Photographer guilty of “disorderly behaviour causing offense” for street photo

pakeha said:
it was a "tongue in cheek "post :)
On a more serious note though, come on,you know Perth night life..bet there is more to this
Click to expand...

It sounds a bit unusual.

On the other hand, where and when it occurred causes major policing problems. Maybe the police were too quick to arrest this guy to diffuse the situation. No doubt he was in the minority.
 
clayne said:
Don't think for a second that I think the incarceration rate of the US is something I agree with. I personally think it's deplorable. This isn't a black and white wave the red white and blue around we can do no wrong analysis - I'm simply pointing out that Commonwealth countries are known for their typical state nannyism and the people putting up with it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with state nannyism, but I believe that it is an oversimplification to say that people 'put up with it'.

For every person who wants freedom at any cost, there is someone who likes the idea of a state being an auxiliary parent, ready to house you if you can't house yourself, feed you if you can't feed yourself, and treat your illnesses at no cost (other than to the taxpayer).

Again, I'm not stating a view one way or another on nannyism in government, only pointing out that I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as everyone 'putting up with it'.
 
In the UK, Magistrates' Courts do not have the power to create precedents - one of the reasons being (the main reason actually) that it is the lowest level of Court and does not have the power to bind any other Court with a Judgment. I suspect the same doctrine (that of stare decisis) is true in Australia. Therefore it matters not that the decision here has not been appealed. Perhaps the Australian lawyers on the forum might clarify the position.
 
Mongo Park said:
In the UK, Magistrates' Courts do not have the power to create precedents - one of the reasons being (the main reason actually) that it is the lowest level of Court and does not have the power to bind any other Court with a Judgment.
Click to expand...
I suspect you're confusing simple precedent with binding precedent. However, I don't think it matters much in this case as I doubt the alleged reasoning used will seem all that persuasive to other magistrates.

...Mike
 
Just an anomalous decision by a hack magistrate that has no legal precedent and doesn't establish any, for that you need a written appeals court ruling. Somebody will take this on on appeal pro bono and the appeals court will vacate and say he did nothing wrong.

What the photographer should do is seek charges against the woman's boyfriend for assault and destruction of property.
 
clayne said:
I hate to say it, but welcome to the Commonwealth. This kind of thing is common in British style judicial systems. We have some tea over here for when you get tired of these abusive and overreaching laws.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right?

A. Your own judicial system is a "British style" legal system. Where do you think your founding fathers copied it from? Any country with a system of adversarial courts is essentially "British style".

B. As long as your own government is comfortable defending a program of massive spying on its own citizens, and as long as Americans are comfortable accepting the destruction of civil liberties that the Patriot Act represents, I wouldn't be too quick to point out the failings in other countries' judicial systems.

Americans have seen an expansion of domestic surveillance, curtailment of civil rights, growth in the reach of the criminal law that would make Pinochet blush.

The extent to to which your own criminal law has expanded is an affront to the principles of liberty your country was founded upon.

Let's not forget that the Australian decision appears to be a single anomaly by one hack magistrate. The erosion of American civil liberty has been carried out over successive Congresses with the full consent of the American people. I wouldn't succumb too readily to the notion that the United States has a monopoly on freedom.
 
Last edited:
tarullifoto said:
You're kidding, right?

[...snip...]

I wouldn't succumb to the notion that you have a monopoly on freedom.
Click to expand...
I sympathise with many of your points, but you also need to understand that the US is large, it contains multitudes, and many of the things you're pointing out have been publicised by Americans, talking about their own political system and trying to change it. I've lived in the US on many occasions and in many places, and one thing I am sure of is that it is much more complex than many outsiders can see, though all too few of them seem to realise that.

...Mike

P.S. That having been said, many Americans should understand that other countries have their own complexities, and many Americans fail to see that, too.
 
Last edited:
Although the Magistrate's Court (in the UK at least) can't set a precedent, an Appeal Court might be able to, so, if the decision is overturned on appeal, there may be a strong precedent in our favour in future.

But yeah - iPhone; party - not a photographer, but a person taking photos.

In the realm of bike fora, we call a person on a bike a POB to distinguish them from a 'real cyclist', such as those occasions when a person is robbed by 'a cyclist', whereas, if they had driven off, the headline would not have specified 'a motorist'.

I guess we need a photographic equivalent: Person With Camera?

There's also another TLA (Three Letter Acronym) for the things the supermarkets sell as bikes, but which are made of cheese and weigh a ton: BSO, or Bike-Shaped Object. Thus someone might be a POBSO. Perhaps the person in this case might be a PWCSO.
 
Hi Mike - thanks for the clarification. I was actually talking about binding precedent which is what most people would be concerned about. Precedent in itself is of mere academic interest.
 
A bit of clarity. Scotland has it's own law and legal system, separate from England. We don't have magistrate's courts up here.
 
mfunnell said:
I've lived in the US on many occasions and in many places, and one thing I am sure of is that it is much more complex than many outsiders can see, though all too few of them seem to realise that.

...Mike

P.S. That having been said, many Americans should understand that other countries have their own complexities, and many Americans fail to see that, too.
Click to expand...

True that...
 
Something terribly wrong with those Aussies. They let them take their guns away, and now they are doing the same with cameras. And they don't care!:bang::bang:
 
progie said:
Something terribly wrong with those Aussies. They let them take their guns away, and now they are doing the same with cameras. And they don't care!:bang::bang:
Click to expand...

Yup, we like our humans still breathing. :)

If the US politicians cared as much about the born as the unborn, it would be a much happier place I think.

I agree with freedom, but it's an ideal, not a realistic proposition, I'd prefer to have my freedom restricted and have my nearest and dearest without bullets in them.

The nanny state mentality of the UK and Australia, often DOES go too far however.

Got somewhere off topic I think, I wouldn't judge a country on one magistrate...
 
We've been referring everything to people's "feelings" for so long now that is is even becoming the legal standard by which behavior passes -- or does not.

The entire English speaking world has gone berserk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom