Garda Customer Service

kk-mm-ss

.

Raze_them_all

Maybe she just doesn't like having her pic taken.

Ha I get my revenge, a guard is in my club so i get to punch, kick and choke a cop every few days

dolby

She would get tho!!:cool:

11811

Dont say you left her hanging for the High-Five...

fabbydabby

She's showing you she's married.

I have heard (though I am open to correction) that it's illegal to take a picture of a Garda doing their job.

You took a risk there.

Cabaal

kk-mm-ss wrote: »

Garda a no no... In the year of recession and all that and considering garda provide a service do they not think they would get more respect etc from people if they acted like humans some of them. Taken on High Street the picture attached is prime example. The camera initally wasnt even aimed at the approaching garda but rather an object behind them further along the street - she assumes ..... Love the pic though..

I don't see the problem, if she doesn't want her picture taken she's entitled to object. The same as you or me to be honest

ergonomics

How would you feel if someone stuch a camera in your face as you were working or walking down the street?

What was the aim of your little experiment anyway?

Raze_them_all

fabbydabby wrote: »

She's showing you she's married.

I have heard (though I am open to correction) that it's illegal to take a picture of a Garda doing their job.

You took a risk there.

It's illegal to take a picture of anyone without there permission IIRC

Hobart

Raze_them_all wrote: »

It's illegal to take a picture of anyone without there permission IIRC

No it's not.

Raze_them_all

Hobart wrote: »

No it's not.

Ah ok i thought I heard that before. I stand corrected

Hobart

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Ah ok i thought I heard that before. I stand corrected

No worries, you can be photographed anywhere (bar your own home or private property) without permission. I don't know what the situation is with AGS though, I'd say that that's a completely different scenario.

Firetrap

Well, if I was walking down the street and I saw someone pointing a camera in my general direction, my instinct would be to do something quite similar.

Podge2k7

Whats wrong with not wanting your photo to be taken?

Dan Chipowski

I don't see too much to be taken from the photo, i'd have probably stuck my hand up too.

But, I agree that some members of the Gardai can be very ignorant. I went up to get a passport application last year, and the female guard was such an ignorant yoke, I would have gladly spent a night in the cells if I could have throttled her. Then again you get ignorant people everywhere ::)

road_high

Jeese i thought going to read this it was going to be some outraged member of the public that had been very badly treated by the Gardai. What a load of rubbish!
Who would want to be photo'ed like that while at work? Very silly, some people have little to be doing.

Cabaal

Raze_them_all wrote: »

It's illegal to take a picture of anyone without there permission IIRC

This is incorrect, if a person is in a public space then its perfectly legal to take their photos...however out of courtesy if a persons doesn't like their photo taken people should stop and if asked to delete the photo they should offer to do so

However you don't have to delete the photo and not even a member of the gardai can make you delete it as far as I'm aware (not 100% about this bit)

But its perfectly legal otherwise, if your in a shopping center taking photos then this can be illegal as its private property

Cabaal

mfitzy wrote: »

Jeese i thought going to read this it was going to be some outraged member of the public that had been very badly treated by the Gardai. What a load of rubbish!
Who would want to be photo'ed like that while at work? Very silly, some people have little to be doing.

Agreed, thats what I thought this thread would be to
:rolleyes:

seems OP has nothing better to do then try take piss out of gardai about something that the majority of people wouldn't want to happen to them either

PhilipMarlowe

AFAIK you can take someone's photo in public but adults only.

Ollchailin

kk-mm-ss wrote: »

Garda a no no... In the year of recession and all that and considering garda provide a service do they not think they would get more respect etc from people if they acted like humans some of them. Taken on High Street the picture attached is prime example. The camera initally wasnt even aimed at the approaching garda but rather an object behind them further along the street - she assumes ..... Love the pic though..

I think this garda did act like a human- if someone I didn't know was pointing a camera at me (or in my general direction, even if if I was the unintended target) I would hold my hand up or try to avoid the camera somehow too.

How this photo is a reflection of the Gardaí or the type of people they are is beyond me. What did you want her to do, say cheese??

Something tells me you're not a fan of the Gardaí anyway and this was an opportunity for getting a dig in.

function

kk-mm-ss wrote: »

Garda a no no... In the year of recession and all that and considering garda provide a service do they not think they would get more respect etc from people if they acted like humans some of them. Taken on High Street the picture attached is prime example. The camera initally wasnt even aimed at the approaching garda but rather an object behind them further along the street - she assumes ..... Love the pic though..

What's the problem?
What did you expect her to do stop and pose for the camera?




What a lovely guard ....


......leave her alone.

