• farmgineer@nord.pubEnglish
    71·
    7 days ago

    Huh, I apparently have illegal photographs from the late '90s.

    (joking. I assume that having people unintentionally in the frame as I take a picture of some famous building, especially for photos that aren’t put anywhere public, is fine since they’re not the subject. Then again, Japan has some bonkers rules on that, so I dunno).

  • Randelung@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    6 days ago

    I … may have in the past. I’m really sorry though, and I don’t intend to do it again!

  • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    6 days ago

    Dear UK

    I did the in a mocking manner. At the Queen.

    Yes, I am aware of the year, her health and location. I just refuse to recognize Chuck.

  • bookmeat@fedinsfw.appEnglish
    3·
    6 days ago

    I like the one about not taking photos of people in public. That’s reserved for private corporations and the government.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      7 days ago

      Wow, this is really in line with what I expect of Labour. Pissing off everyone to the right, left, and center in a way anyone with a brain could predict

    • then_three_more@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      7 days ago

      You should not take photos of people in public?

      Since when did street photography become illegal over here? I know it is much of Europe, but I was under the impression that we worked under the assumption of no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places.

      Or is it just illegal for assilum seekers to do it?

      • crapwittyname@feddit.ukEnglish
        14·
        7 days ago

        In principle, targeting someone and taking photos of them should be illegal, under harassment law.
        In practice, this will only apply if you are brown and don’t speak very good English.

        • then_three_more@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          7 days ago

          So taking photos of people in general is still fine, but going after one person and taking lots of photos of just that person isn’t.

          • crapwittyname@feddit.ukEnglish
            5·
            6 days ago

            Yes. The law is based on “expectation of privacy”. If you’re out in public, you’re not in a place where you can reasonably assume privacy, so you are ok to be filmed/photographed.

    • Nester@feddit.ukEnglish
      41·
      7 days ago

      How can a Labour government offer up such a freebie to the right? Now the right wing will feel even more justified in their bigotry.

      I think the comment in this article from the Greens is pretty decent “We support consent education, but it needs to be universal.”

      • modem_down@thebrainbin.org
        82·
        7 days ago

        IIUC, the point of the leaflets is to extend consent education, so that instead of just covering the first group below it also covers the second.

        1. UK school pupils. They already receive it.
        2. Asylum seekers. AFAIK they did not previously receive it, which was a twofold problem: a. for the victims of the very small number of asylum seekers who committed crimes against consent, perhaps not knowing how seriously that would be viewed in the UK; and b. for the many innocent asylum seekers tarred with the same brush.
        3. Older adults in the UK. These may never have received consent education, but unfortunately are often reactionary enough to vote Reform if anyone tries to “nanny” them - so they will probably never receive it.

        Labour needed to do something to stop the law-abiding majority of asylum seekers having their reputations tarnished by a tiny number of no-goodnik asylum seekers.

        IMO, the booklets were a good move by Labour. They will make it easier for thicker members of the public to distinguish between the very few bad apples among asylum seekers (“This guy broke the rules, and can’t plead ignorance because he received the booklet in a language he reads fluently”) and the law-abiding majority.