UK 19:37 Saturday, 24 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I own shares in one or more of the stocks mentioned. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
As you know I was filming with the BBC today. I shall let you know when the programme is set to run. We started off with an interview on the 24th floor of a very tall building. If I look a bit green at the gills it is because I suffer from chronic vertigo so I really did not enjoy that much. Then we moved over to film a few shots outside the Stock Exchange…
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
Bless Plod
“The nice man from the BBC said that we were from the BVC but to no avail. In what is a public space filming is not allowed without written permission.”
Apart from the horrendous grammar, cough, perhaps this or similar applies,
http://www.britishfilmcommission.org.uk/crew-facilities/locations/filming-in-public-spaces/
Of course the ‘fascists’ at the BVC [sic] have Carte Blanche to film wherever they want to.
However it might be interesting if they ‘do the right thing’ and apply for permission to film with the ‘Local Authority’ first and then when the Security Guard pokes his nose in they can wave the papers in his face… and catch the exchange on camera.
kingoldby
‘Bless Plod’, no one in England should have to ‘apply for permission’ to film in a public space, your attitude is worthy of a cringing serf. Shame on you.
CHARTMAN
+1 Kinggoldby.
Nick
If you were in Paternoster Square, that is not actually public space; it is private property you are allowed to walk through. This is why the Occupy protesters ended up outside St Paul’s rather than outside the Stock Exchange, because the Police were able to move them on for trespass. Like many places which appear public, they are actually private property; perhaps the privatisation of common land should be your next story????
J P Spaghetti
“no one in England should have to ‘apply for permission’ to film in a public space”
Unless they’re filming me, in which case – without permission – they’re liable to end up with a lens in an uncomfortable place (that was the rule in the good old days before digital – permission should always be sought before filming an individual; if not and you get belted there’s to be no moaning to the police).
That said, I realise that’s not what went down here but just saying.
kingoldby
‘J P SPAGHETTI’ if you are in a public place then you have no expectation of privacy so I can film you all I want. And if you try and attack me you will end up arrested and going to prison. Just saying…..
J P Spaghetti
KINGOLDBY again – that is to say that, being in no way a public figure, I have the REASONABLE expectation that my privacy will not be violated ACTIVELY. I accept that in a public place – whether or not I’m a public figure – I cannot reasonably expect to not have my privacy violated PASSIVELY (by someone observing me as they walk past and noting details of the observation, for instance, as I would reasonably expect in a private setting if they had not been given permission to be there), but the thread was dealing with APPLYING for permission to film/photograph a specific entity. This implies both targeting and forethought, and would therefore be in respect of an active pursuit (the former alone would constitute a sole criterion in respect of this).
If that line of reasoning has yet to make precedent then it’s high time it did! Any lawyers care to comment (now going off-topic buy really quite interesting and topical)?
CHARTMAN
A year or so back I followed a couple of Youtube links about a photographer (WASP guy not Islamic; but preventive terrorisim reasons were used on every occasion to bully him) taking on security guards trying to prevent him from taking photos of public buildings. All threatened legal action. He called their bluff citing the law. Not one dared proceed with their case to the court. He “won” every encounter because he knew the law but the filming saw him quite aggressively intimidated and physically bullied. Think one over zealous thuggish guard pushed him quite violently.He still refused to comply until the guards walked away.
To this day, I am unaware of a anyone successfully suing someone privately in court who’s been accused of taking photos or filming outside public buildings,
kingoldby
‘J P Spaghetti’. It doesn’t matter if you are a public figure or not The law is clear, in public no one has an expectation of privacy and anyone can be filmed and photographed without permission.
There, you’ve just learned something. You’re welcome.
J P Spaghetti
KINGOLDBY – re. “‘J P Spaghetti’. It doesn’t matter if you are a public figure or not The law is clear”, what the law says isn’t really the issue as far as I’m concerned but – rather – what is acceptable. I guess that makes me cool (not sure one can learn how to be cool). And continued, persistent photographing / filming after the target has requested that the pest desist can result in prosecution under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. In fact, in the case of photographs, it can happen after two shots have been taken. Doesn’t need ten or twenty or more but two. Even Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code of Practice adopted and enforced by the Press Complaints Commission states in abridged form and without qualification that “journalists…must not persist in…photographing individuals once asked to desist…and must not follow them”. Surely this applies to the general public too irrespective of whether or not they happen to be journalists. Perhaps there can be retrospective justification for continuing to film / photograph / record (fact verification or when the target is acting in an official capacity, etc.), but such instances would be exceptional.