Cabaal

Ollchailin wrote: »

Something tells me you're not a fan of the Gardaí anyway and this was an opportunity for getting a dig in.

I have to agree, why else post something bitching about the gardai in this manner?

Ger57

Personally i think if any of us were walking in the shoes of the gardai in this day and age and some of the things that are happening and a stranger on the street was taking our pic we'd not want it either.It doesnt take a genius to work this out,well i'm defo not one . i love taking pic but would NEVER EVER take anyone other than a willing subject in them.This is simply good manners and nothing to do with legalities on my behalf.
I work in pub/restaurant and it makes me see red so often to see people,mostly tourists come in and stand (often buying nothing)in the middle of the floor and take video and stills of the place while people are there.In my opinion they should be asked to leave,or put away their cameras.

Cabaal

Ger57 wrote: »

I work in pub/restaurant and it makes me see red so often to see people,mostly tourists come in and stand (often buying nothing)in the middle of the floor and take video and stills of the place while people are there.In my opinion they should be asked to leave,or put away their cameras.

Legally you can ask them to stop since the pub is private property, if the owner is that pushed

Ger57

To be honest i dont think owners even think or care....its just how i feel about peoples privacy,especially as now-a-days pics are posted on web-sites and such.Those taking the pics probably dont think as i do either...

djScarey

You can take your chances, but know below first:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/200.html

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

26
15.1.2009

Press release issued by the Registrar


CHAMBER JUDGMENT
REKLOS AND DAVOURLIS v. GREECE

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Reklos and Davourlis v. Greece (application no. 1234/05).


The Court held unanimously that there had been:

• a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the Greek courts’ dismissal of the applicants’ complaint about photographs having been taken of their new-born baby without their consent; and,
• a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention in respect of the applicants’ son.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)


1. Principal facts


The applicants, Dimitrios Reklos and Vassiliki Davourli, are Greek nationals who were born in 1964 and 1967 respectively and live in Athens. They are the parents of Anastasios Reklos, who was born on 31 March 1997 in a private clinic. Immediately after birth, the baby was placed in a sterile unit to which only medical staff had access.


As part of the photography service offered to clients, two photographs of the new-born baby, viewed face on, were taken by a professional photographer. The parents objected to this intrusion into the sterile environment without their prior consent.


On 25 August 1997, following the clinic’s refusal to hand over the negatives of the photographs to them, the applicants brought an action for damages before the Athens Court of First Instance. The court dismissed the action as unfounded.


In September 1998 the child’s parents appealed unsuccessfully against that decision. In August 2002 they lodged an appeal on points of law, submitting that the court rulings had infringed the right “to dignity” and “to protection of private life”, and stressing the potential dangers for disabled children.


On 8 July 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law on the ground that it was too vague.


2. Procedure and composition of the Court


The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 December 2004.


Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nina Vajić (Croatia), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greece),
Anatoly Kovler (Russia),
Elisabeth Steiner (Austria),
Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg),
Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway),
George Nicolaou (Cyprus), judges,

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment1


Complaints


Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court), the applicants complained about the dismissal by the courts of their action concerning the photographs of their new-born baby taken in the clinic without their consent. They further complained of a breach of their child’s right to respect for his private life under Article 8.


Decision of the Court


Article 6 § 1


According to the Greek Court of Cassation, the applicants had failed to fulfil one of the requirements for admissibility of their appeal on points of law, consisting in specifying the relevant facts on which the Court of Appeal had based its decision dismissing their appeal. The Court, by contrast, took the view that the Court of Cassation had been apprised of the facts as established by the Court of Appeal.


The Court considered that declaring the parents’ appeal inadmissible on the sole ground that it had been too vague had amounted to excessive formalism. This had prevented the applicants from having the well-foundedness of their allegations examined by the Court of Cassation, in breach of the right of access to a court set forth in Article 6 § 1.


Article 8


The Court reiterated that the concept of private life was a broad one which encompassed the right to identity. It stressed that a person’s image revealed his or her unique characteristics and constituted one of the chief attributes of his or her personality. The Court added that effective protection of the right to control one’s image presupposed, in the present circumstances, obtaining the consent of the person concerned when the picture was being taken and not just when it came to possible publication.


The Court observed that, since he was a minor, Anastasios’s right to protection of his image had been in the hands of his parents. Their consent had not been sought at any point, not even with regard to the keeping of the negatives, to which they objected. The Court noted that the negatives could have been used at a later date against the wishes of those concerned.


The Court concluded that the Greek courts had not taken sufficient steps to guarantee Anastasios’s right to protection of his private life, in breach of Article 8.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).