Hi everyone, I don't mean to start dragging stuff up, especially as i have just started posting here, but as a serving Police Officer, I thought it may be beneficial for me to clarify some of the legal points that i have seen mentioned in the thread... I have tried a little humour, but i come across in typeface as being sarcastic, I don't mean to be, so i apologise in advance if any of it reads that way, in my defence, it is 1am!
If this scenario takes place on Private property, then the owner of said property is perfectly within their rights to lay down rules and enforce them. However, they must ask you to leave and if you refuse to do so, they, or people acting as their agents may use reasonable force with which to do so. Reasonable force is hard to describe legally, what constitutes reasonable? Human Rights lawyers are using the word minimum instead of reasonable. Reasonable force may simply be saying, "If you do not leave immediately, i shall have to escort you out" If the person then leaves, you have used reasonable force. What constitutes reasonable is really shaky legally and a lot of people have landed themselves in trouble by being a bit "over eager" so to speak. Almost any use of violence would be seen by a court as unreasonable, as would be the use of any kind of weapon.
If this takes place in a public place, such as on the pavement outside the theatre, then he has no right to ask you to move anywhere. Only a Police Officer can ask you to move, if you are causing an obstruction. It is a criminal offence to obstruct free passage along a highway, which includes Footpaths, Cycle Paths and Roads. Even this depends on the reasonableness of your behaviour, if there are 60 of you blocking the path at 3 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon in Oxford Street, the Saturday before Christmas, then i will ask you to move. If there are ten of you stood outside a Theatre at 11 o'clock at night and the street is almost empty, I won't say anything (well, maybe Hello, Good evening!)
To the best of my knowledge, there is no law preventing anyone looking at vehicles.
Providing they are acting lawfully, yes, that is correct.
I think using 7/7 and 9/11 comparisons are a little over the top, given the context. Anti terrorism legislation has been passed in the UK to deal with terrorism threats and should not be misused by anyone in Authority to deal with non terrorism situations.
Hayley's staff are precisely that, staff. Whilst i have no doubt that if she was accompanied by professional security staff, they may have advised her against the course of action she took, it is still her decision as to who she wants to speak to and when.
The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant in the UK. Use of unreasonable force would likely lead to the Security Guard's arrest. If he was carrying a nightstick he would be arrested for Possession of a Offensive Weapon in a Public Place which carries a maximum 4 years in prison. A firearm could lead to a maximum 7 year sentence.
Legally, they are quite entitled to stand outside a hotel entrance, provided it is a Public Place. And as her Manager, you would bar her fans from events? The fact that Hayley was prepared to stop would to me suggest that she knows her own mind and the course of action you suggest would not have been welcomed by her. Harassment is a Criminal Offence, but if she was feeling harassed, surely she would have driven past, had the gates closed and called the Police.
The first bit is OK in the UK, give a warning, then eject, using reasonable force (see above).
However, you have no right in the UK to damage or confiscate camera equipment, nor do you have the power to look at, or delete photographs from a camera. This action would lead to the persons arrest for Assault and /or Criminal Damage. I wouldn't need to sue, i would have the pleasure of watching you being cuffed and carted off.
i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifGood, Obstruction of the Highway, Breach of the Peace and the Public Order Act all spring to mind!
I doubt it, unless she has stalkers etc. that don't get discussed in Public. If there was any suggestion of a threat, i would imagine she would have a Personal Protection Officer with her, either Civilian or Police.
As a Police Officer, behaving like that, I wouldn't last 5 minutes in the job. If i have to resort to threats of force with a weapon, because someone told me i had no credibility, I don't deserve to wear my uniform. I can just imagine it in court, "Yes your Honour, I battered him into a Coma with my Baton, after he was already rolling in agony on the floor following a good dose of Pepper Spray. It was a disgrace your Honour, he said i wasn't credible! It's just a pity my gun jammed." Probably just as well we aren't armed!
i.postimg.cc/9fYxy370/smilie-big-grin.gifAgreed! The UK now has rules in place covering the licensing of security staff. There are as ever, loopholes, but the following site is quite interesting...
www.the-sia.org.uk/homeOn the subject of Photography in general, the photographing of someone in a Public Place is Lawful. The key point is whether the place is one in which a person can expect a reasonable level of privacy. Taking a picture of someone walking down a Public Footpath is OK, whereas using a Telephoto Lens to photograph someone sitting in their living room is not. You are free to take pictures of anyone in a public place and use the Photographs as you wish, this includes selling them for a commercial gain.
Mark