TV Series: "Can't Pay? We'll Take It Away!"....a discussion thread

[caledfwlch]

On programmes like Cant Pay/Sheriffs are coming, do they actually have a legal right to film the debtors, including continuing to film the debtors after being asked not too?

 

On Sheriffs when a Debtor kicks off the narrator proudly announces that they have continued to film from the public pavement, and the EA's/HCEO's get quite stroppy too when the debtors try and block the cameras claiming the film crew have a right to do so, but is this true?

 

As I understand it, from various guides on public photography etc, it is legal to film a general "street scene" for example, but if you focus on an individual, even after they ask you not too, then it becomes harassment. Even where the Debtor has asked them not to continue filming, they often broadcast the footage but with the debtors face pixillated - again how does a commercial television enterprise have the right to broadcast footage taken where they clearly have not had permission and have been told to stop filming. Not to mention that they enter both personal and corporate private property with cameras filming before even getting permission, this does not seem right to me, and should you or I behave in a similar way would likely have the old bill at the door, and I don't mean the lovely chap on this very forum!!

 

I know the Police get away with doing this on their many, many fly on the wall shows as they claim under the admin of justice act or something, "justice being seen to be done" even though much footage as narrator often says is taken of people who were never charged. Does something similar apply because the debtor is subject to civil legal rulings?

 

Just something I have been thinking about after watching some footage on youtube where people were filming EO's who took umbrage and complained themselves that the filmer was "harrasing" them.

 

I have no real issue with EO's themselves wearing onboard cameras as it is both for their own protection and the debtors as it acts as proof where something wrongful is claimed, but again I would take issue should that footage then be broadcast without the member of the public filmed's permission.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

On programmes like Cant Pay/Sheriffs are coming, do they actually have a legal right to film the debtors, including continuing to film the debtors after being asked not too?

 

On Sheriffs when a Debtor kicks off the narrator proudly announces that they have continued to film from the public pavement, and the EA's/HCEO's get quite stroppy too when the debtors try and block the cameras claiming the film crew have a right to do so, but is this true?

 

As I understand it, from various guides on public photography etc, it is legal to film a general "street scene" for example, but if you focus on an individual, even after they ask you not too, then it becomes harassment. Even where the Debtor has asked them not to continue filming, they often broadcast the footage but with the debtors face pixillated - again how does a commercial television enterprise have the right to broadcast footage taken where they clearly have not had permission and have been told to stop filming. Not to mention that they enter both personal and corporate private property with cameras filming before even getting permission, this does not seem right to me, and should you or I behave in a similar way would likely have the old bill at the door, and I don't mean the lovely chap on this very forum!!

 

I know the Police get away with doing this on their many, many fly on the wall shows as they claim under the admin of justice act or something, "justice being seen to be done" even though much footage as narrator often says is taken of people who were never charged. Does something similar apply because the debtor is subject to civil legal rulings?

 

Just something I have been thinking about after watching some footage on youtube where people were filming EO's who took umbrage and complained themselves that the filmer was "harrasing" them.

 

I have no real issue with EO's themselves wearing onboard cameras as it is both for their own protection and the debtors as it acts as proof where something wrongful is claimed, but again I would take issue should that footage then be broadcast without the member of the public filmed's permission.

 

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment

 

Why is it though that most would advocate the filming of bailiffs but that they themselves should protected? If you are in a public space, then you may be filmed and you have no choice in the matter. And if its being filmes for a public interest story or a private matter, thets entirely up to the recorder.

I think you will find that usually, a debtor will only be blured when the filming was done and they were on private property or have proven some reason why they should not be indentified. For instance a witness protection program, and an adult hiding from the babies father, or just someone filmed that turns out to be a child...many reasons.

[Conniff]

It wouldn't surprise me if the debtor doesn't get a backhander from the tv companies when all the filming is over.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

It wouldn't surprise me if the debtor doesn't get a backhander from the tv companies when all the filming is over.

 

Yes, i have always thought that. How else do they get the permission to use the video filmed within houses when they enforce/evict etc. Maybe a fee reduction.

[caledfwlch]

Persistent or aggressive photography of a single individual may come under the legal definition of harassment

 

Why is it though that most would advocate the filming of bailiffs but that they themselves should protected? If you are in a public space, then you may be filmed and you have no choice in the matter. And if its being filmes for a public interest story or a private matter, thets entirely up to the recorder.

I think you will find that usually, a debtor will only be blured when the filming was done and they were on private property or have proven some reason why they should not be indentified. For instance a witness protection program, and an adult hiding from the babies father, or just someone filmed that turns out to be a child...many reasons.

 

The same argument over Police Officers could well apply, that as Officers of the Crown, and indeed uniformed parking wardens, and council enforcement officers when on duty then the taxpayer has a right to hold them to account.

 

How many incidents of Police brutality, or indeed unlawful/illegal behaviour by EA's have been caught and been dealable with thanks to people filming/whistleblowers with hidden cameras. If you are a normal member of the public, then continuing to focus in on and film you without permission is harassment, photographers/filmers have been done for it. Look how when the EA's on these programmes show up at a residential property, and find the door open, they walk in and "invite" the film crew to follow, I cannot see what legal right on earth a commercial film crew has to enter the property, the EA certainly does not have the right to "offer it".

 

I am still amazed the two cuddly HCEO's on Cant Pay havent at the very least been "invited for questioning" regarding the unlawful detention and theft of personal property (a mobile phone) they hapilly carried out on Camera (the african chap who turned up at the flat with a box full of fake US Dollars)

 

The right of Any Persons Arrest did NOT Apply and they have absolutely no protection under that right - they did not eye witness a crime taking place, they merely had suspicions a crime *may* have happened, and you cannot citizens arrest on suspicion or indeed heresay - if someone runs into your home and shouts a man out there has just assaulted/mugged me, and you ran out and citizen arrested them, you could end up in the crapper.

 

The famous case of the businessman and two employees "arresting" a third they believed had been stealing cheques and tied him up and marched him through town to the nick and then getting prosecuted (though iirc in the end they did not face criminal charges but had to pay a lot of money to the "victim", I bet the fact they did not witness the crime taking place, just believed it had held badly against them too.

 

Even a PCSO can only detain for 30 minutes until a real police officer turns up, these 2 HCEO's stole the victims phone off him, did not know who he was, or even if he actually did live in the property and detained him for around an hour and 20 mins!!

[DragonFly1967]

Indeed. The man in question would have had, I believe, a valid defence of using reasonable force against them to remove himself from the situation and reporting his phone as stolen by means of robbery (and identifying the people responsible) as well.

[2ltr16valve]

I think there is a special on tonight at 9pm on 5.