Regional press news - this story published 23 February 2009
Police order journalist to destroy photos
by holdthefrontpage staff
A south-east reporter was told to destroy pictures of people sledging in a public park as they could constitute an act of voyeurism.
Alex Lewis, from the St Albans Review, was snapping some locals enjoying the recent snow when a man allegedly threatened him after he thought the reporter was taking images of his children.
Alex called the police but when an officer arrived, he told him that his camera phone would have to be confiscated as evidence for a charge of voyeurism unless he agreed to delete the images.
Alex told HTFP: "With the benefit of hindsight, I feel I was a bit unfair on the police officer as I never explained I was a reporter – mainly out of curiosity to see what would happen.
"As far as I and my paper are concerned, the incident is closed."
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines voyeurism as observing someone doing a private act without their consent for sexual gratification.
It adds: "A person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and the person's genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear, the person is using a lavatory or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public."
The Review has asked Hertfordshire Constabulary how the pictures of fully-clothed people sledging in a public park could be classed as voyeurism but says it is yet to receive a response.
No-one from Hertfordshire Constabulary was available for comment.
Journalism jobs and news from Holdthefrontpage.co.uk
My immediate thoughts on reading this article were, who was the man threatening the reporter? and why are they treating it as closed?
Surely there is a case of a reporter going about his business reporting on what was a very news worthy event for most of the mainstream media, being threatened, then calling for assistance from the police only to end up as the perpetrator rather than the victim.
No..it doesn't seem right.
No comments:
Post a Comment