal behaviour order was passed, on 24 May.
The court was shown footage, shared on O'Garro's X account (formerly known as Twitter) on 24 May, that featured him in Westfield shopping centre in Stratford after he had appeared on Piers Morgan's TalkTV show and mocked the British judicial system.
In the video, passers-by, whose consent had not been sought, were visible in the background as Mizzy said to the camera: "The UK law is a joke." **
When did it become illegal to publish videos of people without their consent? I know it says here that the charge is breaching the earlier court order, but the implication is that publishing videos was itself unlawful in some sense. Otherwise one wouldthink the judge would not have the power to make an order not to do it.
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human Rights
Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
On 27/10/2023 12:55, Handsome Jack wrote:would think the judge would not have the power to make an order not to do it. >>
BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67233737
**The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and faces a custodial sentence after he was found guilty of posting videos featuring people without their consent.
The prankster, real name Bacari-Bronze O'Garro, 19, was charged with four breaches of a criminal behaviour order.
It banned him from sharing videos of people without seeking their approval. >> He was found to have "deliberately flouted" the court order "within hours" of it being passed in May.
Judge Matthew Bone criticised O'Garro at Stratford Magistrates Court for "lacking all credibility" after he denied breaching the order.
[]
The court heard how O'Garro began sharing videos of people without their consent on the same day the criminal behaviour order was passed, on 24 May.
The court was shown footage, shared on O'Garro's X account (formerly known as Twitter) on 24 May, that featured him in Westfield shopping centre in Stratford after he had appeared on Piers Morgan's TalkTV show and mocked the British judicial system.
In the video, passers-by, whose consent had not been sought, were visible in the background as Mizzy said to the camera: "The UK law is a joke." **
When did it become illegal to publish videos of people without their consent? I know it says here that the charge is breaching the earlier court order, but the implication is that publishing videos was itself unlawful in some sense. Otherwise one
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human Rights
Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
* Some places open to the public, such as shopping centres, are not
public places, but private land and videoing there needs the land
owner's permission.
On 27/10/2023 12:55, Handsome Jack wrote:
BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67233737
**The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social
media and faces a custodial sentence after he was found guilty of
posting videos featuring people without their consent.
The prankster, real name Bacari-Bronze O'Garro, 19, was charged with
four breaches of a criminal behaviour order.
It banned him from sharing videos of people without seeking their
approval.
He was found to have "deliberately flouted" the court order "within
hours" of it being passed in May.
Judge Matthew Bone criticised O'Garro at Stratford Magistrates Court
for "lacking all credibility" after he denied breaching the order.
[]
The court heard how O'Garro began sharing videos of people without
their consent on the same day the criminal behaviour order was passed,
on 24 May.
The court was shown footage, shared on O'Garro's X account (formerly
known as Twitter) on 24 May, that featured him in Westfield shopping
centre in Stratford after he had appeared on Piers Morgan's TalkTV
show and mocked the British judicial system.
In the video, passers-by, whose consent had not been sought, were
visible in the background as Mizzy said to the camera: "The UK law is
a joke." **
When did it become illegal to publish videos of people without their
consent? I know it says here that the charge is breaching the earlier
court order, but the implication is that publishing videos was itself
unlawful in some sense. Otherwise one would think the judge would not
have the power to make an order not to do it.
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human Rights
Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
* Some places open to the public, such as shopping centres, are not
public places, but private land and videoing there needs the land
owner's permission.
When did it become illegal to publish videos of people without their
consent?
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently
publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human
Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view
of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
b) If any one of them declined to give permission, the BBC can't use the footage?
It's a banal bit of footage, so any damages would be minimal, of course.
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private and
family life. That concept has been around since the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law under
Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally
taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly
visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got
permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get permission
in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to give
permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission and
somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether or not
it infringed their human rights.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights of
the people in the videos he published.
Surely taking a photograph or video of one's companions (eg,
but not exclusively, at a childrens' party at MacDonald's) doesn't require permission from anyone?
