The previous article said that Mr Swailes was a father of 4 children and I questioned how relevant this was to the story. Its now been changed - deleting the number of children but still has his age and occupation. Also, now added is that Mr Swailes is married. What possible relevance does this have to the story?

Taking a photograph of a traffic warden in the street is most definitely NOT an offence under the DPA. A Traffic Warden suggesting that it is may be considered to be oppressive behaviour on the part of the warden though!(Think about it, how frequent are the pictures we see of police officers doing their duty and they are never challenged)This sort of excuse was tried on by a poorly trained Traffic warden or PCSO further north recently.
Police officers would be exempt from parking regs in the execution of their duty and maybe the regs now include Traffic Wardens - anything to help the revenue from motorists eh!

Ed Grundy wrote:
The previous article said that Mr Swailes was a father of 4 children and I questioned how relevant this was to the story. Its now been changed - deleting the number of children but still has his age and occupation. Also, now added is that Mr Swailes is married. What possible relevance does this have to the story?

it's caleld adding colour or life to the story you numptie

Unfortunately this buisness (taking photos in public) is not going to get any easire. I suggest all photographers carry a copy of Tom Geoghegan's article ('Innocent photographer or terrorist? BBC news magazine) with them. To quote...

"...In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident.
Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos.
They state that "once images are recorded, have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if think they contain damaging or useful evidence."
And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly...".

I guess this could be argued to apply to the general public too.

I'm sure all the readers of the Oxford Mail will join me in digging deep in their pockets to help this BMW owning Yuppie who is property developing a house in gentrified Jericho so that neither he nor any of his four children will suffer as a result of breaking the law.

Tw*t.

dave wrote:

Ed Grundy wrote: The previous article said that Mr Swailes was a father of 4 children and I questioned how relevant this was to the story. Its now been changed - deleting the number of children but still has his age and occupation. Also, now added is that Mr Swailes is married. What possible relevance does this have to the story?

it\'s caleld adding colour or life to the story you numptie

No- adding that he bred Vietnamese pot bellied pigs, was a Latin American Ballroom Dancing Champion or held the World record for balancing baked beans on his nose while unicycling on a Wall of Death would be adding 'colour' to the story.

Mentioning that he is married, has 4 children and runs a property company is an attempt to portray him as an upstanding member of the community who has been victimised for breaking the Law.

Had I known the Oxford Times would be running this story, I would have alerted then to the fact that I have recently painted a wall in my house, and would be happy to update Oxford residents of the rate of progress at which it dried.

Can I just thank the above contributors for the funny comments - I've just allowed myself a 15 min. break before getting back to work and have had a good chuckle, so thanks! By the way I'm single and in the process of writing up my thesis if that's relevant to anything.

Isn't this bloke the twit in a sports jacket and chinos who presents 'Homes under the hammer ' on daytime TV.
Cunning use of angles as well by the OM cameraman for clearly demonstrating that Mr Swailes is not only parked on double yellows, but obstructing a junction whilst he's at it.

Posted by Dan Oxford

it's caleld adding colour or life to the story you numptied on 4:24pm today...............
....................
..............

What is a numptie?
Is it a peculiar word of endearment used by local common people?

Wasn't me using the term- I was quoting another post.

Paul wrote:
Unfortunately this buisness (taking photos in public) is not going to get any easire. I suggest all photographers carry a copy of Tom Geoghegan\'s article (\'Innocent photographer or terrorist? BBC news magazine) with them. To quote... \"...In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident. Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos. They state that \"once images are recorded, have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if think they contain damaging or useful evidence.\" And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly...\". I guess this could be argued to apply to the general public too.

so he owns BMW, what is your problem with that? I own brand new one as well so according to your nasty attitude I should pay extra just because i have been succesfull in my life? shame on you!

Lucinda wrote:

Paul wrote: Unfortunately this buisness (taking photos in public) is not going to get any easire. I suggest all photographers carry a copy of Tom Geoghegan\\\'s article (\\\'Innocent photographer or terrorist? BBC news magazine) with them. To quote... \\\"...In May last year, Thames Valley Police overturned a caution issued to photographer Andy Handley of the MK News in Milton Keynes, after he took pictures at the scene of a road accident. Guidelines agreed between senior police and the media were adopted by all forces in England and Wales last year. They state that police have no power to prevent the media taking photos. They state that \\\"once images are recorded, have no power to delete or confiscate them without a court order, even if think they contain damaging or useful evidence.\\\" And in the case of Phil Smith, an official complaint about the Christmas lights incident helped sort matters out. Not only did he receive a written apology from Suffolk Police, but also a visit from an inspector, who explained that the officer, a special constable, had acted wrongly...\\\". I guess this could be argued to apply to the general public too.

so he owns BMW, what is your problem with that? I own brand new one as well so according to your nasty attitude I should pay extra just because i have been succesfull in my life? shame on you!

sorry, added to your comment by mistake should be for the other one, sorry

DanOxford wrote:
I'm sure all the readers of the Oxford Mail will join me in digging deep in their pockets to help this BMW owning Yuppie who is property developing a house in gentrified Jericho so that neither he nor any of his four children will suffer as a result of breaking the law. Tw*t.

so he owns BMW, what is your problem with that? I own brand new one as well so according to your nasty attitude I should pay extra just because i have been succesfull in my life? shame on you!