Sunday, October 05, 2008

Chivalry? That'll be £100, mate

Tim Almond has picked up a particularly stupid and worrying judgement from some idiot Sheriff in Scotland.
A man who took a photograph of an ill woman outside an Edinburgh bar has been fined £100 after being branded “unchivalrous” by a sheriff.

Unchivalrous? We’re going to bring chivalry into the law, are we? Can we also start rounding up cads and bounders, too?

Well, I look forward to our entire government being fined too, then...
This is a terrible decision, and an abuse of the purpose of the law of breach of the peace. The law has always been that taking photographs in a public space is legal, that in public, you don’t have any right to privacy. That includes whether someone is distressed or otherwise.

Quite so. What this Sheriff has effectively done is to simply make up the law on the spot, as determined by his own personal morality. And, as we can tell from the Sheriff's comments, his own personal morality leaves a lot to be desired.
But Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said the matter “could be best described as exceptionally unchivalrous”.

“The lady concerned was entitled to her privacy and not to have a passing stranger take a photograph,” said the sheriff. “I’m going to impose a fine to remind him chivalry is not dead and when somebody is in distress you leave them to it.”

No, you don't, you fuckwit. If someone is in distress, the chivalrous thing to do is to go and see if you can help them out, you rude Scots twat.

You are an unchivalrous cunt, Kenneth Hogg, and I claim my £100.


Anonymous said...

"Mr Houston said Przygodzki, a first offender..."

Nice phrase. Worried he might *gasp* take more pictures in future....?

Anonymous said...

You aint seen nothing yet.

There was a case a few years ago where a bunch of crusty 'peace campers' had been charged with criminal damage. They'd broken in to the Faslane nuclear sub base and smashed everything they could get their hands on. Damage ran well into six figures.

The sheriff decided that nuclear weapons were illegal under international law and the crusties were therefore entitled to break in and trash the place. Case dismissed.

Anonymous said...

The man was Polish....which explains the £100 fine. Had he been Brazilian then he would have been shot as is customary.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean we can bang up journo types who like to take pictures of starving African babies and then ruin my breakfast with them?

Anonymous said...

Sebastian Przygodzki took a photograph with his camera, which upset Rebecca Smith and her friends called police.

Is surely the more concerning part of the article. That people think that police time should be wasted on such a matter and that they can be backed up with the threat of violence.

Furry Conservative said...

If Chivalry is making a comeback, can I challenge Peter Mandelson to a joust?

Anonymous said...

Not quite hayek - too true.

People are stupid enough to think that anything they don't like should be illegal. That's bad enough.

That the police who did show up arrested the man for something that wasn't illegal is also a cause for concern. It shows either that they don't know their job or that they believe they can make up the law as they see fit.

That the prosecution service carried this through is also a cause for concern, for the same reasons.

The sheriff is an idiot who thinks he's in the Wild West and the law is what he says it is. That he is allowed to do this, and is supported by a chain of officials who believe the same, is a very big concern indeed.

It's not just 'one overzealous official' because this should never have reached the sheriff's court.

The photo might have been in poor taste but it wasn't illegal.

The public not knowing this is bad enough.

The police not knowing it is shocking.

Anonymous said...

We may well be about to see the end of photography in public. You can imagine someone taking a picture in Trafalgar Square and a one of the crowd summoning the law on the basis that they were distressed when the picture was taken, or even that a child was present and the photographer must have some dark and sordid reason to take the picture.

Then what about sportspeople? One footballer might be photographed lying down clutching his balls after stopping a fill-bloodied volley; could the player's agent sue the photographer for trying to make money from a photo that shows his client in a very distressed state? That the photo may not be showing the player in his best light or at his most athletic? After all, such exposure could affect his future transfer signing on fees...

The Remittance Man said...

Might there not be a silver lining to this idiotic piece of jurisprudence?

It's now illegal to take pictures of people in the street if they don't want to have their pictures taken - a judge (albeit a very junior Scottish one) has said so.

Ergo all those cctv cameras must be illegal too. Or will the state claim it has rights not given to mere plebs.

TheFatBigot said...

Ah, but did he make it up? I can't speak of Scottish law but down here we have the Public Order Act. Anything you do in public that someone objects to can be squeezed into one or more sections of the Public Order Act.

Dick Puddlecote said...

How chivalrous are the government in publishing pictures of girls throwing up in the street then? Or putting gross pictures of dying people on fag packets?

Perhaps this twat of a Sheriff would care to have a chat with No. 10

Roger Thornhill said...

Surely then if the police photograph someone being arrested or tackled, then they can sue the police.

Pandora's Box.

Anonymous said...

You have to wonder why Mr Przchhygodqhhzki decided to plea guilty - If he had contested the charge, the ignominious bellend of a sheriff would have had hush his twat self up a bit.

My guess is that this is more of a case of knobble the immigrant by whatever means, a render sanctimonious cunt tripe in judgment.

NHS Fail Wail

I think that we can all agree that the UK's response to coronavirus has been somewhat lacking. In fact, many people asserted that our de...