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently
publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human Rights
Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view of what is
protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
b) If any one of them declined to give permission, the BBC can't use the footage?
It's a banal bit of footage, so any damages would be minimal, of course.
Westfield Shopping Centre, where the offences took place was presumably adjudged a *private* place when <guess> the owners of the Westfield
Shopping Centre were first made aware of this chap's activities which
was deterring shoppers and so took out an injunction against him or
whatever </guess>
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private and
family life. That concept has been around since the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law under
Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally
taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly
visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got
permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get permission
in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to give
permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission and
somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether or not
it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the Beeb getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply
demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights of
the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private and
family life. That concept has been around since the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law under
Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally
taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is
clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got
permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get
permission in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to
give permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission
and somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether or
not it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the Beeb getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights
of the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
On Fri, 27 Oct 2023 13:50:07 +0100, billy bookcase wrote:
Westfield Shopping Centre, where the offences took place was presumably
adjudged a *private* place when <guess> the owners of the Westfield
Shopping Centre were first made aware of this chap's activities which
was deterring shoppers and so took out an injunction against him or
whatever </guess>
Would that make the owners liable for unlawful acts carried out on their premises ? Especially if they were alerted and did nothing.
On 27/10/2023 02:18 pm, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently
publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human
Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view
of what is protected.
* Some places open to the public, such as shopping centres, are not
public places, but private land and videoing there needs the land
owner's permission.
Hmmm... a shopping centre and its environs would be a public place for
the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.
What is the legislation for other purposes?
Surely taking a photograph or video of one's companions (eg,
but not exclusively, at a childrens' party at MacDonald's) doesn't
require permission from anyone?
On 27/10/2023 18:16, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private
and family life. That concept has been around since the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law
under Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have
generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there
are several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is
clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they
got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the
minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get
permission in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to
give permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission
and somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether
or not it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the Beeb
getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply
demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights
of the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It should answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
JNugent wrote:
Surely taking a photograph or video of one's companions (eg,
but not exclusively, at a childrens' party at MacDonald's) doesn't
require permission from anyone?
But publishing it requires a model release from every
individual who is in the photograph or video.
On 27/10/2023 21:53, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 18:16, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private
and family life. That concept has been around since the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law >>>>>> under Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have
generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there
are several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is
clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they
got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the
minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get
permission in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to
give permission in shot. However, even if they did not get
permission and somebody complained, it would be for a Court to
decided whether or not it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the
Beeb getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply
demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights
of the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It
should answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
Thank you. It does.
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently
publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life. That
concept has been around since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It currently part of UK law under Article 8 of The Human
Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally taken a fairly broad view
of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
b) If any one of them declined to give permission, the BBC can't use the footage?
It's a banal bit of footage, so any damages would be minimal, of course.
On 27/10/2023 21:53, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 18:16, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private
and family life. That concept has been around since the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law >>>>>> under Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have
generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there
are several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is
clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they
got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the
minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get
permission in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to
give permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission
and somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether
or not it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the Beeb
getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply
demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights
of the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It should
answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
Thank you. It does.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/10/2023 21:53, Colin Bignell wrote:No it doesn't. Quite apart from its provenance (what are the author's credentials and what is he quoting?) it clearly states "it is unlikely that publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task in a public place (i.e. going to the shops) would amount to misuse of private information". So why was it illegal for the guy to take and publish this video?
On 27/10/2023 18:16, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a >>>>>>> violation of the human right to respect for the person's private >>>>>>> and family life. That concept has been around since the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law >>>>>>> under Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have
generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there
are several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is >>>>>> clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they
got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the >>>>>> minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get
permission in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to >>>>> give permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission >>>>> and somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether
or not it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the Beeb >>>> getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply
demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights >>>>> of the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It should >>> answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
Thank you. It does.
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private and
family life. That concept has been around since the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law under
Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally
taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly
visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got
permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
b) If any one of them declined to give permission, the BBC can't use
the footage?
Where a video of proceedings is being made (and even on Zoom recordings)
a warning is given and anyone who will be in shot is given the
opportunity to leave, disable their video feed or physically move out of
shot before they start videoing. I've seldom seen anyone move.
Random street scenes in a public place are a different matter entirely
but on private land you have to respect the landowner's wishes (and the rights of the individuals in a private property if they don't want to be photographed/videoed).
It's a banal bit of footage, so any damages would be minimal, of course.
I expect they have a standard check list. I'm not up to date but most
times there has been video recording such an announcement has been made.
On 28/10/2023 16:15, Martin Brown wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a
violation of the human right to respect for the person's private and
family life. That concept has been around since the 1948 Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law under
Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have generally
taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there are
several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is clearly
visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they got
permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the minors)?
b) If any one of them declined to give permission, the BBC can't use
the footage?
Where a video of proceedings is being made (and even on Zoom recordings)
a warning is given and anyone who will be in shot is given the
opportunity to leave, disable their video feed or physically move out of
shot before they start videoing. I've seldom seen anyone move.
There was some film being shot on Hampstead Heath the other day. There
were A Boards on the footpaths leading to the location saying, in effect
"by proceeding in this direction you give your consent to being filmed".
The paths are a public right of way, and I cannot see how a third party
(not even the Heath authorities) can possibly think they can impose such
a condition on my use of the paths?
I assume they think they don't actually need to obtain my consent, but
the A boards are belt and braces. Besides that, this was a period drama,
so there was no chance at all that they would use any footage with me in
it, anyway.
Random street scenes in a public place are a different matter entirely
but on private land you have to respect the landowner's wishes (and the
rights of the individuals in a private property if they don't want to be
photographed/videoed).
It's a banal bit of footage, so any damages would be minimal, of course.
I expect they have a standard check list. I'm not up to date but most
times there has been video recording such an announcement has been made.
As I said, I don't see how announcing leads to consent. It just muddies
the waters.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:shops) would amount to misuse of private information".
On 27/10/2023 21:53, Colin Bignell wrote:No it doesn't. Quite apart from its provenance (what are the author's credentials and what is he quoting?) it clearly states "it is unlikely that publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task in a public place (i.e. going to the
On 27/10/2023 18:16, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 17:32, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 27/10/2023 15:56, GB wrote:
On 27/10/2023 14:18, Colin Bignell wrote:
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but
subsequently publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a >>>>>>> violation of the human right to respect for the person's private >>>>>>> and family life. That concept has been around since the 1948
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It currently part of UK law >>>>>>> under Article 8 of The Human Rights Act 1998. The Courts have
generally taken a fairly broad view of what is protected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-norfolk-67240900
This is a video shot in a hospice. Apart from King Charles, there
are several minors in the shot, a teacher/assistant (whose name is >>>>>> clearly visible), a soldier of some sort, etc etc.
The aiguillette (the gold bit) he is wearing shows he is the Kings
personal aide de camp.
Are you seriously suggesting that:
a) The BBC publishing this is violating human rights, unless they
got permission from everyone in the shot (or their parents for the >>>>>> minors)?
It is a planned news story. It would be fairly simple to get
permission in advance and simply not have anybody who didn't want to >>>>> give permission in shot. However, even if they did not get permission >>>>> and somebody complained, it would be for a Court to decided whether
or not it infringed their human rights.
Sorry to drag this on a bit longer, but there are loads of other
examples I could have given where there was no possibility of the Beeb >>>> getting permission. Videos of riots, for example, or simply
demonstrations.
Billy Bookcase has covered the reasons the person in the story that
started this thread was considered to be infringing the human rights >>>>> of the people in the videos he published.
I have no doubt that the chap in the story is a gigantic PITA.
