SA Footy

have a look at page 22 with the schoolgirl, i know they've covered her face but i thought it was illegal to take photos of women/girls etc, as you've seen its about junk food & she doesn't look fat to me, is she a 'prop' ? & i like her school shoes , i'm sure if i took a photo like that & got caught i'd be answering ?'s at the cop shop

What's wrong with it Bayman?
Is it sexually suggestive?
I won't get the Mail till tomorrow so I don't what the photo is.

A school girl walking out of a fast food shack. Short school uniform.

TOO short?

Not short enough.

smac wrote:Not short enough.

Not old enough either...

i never said she didn't look good etc (she does), but i just asked why are photos like that allowed to be taken by newspapers whereas if one of us took a photo of a school girl & got caught we'd be seeing a judge

bayman wrote:i never said she didn't look good etc (she does), but i just asked why are photos like that allowed to be taken by newspapers whereas if one of us took a photo of a school girl & got caught we'd be seeing a judge

I think a newspaper would have slightly different rules than the average joe out on the street. In reality it was the perfect photo as the article was about school students leaving the school grounds at lunch to go to Maccas/HJ/KFC or wherever instead of eating the healthy food at the school canteen.

pafc1870 wrote:

bayman wrote:i never said she didn't look good etc (she does), but i just asked why are photos like that allowed to be taken by newspapers whereas if one of us took a photo of a school girl & got caught we'd be seeing a judge

I think a newspaper would have slightly different rules than the average joe out on the street. In reality it was the perfect photo as the article was about school students leaving the school grounds at lunch to go to Maccas/HJ/KFC or wherever instead of eating the healthy food at the school canteen.

but why should there be a set of rules for joe schmo on the street and another set for the media people who struggle to string two decent sentences together.

The only way around this is consent by the subject (ie the girl) whereas bayman alludes to is joe doesn't have consent. fair chance that she got that HJs paid for by the photographer for her trouble

heater31 wrote: fair chance that she got that HJs paid for by the photographer for her trouble

i agree... good odds that she knew that was being taken for the Sunday Mail

Nope. No consent needed - she's in a public place.

Photographers can take pics outside of properties or shops any time they like.

They're just not allowed to take pics inside a building/property without permission.

It's the same for anyone. Joe Schmo would not have been in trouble for taking that shot - all it is is a girl leaving a junk food shack. The difference being, if you were taking a series of photos for obviously nefarious reasons (for example, police looked at your camera and found 30 photos of girls in school uniforms).

That's a pretty basic look at it - but working in the media, and not being able to "string two words together" means that's all I'm capable of.

Dogwatcher wrote:Wife School: Because a better wife means a better life.

Is that like obedience training? Stay, sit, roll over? Or does it extend to cooking and going out to work and buying the beer on her way home?

PM me your email address, I'll send you the relevant video. lol