Great Western Coffee Shop

From the BBC - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-45333182

This follows hot on the heels of another shameful incident at Stansted affecting Paralympian Anne Wafula-Strike.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-45328650

She was the disabled lady forced to wet herself on a CrossCountry Train due to a lack of disabled toilet facilities. CrossCountry paid her compensation.

These incidents make the news because the people affected have a public profile. You can bet your life that this discrimination happens week in, week out across public transport. The majority of disabled people affected don't get their experiences reported by the media though.

Blimey this woman gets some real bad luck using public transport - I am surprised she even bothers

Isn't she the one who had a barney with a pushchair owner on a GWR service a while back?

Bad luck? Or a true reflection of how poor the provision is for such things when travelling?

Whilst no where near the same, I travel by rail a fair bit (I commute by train for work, I travel to football games most weekends partly or fully by train, I travel to see my girlfriend sometimes by train), and I seem to always be caught in delays / disruption. My friends and family have said how much bad luck I seem to get, but in reality it is simply what the rail network in this country (at least in GWR land) is actually like. No luck (good or bad) in it at all.

Amongst MANY other incidents

Yes - http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=20101.msg242732#msg242732

Yet ANOTHER story with this lady in, she certainly finds problems when travelling

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7164390/mums-shocking-train-rant-at-comedian-tanyalee-davis-after-she-called-her-kids-out-for-littering/

hmmm. Over the top reaction from the mother, but, yes, you shouldn't fuilm children without parental consent unless committing serious crime.

Or again, maybe ANOTHER reflection on how some parts of our "society" treat the disabled.


Errr why not? Nothing in law, and if the kids are being little toerags then that is on them and the (lack of) parenting.
If some little toerag is abusing someone like that, then they have every right to record evidence of it.
And the mothers reaction just proves where her kids learned to act like that from.

As a semi-pro photographer, one of the rules we adhere to (I think on police advice) is not to film children without parental consent.

My good lady wife works in Childcare and Rule #1 of Safeguarding is 'You cannot take/publish images of children without parental consent'. I recently attended a Safeguarding 'course' where one example given involved the image of a 'protected' child taken on an outing by another parent being published on social media. As a result, a parent of said child, who did not have visiting rights, tracked said child down through the published image.

What law backs up these guidelines and rules?

I was under the impression that there is no right (implied or otherwise) to privacy when in public.

A request to stop filming should be complied with in most cases. But not when gathering evidence of anti-social behaviour.

In public there is no legal requirement to get consent for filming or photographing anyone, regardless of age. Otherwise every CCTV operator in the land would have to too.

What you say definitely applies to *adults*, not sure about children.

None of that is law. Whilst in public you can take pictures of whatever the hell you like.
Now, in general cases, yes it is advisable to get parental consent, but it is not required.

And if the kids are acting like little toerags (like the ones in this case are) then sorry but any good will I may have to them goes out the window.


It applies to everyone and everything.


You messed up your quote, but I am assuming this is what you wrote.

In which case, the kids and mother where specifically abusing her based on her disability.
I fail to see how that is "using the disability card".

So how do CCTV operators go about getting parental consent?

There is no such law.

ok, you go and stand outside a school & start taking photographs of the kids - you'll be surprised just how quickly the police will turn up & move you on.

re CCTV, they probably are covered by their data protection policy in that it's necessary for security & footage only allowed to be accessed by the police.

That is more to do with the fact the police do not understand the law on photography either.
There are way too many cases of police officers either telling to or forcing people to delete photos despite the fact the police simply do not have that power.

Also, from a moral point of view, there is a bit of a difference between taking photos of kids whilst they are at school who you have no relation to or interaction with, and videoing kids giving you abuse because you are disabled.

Oh and photographs in public have literally nothing to do with the concept of data protection.

CCTV footage does though....

http://greatermanchesterscb.proceduresonline.com/chapters/p_photographing_ch.html

From the link above

Let's stop all the film-flam about children in schools, or indeed, going about their own business with their parents in a law abiding manner. Totally irrelevant to the issues faced by Tanyalee Davies.

The General Data Protection Regulations:



Tanyalee Davies has an absolute defence in law for doing what she did based on than those highlighted points. The media has an absolute defence for showing the video based on the last point.

And no, you don't have to satisfy every point.

No one has broken any law, except maybe the littering children and the abusive mother.

Stop trying to come up with excuses for not being allowed to film such an incident. There are none. The video evidence could well lead to law breakers being prosecuted. Surely anything that results in anti-social behaviour on trains being prosecuted is a good thing.

It isn't very helpful to quote the Data Protection Act 1998 either. That has been replaced by the DPA 2018.

Also from that link: "The majority of occasions when people take photographs of children and young people are valid and do not provide any cause for concern"

Remember, that link is specific about safe guarding concerns in the context of a club, society or school.
Very different to the general public whilst in a public environment.

In terms of the law - from Avon & Somerset police - https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/neighbourhood-and-community/taking-photographs-in-a-public-place/ (https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/advice/neighbourhood-and-community/taking-photographs-in-a-public-place/):

The myth that you need consent for a photograph in public is exactly that, a myth.

Bringing this subject gently back on track and away from the school gate, I can't help but wonder if there isn't perhaps a third element in play here. Quite apart from bad luck and the poor provision for disabled persons when travelling (both of which I fully accept), isn't there perhaps a suggestion that the individual concerned, or agents acting on her behalf, might possibly be actively courting publicity? I can't help wondering to myself whether we'd be seeing quite as much of plain Ms. Davis and her travelling misadventures in the national and local news media if she wasn't also "Canadian comedian Tanyalee Davis"

hmmm. That's not illegal either.

I am discussing this on another forum and the same point has been made.
Whilst I wouldn't think someone would on purpose put themselves in such situations just to get publicity (as was suggested on that other forum), I do think you are right in that the only reason the media are bothering to report it is because she is a comedian.
But my reply to that is, so what? If someones profile means such issues are being talked about and reported, then why does it matter if she gets some publicity from it? I am sure she would have preferred to not have all these issues at all!

Does this matter?

What if they are "BBC journalist Frank Gardner"? Or maybe "Paralympian Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson"? Or perhaps "Paralympian Anne Wafula Strike"?

All have 'used' their profile on numerous occasions to highlight in the media the incidences of discrimination they face in their daily lives due to their disabilities. Are they courting publicity too?

I find it distasteful that the subtext is that Tanyalee Davies is deliberately seeking out confrontation to boost her comedy career. isn't it more likely that she is highlighting these incidences (which are not of her own making) to boost her disability campaigning?

Perhaps the disabled should just put up and shut up, eh?