Well as a non dogger/pyjama fighter you will appreciate that perhaps the salient points of law are a little blurred here . Suffice to say that if grasshopper used a camera phone to take pictures of my woman , and he hadnt asked her first , he would do well to snatch his pebbles from my hand before he left the carpark/shao lin temple .
No pyjama fighter... merely a contributor, and far from Shaolin standard.
The issue I am addressing is that anyone taking option 4- "Stop it no matter what the cost" is putting themselves at risk. I am entirely in favour of etiquette and would not dream of doing what these.... people.... did. Round here the local papers are full of such a group filming the result of a fatal crash on their phones while rescuers did their best to help the victims. The filmers stayed until they were chased off. A bit more offensive, I think you will agree.
But getting arrested for affray is not a good way to end an otherwise pleasant evening. I'm sure all would agree on that.
Of course, spraying a camera lens with silly string, soap, or even paint would not seem to constitute assault......... criminal damage, maybe. But as you say, the legal lines are rarely observed with precision in such a situation.
The argument is fast becoming circular.
A person bathing naked in any public area has no expectation of privacy, so that hardly applies.
The woman bathing in her house did. The guy was watching her without her knowledge.
To date, every "assembly" I have been to recently has had people taking pics with various cameras..............sad really "look at this one I had last week...."
I await with interest any case involving pictures taken without consent....and the ensuing publicity.....most of the guys taking them seem to be the ones away from the wife for a few hours....
The least you risk is publicity....the assault may be also illegal, but that's tough....taking pics without asking could lead to other people having major problems later, so losing a few teeth is a risk attached to the act. It's easier to thump first, on the basis that the photographer may be NOTW, so getting your own back first applies.
Personally ?
Who cares....the appearance of a camera, of any type, usually leads to the disappearance of a couple....although the type of guy who just pokes the thing against the window and then runs away is increasing.......as I said, loads of sad cretins about now................
OK, you did ask.... so I feel free to reply at some length.
For starters, I wouldn't get out the furry handcuffs and spank 'em, so the Dom bit is probably irrelevant.
More to the point is that I am a big lad, with quite a few years of weights and martial arts (Shaolin jokes aside, it is a useful skill to have). So what would *I* do?
Well, firstly I have flagged myself as a non-dogger, so any comments are theoretical. In reality I would probably be at home in the warm, and maybe in the chatroom (from where I came into this in the first place and where I spend a lot more time than on the forum).
But I have to agree with the earlier post- a hoodie with a camera phone is likely to think he'll get Hollywood style shots with his half-megapixel plastic lens. He won't. The human eye is a lot more capable of low light work than a camera phone, and a car interior light is actually very dim indeed, however it looks in the dark. Unless he uses a flash or floods he'll get something looking like the contents of a wet ashtray. And if he uses a flash the argument against being sneaky sort of goes, doesn't it?
So even if I believed he was intruding, I'd ask myself how effectively he was doing it.
Second, as a martial artist another tenet is "never start it, always finish it", and I am afraid that applies. Sure, if I was in that situation, my most likely reaction is to make enough of a fuss that everyone was alerted, and I would certainly want to alert the "performers" (as was my vote on this one). But no, I would not start a brawl over it. If one started, I would do what I had to, but I would not swing the first punch. And if one did start I would remain well aware that a hoodie may well think it clever to carry a knife, one blow of which can do a lot of harm.
Of course, if I was planning such an event the silly string approach might work. But generally I tend to favour the "hard words, softly spoken" approach.
And (at the risk of making myself unpopular) there are risks in choosing this particular hobby- and not just boredom waiting for something to happen. A parachutist accepts increased risks, so does a scuba diver (I've done both, before you ask). And so does a dogger. Being photograhed is one risk (or we wouldn't be having this debate), and here the "expectation of privacy" argument is very relevant. This is not a private activity, otherwise everyone would be at home with the heating on. And of course there are worse things that can happen in dark laybys than being photographed.
"No photographs" is etiquette, not law.
"No violence" is law, not etiquette.
And there is at base that general assumption that taking photographs of what happens in public is legally acceptable.
So if I WERE there, then I would make it clear what was happening, and ... register any objections. Not take the first swing.
As to the lawyers, there is not a law yet created that can't be debated- the Ten Commandments included, I am afraid. Coveting your neighbour's ass, anyone?
"no such thing as simple answers"
Who ever said there were?
"disturb the show and risk the couple upping sticks and going home, with you becoming "Mr Spoilsport" to the rest of the guys who were enjoying it"
Well, here it is judging their right not to be photographed against the continuation of your own pleasures. And frankly I'd favour the former and hope that anyone you might care about the opinions of would do the same. Knowing someone was keeping an eye out might have benefits in the long run, nyet?
I'd like to think that what I did:
a) prevented photos being taken by pushiing / shoving the hoodie with the cameraphone away from the car and out of range
b) maintained the show for the others
c) avoided upsetting the couple and instilling a sense of paranoia in them that would stop them from coming again. (background: they looked like newbies and hadn't been seen before by any of the lads, so could easilly have been sppoked for life)
d) "disincentivesed" a repeat attempt at trying to take pictures again - although only unity and pro-action on the part of all doggers will ensure that.
So it did work.... good!
But a new couple might be even more put off by being the centre of a brawl, had one developed?
Chacun a son gout. But the consensus seems to be for a middle ground.... don't ignore it, but best not just to wade in arms swinging....
When I go out what does worry me sometimes is being recoginised by somebody who you would not rather see, With phones as they are today with the bluetooth etc it is easy to send pictures or vids to anybody in the area.
If people dont mind being filmed or whatever then that is fine but it should be up to them alone.
the simple fact is that there are people who can not take the chance of have there photo taken. because of there employment etc, and not know where that photo will end before you single guys go clicking away, think of all thoses hour you spend in a carpark waiting for someone to turn are scaring people off i know because you have done it to my wife and me