I was a keen snapper myself as a kid and the golden rule was to always obtain permission before shooting individuals. Obviously common sense should prevail and it would be fine to snap hundreds of people in St Mark’s square from a distance. But nothing too up-close. Why? Well because it’s the DECENT thing to do, my good fellow – the decent thing to do!
Back to the original thread though (my fault, I know), I’m certainly looking forward to this programme…
kingoldby
‘J P Spaghetti’, you are trying to invent law on the hoof now. Filming and taking photographs is not ‘harassment’ and the ‘Code of Practice’ for the Press Complaints Commission is neither law nor applies to members of the public.
Try to obfuscate all you want, the law remains clear, there is no expectation of privacy in a public place, there is no law against filming or photographing anyone in a public place.
Amusing that you now try to lecture on what DECENT (why all the Caps?) behaviour when you are the one who threatened illegal violence…..
J P Spaghetti
Oh come now K. It wasn’t a threat – just a turn of phrase, and I’d had a late one when I posted my first comment here. In any event, you CAN (sorry for the caps but no can do italics) be arrested for harassment for continuing to photograph someone in public after they have requested you stop as stated in this extract from
http://www.paulreynolds.com/articles/photography_and_law/Photography%20And%20The%20Law.pdf,
a site which seems very pro-snapper, urban warrior, up-your’s if you have a problem with me (yes I did a search because it’s interesting):
“Can I be arrested for harassment by taking someone’s photo? Yes. The laws surrounding harassment aren’t designed to stop people taking photographs, but taking photographs of someone could amount to harassment.”
Perhaps not initially (and that’s fine), so in that sense I agree there’s no law against it. Anyway, ‘nuff said for now methinks.
CHARTMAN
If that’s true, then why aren’t exasperated and angry celebrities, having a quiet moment with their families and infant children, suing the hell out of paparazzi photographers for harrasment?
J P Spaghetti
CM – definitely the last word from me on this now. I was under the weather yesterday and Sunday so spun this out from bed for longer than I should have!
In short, I don’t know but I suppose it boils down to a combination of (i) not being able to prove that they communicated clearly to a given paparazzo (especially one of a crowd of them on a street, for instance) that they wanted them to desist and (ii) (erroneously in my opinion, but this is just an opinion) not having a reasonable expectation that their privacy will not be actively violated if – as celebrities – public recognition and recording are considered to be acceptable consequences of how they make their living (though I concede that the distinction between being a celebrity and an ordinary Joe like me is generally somewhat quantitative – not qualitative – and subjective).
I presume those who think there should be an unrestricted right to photograph anyone in public would be fine with some lecherous old degenerate constantly snapping away at an attractive and – let’s say – alluringly (I innocently typed invitingly at first – heaven forbid!) dressed eighteen year old having a night out with friends in a nightclub celebrating her exam results. I would not be.
kingoldby
J P Spaghetti, your own source states that their is no privacy law in the UK and photographs can be taken of anyone in a public place. To reach the level of harassment it takes a lot more than simply photographing someone despite being asked to stop. Your statement to that effect is simply wrong.
Your instincts for censorship and control are unpleasant. This is still a supposedly free country despite people like you with your automatic demand that ‘permission’ be asked for, before adults are allowed to do anything.
J P Spaghetti
I’ll make an exception to address this!
“To reach the level of harassment it takes a lot more than simply photographing someone despite being asked to stop”
No it doesn’t – not necessarily (see the Dom Littlewood example below)!
“Your instincts for censorship and control are unpleasant.”
What I’ve asserted in NO WAY (caps justified) undermines any reasonable notion of free speech or even censorship (WTF?). What is unpleasant is your cynical manipulation of the discussion to imply it is, given that free speech is one of the laudable fundamental tenets of this site. It may well undermine the broader notion of freedom of action (of which free speech is perhaps a mere subset), but society requires that to some extent or else there’d be out and out anarchy. The ‘freedom’ to act in a certain way can itself constitute oppression of others (a point that’s often missed).
Furthermore “with your automatic demand that ‘permission’ be asked for” is now clearly based on a falsehood as I do not maintain that permission should be asked for, merely that people desist once asked to do so by private citizens unless they have a legitimate reason to persist (examples being the wonderful Dom Littlewood exposing fraudsters – retrospective justification again). My initially (I thought light-hearted) post here stated that “they’re liable to” and not that “they will”.
Over and out!