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It should >>> answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
Thank you. It does.
So why was it illegal for the guy to take and publish this video?
On 28 Oct 2023 at 17:48:12 BST, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/10/2023 21:53, Colin Bignell wrote:No it doesn't. Quite apart from its provenance (what are the author's
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It should >>>> answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
Thank you. It does.
credentials and what is he quoting?) it clearly states "it is unlikely that >> publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task in a public
place (i.e. going to the shops) would amount to misuse of private
information". So why was it illegal for the guy to take and publish this
video?
Because he had a court order written in broad terms forbidding him to do so, following a conviction for filming and publishing offensive pranks played on members of the public. Which themselves would undoubtedly have amounted to assaults had anyone charged him with that.
Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Oct 2023 at 17:48:12 BST, "Handsome Jack" <Handsome Jack> wrote:
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/10/2023 21:53, Colin Bignell wrote:No it doesn't. Quite apart from its provenance (what are the author's
I suggest you look at the guidance in the link provided by bb. It should >>>> answer any questions you may think up:
https://filmlondon.org.uk/resource/filming-people
Thank you. It does.
credentials and what is he quoting?) it clearly states "it is unlikely that
publication of an image of a person carrying out an ordinary task in a public
place (i.e. going to the shops) would amount to misuse of private
information". So why was it illegal for the guy to take and publish this >> video?
Because he had a court order written in broad terms forbidding him to do so,
following a conviction for filming and publishing offensive pranks played on
members of the public. Which themselves would undoubtedly have amounted to assaults had anyone charged him with that.
I have already addressed this point in a PP. I am aware that he was prosecuted for breaching a court order and not for pubishing videos per se; but I also pointed out that it is odd that a court can order someone not to do something that is not illegal.
I have already addressed this point in a PP. I am aware that he was prosecuted for breaching a court order and not for pubishing videos
per se; but I also pointed out that it is odd that a court can order
someone not to do something that is not illegal. If it had made an
order prohibiting him from "filming and publishing offensive pranks
played on members of the public ... which themselves would undoubtedly
have amounted to assaults", I don't think anyone could take issue with
that.
It is not illegal to video people in a public place*, but subsequently >publishing that video runs the risk of counting as a violation of the
human right to respect for the person's private and family life.
"Handsome Jack" <Jack@handsome.com> wrote in message news:uhm00p$3v8bi$1@dont-email.me...
I have already addressed this point in a PP. I am aware that he was
prosecuted for breaching a court order and not for pubishing videos
per se; but I also pointed out that it is odd that a court can order
someone not to do something that is not illegal. If it had made an
order prohibiting him from "filming and publishing offensive pranks
played on members of the public ... which themselves would undoubtedly
have amounted to assaults", I don't think anyone could take issue with
that.
Westfield Shopping Centre isn't a public place.
Its a private commercial operation where Westfield rent out shops to
tenants.
It's reasonable to assume that the tenants complained to Westfield that
Matey was harassing potential customers, and costing them business.
Which isn't what they were paying Westfield rent for.
It's further reasonable to assume that Westfield having presented
the above facts to a Court, that that Court then issued Matey with an Injunction, demanding he stopped whatever it was he'd been doing.
banning him from Westfield outright. Which as the owners, they are fully entitled to do.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Handsome Jack" <Jack@handsome.com> wrote in message
news:uhm00p$3v8bi$1@dont-email.me...
I have already addressed this point in a PP. I am aware that he was
prosecuted for breaching a court order and not for pubishing videos
per se; but I also pointed out that it is odd that a court can order
someone not to do something that is not illegal. If it had made an
order prohibiting him from "filming and publishing offensive pranks
played on members of the public ... which themselves would undoubtedly
have amounted to assaults", I don't think anyone could take issue with
that.
Westfield Shopping Centre isn't a public place.
Yes it is.
Its a private commercial operation where Westfield rent out shops to
tenants.
A private commercial can still be a public place. For example, a farm is a private commercial operation operation, but a farmer's field is a public place
It's reasonable to assume that the tenants complained to Westfield that
Matey was harassing potential customers, and costing them business.
Doesn't say that.
Which isn't what they were paying Westfield rent for.
It's further reasonable to assume that Westfield having presented
the above facts to a Court, that that Court then issued Matey with an
Injunction, demanding he stopped whatever it was he'd been doing.
Doesn't say that.
If not
banning him from Westfield outright. Which as the owners, they are fully
entitled to do.
Dubious.
A private commercial can still be a public place. For example,
a farm is a private commercial operation operation, but a farmer's
field is a public place
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and faces a custodial sentence
Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and >> faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:53:22 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and >>> faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
This was close to the minimum expected I would think. One could argue about >how serious was the original conduct he was convicted of. But completely >ignoring a court order, and indeed publishing a video mocking the court's >decision was never going to end well.
On 21 Nov 2023 20:52:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:53:22 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and >>>> faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
This was close to the minimum expected I would think. One could argue about >> how serious was the original conduct he was convicted of. But completely
ignoring a court order, and indeed publishing a video mocking the court's
decision was never going to end well.
But he's got what he wanted, hasn't he? Masses and masses more
publicity. And what does publicity mean? Clicks. And what do clicks
mean? Cash. I simply don't see any of this as a deterrent.
Nick
On 21 Nov 2023 20:52:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:53:22 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social
media and faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
This was close to the minimum expected I would think. One could argue about >>how serious was the original conduct he was convicted of. But completely >>ignoring a court order, and indeed publishing a video mocking the court's >>decision was never going to end well.
But he's got what he wanted, hasn't he? Masses and masses more
publicity. And what does publicity mean? Clicks. And what do clicks
mean? Cash. I simply don't see any of this as a deterrent.
Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
On 2023-11-21, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 20:52:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:53:22 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>> Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social
media and faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
This was close to the minimum expected I would think. One could argue about >>>how serious was the original conduct he was convicted of. But completely >>>ignoring a court order, and indeed publishing a video mocking the court's >>>decision was never going to end well.
But he's got what he wanted, hasn't he? Masses and masses more
publicity. And what does publicity mean? Clicks. And what do clicks
mean? Cash. I simply don't see any of this as a deterrent.
But what is he going to get clicks on? The judge also imposed a two-year >social media ban that says he cannot "share any videos, act with others
to share videos or contribute to other people's social media accounts".
It seems doubtful in the extreme that that is "what he wanted".
On Wed, 22 Nov 2023 11:35:47 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-11-21, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 20:52:20 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:53:22 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>>> Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social
media and faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
This was close to the minimum expected I would think. One could
argue about how serious was the original conduct he was convicted
of. But completely ignoring a court order, and indeed publishing a >>>>video mocking the court's decision was never going to end well.
But he's got what he wanted, hasn't he? Masses and masses more
publicity. And what does publicity mean? Clicks. And what do clicks
mean? Cash. I simply don't see any of this as a deterrent.
But what is he going to get clicks on? The judge also imposed a two-year >>social media ban that says he cannot "share any videos, act with others
to share videos or contribute to other people's social media accounts".
It seems doubtful in the extreme that that is "what he wanted".
I hope you are right, I really do. The last time he had a ban, he just
went right out there and said/performed acts to the effect of "See?
You can't stop me."
On 21 Nov 2023 at 19:53:22 GMT, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Handsome Jack wrote:
The TikTok star known as Mizzy has been banned from using social media and >>> faces a custodial sentence
18 weeks detention at a YOI
<https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mizzy-tiktok-criminal-court-sentence-b2450978.html>
This was close to the minimum expected I would think. One could argue about how serious was the original conduct he was convicted of. But completely ignoring a court order, and indeed publishing a video mocking the court's decision was never going to end well.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 44:11:38 |
| Calls: | 6,710 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,109 |